only are Pastors is rightly understood if applyed to Presbyters who Labours in the Administration of the Word who are thereunto Called of God and have Correspondent Gifts That the Master of Sentences does rightly assert that the Canons do only owne Two Orders as Sacred Viz. The Diaconate and Presbyterate Because we read that the Primitive Church had these only and of these alone we have the Command of the Apostle Moreover if Bishops only be Pastors these Bishops do not their Duty who Feed not the Flock He adds after nam illa Episcoporum distinctio a Pastoribus Presbyterorum ordine juris Divini non est sed humani instituti Nos de Iure solum communi Divinoque agimus Presbyteris ergo qui dabant operam administrationi verbi jus commune fuit ut Conciliis interessent c. That the distinction of Bishops from Pastors has no Divine Warand but is of Human Institution only That Presbyters who Labour in Dispensing the Word had an Interest to Sit in Councils Where its evident that he calls the Dr's Notion of the Bishop as its distinct from the Pastor and Superior to him Popish and an Human Invention and Asserts the Identity of Pastor anâ— Bishop by Divine Right they being Members of Councils And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen as Lombard c. 10. ibid. Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei That the Holy Ghost set up Bishops to Rule the Church of God Thus Iunius animadverts aequivoce nam Episcopos dicit Apostolus communi significato i. e. inspectores Curatores Ecclesiae esse Presbyteros illius Agit autem cum Presbyteris unius Ecclesiae puta Ephesinae quos accersi ad se curaverat quod si unus tantum esse debet ut volunt Pontificii in una Ecclesia Episcopus ejus est solius pascere cur Paulus per omnia plurali numero usus est in hoc suo protreptico ad Presbyteros Ephesi Adding falsa ex aequivocatione sententia that the premised Assertion anent the Establishing Bishops in the Church by the Holy Ghost when applyed to the Prelat Bishop is not found since the Apostle according to the common use of the Word calls the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church her Inspectors or Bishops Because in that place viz. Act. 20. the Apostles Speech is directed to that one Church of Ephesus for whose Pastors he had sent but if as the Papists would have it there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church and it is proper to him alone to Feed how comes it that Paul all along makes use of the Plural Number in this his Exhortatory Speech or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephesus After in Art 9. Passim asserunt Concilia Episcoporum esse That Councils were made up of Bishops Thus Iunius animadverts in his Third Answer quod Episcopi plurimum adessent non ideo factum est quod Episcopi essent sed quod eruditione Doctrina praestarent plerumque aliis de Presbyterio qui propterea suffragiis Presbyterii praefecti essent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecclesia singuli Nam qui erant ejusmodi eos ad Consilia generalia communibus Ecclesiae suffragiis mitti erat aequius quam rudiores c. That the Bishops were for most part present at Councils this was not upon the account of their being Bishops or as in that Character but because they for most part were beyond others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning and that for this Reason every such Bishop was by the suffrages of the Presbytrie made President of their Collegiat Meeting for such as were in this capacity it was more equitable they should be sent to General Councils by the Churches common suffrages than those that were less learned c. He adds tanquam perpetui juris statuae Episcoporum pontificiorum sibi Assumpserunt sicut omnem autoritatem Ecclesiae Presbyterii That the Popish Bishops as if founded upon a standing Right and Tittle have Usurpt and assum'd to themselves the whole Authority of the Church and the Presbytrie In Art 10. he Corrects Bellarmin's absurd Gloss as if Theodosius and Valentinianus had intended only the Bishops to be Received in the Council And 15. ibid. he shews that the Chorepiscopi Presbyteri Subscribed and Voted in the Council of Nice And in Art 11. inveniâ—ntur soli Episcopi Subscripsisse That Bishops only did Subscribe He Answers that this is false De Niceno modo Diximus Not. 15. Constantinopolitano pâ—â—no Subscripserunt aliquot Presbyteri Alpius Presb. pro Philomuso Alexandrino Cappadociae Paulus Presb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Isauriae c. That in the First Council of Constantinople Presbyters Subscribed Thereafter he shews why the Bishops were Chosen to General Councils in singulis Presbyteriis cujuscunque Provinciae Communibus suffragiis Episcopi eligerentur ii qui Pietate Doctrina Iudicio praestare viderentur Adfuerunt autem Presbyteri juarum Ecclesiarum singuli Communi Synodorum particularium calculo ad actionem illam deputati tum Ecclesiae suae tum Provinciae totius nomine That in every Presbytrie of the respective Provinces these Bishops were Chosen by common suffrage who were judged more Eminent in Piety and Learning but Presbyters were also present being deputed to that Work both by the Vote of their own Churches and the common suffrage of Particular Synods and thus in the Name both of their own Church and of the whole Province He had said before that of the whole Province few were laid aside from Councils Upon 19. ibid. Where it is alledged that the Interest of any other than Bishops in Councils is contra morem omnis Antiquitatis Against the Custom of all Antiquity In Opposition to this Iunius produces the Pattern of that Council Act. 15. where it is said Paul and those with him were received by the Apostles and Elders that the Apostles and Elders met in Council Citing v. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders to send Chosen Men and v. 23. where the Apostles and Elders wrote to the Churches Adding atque â—ita diu in Ecclesia fuisse observatum demonstrat Exemplum Romanae Synodi quae contra Novatum fuit habita a 60 Episcopis Presbyterisque Diaconis pluribus qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum Apostolici illius Concilii Exemplo ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. Et Ruffin Cap. 33. Item Alexandrinae Synodi contra Arrium apud Gelasium Cyzicenum That it was thus of a long time observed in the Church is demonstrat by the example of the Roman Synod which was held against Novatus by 60 Bishops and many Presbyters and Deacons who gave Sentence against Novatus after the Example of that Apostolical Synod by the Testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus in their Histories As also by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria against Arius according to Gelasius c. By this time its evident what the Judgment of
the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man For if I must believe no otherwise anent the Office of these Angels and the Scriptures pointing out the same than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops their pretended Successors then the custom and practice of fallible Men becomes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio and demonstration a priori the great and chief ground why I believe Scriptures to have such a Sense and no other And thus we will give Men a Dominion over our Faith which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men A Principle which no sound Protestant will own Besides that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument and to instruct this Matter of Fact and that all Primitive Antiquity as he calls it doth testify for the Bishop which he has shapen out would inextricably baffle his indeavours as is above cleared It being evident that as the Writings of many of the First Writers are lost and not a fâ—w corrupted So many Eminent for Piety and Learning have written nothing in the First Ages which are therefore generally acknowledged to be very dark in the Matter of Fact The Affirmative proof lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear that neither the one nor the other has contradicted his supposed Testimonies else he but beats the Air and has said nothing to