not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
THE GOOD Old WAY Defended Against the Attempts of A. M. D. D. in his BOOK Called An Enquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of SCOTLAND Wherein the Divine Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters Acting in Parity is Asserted and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is disproved the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Episcopacy as now Pleaded for are made Manifest from Scriptural Arguments and the Testimony of the Antient Writers of the Christian-Church and the groundless and unreasonable Confidence of some Prelatick Writers exposed Also the Debates about Holy-Days Schism the Church-Government used among the First Scots Christians and what else the Enquirer Chargeth us with are clearly Stated and the Truth in all these Maintained against him Likewise some Animadversions on a Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery in so far as it misrepresenteth the Principles and Way of our First Reformers from Popery where the Controversie about Superintendents is fully handled and the Necessity which led our Ancestors into that Course for that Time is Discoursed By GILBERT RULE one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH EDINBURGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Excellent Majesty Anno DOM. 1697. To the Right Honourable PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT Viscount of BLASONBERRY LORD POLWARTH of POLW ARTH REDBRAES and GREENLAW c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND My Noble Lord I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns as for the State so for the Church of CHRIST as now Established in this Nation My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rulâ—rs Favour having had for many Years the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church and of the Nation In utraque fortuna and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both But what I aim at is to express the true Sense I have as I know my Brethren also to retain of your Lordships Wisdom Zeal and Fortitude encountering the Greatest of Hazards and enduring the most grievous of Hardships for that Holy Religion that ye Profess and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey The eminent Post your Lordship is now in as it is a Token of your Princes Favour and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service of another Sort and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things when ye have the Occasion and Temptation of seeking your own Things as ye did when ye Ventured and lost your All in this World for him GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble and that ye will be singly and actively for him the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work and Occasions are uncertain There will be great Peace in Reflection when our Work is at an endâ— on sincere Endeavours and Application of Mind to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship and continue your Capacity to do Him Service and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings is the earnest prayer of Edinburgh December 20 1697. My Noble Lord Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant G. R. TO THE READER THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War being for my Age Miles emeritus needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth and right Ways of GOD should be Stopped and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way when I entered on this Work nor till I had finished it After it was in the Press and some Progress made in it I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela Voâ—um Justum wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with are solidly Refuted and the main Subject that I Treat off is Handled which made me think that Bâ—ok might Supersede mine Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self and my own second Thoughts finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected And that the one Work is more Historical the other more Argumentative so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched and that two Witnesses are better than one these Considerations I say determined me not to stop the Press And indeed the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors on the slenderest Grounds should be exposed as much as may be while they Build so Important Truths and Practices and press them so warmly on Phrases Words and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients which signified quite another thing then than what now they are commonly applyed to The Learned Clericus in his Preface to Ars Critica Sect. 3. at the end hath these Words here very apposite Quot quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur in numerato habere qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt nempe Vocabula nuda didicerant aut Voces quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery And in that Case Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I Build my Church and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time doth infer his sole Power seing as our Lord in another Place giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters as well as they several times mention that of Bishops without mentioning Presbyters No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case ERRATA PAge 1. line 16. read Principle p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems p. 50. l. 5. r. James p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses p. 150. l. 36. r. them p. 181. l. 37. r. approved p. 186. l. 37. r. great p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank p. 199.
of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei◠not being so sensible of the
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
distinguisheth them than as the one word signifieth Office or ruling Power the other the Age of them who use to be put into that Office and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office yet not when it is joined with and distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is clear that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters as he had done several times in the Epistle as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers not one but more in the Church of Corinth and as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elder in years wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety § 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation that this Author pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel insisteth only on that which is of least weight even in the Testimony already mentioned as is above shewed and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings without so much as mentioning them Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned that Clement telleth us that the Apostles knowing per Dominum by Divine Revelation that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church so far were they saith Blondel from thinking Prelacy the best or only Remedie against Schism as some did in after ages He doth also shew how Clement teacheth that the Presbyters or Bishops for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons were set in the Church by the Apostles and after by other excellent men so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church not by the Bishop and Patron and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course need fear no Change And after sheweth how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth it had then stood as it is thought about 25 years should move Sedition against her Presbyters some turbulent Spirits among them withstood not a single Bishop of whom not a word in all this Discourse but the Presbyters of the Church and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters that were settled in it it seems he did not name the Bishop nor provided against Sedition against him because he knew no such person at Corinth And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters Now all this insisted on by Blondel he passeth by which was his wisdom and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath far less weight than these Passages have § 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp which is that writing to the Church of Philippi he taketh no notice of their Bishop that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons not mentioning the Bishop but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church His Answer to all this is first that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters while he saith Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself and answereth it fully and easily calling it nuda Conjectura and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself from his being the older man and the older Minister And being ordained by an Apostle which was a Dignity though it gave no Superiority of Power as being better known to the Philippians and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages where no Superiority of Power can be imported All this our Author passeth over in silence Next he saith this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie which is a mistake for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune which could not all be Diocesans and their