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
supposed Successors were of the number of the Seventy Disciples for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof or he says nothing Again in the 3d. place Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading that even upon this Supposition it is utterly lost and ruined unless he can make it appear that these Seventy had in their Commission the Doctrinal Key only but no interest in the Government which is his Supposition all along as to the Pastoral Office Now it is evident beyond contradiction that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government had both the Keys committed unto them only and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers as are called Bishops in a superior order to Pastors as specifically distinct from them intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First as well as the Power of Order and nothing at all thereof to the Second but the Doctrinal Key only Before I proceed let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office His Answer is That this is a begging of the question since we allow that Christ institut the Office but gave no signification that it was but for a Season But First How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question in supposing that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification He should know that we own and can make good the contrary And the current of all Protestant Divines owning the Apostolick Office to be extraordinary and expired must and do by necessary consequence hold That the Temporary Nature of the Office hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation that the Office was not to Continue but to Expire with the Persons who carried it The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession which is not ours but by him falsly imputed to us Next the Office it self in its Nature and End being as is said Temporary and owned so by the Body of all our Divines It necessarly follows that our Lords Institution terminat upon and relative to the Office was likewise thus Temporary and determined to a certain Season As under the Law Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances being to represent Christs Death the very Nature of the Institution did determin the Continuance till Christs coming and offering Himself and no longer As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited did expire at his Death Nay our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations to every Creature and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church in actu exercito both planted and to be planted to which they had an immediat Relation and instructing them with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues of Miracles c. did thus ex natura rei and from the Nature of the Institution it self discover His design as to the transient Office thus institut and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church it was to pass off with the same Sure should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl or for the continuance of such Gifts as the Dr. will acknowledg expired because of our Lords Institution and giving the Gifts and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office he would answer That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self now comprobat by the Event discovers the temporary Design thereof and that it was not to Continue and that therefore there was no need that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator in the Institution or Collation of the Gift Which Answer he may bestow for us upon himself as to the Point in hand Again to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles If he mean a Succession to their Office in its Nature and Extent as delineat in Scripture then he runs himself into gross Absurdities For 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut and that de facto there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs with an universal unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church to be continued therein with a Collateral and Equal Power 2. If he say this as he needs must if he speak to the Point and consequentialy he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors from among the 70 Disciples viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem Philip St. Paul at Cesarea Clement St. Peter at Rome For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World where Churches were planted or to be planted how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If their Ministry was confined to these Posts how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts succeeds the Apostolick Office which was of this universal Extent makes as good Sense and Harmony as to say that the Person who is installed Dean of Canterburry succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat and his Primacy over England 3. I would know whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas with these other Instances of Simeon Philip and Clement at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If he do not then his paralel Argument as to the Point of Succession is by his own Confession like the Legs of the Lame not equal it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances while the Persons instanced as succeeding are not of the same and equal Power and Authority If he say That he understands Successors in the same Apostolick Power then I would fain know how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon with a fixed Post at Ierusalem Philip at Cesarea Clement at Rome with the Succession of Matthias in the Apostolick Office by the Divine Appointment without the least hint of any fixed Station but with an universal Inspection as the other Apostles had But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma If he mean by Successors to the Apostles a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters in a certain Precinct not unto their Office and Authority every way or with reference either to their