the purpose Thirdly The Scripture as hath been proved ascribing to Pastors the Power of Order and Jurisdiction and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus the Angel whereof is First here addrest Act. 20.28 Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14 1. Pet. 5.2.3 1 Cor. 5.4.5 When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors which surely is Antiquity prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity and of far greater veneration stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops Power and both are laid in even Ballances together which of the two will preponderat The Dr. for shame will not say the Second Hence I inferr that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture or quite this Plea And next he must acknowledg that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office and our Arguments drawn therefrom before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice Again Fourthly We may here ply â—he Dr with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould The Dr. thinks it strange how we can suppose the Church to have so suddenly altered the Government from Presbytrie to Episcopacy if Presbytrie was her first Government But I would ask the Dr since its evident in Scripture that Pastors and Presbyters have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them yea and in the premised Scriptures several such paralells its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in and competent to them And in special since the Elders and Pastors of the Church of Ephesus are enjoyned by Paul in his last Farewel to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time that all this Episcopal Authority competent before to Pastors of Churches and particularly of Ephesus is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop How came all the Churches of Asia to be so suddenly cast in this Mould And to press the Querie a little further if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity as the Dr. pretends yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself as well as by Augustin and Ambrose how comes Ierom to say that even in his time the Elders were subject to the Bishop by Custom not Divine Dispensation Comment on Tit. and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time Caetus Presbyterorum a Meeting or Court of Presbyters which he calls an Apostolick Senat How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra Canon 18 How comes Ambrose or a Father Coetaneous to him upon Eph. 4. to assert that after the Church was enlarged caepit alio modo gubernari it began to be Governed after another manner than at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. the Government of the Church in his time was not every way suteable and square to the Apostolick Appointment How comes Augustin Epist. 10. to assert with Ierom that by Custom of the Church Episcopatus was major Presbyterio How comes Firmiliâ—nus apud Cyprian Epist. 78. to assert that the Pastors or Presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem possesses the Power of Ordination And these Presbyters he calls Praepositi Presidents or Rulers using that very Term from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts that inter Presbyterum Episcopum inter est ferme nihil there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter and that which is spoken by Paul to the one agrees also to the other Now if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients in point of the Bishops Power as the Dr. pretends I would fain know what means this immusical Jarring and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion and even by these very Fathers whom he brings for his Vouchers Hence Fifthly it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies and his pretended Argument from all Primitive Antiquity is pitifully Lame and short of his Design upon two important Grounds 1. That his Witnesses are not Harmonious several of them giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops and that absolute Inhanced Power which he alledges For no Man of Sense can draw this Consequence from the general Name of Bishops used by him or from a simple calling of them Presidents will conclud them to be such as he pretends yea and not such de Facto far less Iure Divino since in other places they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion And therefore unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers whom he mentions as the most Arrant Self-contradicting Non-sensical Fools that ever Spoke or Wrote he must needs acknowledg with us that they use the Term Bishop in a general Sense and as common both to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidents as had then obtained and to other Pastors So that in such Characters appropriat to such Persons they could neither understand an Episcopal Presidency founded upon a Divine Right and Apostolical Institution as the Dr. pretends nor such an absolute Power as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government which he also asserts This considered with what is above offered doth so fully
ad huc Carthagini prerogativam illam Presbyterorum Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae qua communi totius Presbyterii i. e. Presbyterorum Diaconorum collegii consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis Citing thereafter Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pastors or Presbyters as to the Apostle of Christ. And least the Dr. alledge this imports no more than a Consultive Power Cyprian Ep. 18. having mentioned what was written by Lucian in name of the Confessors which they desired to be communicat to the Presbyters and as he expresses it per me collegis omnibus innotescere to be by him made known to his Collegue-Presbyters he adds quae res cum omnium nostrum concilium Sententiam spectat praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Thereafter he shews that having sent Letters of Copies to many Collegues he had an acquiescing Answer in this his purpose To which we may add what is above touched of Cyprians Judgment in receiving the Lapsed Ep. 12. and several other places that the Pastors or Presbyters had a necessary interest therein doth by necessary consequence inferr that they had the same interest in the Sentence as in the Absolution As for the 38 Epistle which the Dr. Cites I find nothing in it that will conclud what he asserts having perused that Epistle That which he seems to take hold of is that expression of Cyprian accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit ut abstentum se a nobis sciat upon which Passage the Annotator upon Cyprian doubts whether he means Excommunication properly and strictly so called or not or rather that which we term the Lesser of a Suspension from Ordinances for some little time quo elapso saith he Presbyterium de Contumacia vel Paenitentia eorundum judicabat c. Moreover speaking of Felicissimus he says to the Presbyters cum post haec omnia nec vestra autoritate presentia fractus c. clearly pointing at the Authoritative Interposing of the Pastors in this Matter And that he does not mean the stricter Excommunication seems by this probable that speaking of several Delations of his Crimes which the Delators had offered to prove he adds quae omnia tunc cognoscemus quando in unâ—m cum Collegis pluribus permittente Deo convenerimus which speaks his reserving a further Censure to a more full Enquiry into the Cause yea and this Enquiry he will not undertake but with the Authoritative Concurrence of Presbyters called by him his Collegues And in the Matter of Augendus his Corresponding Guilt with this Felicissimus he says sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum non esse Communicaturum and Sententiam ferat si ultra cum co perseveraverit i. e. upon Supposition of his continued Contumacy Wherein it is evident that no Sentence is passed upon this Person as the Dr. alledges and that in the Censuring of both Cyprian supposes a necessary Interest of the Pastors or Presbyters And the ensuing Epistle pointing out the actual Censuring of these two with several others not mentioned in the preceeding