Head the Bishop is not noticed and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative because as was above shewed of Clement he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned if such a person had been in that Church He will prove p. 51 that this can be no Argument for Parity Because first Irenâ—… refutes the Heresies of the Valentians from the unanimous Dâ—… preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp which could be no Argument if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters I ask him how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument Do not Ministers in any Church succeed one to another as well as Bishops And if they be faithful they will continue the true Doctrine and hand it down to their Successors as welâ— as Bishops would do Neither hath it any force that single Successon are mentioned for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie who is mentioned as more eminent though having but equal power If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine not by Episcopal power His other proâ—… is the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted of which our Author wâ—… speak in due time When he shall please to speak of Ignatius we shâ—… consider what he saith and hope to find that all the proof he caâ—… thence bring is insufficient Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book Ergo he approveth all that is in it 〈◊〉 he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles in that they assâ—… Prelacy that had been to the purpose otherways his Inference 〈◊〉 without all force § 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas in his Book calleâ— Pastor on whom he layeth very little stress as is evident to any whâ—… will read Blondel without prejudice and I think Blondel needed not 〈◊〉 have mentioned him both because he is of little Authority it beiâ—… most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book whether 〈◊〉 mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct witâ— respect to Hermas 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences froâ— him that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book wâ—… written which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circulâ—… Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement then Bishop 〈◊〉 Rome Answer This Evidence and the
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
viz. his Epistles If we have no more Certainty about the Epistles than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Martyr and other Popish Relicks few wise Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them That Polycarp made a Collection of these Epistles and Irenaeus cited them proveth no more but that good Men may be imposed on by Forged Writings Eusebius rejected some suppositions Books after accurate Enamination were a good Argument if it could be made out that he rejected all such the contrary whereof is well known For his Belief that the Orations of Cicero are genuine let him enjoy it but if he build his Faith on any Article of Religion or his Practice of Piety towards God on that Certainty I cannot do so too Whether Cicero wrote these Orations or not is neither a Matter of such Moment nor so contested by plausible Arguments as what we now Debate is § 45. What remains of my Antagonists Discourse on this Controversie about Episcopacy is a Recapitulation of what he hath already said in nine Questions which he seemeth to set down as so many Trophies of Victory over all his Adversaries and a few other Hints for strengthning his Cause His Questions need litle Animadversion all that is contained in them being already Answered and his Opinion in these things disproved whether concludently and solidly or not the Reader will judge His first three Questions do all suppose that we are against Prelacy merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy used in Scripture which is a false Supposition I have proposed our Argument with more strength Sect. 4. § 5. so as it is no way touched by what he here saith wherefore it is no loss to our Cause if we give a negative or affirmative Answer to these Questions whether he shall chuse To his fourth Question I Answer that Apostolick Power as to its permanent Branches was perpetual and successive my Answer must be Tautological because his Question is such but not so as to all its Essential Branches As to its necessary Branches if he mean what is necessary to the Beeing or Idea of an Apostle I deny these to be Perpetual and Successive To the second part of this Question I Answer negatively that this Power was not transmitted in solidum to single Successors in particular Sees but to a Colledge of Presbyters Question fifth Where Superiority is forbidden is most impertinent to our Debate seing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it he should bring either a Command for it or what is equivalent The Popes Monarchy over the Church is not more forbidden than the Superiority of one Priest as he speaketh over another both of them must be Juris Divini in his Opinion I retort his own Argument if Parity be not plainly forbidden which I am sure he cannot shew then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Episcopacy such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government is Groundless and Chymerical It is enough to us that Christ hath instituted Parity and he hath not allowed Men to change it we think this a sufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pleadeth for His sixth is a heap of Questions to which I Answer we deny the universal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth and say a more universal Tradition might be demanded We deny also that the Argument from universal Tradition exclusive of Apostolick Tradition if he can bring that he hath done his Work is in this Case either the most proper or most necessary Scripture Command or Example is both more proper and more necessary For the seventh we do not pretend there was such a great Change so suddenly as he fancieth we do and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Possibility of it I have said enough on this head § 41. To his eighth we affirm that Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly represented by Presbyterians and have answered what he saith to the contrary Sect. 6. § 7. seq His last Question about Ignatius's Epistles may be retorted on himself whether there be any solid Argument brought for them sub judice lis est Himself declineth that Debate as I also do It is enough to us that even the Testimonies out of these Epistles are not concludent and if the Epistles were Authentick their Authority is but Humane and Fallible and cannot be a Prejudice against Divine Institution and indeed cannot make Faith where the Question is de Jure Divino as here it is § 46. I now proceed to consider some immethodical and incoherent Notions with which he concludeth this Chapter He telleth us p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Praesidency since the days of the Apostles he might have added and in their days too so that the Quarrel is not so much against Episcopacy as against the Extent of their Diocess and Increase of their Power over what it was in the Primitive times Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more absolute than now it is pretended to be for nothing was to be done without the Bishop a Presbyter might not Baptize without his express Indulgence as Tertull witnesseth This Testimony of Tertull. I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examed § 49. By Bishop may either be understood the Moderator not in his single Capacity but with the Presbytery none might act within their District but by their Allowance or a Parish Minister none might Baptize c. in his Parish but by his Consent He next citeth Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth writing to the Gnossians exhorting Pinytus their Bishop not to lay the heavy burden of Caelibacy I suppose that he meaneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Brethren that is the Clergy whence he wisely inferreth the Power of Pinytus to have done this And citeth on his Margin Euseb. hist. Eccles. but neither Book nor Chapter nor the place of Dionysius where the words may be found A. Euseb. hist. lib. 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epistle of Dionysius to Pinytus and his Answer to him where he checketh Dionysius for that Advice to him But nothing of all this importeth the Power of Pinytus to forbid Marriage he might say on this burden by preaching the necessity of Caelibacy without Authoritative imposing it Yea he might impose it as Praeses by the concurrent Authority of the Presbytery without sole Jurisdiction He mentioneth likeways the Canon Apostol and Ignatius's Epistles but citeth nothing out of them so that he cannot expect an Answer As to the Extent of Diocesses we no further make an Argument from it than we maintain that a Pastor of a Church should have no larger Charge than he can dispense the Word and Sacraments to and that he should not do this by Deputies under him We lay no Stress on the word Diocess nor on the unequal Extent of a Pastors District provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without such Superiority over others