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
every approven Presbyter as he expresses it Apol. Cap. 39. presided over the Collegiat Meeting of Pastors and was called Bishop The same he tells the Iesuit may be applyed to Ignatius's Epistles and what is Cited from them to this Scope si sicuti jam se habent fidem mererentur upon condition that they deserved to be credited as they are now presented But then subjoins sed omnibus notum est eas additionibus ac dimunitionibus fuisse corruptas But it is known to all that they have been corrupted with additions and Dimunitions Referring upon the Margin to his Crit. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Cooks Censure Vedel Not. Wallaeus de past P. mihi 473 ascribs also to Apostles the extraordinary call and Function upon Grounds of their immediat vocation citing Gal. 1 1. Paul's calling himself an Apostle not of Men nor by Man their infallibility in Doctrin c. The ordinary Officers and Successors of Apostles he holds to be the Pastors as being first planted by them in the Churches for which he Cites and improves these places Act. 14.23 where we find the Apostles Ordaining Ministers or Elders Church by Church as their proper immediat Successors in an ordinary Ministry Tit. 1.5.7 where the Office of Bishop and Presbyter is identified in Name and thing 2 Tim. 2.2 where he is enjoyned to commit what he had heard of Paul to faithful Men able to Teach others So Act. 20.28 where the Episcopal Office is enjoined to Elders by Paul in his last farewell to the Church of Ephesus So also Eph. 4.11 with Rev. 2.3 In which places the Pastors power and Jurisdiction is to this Scope asserted Iunius Cont. 5th Lib. 1. Chap. 14. Not. 15. hath these notable words nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis Secundum gradum succederetur quae res si fuisset jam Apostolatus functio ordinaria dicenda esset hoc autem veritati rationi adversatur omnes Dei servi in Doctrinam Apostolorum suecesserunt in gradum eorum neminem adoptavit Deus God never appointed or allowed any succession to the Office and degree of Apostolat which had it been the Office of the Apostles might be called ordinary but this is contrary to the Truth and sound Reason All the servants of God have succeeded into the Doctrin of the Apostles but God hath adopted none of them into the Apostles degree and Office None succeeded to Apostles and Evangelists as to the degree and Office saith Baynes since it was extraordinary and temporary The Pastors and Presbyters because ordinary Officers succeed them from another Line but not as one Brother succeeding to another in the Right of inheritance As the Laws of Moses during that Oeconomy were to be kept tho Moses who delivered them had none Succeeding him in his Office and degree So neither were the Rules in Government presented in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus delivered to any succeeding them in their Office Ecclesiastical Authority saith Gerson de potest Eccles. considerat 6 ta may be considered either formally absolutely or respectively as applyed to this or that person and executively Altho the Authority absolutely considered continues the same yet in the application it is various and that which was in Apostles and Evangelists remained not alwise with such Apostles and Evangelists As in Point of Right none could succeed to the degree of Apostles and Evangelists so in Matter of Fact none did succeed Causabon exercit 14. P. 314. makes this the quarta Nota of the Apostolat Potestas longe major Augustior quam ulli unquam alii functioni Spirituali fuerit attributa The fourth discriminating mark of an Apostle is with Causabon their greater and more Venerable Authority and Power than was competent or allowed to any other Spiritual Function or Office Which he illustrats from Chrysostom 1 Cor. 12.29 asserting the Apostles to be above all other Spiritual Functions Quis nescit saith August lib. 2 de Baptismo cap. 1. illum Apostolatus Episcpatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who knows not that the Episcopacy of Apostles is set above all other Episcopacy whatsomever Now I supose from what is said it is evident that this Man in stead of exposing the Presbyterians in this account of their Judgement anent the Apostolick Office hath opposed himself to Protestant Divines and hath blotted himself as a Calumniator of the true Protestant Doctrine in this point espousing therein the Popish Cause and Interest But let us hear what is our Dr's Account of the Apostolick Office It is thus In opposition to which saith the Dr. P. 96. i. e. the premised Presbyterian or rather Protestant Account of the Apostolick Office We affirm had he added we Catholicks and Iesuits some would alledge the Epithet had been suteable to his Doctrine Well What affirms he That the true Characteristick formal and distinguishing Mark of an Apostle was his Constant Supreme Spiritual