Epistle confirms what we have said The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the first Council of Nice to suppose a Power of Excommunication to be solely in the Person of the Bishop But besides that the Words he cites are remote from proving it the Presence of Presbyters being therein presupposed it is evident by several Testimonies of Ancient Fathers as well as by that Act of the fourth Council of Carthage mentioned that Presbyters did Authoritatively concur in Ordination and Censures for which see Smectym Sect. 8. and Ruffin Hist. Lib. 10. See Council Antioch Canon 10. Council Ancyr Canon 13. And determined against this sole Usurped Authority of the Bishop either in Censuring Presbyters or in Judging the Conversation and Crimes of Church Members or in Excommunication or Receiving Penitents We have also heard that the fourth Council of Carthage Canon 23. condemns the Bishops Decision unless fortified by the Sentence of the Clergy This is so evident that the Dr. is forc'd to clap his Wings closer and Correct himself adding That afterward to prevent Abuses in the fourth Council of Carthage it was Decreed that the Bishop should hear no Mans Cause but in Presence of the Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless Confirmed by their Presence Well then to Correct Abuses issuing from his supposed Canon of Nice here is by his own Confession a counter-Counter-canon Decreeing the contrary And where is now his bold Assertion of the Universal Practice of the Church founded upon a Divine Institution which Patronizes this supposed Power of the Hierarchical Bishop And if we may ply the Dr with his own Weapon and Argument and present to him a Dish of his own Preparing how doth he here make a Divine Institution Comprobat by the Churches Universal Practice a Seminary of such Abuses as this Council found necessary to remove Likewise how doth this Council by its Censure Lash the supposed Practice of Cyprian and puts among the fore-mentioned Abuses to be necessarly removed Ay but says the Dr The Sentence in this Case was the Bishops not the Clergies I Answer if they were sine quibus non in the Sentence by what Shadow of Ground can he assert that it was solely the Bishops And we heard above Cyprian in Express Contradiction to the Dr Assert that not the Concurrence only but the Sentence is properly the Clergies as well as his Moreover if a Paralel Argument in Point of Ordination which the Dr. also doth appropriat to the Bishop may be Judged valid in this Case as no doubt it is we have made appear from Canon 2. of the Fourth Council of Carthage that they Decree in this Case that omnes Presbyteri presentes manus suas Iuxta manus Episcopi super caput teneant cum Presbyter ordinatur And the Dr. cannot deny that ex natura rei and in the Scripture Sense Imposition of Hands in this Action of Ordination is Authoritative not Consentient only and supposes the Actors to have this Badge of the Ordaining Power I mean it in a Ministerial Sense as it is competent to all Church Officers We have also told him that Dr. Forbes as Learned an Episcopalian as our Dr. in his Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. holds that Non tantum duntaxat ut consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen est ejus manum imponere sed tanquam ordinantes seu ordinem conferentes ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes That not only as Consenting which is proper to the Vulgar who cannot Impose Hands but as Ordaining or Conferring Orders and by a Divine Authority they do in this Action or Rite pray for Grace to the Ordained Which contrary Testimony of our Scottish Episcopalian not only in Point of Fact contradicts the Dr but from
expones to be the Pastors and other Guides of the Church paralelling this Sense of the Elders with that of Act. 11.30 where we read of the Churches benevolence sent to the Elders and Church Rulers for the Relief of the Poor Saints in Iudea The Belgick Divines upon the place Translate this Clause of the Eldership That is say they of the Assembly of the Elders or Overseers of the Church c. The Eng. Annot. upon the place having added to the word Presbytrie the Phrase of Eldership thus proceed Some by Presbytrie understand the Office of a Presbyter which Timothy received by imposition of Hands but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in Scripture for the Office of a Presbyter but for the Company of Elders who here laid hands upon Timothy when he was Ordained And they add the agreeableness hereunto of the Canon of the 4 th Council of Carthage and the Practice of the Reformed Churches to this day Pool 2 d Part Paraphraseth this Passage thus That Timothy's Office was given by the Revelation of the Divine Will by the extraordinary Influence of the Spirit of GOD and the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie was a declaration of it The last clause of 6. v. 1 Ch. of 2 d Epistle they thus Paraphrase That he is called to the improvement of those Spiritual abilities given him upon the Prayers of Paul the Presbytrie when he was by them set a part to the work of an Evangelist for the end for which GOD had given them to him To these Expositors many others might be added exponing this word and term of a Collegiat Meeting such as Mâ—nochius Tirinus Zegerius Sligelius Beza Simplicius Vorstius c. But now to proceed after this little digression with Interpreters to our Surveyers Instances and Exceptions taken from the Terms in Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 11. We Answer that the exception is palpably absurd For he could not deny that these terms Church and Power are Ordinarly taken in Scripture in another Sense than in these Passages though the circumstances of these Scriptures plead for varrying from that Acceptation But he neither did nor could make it appear that this Term Presbytrie under debate is ever in Scripture taken in this Acceptation nor could he deny that it is taken in our Sense elsewhere So that his Exception touches not the Point And as much ridiculous if not more is that other Exception which he offers to the paralel Passages viz. That Rulers therein signifies Civil Rulers and Rulers who were Enemies to Christ For whatever were the Moral Qualities of the Rulers if the Word signifies a Collegiat Meeting of Rulers it is enough to our purpose and evinceth our Argument from the paralels to be good and valid unless he could evince a contrary Acceptation which he doth not so much as essay He could not deny that the Legal Constitution of one Assembly or Parliament is a far and distinct thing from the Qualities of the Members who consequently come truely under these Denominations upon the ground of a Legal Constitution And supposing our Sense of the Word Presbytrie and the Matter of Fact to be such as we assert he could not without making himself most ridiculous infer from these Paralels that the Members Constituent of this Presbytrie were either Civil Rulers or bad The Surveyer P. 217 218. is bold to call this our Exception against his Sense viz. That the Office hath no Hands to impose a ridiculous Objection flowing from a Mistake of the Meaning of the Text which attributes not the imposed Hands to the Presbytrie as to an Agent or Efficient but only limits and determines that Imposition of Hands which Timothy had from the Apostle or other high Officers of the Church to the particular use and end for which Hands were imposed on him viz. the giving him a Power of a Presbyter or Elder Ans. Here is a strange Exposition obscuring rather than clearing the Text. Had the Apostle no other way of expressing the end of the Ordination and its Nature than by telling him of Hands of the Office laid upon him which in all common Sense doth relate to an Agent or Instrument and not to the Limitation and Use of his Office A Man may thus fasten the most Fantastick Senses upon Scripture Besides he holds that there were eminent high Officers with Paul and concurring with this Imposition of Hands upon Timothy Why then will he strike off their Hands from being here meaned when Imposition of Hands is so expresly mentioned The Surveyer thus further Senseth the Words