What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing unless he can evince that the Presbyters who were necessary for the growing Charge were his Underlings not his Collegues § 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy as he thinketh he manageth p 164 seq from James Bishop of Jerusalem who was over many Congregations for the Increase of Christians was such as that they could not meet in one place The Answer hath been before given James was no ordinary Bishop but an Apostle and had Jurisdiction not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea but in all the World He telleth us that we use many Evasions but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them when he knoweth which of them we most trust to If I had dealt so by his Book no Answer had been given to it I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to nor which of them doth best deserve that regard If he had answered all that we say he could not have missed what we most trust to he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions not according to our Esteem of them but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice we are not much concerned in it it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City provided their Pastors be not subject to one but Co-ordinate among themselves His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir◠was needless he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel Dally and Salmasius yet that Author might modestly put him in mind how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken and when he had in his own Apprehension baffled that triumph over Presbytery as if never more had been said for it while he hath neither out of his own Store nor from the Answers of thess Books brought any thing against our main Arguments SECTION VIII Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined judging it more proper for some States Man or one who is versed in the Law his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament which he treateth very saucily but finding that they neglected his Book and think it below them unless they could also find his Person and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another if not the same Author here speaking more dareingly from behind the Curtain on second thoughts I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth in some short animadversions such as I have already made upon his Preface in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament I know the hazard of that from the experience of others but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen which touch not this matter He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries I shall consider what he saith on each of them § 2. His first Enquiry is Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters I observe two Mistakes to give them no worse Names in thus stating the Question First it is enough to us if our Reformers were mostly though not solely Presbyters if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work Secondly it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church when they had withdrawn from Subjection to the Roman Hierarchy for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers being now Reformed for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government But to gratifie my Adversary a little I so far yield to the State of his Question as to maintain that few if any had an Active Hand in the Reformation who had been Popish Bishops but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work If he would have cleared the Question he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House but confounded all and builded a Babel of their own devising To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560 who all turned Protestants this is little to the purpose for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time Preachers and some private Men did more for the turning Persons to the Truth than Parliament Men did 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number if there had been no more Hands at the Work it had gone slowly on 3. Among all these eight there were but two Bishops the rest were Prelates indeed in the Popish Sense Abbots and such like but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates or that they have superior Power in the Church to Presbyters 2. He telleth us that they who laboured most in the Reformation were not in Holy Orders and nameth some of them Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops It is true many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way nor were they Presbyters in that Church but when they turned Protestants they were made Presbyters and not Bishops Yea Claud. historic def of the Reformation part 4. page 15. saith that in many Nations among whom he nameth Scotland the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors to wit Monks Preachers Priests Curats Canons c. And it is as certain as History can make it that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops Argyle and Galloway Some of them and these of good Note and who were eminently blessed with Success were but Lay-Men as he frazeth it who by their private Labours converted many and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly by such Ordination as then could be had but they were never exalted to be Bishops Let me digress a little to observe that the Laird of Dun by this Authors account was after made a Superintendent
but never received into Holy Orders by any thing that appeareth whence I infer that in the Opinion of that time a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop which our Brethren use to plead for I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry they amount to no more but that there were but few Ministers and many Reformers were Lay Men to all which I Answer this sheweth that Presbyters and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had It was far otherwise in England where the State carried on the Reformation whereas in Scotland the greatest both in State and Church opposed it as long and as much as they could and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth did rather comply with the Reformation than actively promote it notwithstanding of all which it is unbecoming a Protestant to call our Reformation violent and disorderly as he doth p. 7. out of Spotswood § 3. The second Enquiry is Whether the Scots Reformers what ever were their Characters were of the present Presbyterian Principles whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment and try his Critical Skill on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle In which it is not my Province to interpose I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry if it be granted that Parity and not Prelacy was the Church Government that they chused If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren it will make more against themselves than against us for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity but they chused this and rejected that notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it under Popery We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity that they shewed so much Zeal for it as they did though they had not that Light about it that after times afforded It is certain that that Dispute which had so long by the Tyranny of the Bishops been buried and forgotten except among the Church in the Wilderness which few knew of the Waldenses could not at first be so fully understood as by further Enquiries it came to be Notwithstanding it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini though they did not much insist on the Debate about that for in the Book of Policy Chap. 1. they have these words this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirk gathered not to a single Bishop and hath ground in the Word of God to be put in Execution by them unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk by lawful Calling is committed Here it is plain that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government and chap. 2. There is this Article and to take away all occasion of Tyranny he that is God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with equality of Power every one according to their Function And after there are four ordinary Functions or Offices in the Kirk the Office of the Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elder and the Deacon Where it is evident that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right § 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie for if it were yielded it doth not hurt our Cause And his Arguments are verbose tedious and insignificant I shall only point at them and the Answers that may be made to them There is p. 9. c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe the Popes Supremacy was Debated but not Prelacy Ans. nihil sequitur our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists He doth falsly assert p. 10. that Churches when they are Reformed set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State as in Geneva which was a Common-wealth they set up Paritie For who readeth Calvins Writings may see that they built on another Foundation even Divine Institution and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary Paritie was in the Church and Monarchy in the State He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government he will soon see on whose side the impudence is He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful If Christ hath instituted a Form as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form inconsistent with that to be absolutely or simply unlawful He telleth us ibid. that Beza saith that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable if duely bounded by the pure canons of the ancient Church and I say the same for then it would be no more but a Presidencie which doth not destroy Paritie He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church which is not our Debate If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal no more are we unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us His second Proof is our Reformers had no peculiar Motives or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy nor interest to determine them to Paritie nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments seing most of them except England set up the same Government Thirdly He argueth thus none of the Confessors or Martyers or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection have given that as their Opinion And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times but what is that to the Order p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops against Presbyters as well as Bishops p. 19. And he hath a long Debate with some of our Historians about the Opinion of John