Perpetual Power Authority and Iurisdiction over all subordinat Officers and all others believing in Christ and his Power to transmit this Authority to his Successors according to the Command of our Saviour Here we have it in his own Words Upon which 1. Let it be considered that he presents this Description and Account of the Apostolick Office in opposition to that which he premiseth as ours We hold as well as he that the Apostles had a Supreme though collateral and equal and Spiritual Power and Authority over Officers and Members of the Church Only we add these further Characteristicks of their Office viz Their extraordinary Gifts their immediat Call including and having connected therewith an unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations as himself words our Tenet and which is also proved from that Passage he cites Matth. 28. Now since in opposition to our Description he holds that his not ours are the proper discriminating Marks whereby Apostles were distinguished from other Officers he must of necessity hold that these Characters are proper to other Officers as well as them For there is no Mids Either these Prerogatives were peculiar to Apostles or proper to others also and thus common to both and it being so not to mention other properties since their unconfined Commission to Preach to all Nations And he cannot but acknowledge as immediat Officers of all the Churches in actu exerciso and in order to the founding them and planting Gospel Ordinances and Officers therein according to our Saviours Commission Matth. 28. is our great Mark and Characteristick of an Apostle I challenge him to shew me what succeeding ordinary Officer had this applicable to him whether of his supposed Episâ—opal Mould or any other The Dâ— will not deny that upon this Ground the Churches are said to be built upon the Apostles Foundation and this in an exclusive Sense not the Foundation of any succeeding Officers whether the Dr. call them Subordinat or otherwise And he knows the Churches Foundation is not to be twice laid So that he is obliged either
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
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
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
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
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
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
fall within the compass of these expired Prerogatives so several of the Prelats pretended Prerogatives are contrary and repugnant thereunto such as their exercising an ordinary Power in fixed Diocesses the Appostolick Inspection was Unfixed and extraordinary and they were Officers in actu exercito of the whole Church Next the Bishops account themselves sole Pastors of the Diocess tho Pastors are therein Ordained and Fixed For they are the Fountains from whom the Power of Order and Jurisdiction in the Diocess is dierived and the Exercise of both depends upon their Lordly Disposal And this Preheminency no Apostle ever claimed their Office being only a Declarative Executive Ministry not a Lordly Dominion Besides the Prelats negative Voice and sole Decisive Power in Judicatories is point Blank contrair to the Apostles Carriage in that Synod Act 15. In which the Question was stated and debated in the ordinary way of Disputation and the Ordinary Officers did concurr and joyn with the Apostles in Authorizing and enjoyning the Decrees And further the Bishops thâ— ordinary Officers yet deny a Subjection to the Prophets in greater or lesser Assemblies of the Church whereof they are professed Officers and yet we find Paul asserting Universally and indefinitly That the Spirits of the Prophets are Subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 Nay we find himself receiving Imposition of Hands and sent out by a Presbytrie upon a special Gospel legation which did consist not of Fellow-Apostles but of Prophets and Teachers Act. 13.1 2.3 But to what Assembly of Prophets are Prelats Subject either as to their Life or Doctrin Thirdly As to the perpetual ordinary Power given to the Apostles and transmitted by them to the Church They did neither claim nor exercise Superiority over other Ministers but we find them accounting them Brethren Partners Fellow-Labourers and themselves Fellow-Elders with them and as to the Pastoral Charge their Equals For that ordinary Power the Apostolick Office contained Eminenter which they transmitted to others But it is evident that as they planted Elders with equal Power in the Churches so in their last Farewels they committed as is above cleared the Government unto them without any hint of Imparity in its exercise Act. 20.28 Tit. 1.5 1 Cor. 5.1 Pet. 5. To which we may add in the Fourth place that the Apostles Discharging Lordly Dominion and Preheminency amongst Ministers over the Lord's Flocks or among themselves And the Apostle Iohn condemning expresly this in Diotrophes will infallibly prove that they neither allowed in others nor exercised themselves any such power else their Doctrin would contradict their Practice Hence it s infallibly clear that to make good the Drs. Proof of a Succession to the Apostles by Instances which he here undertaks there are two Points he must clearly prove and make good as the Affirmer 1. That these pretended Successors did de facto exercise and hold the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat 2. That de jure the Apostles by their Doctrin and Practice did devolve