Neglect not the Gift given thee by the Laying on of Hands not Confirmatory not Reconciliatory but Imposition of Hands Ordinatory whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter Ans. Besides that this Division of Imposition of Hands is as odd as his Sense of the Text it is strange that he admits of Imposition of Hands upon Timothy in order to this end of making him a Minister and yet denyeth the Presbytrie here to import a Collegiat Meeting thus imposing He holds that the Sense is Neglect not the Gift given by the Laying on of the Hands whereby thou was ordained Now pray what hinders these Hands to be the Hands of the Collegiat Meeting imposing the same Whereby the Sense is ours or otherwise in Contradiction to himself he makes the Office the Ordaining Agent If he acknowledge this place paralel with 2 Tim. 1.6 he cannot but see a like Construction in both of the Term of Hands with the Genitive Nor can he deny that the Imposition of Hands is ever constructed with the Office in other Paralels Act. 6.6 and 13.3 He calls our Reason against his Gloss ridiculous but whether his Return be not more ridiculous is left to the Reader to judge We are told for his next Answer That were a Presbytrie here admitted there is nothing in the Context to evince that it was a Classical Presbytrie to which only we ascribe Ordination and not a Congregational or Paroch Presbytrie Ans. Here again the Surveyer is driven to seek shelter among the Independents but is ruined in this Shift For upon his Supposition that a Congregation or one Pastor with Unpreaching Elders is the Subject of an Ordaining Power the Prelatical as well as the Presbyterian Ordination is overthrown The places above referred to and hinted at do abundantly clear and evince the Divine Institution of Classical Presbytries and Collegiat Meetings of Pastors of several Congregations in order to a Ministerial Rule and Jurisdictional Authority over the same and consequently that they are the proper Subject of the Ordaining Power The Treatise above mentioned Ch. 10. besides several others have abundantly evinced this Point that the Fraternity or Community of the Faithful and consequently of the particular single Congregation cannot be the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power nor the Power of Order and â—oth are cleared by a large Account of the one and the other See P. 95 96 97
Sense the whole Church by joynt Determination had simul semel made this Alteration it is evident that he charges the Error upon the Church as a Recess from the Divine Path but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it self which he diligently distinguishes from and sets in Opposition to this Custom and Practice of the Church So that the absurd Reflection upon the Apostles Government and the Wisdom of our Saviour the Dr. may see to be lodged nearer home viz. not only upon these who first brought in this Human Prostasie especially such as Scrued it up to an Hierarchical Primacy which is so cross to the Apostolick Parity but also and in a singular manner to be chargeable upon these who uphold it after its many Evils are discovered Ierom asserts only the Matter of Fact viz. That this Imparity was brought in for Remedy of Schism but leaves the chargâ— of Reflecting upon the Apostolick Government upon the Authors of this Innovation And upon the Promotters thereof it must still ly The Dr. alledges That Iorom approves of this as a Wise aâ—d Prudent Action An odd Approbation indeed To approvâ— a Custom or Action as Wise and Prudent which he holds to be opposit to the Divine Appointment For his proof viz. That Ierom asserts the Safety of the Church to depend upon the Authority of the High Priest or Bishop to whom if Supreme Authority be not given there would be as many Schisms as Priests As the Dr. has pointed us to none of Ieroms Writings for Proof of this so as we have cleared above Ierom and the Ancients in such Allusive Expressions intend nothing else but a Distinction of Offices in the Gospel Ministry and to assert the Authority thereof Blond Sect. 3. P. 135. shews out of diverse Councils their expressing the Gospel Ministry under the Character of Priests and Levites And I dare referr it to this Dr or any Man of Sense if a grosser Contradiction or Non-sense could ever fall into any Mans Thought than to hold the Necessity of an Hierarchical Bishop with Supreme Authority and yet the Necessity of a Divine Appointment to the contrary That which the Dr. calls the Unavoidable Consequence of Jerom 's Hypothesis viz. That the Church had gone to Ruine if a Wiser Form of Government than that of Apostles had not been taken up to supply its Defect We have made appear to be a very easily avoided Consequence and by no Twist of Reason to be deducible from Ierom's Hypothesis and that the Dr in drawing such a Consequence has in stead of Ierom involved himself in absurd Deductions He calls this Testimony of Jerom the only considerable Objection against the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Episcopal Government And therein discovers his small and slender Reading in this Controversie since he might have seen in Blondel Salmasius and many others many more considerable Objections And this one we have found so very considerable that it hath quit baffled and born down the Dr's mean and inconsiderable Answers But to proceed In the close of this Section P. 421. the Dr. flies high in these his supposed victorious Answers to Jerom's Testimony telling us that the Apostolick Superiority of Bishops being handed down by Testimonies from Age to Age it s as unreasonable to reject the same as the Canon of the Scriptures thence derived The Dr. here discovers what Spirit he is of I had alwise thought that the Divine Impression of the Scripture Canon the intrinsick infallible evidences of a Divine inspiration had been the great ground of the Churches reception not its being handed down to us from former generations or the First receivers And that our Divines had alwise distinguished the Church and former Generations Testimony and recommendation from the innate Essential evidences of its Divine Authority as to the Ground of our Faith and reception But however I shall tell him that he should have exhibited as full and Divine proof and unanimous recommendation of all the Churches for his hierarchical Prelacy as there is for the Scripture Canon before he had offered such an high flown notion Before I part with the Dr. upon this head I must needs tho I have a little before touched it take notice of two pieces of signal unsoundnness and unfair dealing in this Matter of Jerom's Testimony First That in all his Animadversions and muster of Episcopal strength against it he doth not in the least take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter in correspondence to our Sense and Pleading Upon Philip 1.1 He argues That many Bishops are saluted by Paul in that Church and that it could not have many of the Diocesian stamp That therefore the Apostle speaks indifferently of Bishops and Presbyters as one and the same That Act. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City as Bishops That in the Epistle to the Hebrews the care of the Churches is divided among many obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your Souls That Peter called so from the firmness of his Faith exhorts thus the Elders the Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and Witness of the sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is among you not by constraint but willingly c. These things I write saith Ierom to shew that among the Ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same and that by little and little the care was devolved upon one Now what says the Dr. to these his Arguings upon the Apostles Doctrin If they are not found why doth he not discover his mistake If they hold good the Dr's exceptions evanish unto Wind. As for instance That Ierom is too late a Witness that he is a Witness in his own Cause that he talks otherwise when not byassed with partiality c. For if these Reasonings be sound his Witness is both a most early and Divine Witness and in the cause of God and Truth And whatever other Testimony he may be supposed to give this Divine Testimony ought to be preferred wherein there can be no partiality unless the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles and the Decision of the Holy GOD of Truth in this Point This also answers the Drs quible about a Decree Apostolick as the Ground of the Change of Government and that Ierom could mean no such thing since none can be so brutish as to impute to the Apostles a contradictory Decree to their own Doctrin As also that other exception of his evanishes upon this Ground Viz. That no such Decree of the Church was Recorded And that therefore there was none such For say it was either a Decree or gradual Custom if cross to the Apostolick Doctrin it ought to be rejected Thus also appears the Folly of his last exception That he imputes to the Apostolick
the Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make
cut off the Dr's third Argument which he prosecutes P. 424 425 c. that nothing needs be further added as there might be with Advantage if a particular Examen were made of his Citations The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair or Primacy over the Asian Churches The Sottishness of which Conceit and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office is evident to any of common Sense since the Apostles by vertue of their Office which extended to all Churches planted and to be planted were Ministers thereof in actu exercito and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops forsooth to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province The Citation speaks of a Province in general which the Dr. will needs have to be that of Ephesus and the seven Angels must be these seven Bishops by whom he governed that Province Again the Angel is called by Augustin the Praepositus or President therefore he was an Hierarchical President as the Dr. has shapen out What Consequence is this As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna from Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 15. and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus Lib. 5. Cap. 24. we have spoken to it already and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles as likeways to Eusebius's History Besides that in Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Irenaeus calls Anycetus Pius Heginus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt We also did shew that he thus expresses himself further Nec Polycarpus Anyceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandam esse diceret We have also already made appear that Polycarp his supposed Bishop disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr since Writing to the Philippians he ownes only Bishops and Deacons as the two Orders of Ministry and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ. To which we may add that Bishop Bilson himself acknowledges Perpet Gov. P. 158 159. that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches when Iohn wrote to them it is abundantly removed by what is said above in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop by Ancient Writers as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus which we shall take notice of he tells us that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas the Faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of Patmos immediatly before the Angel of that Church to whom Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clement succeeded to Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Paraeus says indeed that these of Pergamus had cruelly slain Antipas but adds quis fuerat ex Historia parum constat that there is no Light from History who he was He adds Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem c. that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church and under Domitian a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds that he to whom our Lord wrote might be tempted to lay aside his Office for fear of the like Punishment c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair and of his Name Paraeus says nothing neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office than that of Pastor seeming to take these Churches for Congregational And if the Office to which the Angel succeeded was that of a Pastor only where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair which he here assigns him Besides Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound touching the Office and Character of Antipas Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool do affirm That no Ecclesiastick History makes mention of Antipas and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note And that no History giving Account of him has inclined some to think this Epistle is wholly Prophetical and that Antipas signifies all such as oppose the Pope as if it were the same with Antipapa The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels is That it being apparent that there were Bishops presiding in each of these Churches when Iohn wrote consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches So that they being Bishops our Saviour in these Epithets allows and approves of the Episcopal Order But by what is above replyed it is evident that nothing which the Dr. has adduced amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops as he has shapen out in one or all of these Churches And therefore our Lords writing to these Angels gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order which he asserts And so to the Dr's Summ of all as he expresses it viz That the Episcopal form is of Divine Right upon Ground of our Saviours Institution Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles and conformity of the Primitive Churches and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone from what is above replyed that it is evident that the high-flown Hierarchy he pleads for has no Foundation either in our Lords Institution or the Practice of the Apostles is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church or our Saviours Approbation in his Epistles to the Asian Churches but as opposit to all these is by the Churches of Christ to be rejected and disowned CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government considered THE First Prerogative of the Bishop as contradistinct from a Presbyter is with the Dr. to make Laws and Canons which is the Essence of Government and supposes a Legislative Power else faith he Christs Wisdom is impeached if he left a Governed Society without a Legislative Power I need not stand to tell the Dr That by consent of Protestant Divines the Churches Power is not properly Nomothetick Architectonick Legislative but Ministerial and declarative of Christs Institution in reference to Ordinances the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government of his House The Dr. proves this Authority P. 433.434 from the Apostles Power Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision And says That in their Decree they exercise a Legislative Power laying upon the Churches to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity That as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the