to greater Criminals 26. To restore Criminals 27. He had the Power of Excommunication 28. To delate attrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrat 29. They had great Power over Schools and Colledges 30. They were the Licensers of Books § 10. Quae non prosunt singula juncta juvant here is a large Muster Roll to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train that might have been to as much advantage drawn into a narrower Compass I shall first Make some general Observes on all this Heap of Prerogatives Next Examine them particularlie but very succinctlie For the former I observe 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at first more absolute and independent on the rest of the Ministers than afterward because at first there were hardlie any qualified Ministers but only Readers or such as could Catechise the People newly come out of Popery but when there was a better Stock of qualified Ministers and yet the Church but meanlie provided the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence and was little other than a constant Moderator and his Power was by every General Assembly abridged till that Office was at last abolished as no longer needful in the Church 2. It is not denyed but that there was an Imparitie between a Superintendent and another Minister but this was lookt on by our Reformers not as a standing Office nor as having any Foundation but that of present Necessitie so that it did no way derogate from that Paritie that they lookt on as the Way that the Church should be Governed and as what they intended when their Case should allow it But of this more afterward 3. All this cannot make the Superintendent and the Bishop to be the same Officer in the Church because the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Christ and his Soveraign power over the Presbyters is by Divine Appointment the other is set up by Men and more or less Power is given to him as they think fit The one is accountable to none but Christ the other is accountable to the Presbyterie and may be Censured yea Deprived by them The one is lookt on as what should always continue in the Church the other was designed but for that Exigency of the Church to be laid aside when that was over 4. Not a few of these Prerogatives are either asserted without Ground or Misrepresented To make out which I proceed to the second thing I proposed viz. To Examine them particularlie for the first The Extent of their District is no Argument for such Disparitie as he pleadeth for they had each of them their proper Charge as other Ministers where they were ordinarilie to Labour but had larger Districts for Visitation 2. Their Nomination by the Council and Election by the Nobility and Gentry is asserted without Ground Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it nor do I find any thing to that purpose in any of our Historians 3. A Superintendent could not be deposed but by the Ministers of the whole Province This necessarilie followed upon his Charge or Power of Visiting being of that Extent In that he was deposeable by the Ministers it is evident he was no Bishop in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bishop 4. The same reason was for his being Elected by the Ministers of the Province What our Author saith of the Ordination of the Superintendent is a foull Misrepresentation as any one may see in the place he citeth Spots hist. lib. 3. p. 159 160. Nothing is there mentioned but Election and Trial but on the contrarie it is expreslie said other Ceremonies than this Examination the Approbation of Ministers and Superintendents with the publick Consent of Elders and People we do not admit Whence it is evident that he had no new Office nor Ordination above a Presbyter § 11. His fifth Prerogative is He was not to be Translated from one place to another but by a Council of the whole Church This is no Episcopal Jurisdiction The Extent of his District to a Province made this necessarie there being no Judicature above his Province but a General Assembly 6. It is least of all Argumentative that he was to give good proof of his Qualifications by being some time in the Ministry because the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Ministry was the Rise of his Office therefore he must be the best qualified that can be had 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument he had more Work and Occasion for Expense by Travelling to Visit Churches than the rest had It is falslie alledged that Spots p. 210. saith it was agreed 1567. that the Superintendent should succeed to the Beneflces of the Popish Bishops deprived there is not such a word in that place only there and in the former page it is agreed that the Church should be restored to her Patrimonie 8. There being constant Members of the General Assembly saith no more but that there being so few qualified Ministers these few choice Men were needed in the Assemblies of the Church 9. His trying Ministers and Readers was from the present necessities of the Church when Presbyteries could not be had to do it 10. His giving Collation did follow on the former Power 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Minister fell to him and his Council He could not place a Minister by himself as our Bishops pretended to do but by the assistance of such Ministers as were fittest to judge these were his Council this also was for the present necessity and want of Ministers to make a Presbytery 12. His power of Ordination our Author passeth very slightly and with a general alleging of several Acts of Assemblies It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himself when no other Minister could be had to joyn with him but as soon as Presbyters could be had it was not so Our Reformers used no other Ceremonie in Ordination but Nomination and Tryal and Approbation and it is evident that these were to be performed by the Superintendent with the rest of the Ministers for Spotsw p. 155. sheweth out of the Book of Discipline that this Tryal and Approbation was to be performed by the learned Ministers appointed for their Examination then not by one Man alone 13. Subjection to him which our Author is pleased to call Canonical Obedience was a necessarie consequent of his Office but it is to be observed that in the Assemblie 1562 out of which he allegeth this Passage Superintendents were Tryed and Censured by the Assemblie and it was appointed that at every Assemblie they and Ministers and Elders should be Tryed as to their Conversation which looketh not like Episcopacy 14. His power of Visitation was indeed his main Characteristick but doth not prove Episcopal jurisdiction it being delegated to him by the Church and he being Accountable to her for it 15. His power of Deposing is expresly said to be given him by the Assemblie and he is ordered to report his