such an Authority upon them to be perpetually transmitted to the Church by Succession And therefore if in either or both these he fall short in his Instances of a pretended Succession he but beats the Air and loses his Design of proving That the Apostles communicated the same Office to Successors which our Saviour had communicated to them which in terminis he asserts p. 394. This being premised let us see how the Dr. proves by Instances the Succession of Apostles to Apostles as an Office still to be continued in the Church His first Instance of Succession is that of St. Iames in Ierusalem whose Succession in an Apostolick or Episcopal Preheminence there he labours much in the Proof of pag. 394 395 396 397. But. first tho this Matter of Fact were granted that Iames the Apostle or Evangelist not to stand here to discuss which did exercise his Ministry or Apostolate there how will it prove a Succession to the Apostolick Charge and Office in the Drs. Sense as above delineat And where is his Proof of any of the Apostles devolving this Charge upon him To prove either or both these as the Dr. here doth from any Scripture or History which suppose Iames to be in Ierusalem in the exercise of his Ministry requires to make the Reasoning valid such rules of Logick as hitherto has not been heard of What a strang Phantastick Proof is this Scripture affirms Iames to exercise his Ministry at Ierusalem Ergo he had devolved upon him by the other Apostles the Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as exercised by them and committed to them by our Saviour and this as a perpetual Function in the Church This is such Arguing and Rope of Sand-connection as any may laugh at and it is evident to common Sense that tho the exercise of Iames's Ministry in Ierusalem be granted yet the Instance is as far short of being a demonstrative Proof of what the Dr. asserts and aims at and reaching his Conclusion as the Pigmey's Arm is to fetch down Ulysses Helmet The Dr. in handling this instance endeavours to prove that the Iames spoken of Gal. 1.19 and called the Lords Brother was none of the Twelve Wherein he contradicts good Interpreters as might be cleard by a multiplicity of Instances if need were The Belgick Divines upon the Place take him to be the same mentioned Mark 10. And upon Act. 12.2 They shew that after Iames was killed this Iames spoken of here is he who left behind him the Epistle of Iames and is called the Lords Brother And upon v. 17. They affirm that this was Iames the less The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. upon Gal. 1.19 Do assert That he was one of the Twelve Apostles paralelling this passage touching Iames with Mark 6. The Drs. Proof that he was not an Apostle because Paul reckons him a part from the Twelve 1 Cor. 15.5.6.7 is utterly insufficient The Authors of Part 2. Pool Annot. draw no such Conclusion upon that verse but insinuat rather the contrar And the Dutch Divines are peremptor that the Iames mentioned in that Text was the Apostle Iames and one of the Two in the Catalogue of Apostles The Drs. Proof from his being mentioned a part from the Twelve is a pitiful lax Conceit For if the Apostle saying v. 7. That our Lord was seen of Iames then of all the Apostles will prove that Iames was not of the number his saying v. 5. That our Lord was seen of Cephas then of the Twelve will by the same Reason prove that Peter was none of the number The Doctor would needs have him the Thirteenth Apostle and the first that was made an Apostle after the Twelve I had thought that Matthias was the first Person made an Apostle after our Lords Ascension to make up the number of Twelve and supply the room of Iudas and that Paul was next added by our Lords special Call from Heaven but when
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
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
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
Government that it occasioned Schisms For upon supposal of the soundness of Ierom's Scripture proofs the parity of Bishop and Presbyter being the mind of Christ and his Apostles this Government could never give ground to Schisms nor could the Church warrantably alter it upon any such pretence So that whensoever and by whomsoever the change was made it was made contrary to the revealed will of the great Law-giver The Second Point of unsoundness the Dr. is Chargable with is that in the beginning of his discourse upon Ierom's Testimony he professes that he will not disput with us the Sense of this Passage but allow it to bear our Sense Yet in several of his Answers he impugns our Sense Especially his 4.5 6. and not only our Sense but the Sense of sound Protestant Divines as is above evident His Conceit about Ierom's making the Decree or Custom he speaks of to be the Schism at Corinth which is his Fourth exception and his Supposition That Jerom by toto orbe decretum understands a formal joint Decree of the whole Church not a gradual Custom and that Jerom makes the Church to redress upon necessary grounds the Government appointed by Christ and his Apostles and thus to impeach his Divine Wisdom which are his other exceptions All these I say as they are Distortions of Jerom's sense so directly opposit to the Sense given by us and by all sound Divines yea and such as have been long since refuted by Protestant Writers in Answer to Popish glosses and exceptions with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join Issue So that we may judg of the