good of the Church in general so by their own Authority for particular Churches to which they were more particularly related Here is I must say odd and confused stuff First The Dr. supposes that the Decree Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down yea and Scripture Grounds 2 ly The Sentence runs in these terms It seemed good to the Holy Ghost viz. speaking in the Scripture and to us 3 ly Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews apparent in the debate and disquisition the things enjoined are termed necessary things and thus supposed materially such antecedaneously to the Decree Hence 4 ly The Dr. in saying That this Abstinence he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time place and persons was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity expugns from being Laws of Christianity all our Lords Precepts in point of Love and Unity and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones For these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence and ground the necessity thereof in the present Case and exigence Again in the nexplace The great point the Dr. has to prove is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative secluding Pastors This he proves by the Apostles together with the Elders and Brethren their comming together and determining this matter One would think this makes fair to prove the contrary The Apostles here meeting with and taking into the disquisition and Decree and into every step of the procedure the ordinary Ministers and Elders as persons interested and concerned and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed in order to the Churches Obedience Ay but the Dr. tells us That by consent of all Antiquity by these Elders we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt of a like soundness with himself But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders he must Esteem them Bishops where ever mentioned and deny the existence of any Pastors the true Scripture Bishops at this time wherein our Dr. will and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond For to omit other instances he holds the Elders present with Iames when Paul went into him to be Pastors over which Iames as Bishop of Ierusalem did preside 2 ly None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable For in the context it is evident that at this time the Apostles were but founding and gathering Churches in Iudea settling Churches therein and taking inspection of them by their Apostolick Authority And therefore it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea and of such a bulk and number as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them yea and Diocesan Bishops of so considerable a Number as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time and in this meeting yea and these besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors which this Man will not deny the Apostles to have ordained where Churches were planted Again why I pray the Bishops of Judea only gathered here in order to this general Decree for all the Churches and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches which he will say were by this time set up Besides that looking to the occasion of this debate anent the Circumcision which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea as from the Apostles and thus troubled the Churches the design of the Gentiles appears evidently to be to send Paul to the Apostles and Elders residing at Jerusalem without the least hint of any more enlarged Advertisement of others than such as were there at that time Again the Dr. says That Apostles and Primitive Bishops made general Laws for the whole Church and Bishops particular Laws for their particular Churches Thus saith he Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians for more decent communication of the Lords Supper Strong reasoning indeed and hanging well together First he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority the general Rules for the whole Church as proper to them with concurrence of ordinary Bishops the ordering of particular Churches being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops And presently to prove this he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles into the class of Ordinary Bishops in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth and wisely supposes that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating concerned only this Church of Corinth and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority nor by the Apostle Paul as in that capacity To this scope the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons to the Churches of Galatia contradicting therein the Relation of these Canons to particular Churches since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Of the same nature is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 5.7 Tit. 1.5 touching the redressing disorders and supplying defects in these Churches For besides that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists extraordinary Officers as Paul himself which clearly excludes Director and Directed from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny several of these directions at least to have been of universal concern and necessity and in this respect also as remote from his Design The Dr. adds That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors That Apostles and Evangelists exercised a Lawful Authority is indeed very sure and no less sure than the Dr's Argument here is loose and unsure from Apostolical directions to Evangelists to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats in reference to making Laws as is above evinced since the Dr. cannot shape out nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop to have been allowed suffrage in any of the First Four General Councils yet immediatly after some way retracting and correcting himself he allows them a place in General Councils but tell us it was only for debate and preparing the Matter of Laws but the form of Laws he says proceeded from the Bishops suffrage This is pretty First The Dr. will never prove that in the First Councils there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould Next its strange that in Councils Presbyters were sitting for
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
thus called he was called in a special manner to the Apostleship of the Gentiles I have appeared unto thee saith our Lord to make thee a Minister and a Witness delivering thee from the People and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to open their Eyes c. Upon which the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them Act. 26.17 18 19. The Apostle also tells us Gal. 1.15 16 17. that when it pleased God who separated me from my Mothers Womb and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach among the Heathen or Gentiles immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me Compare this with Ephes. 3.8 Hence its odd to suppose that either he or Barnabas were at this time ordained Apostles For Barnabas that he was an Apostle looking strictly to the Description of Apostles some may doubt but supposing him such he being joyned with Paul under that Character Act. 14.14 we read of his Officiating and for what can be understood from Scripture in the same manner and by virtue of the same Office as the Apostle Paul to the Gentiles before this time For Act. 11.22 he is sent to Antioch by the Church at Ierusalem for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there And v. 25 26. he goes to Tarsus to seek Paul and brings him to Antioch and Taught there a year with Paul where the Christian Name first took place Next the Dr. finding himself puzzled with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to their Apostolick Office by mere Prophets and Teachers has no Shift but to alledge they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria since they could not else have derived the Office of Apostolat A pretty Evasion indeed from a Phantastick Objection First these Prophets and Teachers are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers who had also the Gift of Prophecy Vigent at that time So Pool 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat upon the place says they were such as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29 32. who the Dr. will not doubt are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established And with these spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 He adds that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office and singular for these times yet inferior to that of Apostles and in many accompanied with Divine Predictions The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That some take the two Words Prophets and Teachers for one and the same thing Others distinguish them thus that Prophets were those who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost had extraordinary Gifts to foretell things to come and to expound the Holy Scriptures But Teachers were such who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts to Instruct and Govern the Church in the Worship of God And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost mentioned Act. 13.2 viz. Separat me Barnabas and Saul they Paraphrase thus That they were separat from the Service of this Church where there were other Teachers enough to send them to the Gentiles whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning citing Act. 26.16 And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them they Paraphrase thus Not thereby to chuse them to be Apostles whereunto they were before chosen v. 1. and Act. 9.15 but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus So Cornel. a Lapide to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such as by the Influence of the Spirit foretold things to come So Menochius That they were Expounders of the Scripture by the Spirits Revelation So Lorinus A Lapide Piscator The last of whom takes them to be the same with Teachers All which how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers and the Persons upon whom Hands were Imposed together with the end of this Action is obvious to the meanest Reflection In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat and the Belgick Divines we may further notice this particular Account of Pool Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already the Laying on of Hands did signify 1. Their being set apart to this particular Imploymentt hey were now sent about 2 ly The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had 3 ly Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them and Success upon the Work they went for But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles and that as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria is a Dream much if not only beholden to the Dr. himself Again the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer For if these his supposed Bishops of Syria were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size how could they derive an Apostolat of the Primary and first Order as he calls it unless the Dr. make them intirely one which he sometimes tho in this inconsistent with himself disownes as we heard above when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power to make general Canons to the whole Church to the Bishops only to their particular Diocesses But the Dr. finds another Objection viz. That those Officers who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas are called Prophets not Apostles or Bishops He Answers That so was Iudas and Silas Act. 15.32 and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren as he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found appropriat to any Church Officer straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head But this Term being appropriat to such Persons and in such Circumstances as will not admit this Office and Character but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him His Friends the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible smell'd out no Prelacy nor Ruling in this Term but Translat the Word Chief Men Primarios Praecipuos Estimatos Honoratos thus Erasmus Vatablus Beza Piscator Camerarius Drusius Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes so Beza Chief Men then may be understood thus that they were persons as in Ecclesiastick Offices so of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office and that such discriminating terms of one from another will infer no distinction therein Besides some might alledg that if he will allow Members of the Church visible the Scripture epithet of Brethren and of the Brotherhood which Denomination we find applyed unto them 1 Pet.
Bishops therein and by clear Consequence the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines upon these Passages correspondent to our Sense and Pleading it were a large Work The Belgick Divines upon Act. 20.28 from that Clause the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers do plead as above For having told us that in the Greek it is Bishops and that from this the Word Bishop is derived they add That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church from whence it appears that in the Holy Scriptures there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops pointing to Philip. 1.1 upon which Passage they shew that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church referring again to Act. 20.17 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3 Where they shew That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus not as Bishop but as Evangelist for a time to Confirm the Church Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew That the Word Bishop is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference as appears in the following Description compared with other places citing Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 7. Diodat on Act. 20.17 shews That by the Elders we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse he shews That the Word signifies Overseer Guardian c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church without any absolute Dominion only for the Profit and Good of the Flock Philip. 1.1 he paralells with Act. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5.17 Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat 1 Tim. 3.1 he understands of the Bishop or Pastor who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church On Tit. 1.5 the Elders who are immediatly after called Bishops he understands of such Pastors and Conductors as were to be placed in Churches where was a Competent Number of Believers Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands Act. 20.17 as speaking of such Elders as are Governours and Pastors of the Church And shews that the Term and Title respects not their Age but their place And upon v. 28. they shew That the Overseers there mentioned are the same who are called Elders v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them Upon Philip. 1.1 By Bishops they understand Pastors and Teachers asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one in the Apostles days and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28 1 Cor. 4.1.2 1 Thes. 5.12.13 1. Tim. 3.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Tit. 1.5 Heb. 13.17 Iam. 5.14 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of shewing that this is the Sense both of Ancient and modern Interpreters Thereafter they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters who takes them for Diocesan Bishops Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 They shew That the Term Bishop is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment and Paralels this with the Title of Angel mentioned Rev. 2.1 Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach they shew That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem mentioned Chap. 11 30. Upon v. 28. they shew That the term Episcopus or Bishop is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church and Minister of the Word as elsewhere Also upon Philip. 1.1 on that Clause the Bishops and Deacons they shew That the Synod of Nice did forbid Two or more Bishops to have their Seats in one City And before that Cornelius Bishop of Rome upbraids Novatus with Ignorance as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes that he knew not there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church in which he could no be Ignorant there were Forty Six Presbyters And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi In one City it cannot be supposed say they there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense as the word was afterward taken Here therefore by Episcopi and Diaconi we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the Government of the Church was Committed And Deacons who not only had the Care of the Poor but also Assisted Ministers in their Ecclesiastical Function Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 they shew That the Term Bishop doth properly relate to the Flock referring to Philip. 