in former times Presbytery continued only Bishops were superinduced therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations till driven from them but at the last Settling of Episcopacy Presbytery was razed so far as Men could and what Shew of it was left stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to it being an owning of a Power in the Church which they are convinced is unlawful His fourth Argument is No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History to whom that Name is more agreeable than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Answer to this the Donatists were mentioned as Schismaticks more justly reputed such than the Scots Presbyterians can be And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance to whom I confess what was said agreeth more directly viz. That they separated because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists in many Circumstances that do no way concern the present Purpose and in which are some Mistakes as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records as that Lapse of Memory is ascribing somewhat to the Donatists which agreeth better to the Novatians and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks they both had the same Rise Donatus in Africk and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome together with one of the same Name who upon Discontent came from Carthage to Rome and joyned with him in making a Schism both of them were as they thought disobliged by the Election of a Bishop the one that Caeciliaenus was Elected who as he alledged was ordained by a Traditor yea was a Traditor himself that is in time of Persecution had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt the other that Cornelius was made Bishop both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church than the rest of the Pastors had the one that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy through their Communion with them who had been Traditors the other that they who so had fallen or otherwise in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to Church Communion again nor get Absolution though he nor his Followers did not deny that they might obtain Mercy from God upon true Repentance the contrary of which some impute to them both of the Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Puritans both of them separated from all the Churches of the World and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour especially the Donatists and among them the Circumcelliones who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them Both of these Schisms spread far and wide It is observed by some that there were of both sorts Men of strict Lives Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith of the Donatists Cresconius said they confessed the same Jesus born dead and risen again they had the same Religion and the same Sacraments and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head but about the Body not about Christ but about his Church Augustin de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith they were agreed in the Creed in Baptism and other Sacraments of our Lord also Ep. 162. he telleth us that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome and his Brethren â—ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Caeâ—ilianus had ordained which Condescendence is also evident from Collat 1. Carthag Art 16. apud Optat. Milevit p. 45. 6. Edit Paris 1631. § 13. Our Author tells us that we ought to have named Schiâ—maticks in the Primitive Church whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians which I shall shew in these Three things 1. They had no good nor sufficient Ground to separate we declare that we will never separate because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion as the Novations did nor because some Ministers and People are not so innocent as they should be as the Donatists did we condemn their Schism as much as he doth What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact as was made appear First By some Judges appointed by the Emperour to try the matter next by a Synod held at Arles And lastly by the Emperour after a full Hearing of the Matter and if it had been true it was no just ground of Separation though it had been a great Grievance The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all because the Church was not culpable in such Admission which they did unreasonably blâ—me Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable What we dislike is an usurped Power set up in the Chuch and humane Ceremonies imposed on us and our owning of these formally in Words or materially in our Practice is made a condition of our Communion with the Church It is true if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable and that what we dislike is Warrantable he may blame us for none Complyance but what is the Question between him and us if we Scruple without cause the blame lieth on us if not the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things Wherefore the Determination of this Point who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present dependeth on the Question now under Debate about Episcopacie and Ceremonies 2. We always were willing to unite with them if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways which themselves confess to be indifferent I mean the Ceremonies and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie directly nor indirectly The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace It is not what they do that skareth us from them but what they will needs force us to do 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion as the Schismaticks of old did Who either of their Clergy or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate 4. We do not condemn their Church as no Church as the Donatists did to all beside themselves we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of which had to do with the Donatists that Church was willing to forbear them even in their most unreasonable Separation and to indulge such as were of
most Observable in the Apostolick Church I suppose that the helping such as were ready to fall did most properly belong to the Spiritual Governours This is above answered and it is not one whit stronger by being said over again Further he Asserteth but hath not shewed us how the Context leadeth to this Interpretation his supposing it to be most proper to the several guids to help them that fall doth not prove his design unless he could shew that there was an Officer in the Church who had his Designation from thus helping People and when he hath done that he must shew that this is peculiar to the Bishop and that no other Church Officer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from helping them who are ready to fall That Grotius telleth us that the Antient Greeks interpreted the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a wronging of Grotius who saith not Graeci veteres but Graeci complures and it is nothing to his purpose for Grotius saying it doth not prove it neiâ—her doth Grotius cite any of the Graeci complures Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiae I can not get at present but if he say what our Author alledges his sole Authority must not carry it against all others who have written Lexicons Hamond on the Place Expoundeth it of Bishops not on Account of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Governing Power but because they had the Care of the Poor and the Dispensing of the Goods of the Church as I shewed in the Place above Cited of this Book Which if it were granted would make nothing for Episcopal Jurisdiction We maintain that the Deacons are here meant and if the Bishops be Deacons let them have this Place in the List of Church Officers For they had no Room in it before nor on the Score of Jurisdiction over other Church Officers I do not derogate from Grotius his Knowledge of the Signification of Words nor of his Ability to have Written a Lexicon but I do not look on him as beyond a Possibility of Mistake even in that wherein he excelled And indeed he speaketh very doubtfully of this Matter as his Words Cited by my Antagonist do shew nor doth he positively say that the Bishops are meant by this Word Another Proof of the Signification of the Word is from Ps. 48. 3. where the seventy use it to signifie the Lords helping his People what is this to the Purpose the Question is not whether this Word have the Notion of Help but whether it have the Notion of Government but our Author Mendeth the Matter making up by his Latine Translation what is not in the Greek for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie cum suscipiet cam nempe Civitatem in Tutelam why must it signifie this why may it not as well be turned cum opitulabitur illi Chrysost. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Munitionem Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Exaltationem None of all these signifie any thing of Government but of Defence or Support so that nothing in this Word agreeth half so well to the Bishops as to the Deacons Work I hope he will not think that because the Lord who is in this Psalm said to Help His People doth also Rule them that it hence followeth that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also a Ruler The same Import hath what he Citeth out of AEmilius Portus who from Suidas Translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propugnator Defensor Auxiliator For none of these Words import Government all that they signifie may be applyed better to the Deacon than to the Bishop I hope I have with the Current of â—xpositors offered a better Exposition of the Word we Debate about than Grotius hath Chosen and yet shall readily Comply with my Authors Advice in being far from Comparing my self with that great Man § 24. What he further saith of that Exposition of Jerom Quid facit Episcopus c. he hath often Repeated and it hath been as often Answered to which he had said something if he had shewed the Consistency of what I said could not agree but this he thinketh not â—it to Attempt only Entreats me to give a Paraphrase and Commentary on the Conclusion of that very Epistle of Jerom to Euagrius in which saith he Jerom affirmeth that the Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon was Founded on Apostolick Tradition and that they Hold the same Place in the Christian Church which the High Priest Priests and Levites had in the Temple For Satisfaction to this his Demand I refer him to Sect. 6. § 9 10. where what he Desireth is already Performed and it is shewed that Jerom meant no such thing as he alledgeth The hundred Things in my Book that he will not medle with and which he is pleased to call Triffling Stories or Personal Reflections must stand as they are let the Reader judge of what I have there said and of his Censure of it And yet he spendeth some Pages on a Story that he and I had formerly Debated which is of least Moment of any of them his Reason I shall not Enquire into nor do I intend to be any further Concerned in Jangle about Stories so variously told us as that is and which may be many Ways Disguised no part of which I was Witness to nor know any thing of but by Information For the Personal Reflections he chargeth me with he mentioneth but two I leave it to the Reader who shall think sit to Compare the two Books to Consider whether any thing is said of him but what to be Literally true himself had given Ground to think and they are Matters of Fact and of no great Moment save that they may derogate from the Strength of what he Writeth And let all Men of Candor and Understanding Witness between him and me whether in his Book now under Consideration and in his former Apology there be not many for one of mine of not only Personal Reflections on his Antagonist but Reflections on the whole Party without Distinction or Exception and that by Imputing to them the Worst of Evils and Treating them with the most Insolent Contempt that Words can express as I have here and there observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Reader may find presently after this his Complaint viz. 332 333 334. The Authority that the Presbyterâ—ans had over she Church of Scotland and consequently over the Episcopal Clergy I had Debated with him before I need say no more till he Answer what hath been already Discoursed on that Head What he saith p. 332. of his Resolution not to continue this Debate if not managed by greater Candor and Civility I do much approve if he will put that Condition on himself too If he or any else Write in his Strain yea if they bring not somewhat that is not yet Answered and is of Weight I think our Side will not Trouble them with more Arguings on this Head of Government there is enough said if Men will Listen to Argument if they will not what is said is too much For my Part I am weary of such Altercations and shall not be easily drawn into this Paper War any more thâ— I am Resolved by the Help of God never to Abandon the right Way of God nor to withdraw my Poor Help from the Truth and Oâ—dinances of Christ when it shall be needed and I shall be in any Capacity to aâ—â—ord â—t FINIS
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
Diligence to the next Assemblie which last our Author overlooketh 16. His Translating of Ministers is no more but that his Consent or that of the whole Church must be had to a Transportation it was then necessarie when there was no Presbyteries to Judge of such Matters 17. He greatly mistaketh when he saith that the Assemblie Enacteth that Ministers for the General Assemblie should be brought with the Superintendents c. which he will have to be Nominating them and he alloweth the rest of the Synod but a Consent whereas Spotsw p. 219. words it such as the Superintendents shall choose in their Diocesan Synods If he could choose them by himself there needed no Synod for this end that Expression can signifie no less than the Synods suffrage in the Election My Lord Glaâ—… Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick 18. He held Diocesan Synods because he was their Moderator 19. They might appoint Fasts is their bounds but with Advice of the Ministers 20. Modifying of Stipendâ— is no Spiritual Power and therefore impertinently here brought in 21. Appeals was made to him and his Synodal Convention here is no sole Jurisdiction 22. His power of Fineing is no Spiritual Power 23. Determining Cases of Conscience and otheir Questions was never committed to him alone but in the Synod and to them Yea Questions so determined were to be reported to the General Assemblie next ensewing so that Manuscript that he so often Citeth p. 14. 24. To judge of Divorces is a civil Power and not to our purpose 25. It is clear by his own Relation that the Injunction of Pennance as he calleth it is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod 26. Restoring of Criminals or Absolution did the same way belong to him 27. Notifying Criminals to the Magistrat is no part of Jurisdiction 28. Excommunication was not to be done by his sole Authority but by his Advice 29. His Power over Colleges And 30. His Licensing of Booke both of them Depend on the Civil Power and are not to our present purpose These short Notes may shew how little cause there is for his Triumph with which he concludeth this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives They prove a Disparity between him and other Ministers I confess which the Church in that her State thought necessarie for a time but on the other hand it is evident that some of them Prove as much Disparitie from and inconsistencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocesan Bishop which our Brethren plead for as belonging to him Jure Divino § 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dissipat the Mist wherewith the Paritie Men are so very earnest to darken the Prelatical Power of the Superintendents he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions The 1. Is it was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office but was Temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church For this he Citeth Calderwuod and Petrie asserting this with whom I do cordially joyn Against this he thus reasoneth p. 142. whether it was Temporary or not it was Prelacy and this is all that I am concerned for And to Fortiâ—e this he taketh in by force a Similitude from the Presbyterians making Address to King James a rare but useless piece of Wit Ans. If he be concerned for no more than this we are agreed And he yieldeth that our Reformers were not Episcopal but Presbyterian who in a case of extream Necessity gave for a time more Power to one Minister than another but made them all equal assoon as that Necessity was over It is such an Argument as if there were but one Congregation with their Minister and Elders in an Island they manage Church Discipline by themselves but assoon as they encrease and there are moe People and church Officers and more Congregations they set up a Presbyterie to which all the Congregations and their Pastors are Subordinate will any say that they are Independents because they were forced to Act Independentlie at first there is as little reason to conclude that our Reformers were Episcopal though they were forced to use a kind of Prelacie for a time Beside that I have above shewed some considerable Differences between the Prelacie of Superintendents and that of Bishops which our Brethren plead for § 13. His second Undertaking is to shew that we have no sufficient Ground in the Records of these times for pretending that the Office of Superintendents was designed to be Temporal To prove his Assertion he saith he hath seen no more insisted on to make out this but a Phrase in the first Head of the Book of Discipline at this time He transcribeth the whole Passage out of Petrie Cent. 16. p. 218. and so must I what was their the Superintendents Office saith he appears by the first Book of Discipline wherein it is written thus we consider that if the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make continual Residence that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should be not only the occasion of great Murmure but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient at this time that from the whole Number of Godly and learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected ten or twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks to set Order and appoint Ministers as the former Prescribed to wit the former Head to the Countries that shall be appointed to their Care where none are now Afterward it is added these must not be suffered to live as their idle Bishops have done neither must they remain where they gladly would but they must be Preachers themselves and such as may not make long Residence in one place till the Kirks be Planted and provided of Ministers c. To this our Author replyeth by giving us a Sense of his own of these Words in the first Book of Discipline viz. that because there were then so few Qualified for the Office of Superintendencie the Ten or Twelve were by far too few for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to Establish no more and though when the Church should be sufficiently Provided with Ministers it will be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that Juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling into their Districts to Preach and Plant Churches Before I Examine what he saith to Prove this to be the true Gloss of that Passage I shall Prove it to be contrarie to and inconsistent with the Passage it self And 1. There is nothing in that Discourse that doth so much as insinuate the scarcitie of Men fit to be Superintendents but of Ministers fit to Preach to the People they no way hint that this Setlement
the Reformation If any should object that this is a dispensing with the Law of GOD I Answer it is not Mans dispensing with GOD'S Law but his Judging that GOD in that Case dispenseth with his own Law or as Aquinas 2. 2. Q. 88. Art 10. Fit ut hoc quod erat lex non sit lex in hoc casu and 1. 2. Q. 96. Art 6. Qui in casu Necessitatis agit praeter verba Legis non judicat de ipsa Lege sed judicat de casu singulari in quo videt verba legis observanda non esse And indeed to denie all Influence of true real and innocent Necessitie to change the Moralitie of some Actions especially these that relate to Instituted Worship were to put Mens Consciences on such a Rack as there were some times no possibilitie to attain to well grounded Peace And on the other hand I hope what is said will Defend this Opinion from the horrid consequence that he is pleased to draw from it especially when we consider that this influence of Necessitie must be but for a time not perpetual because it is not to be thought that any of GODS Appointments are so contrived as to be always unpracticable or that the LORD will bring his Church or any Person under such a lasting Necessitie that they never can do what he hath Commanded they using their utmost endeavours to observe all that he hath Commanded as is injoyned Matthew 28. 20. I shall not Determine what Necessitie of Omission one may be perpetually under but I understand not how this can be with respect to possitive Acts contrarie to Institution § 22. He dealeth with a Second Plea that he imputeth to us p. 157 c. why our Reformers are not to be thought Episcopal in their Principles notwithstanding of their setting up Superintendents which is that these Superintendents did very much differ from Bishops in the Notion that our Adversaries have of Bishops The Author of the Ten Questions calleth that a New Modell of Episcopacy To take off this Calderwood bringeth some Differences between them and Bishops and Vindicat in Answer to the Ten Questions mentioneth also some of them and Addeth what after he confesseth to be Material All which he is pleased to ridicule with his wonted Insolencie but I am consident the judicious Reader will easily discern who is most Ridiculous he that Proveth a Superintendent not to be the same with a Bishop from his Election Examination and Admission that he had no new Consecration as Bishops must have and so was in no Superior degree to a Presbyter that there were no Arch-Superintendents as there were Arch-Bishops c. or he who compareth these to the ordinary Habit of the one with the State and Grandeur of the other in their distinguishing Marks which yet if not set down in such scurrile terms as he useth may make a great Difference between the Temper of the one sort of Men and that of the other though not of their Office or Power If our Reformers had intended to continue that sole Jurisdiction of Prelats in the Church which they found settled in it under Poperie this Change that they made even in these things is unaccountable nor can a Reason be given why they kept not to the old District that the Bishops had before Governed It is as evident as any thing can be made at such a distance of time that the Superintendents never had that absolute Power in the Church that our Episcopal Brethren now allow to their Prelats Though we denie not that they had a Frelacie and more Power than We now give to single Presbyters and have given the Reason why it was so and of its Consistence with the design of our Reformers that the perpetual Government of the Church should be by Paritie The main Difference between the two sorts of Church Rulers which we insist on and which himself acknowledgeth to be Material he falleth upon p. 159. and sayeth he must be serious in it is Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of Ministers within their own Dioces The Truth of which and that it neither was so with Bishops in the Primitive Church nor should be so now he doth freely Profess But he putteth his Wit to its utmost stretch to get a fair Answer to it He bringeth no less than Five Answers whereas one good one had been Worth them all His first Answer hath some what of Ingenuitie in it He condemneth our Reformers in this and sayeth it was a great Error in their Constitutions and declames against it with great Vehemencie that Governours should be Subject to the Censure of their Subjects and sheweth a great deal of Zeal for absolute Government both in Church and State into Debate about which I shall not now enter only I take Notice that here he fairly gives up that part of our Controvesie that he hath been at a vast deal of pains about that our Reformers were Episcopal in their Principles With which I am sure this is wholly inconsistent If he had thought of this sooner and Acted consequentially to it after this Thought came into his Head he he might have saved a greas deal of pains to himself and Me and near the Half of his long Book might have been spared His second Answer is this was put in their Constitution from a Principle about civil Government owned by them that the King is Major singulis but Minor omnibus which he also Ridiculeth Neither am I concerned to Debate this Principle it doth not belong to our our present Controversie But what he asserteth is a groundless Conjecture we have better ground to think that they lookt on this as according to the Laws of the Gospel which forbiddeth Church Domination His Third is they made also Ministers Censureable by their Elders and from thence taketh occasion to Reproach them as having little Skill in Church Policy nor will I degress into these Debates only I take Notice that what he saith is no Answer to our Exception but rather a Confirmation of it if both a Superinintendent was Censureable by the Synod and the Ministers by the Eldership it doth evidentlie follow that the Superintendents and the Bishops power were not the same A Fourth Answer is this was never put in Practice Reply It will be very hard for him to Prove this Negative but whether it was or not it sheweth that our Reformers did not intend Episcopacy when they set up Superintendents His Fifth is this Constitution doth not infer Parity Reply We do not say that Superintendents were in absolute Parity with other Ministers we confess a disparity of Power for that time All we plead is that our Reformers were not for Episcopacy even in that case of Necessity and the Imparity that they were then forc't to they did not intend should always continue § 23. The other Plea he mentioneth hath its Rise from his own fancie it was not used by us what he citeth
p. 181. 182. The first is that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments to which they are subordinate as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises I still think this is no sober Doctrine for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment even the Christian Sabbath Beside it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities though not in a separated Notion yet in a distinct Notion from the Word and Sacraments and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without than with Mans devices I mean the Holy days because having no Institution they have not the Promise of the Blessing and are but vain Worship but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People than the Holy days can have therefore there is a more Efficacious mean for that end what ever notion he take the Holy days in But the Reader may know that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him but several others of that or a higher strain which were Examined but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them with this shift he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologiâ— I find him at leasure for as needless Work as it were to Clear to us these and the like Passages do we not see all Nations agree in this that publicke Solemnities and annversarie Festivities and Fasts are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion this is a soaring flight of his fancie they preserve and increase our Mortification They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually and make more lasting Impressions than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men all the Sermons of the Presbyterians no doubt are here meant the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them he passeth over in silence the Reason is if ye will believe him not that he could not Answer all but because he was not at leasure A second Answer he bringeth is that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments and other Exercises of Religion and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision either formal or objective of the Holy day from the Religious Work of it while they Celebrate it without going to Prayers in idleness or that which is worse I know this is not the intent of the Church yet it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration I mean in Practice what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them will evanish if we consider that our Question is not whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses and Effects that he speaketh of for that we are agreed in that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion they preserve and increase our Mortification â—hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent c. that is they are Means adapted to these Ends but that which we Debate is whether these Ends may not be attained as well by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed or if the Holy days be necessarie or the Religious Exercises as performed on the Holy days be ne cessarie for that End This we deny and we require that they may Prove it And the Question is not whether the Holy days separated from Religious Exercises are abominable but whether Religious Exercise or the times of GOD'S Appointing it to wit the Weekly Sâ—bbath's without the Holy days be defective I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days in themselves or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack but such a time being separated for such an Exercise receives its Denomination from the Authoritie and Exercise it self by which it is distinguished from other Days This seemeth to be shuffling and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination even a relative Holâ—ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times So Hooker above Cited He should have told us whether he understandeth this relative Holiness or a mere Denominative Holiness that they are called Holy but there is nothing of Holiness in them even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to He doth indeed tell us that they are called Holy days by a relative and extrinsick Denomination which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible he Chargeth others with non-sense and gross ignorance on less Ground a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days which yet he seemeth to disown again If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted and the Exercises performed in them can communicate a relative Holiness to them wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days It hath no more but a relative Holiness resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it The Difference then must be only this that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making these a relative Holiness of Mans making and so Man as well as GOD shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days and consequently to Places and other Things and how much of the Popish Superstition and Power of Consecration that will bring in I know not neither I suppose was himself aware of it I think it is evident that the first Day of the Week which we own as the LORD'S Day hath no intrinsick Holiness of it self the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodiâ—k as maketh up the Number of Eight from where we begin to Count doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath he must prove that such Power is granted to her I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion What he Objecteth
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
Iâ—cumbred with the Affairs of Humane Life putteth them out of Case for attaining the Knowledge that we Debate about What he further hath under this Head is made up of Harsh Words and bitter Censures not to be Answered that the Catechism was only designed as the Badge of a Partie as if the Prelatists met at Westminster designed a Shibboleth for the Scots Presbyterians to be distinguished by this is wise talk he calleth it such Words as Monks and ill natured Zealots pitched upon it is nothing else but to lift up a Banner for Faction Ignorance and Superstition They the People are Taught by their Leaders to baule against the Ancient Methods of the Christian Church and that which they set up in Oposition to it leads them naturally to Pride and Enthusiasm Let any Man whose Tongue is under any Restraint from the aw of GOD or regard to Man tell us how this can be applied to the Catechism More stuffe of this Stamp he hath which I am wearie to Transcribe He saith this Charge may be fairly managed against the Catechism in general as well as against this Question And I am Confident all such Attempts may receive a full and plain Answer He is pleased also to Reproach the Homilies of the Presbyterians so in Contempt he calleth their Preaching of the Gospel with the same strain he must mean unintelligiblness from which he falleth into a new Fit of calling his Opposites by what ill Names he pleaseth Such an Indefinite Charge as this is not to be Answered but by Denying it and I am sure he can never Prove it the Stories collected or devised by his Friend the Author of the Presbyterian Bloquence are not Probative where Sense or Reason or Candor have place no not among his own Party who know the Presbyterians § 21. His next Charge against us is a Repetition of what he brought and I Answered before that the Scripture is not Read in Publick and this he saith is pursuant to the Design of keeping the People in the Dark He saith the Canonical Scriptures as well as the Apocryphal a double Grievance in his eyes are laid aside from publick use which he calleth a bold stroke of Atheism and Enthusiasm But wise Men will think that there is far more of Atheism in such a Bold Publick Unlimited Assirming of what is an Evidence of having no regard to Truth If there were any thing Argumentative as the whole is most Abusive and destitute of Truth in his Harangue that he seteth off these Falsehoods with I should be at the pains to give them a fair Answer see what is said of this § 14. He next p. 317. Quarrelleth with our Ruling Elders which he Introduceth with a Falsehood that is palpably such viz. that we have put away Deacons as well as Bishops the World knoweth the contrarie and if this Author do not know it he is very unfit to talk of the Presbyterians who is such a Stranger to their Way and Constitution We have Deacons whose Work it is to take Care of the Poor according to Apostolick appointment It is true our Deacons are not allowed to Preach and Baptize as these who in the Episcopal Church go under that Name for we find no Warrant for giving them that Power except it be immediately and extraordinarily given them by the LORD as it was to some not to all of the Primitive Deacons It is also true that in some places the Office and Work of Ruling â—lder and of Deacon is in the same Person which hath Warrant from the Word but that we have no Deacons is said without any Semblance of Truth Tho he knoweth that that Controversie about Ruling Elders who have no Preaching Power hath been much agitated between his Partie and us and his Antagonist whose Writing he never failleth to Oppose when he thinketh he can hath Written on that Subject yet he is pleased here to content himself with setting his Nigrum theta on this our Oppinion without endeavouring to Refute it except he will call it an Argument that he saith it is a Sacrilegious Usurpation on the Ecclesiastical Authority He hath Two Quarrels with them One is that they are not set apart by Imposition of hands I have no other Answer to this but that some among our selves are unsatisfied with this but they are Solemnly and Pubickly set apart for their Work and taken Engaged to it and therefore that want doth not Nullifie the Office That such an Office should be in the Church by CHRIST'S Institution I hold tho I will not undertake to justifie the Practice of our own or other Churches in some things concerning these Elders His other Fault that he findeth with them is that the Preachers encroach so on them that they never suffer them whose sole Office is Government to interpose in the most Essential Points of Jurisdiction viz. the Solemn and Authoritative Imposition of hands Administration of Sacraments and Absolution of Pâ—netents This Objection amounteth to no more but this Ruling Elders by Divine appointment have a Share in the Government of the Church for curbing of sin for they are Inspectores morum populi Ergo they have also all the Authority that CHRIST hath given to the Pastors of the Flock such Reasoning is not only in it self weak and fallacious but it doth ill suâ—e the Principles of this Author do not his Party at their own hand give some part of Church Authority to their Deacons as Preaching and Baptizing and withhold from them all the rest of it why then may not we with much more reason allow that CHRIST hath given part of Church Power to these Elders and yet not the whole of it But I consider his Objection more particularly the first Power mentioned by him as denyed them is Imposition of Hands on the Pastors of the Church If he can Prove that any other than Pastors have that Power by Divine Warrant he shall gain this Point Neither is it consistent with Reason that Imposition of Hands by which the Authority for dispensing the Word and Sacraments is conveyed should be done by them who have not that Power themselves for nemo dat quod non habeâ— The next is Administration of Sacraments This is not due to them because they are not the Pastors of the Church and because they are only Rulers of the Church whereas this Administration is no part of Government The 3d. is Absolving of Paenitents to which he might have Added excommunication and other Church Censures A. This belongeth to the Government of the Church they have a Hand in it nor is it done without them for both Censures and taking off Censures are Decreed in the Consistorie where they sit and vote only the Pronouncing or Executing of these Sentences in the publick Congregation is the Work of the Pastor both because publick Administration of CHRIST'S Ordinances are in his hand and because these Administrations are intermixed or conjoyned with the Word and publick Prayer