affinity of both their Causes by the near cognation of their Pleadings CHAP. IV. The Dr 's Fourth Argument Examined taken from our Saviour's alledged allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches WE do now proceed to the Dr's last Argument to prove That the rightful Government of the Church is Episcopal taken from our Saviours Allowance and Approbation thereof in his Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia directed to the Seven Angels called Seven Stars in His Right Hand or the Seven Lights of the Seven Churches Rev. 1.20 and 2.1 And in every Epistle owned as his Angels and Messengers The Dr. tells us that if he can prove them to be Seven Bishops presiding over Clergy and Laity of these Churches at that time they are unanswerable instances of Christs Allowance and Approbation of the Episcopal Order This trite and often Baffled Argument taken from the supposed Episcopal Power of the Seven Asian Angels has been so frequently scanned and tossed by Writers on this Controversie that the Dr. since he makes here such a Parade should either have brought some new Strength upon the Field or offered an Answer to the many clear returns given to this Argument However to clear our way in examining what the Dr. says upon this head which is nothing else but some Old Musty stuff repeated I premise two things 1. That the Collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles 2. That allowing the Angels to be single Persons will nothing help the Drs. design and pleading For the First that the collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles appears thus 1. This suits best the Stile of this Book which is by mystick visional Representations to includ many individuals As one singular so all the individuals of the Church both Members and Officers are represented by One Candlestick And why not also all the Ministers by one Angel A term which of it self and in this place imports no Jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the Angelical frame and qualities of Ministers 2. This is also suitable to the style of this Book as it is Epistolare the Address may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest As an Address from the King to a Speaker in Parliament will give the Speaker no Jurisdiction and Authority over his Fellow-Members When our Lord said unto Peter only expresly not to the rest of his fellow-Disciples I will give unto thee the Keyes c. who but brutish and partially affected Papists will conclud that he was Prince or Primate over the Apostles And that they had not and even by this promise an equal Authority with him in the use of the Keys This the Dr. must acknowledg unless he will justify the Popes Pleading from this Text. 3. This is suitable to Scripture Prophetick Writings and to this Book as such to represent many Individuals by one singular The Four beasts the Twenty Four Elders do not signify so many individual persons The singular Names of Woman Beast Whore Dragon signify a collection of many individuals So the one Spirit of God is called the Seven Spirits with reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8.20 One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deut. 17.12 i. e. The Priests in the plural So the Priests Lips should keep knowledg and the Law sought at his Mouth Mal. 2.7 Here also the Priest for Priests in the Plural Blest is that Servant whom the Lord c. i. e. Those Servants Particularly as to the term Angel It is said Psal. 34. that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly i. e. many Angels since they are all Ministring Spirits to them 4. It is suitable to Scripture and this Book to represent an indefinit number by a definit Thus all Iudahs Adversaries are represented by the Four Horns Zech. 1.18 All the Godly and the Ungodly are represented by the Five Wise and by the Five Foolish Virgins The Seven Angels standing before God Represents all the Angels Ch. 8. of this Book for in Ch. 7. mention is made of all the Angels who do thus stand And with the same indefinitness we are to understand the Septenarie number frequently elsewhere as the Seven Pillars which Wisdom Hews out Prov. 9. The Seven Pastors or Shepherds Micah 5. The Seven Eyes Zech. 3. And in this very Book Ch. 4.5.15 The Seven Candlesticks Lamps Viols 5. As we find the Scripture and this same Apostle First Naming a Multitude and then contracting it into a Singular as 2 Ioh. 7. v. Many deceivers are entred into the World Then This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist And sometimes the Individual in one Sentence turned into a Multitude as 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved i. e. the Woman bearing Children if they continue in Faith and Charity i. e. such Women in general So this single Angel is turned into many and spoken to in the Plural in one and the same Epistle Thus Rev. 2.24 Unto you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.10 We find John changing the singular Angel into a Multitudâ— Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer Behold the Devil shall cast
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
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
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
come The 8 th Prerogative he represents thus Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extitâ—runt Their singular Authority which was of such a Nature that none of their Disciples or Successors in an ordinary Ministry could be compared with them nor can be For as Apostles they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church P. 538. He describes the Pastors to be such as are set over some particular Flock Citing Act. 20.28 Here I need not tell the Dr that this Man also is of the Novel Scots Opinion and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence a Socinian as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office giving the same Sense of its Ingredients as we do and holding that the Apostles neither were nor could be succeeded in their Office and consequently that their Formal Office as such ceased with themselves He asserts ibid. the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter And thereafter tells us that Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding Teaching the Church Citing Anaclet Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap Ecclesiae si in Apostolorum Loco sumus c. Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry And also Urbanus Secundus ex August Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office we may propose yea oppose to the Dr. viz the Famous and Learned Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit against whom he disputes proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests and all other Orders of the Ministry I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of universalis patrum consensus universal consent of the Fathers The great Answer is Apostolis Episcopos successisse That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles in their proper formal Office And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter viz Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles And remarkable it is that the Catholick Iesuit and he pleads upon the same very Grounds viz The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus yea and our Dr's Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot lib. de Baptismo Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet c. That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy may be kept intire Thereafter the Iesuit as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well some will alledge the Dr. in this point is pretty near the Sacred Order I cannot here transcribe all that this French or Scots Novelist Presbyterian Rivet returns in Answer to this point which I really judge had our Dr. impartially read and perused it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet He is first severe to the Iesuit and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos or Priest whereby they represent Pastors De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia saith he frustra disputatur cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo ut antea docuimus c. That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught so upon the preceeding Question Par. 4. He tells his Adversary the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest has no Successor Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers if you will accord with Rivet but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists Thereafter he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita and our Dr. Negamus saith he Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hà bere He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors Thereafter reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's quod Episcopi Apostolis Presbyteri Discipulis suecâ—sserantâ— That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles and Pastors the Seventy Disciples He answers thus hoc falsum est ac utrorumque Officio contrarium quod extraordinarium fuit nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolorâ—m in Doctrinae publicatione Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio successores dici possunt That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists which was extraordinary and none did succeed them in the same Order Office and Authority altho all true Pastors in respect of the publication of the Doctrin and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin may be called Successors of the Apostles Here the Scots Presbyterian Opinion pretty clear Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers to our Dr's and the Iesuits Arguments Subjoined His Answer to that of confusion of Names as not inferring the sameness of things is thus faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur vera est synonomia si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves yet when the same things are attribute to those to whom the same Names are given there is a true Synâ—nomie or sameness of both Name and thing the Name being common with the definition Here in this one Jâ—dicious Answer he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head Then for Confirmation of this Identity he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5.7 And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do that the Name Qualities and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same For Tertullians Testimony which the Dr. Iesuita and our Dr cites he tells him That Tertullian speaks de humano ordine suâ— tempore recepto of the human Order or custom received in his time which was that the probatus quisque Senior or
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
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
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
Commission or Grant Now none can pretend to any Grant or Commission from Him but what is in the Scriptures Which is especially evident and further convincingly clear both from the Perfection of His Word and Testament hereanent And likewise from this that the Church Government in the whole of it must needs be acknowledged to be founded upon a Divine and positive Institution Secondly Our LORD did thus actually exercise His Kingly Power and derived the same to Church Officers thus he gave the Pâ—wer to Bind and Loose and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to his Apostles promised His Presence with them and their Successors to the End And this for the Edification and Building up of His Church till her Warfare is accomplished Matth. 16.18.19 with Matth. 18.19.20 Ioh. 21.23 Matth. 28.18.19 20. 2 Cor. 8.13 Eph. 4.11.12 Finally When this Fundamental Truth of our LORD' 's political Headship and Influences accordingly in the Government of the Church and the Perfection of His Holy Testament in reference to the Laws Ordinances and Officers thereof is denyed the Foundations of a Christian Church are removed the Rules Limits and Boundaries in reference to the Duties both of Church Officers and Members so annihilate as the Church becomes a Chaos of all Confusion and arbitrary Disorder whatsomever or at least the Leaden and Versatile Rule of Worldly Wisdom being made her Measures of Ordinances and Government a Door is opened for Inundations of all Errors and Superstitions and for the most wicked Usurpations and Disorders in point of Government that the wicked Mind of Man by the influence of Satan can invent FINIS The CONTENTS PART I. CHAP I. Dr. Scot's stating of the Question and his Argument taken from the Institution of of our Saviour Examined Pag. 1. CHAP. II. His Argument from the Practice of the Apostles Examined P. 11. CHAP. III. His Argument taken from an alledged punctual Confâ—rmity of the Primitive Church to Christs Institution and the Apostolick Practice in Point of Episcopacy Considered Pag. 35. CHAP. IV. His Argument Examined taken from our Saviours alledged Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches Pag. 69. CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture proofs of a Four â—old Ministry or Prerogative of a Bp. as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government Considered Pag. 85. PART II. CHAP. I. Dr. Monro's unsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers as to Church Government exposed Together with his unsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy from Matth. 20.25 And with the Paralel Texts Pag. 1. CHAP. II. A Confutation of what he Offers in Answer to our Argument for Parity of Pastors taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture Pag. 31. CHAP. III. The Dr's absurd description of the Apostolick Function in opposition to Protestant Divines exposed His Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles in a proper formal Sense His Opinion Loaded with gross and palpable Absurdities Pag. 85 CHAP. IV. His proof of the Divine Right of the Hierarchical Bp. from the pretended Episcopacy of Tim. ct Tit. the 7 Asian Angels examined P. 119. PART III. CHAP. I. A Consideration of the Scripture Grounds upon which the Surveyer pleads for the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office Pag. 1. CHAP. II. His Answers offered to the Scriptures pleaded by Presbyterians Examined viz. Mat. 20.25 26. with the Paralels Mark 10 42. Luk. 22.25 Mat. 18.17 Act. 20.17 28. Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The unsoundness and inconsistency of his Glosses made appear Pag. 13. CHAP. III. Some more of his Exceptions and Answers examined viz. to 1 Cor. 5. Eph. 4.11 To which the Paralels 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. are to be joyned to Philip. 1.1 And to 1. Tim. 4.14 His unsoundness and inconsistency therein further made appear Pag. 38. CHAP. IV. Wherein is considered his Answer to our Charge against the Diocesan Prelat as a New Officer different from those Instituted by our Lord and standing in opposition to the New Testament Church Government and this upon the Ground of the Perfection of the Scripture Records hereanent and our Lords Faithfulness in the ful Institution of the Officers and Government of his Church Pag. 65. See page 388 389 390 391. See pag. 392. p. 392. Differ of the time pag. 14. See p. 394. pag. 394.395 P. 397 P. 398 ibid. P. 400. ibid. P. 401. P. 401. sub finem P. 403. P. 404. P. 402 403. P. 404. Ibid. P. 406.407.408 P. 407. ibid. P. 408. P. 408.409.410.411 P. 409. P. 409. ibid. P. 398.399.400 c. p. 410. P. 410.411 P. 411 P. 412 Ibid. P. 412.413 Prop. 7. Pag. 123.124.125 P. 413. P. 414. ibid. P. 414.415 Ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 415.416 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 417. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 417.418 ibid. P. 418 419. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 419 420. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 421. ibid. P. 422. ibid. P. 423. P. 422. ibid. ibid. P. 424. P. 426. P. 426. P. 427. P. 433. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 435. P. 435.436 P. 436.437.438 P. 438. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 439.440.441 P. 442 P. 428. P. 442.443 P. 443. P. 443. ibid. P. 444. P. 444 445. P. 445. P. 445. P. 446. ibid. P 447 ibid. P. 446. P. 447. ibid. ibid. a 1. Cor. 5. b Act. 20. c 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 d Philip. 1. 1. Tit. 1.6.7 e 2 Cor. 1.24 f 1. Cor. 4.1