1.1 And having shewed that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats and consequently as it relates to Pastors But that they Disowne this as not being the Scripture Acceptation is evident not only from that Reference to Philip. 1.1 but also from this that the Clause of Desiring a good Work they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13 where after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such as Laboured among them viz. In the Word and Doctrine he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake asserting thus the Bishops good Work to be one and the same with that of the Pastor and consequently the Office By the Elders mentioned Tit. 1.5 to be Ordained in every Church they understand the Pastors to be Ordained where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful And the Apostles Reason v. 7. For a Bishop must be Blameless c. they paralell with Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office from these places The Professors of Leyden Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and that the Pastors Dâ—ctors Elders and Deacons are the only standing ordinary Church Officers Thus Thes. 17.18 19 20. c. Ascribing to Pastors the Authority of Government as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament Thes. 25.26 Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28 they shew that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2 where they tell us the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Adding that in the Epistle to the Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops for whom the Apostle prays for Grace he understands such qui Philippi Verbo Gubernationi praeerant who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government distinguishing them from the Deacons who were set over the Churches Treasure Adding that Tit. 1.5 such whom the Apostle Named Presbyters v. 7. he calls Bishops non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios sibique Subordinatos Praesules sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae
Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds that these who have Laboured in Reforming the Church these Five Hundred Years have Taught that all Pastors be they Entitled Bishops or Priests have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word Citing first the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next Marsilius Patavinus Defens Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr we will find Bishop Iewel fully Combats him in this Point Defens Apol. cont Hard. Edit An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding saith he to make it an Heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one Knows he how far and to whom he reaches the Name of an Heretick Then he Cites Chrystos on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing that inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no Difference Ierom ad Evagrium asserting that Apostolus perspiâ—ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos The Apostle clearly Teaches the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same calling the contrary Opinion a Vecordia or Folly Also August Quest. Vet. N. Test. Quest. 101. Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter Amb. de Dignit Sacerd. Episcopi Presbyteri una est Ordinatio Asserting that the Ordination and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same All these and many more Holy Fathers saith Bishop Iewel together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings Advice must be holden for Hereticks I will add and all these and many more together with the Apostle Paul by this Dr's Advice must be holden for Novelists and Scots Schismaticks But there are other Bishops will yet enter the Lists with our Dr Bishop Pilkinton on Revelation and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church Bishop Bilson Perpet Gover. Cap. 2. Yea more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 Dr. Humphray in Campian Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration 3. Whittaker above Cited So also ad Rationes Campiani Ration 6. Confutat Duraei Lib. 6. Chemnitius Gentiletus the great Examinators of the Council of Trent the one a Divine the other a Lawyer doth both Condemn as a Trent Error our Dr's Assertion anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter the one by Scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon Law We have heard that Dr. Reynolds for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter tells us It s needless to speak of the particular Persons since it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Poland the Low Countreys and our own Witness the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 11. Now from all that is said whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches be not for the Official as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum and Sophistical and Childish Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers who shall Weigh what is said in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason Before I proceed I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument He says this is our great Argument That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture And therefore we conclude that our Argument a Confusione nominum is demonstrative and solid As if when we maintain that in Scripture there is no distinction betwixt these Offices we meant a Nominal only and not a real diversity Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites or conferred with any Presbyterian who understands the Controversy he would have found that from the Scriptures Cited and many Paralels it s an Official oneness not a Nominal only we plead for and that our Arguments therefrom has such Nerves as he durst not medle with The Dr. tells us P. 23. That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest falls not under his enquiry nor is it very Material considered with Respect to the common Priesthood and Subordinat Officers they might be of the same Order tho at other times when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Here I must say is a strange Confusion and that not Nominum but Rerum 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion got into the Heads of his Countrymen and some others but never heard of this 1400 years For curing of which he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet yet he will not enquire whether a Bishop be of a higher Order or not to a Presbyter i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he have the Right in this Debate If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order his Countrey Presbyterians are Right their Arguments which ly level to this scope are good and Conclusive and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop The Antithesis whereof viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop of a Superior Order eo no nine the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris focis yet he says the enquiry into this Point which to all men of Sense is the Cardo Questionis is not in it self Material Let any ponder whether this stout pretended Signifer doth not here let fall his Standart and even flees at the First alarm 2. He tells us when Authority and Iurisdiction is named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Now I do appeal to all Men of Common sense whether the Dr dos not here Assert 1. A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter 2 By clear Consequence that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter or else how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him 3. That the Bishop under that Character and eo nomine is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him Now all this being his Assertion in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors how can he decline the enquiry whether the Bishop be of an higher Order Let any Judge if he says not this upon the Matter the thing is Clear in it self in the Scripture Accounts and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments or make good my own 3. He tells us they are sometime considered as of the same order with respect to the common Priesthood I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial