parts of him are now Extent As for the Catalogues of Succession which the Dr. mentions we have heard how shattered they are and inconsistent with themselves and Censured consequently by the Learned as deserving no Credit Next as we have heard out of Iunius the Ground of this fancied Succession Viz That the most Eminent Ministers for Moral Respects found in Church Records were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues and termed Bishops in conformity to the times wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained tho they were mere Presbyters and for most part contemporary one with another So we have from the same Iunius made appear what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers Viz. To prove against Hereticks that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin and the traduces Apostolici Seminis as it was called but not to point out or assert a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats And therefore in the Third place the Dr. says nothing to the purpose unless he can prove that by Bishops they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould with such an absolute Apostolick Authority as he suggests which untill he make good he does but â—eaâ— the Air and â—egg the Question For since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter indifferently as the Prelatisâ—â— themselves acknowledg it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop which the Fathers make use of their assertion of the Prelatical Office which the Dr. pretends The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters whom he imagins Bishops in his Sense Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. calls Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt the Presbyters that went before thee Thus also he expresses himself Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat Tertullian also Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores or Presbyters when he saith Praesident probati quique Seniores For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus his seeing Polycarp and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle who affirms he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times reckoning Eleven from Linus to whom he says Peter â—and Paul delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church It is Answered That this is abundantly obviat by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter and the intendment of the Fathers in such recitations Yea and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters lib 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt Reliquos vero qui absistunt a principali successione quocunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi haereticos malae sententiae vel quasi scindentes elatos sibi placentes c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap 44. he expresseth himself ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad Informationem correctionem aliorum From which Passages of Irenaeus the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned do infer 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles And I may add that if called so by the Fathers the terming of Prelats Successors of the Apostles is of no weight to prove the Dr's design 2 dly That they are also called Bishops 3 dly That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession 4 ly That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus which is not said of Presbyters and therefore such places cannot prove that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches Bishops distinct from Presbyters The Dr's two Countreymen Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop when applyed to Apostles and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them In a word in the forementioned Appendix the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is fully baffled from several Grounds 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop these of the first and later times being of a different Mould as to their Office and Power the later being Diocesian the first not so since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters and the Succession being drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the First Ordained Minister as among the Athenians there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers equal in Power and Authority yet the Succession of Governours there was derived from one who was the Chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio as Iunius expresses it and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister or the present Moderator and President 2 ly That the Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles times runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty and contradicts one another some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter some the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus are inextricable Some as we have above made appear calling Titus Bishop some Archbishop of Crete some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and the Apostle Iohn are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus at the same time Thus also Polycarp is said by some to be the First Bishop of Smyrna by others to Succeed one Bucolus and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities Two others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time What uncertainty and contradiction is here Iunius resolves the doubt Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5 Not. 15. viz. That these or some of these were Presbyters Ruling the Church in common but the following Ages fancying to themselves such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church fell into the Snares of Tradition supposing according to the custome of their own times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once which saith he is quite cross to the Apostolical times 3 ly Upon the former grounds and in correspondence to this account of Iunius they do inferr That these Authors make the Catalogues speak according to the language of
Augustin and Ambrose imputing also with Jerom the Episcopal Presidency which obtained in their time to the Churches Custom not to Divine Appointment do thus cast a contradicting blot upon his supposed Testimonies Ambrose acknouledging in special that non per omnia conveniunt Apostolorum scripta ordinationi quae nunc est in Eeclesia Comment in Cap. 4. ad Ephes. And tho it be controverted whether this was the true Ambrose yet we must tell him with the learned Professors of Saumur De Episcop Presb. Discrim P. mihi 300. Thes. 19. that he was Coetaneous with or rather more Ancient than Ambrose being Cited by Augustin who was Ambrose Disciple as an Holy Man lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4. which Epithet he would not have put upon a person of small account or one hetrodox 3 ly The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity of Bishops and Presbyters as his privat Judgment only but least he or any else suppose this he proves it by Divine Testimonies of the Apostles Writings yea and gives the same Sense of them which Presbyterian Writers do And therefore the Dr. must acknowledg him in so far acting a Divine Witness not giving a human Testimony only and that he more than â—utweighs his Human Testimonies else he is obliged to examin his Proâ—fs and Answer them and show if he can Ierom's Sense of these Scriptures to be disowned by any of his Authors which he doth not so much as attempt All who have seen Jerom's Testimony do know that he Reasons this Point of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter from Scripture least any should take this to be his private Opinion Putat aliquis saith he non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse the one Name importing the Age the other the Office of the Pastor Then he goes through these Scriptures Philip. 1.1 Act. 20.28 Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2.3 Drawing out upon the whole this Conclusion that the Bishops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters was rather by Custom than any true dispensation from the Lord. But of this again The Drs. Second Exception is That Jerom being a Presbyter himself speaks in his own Cause and in a warmth of Passion to curb the insolency of some pragmatick Deacons Ans. Jerom reasoning both in this place Cited and the Epistle to Evagrius this Point from Scripture and exhibiting the Divine Oracles the Apostles Doctrin and practice for what he holds speaks the mind of God and no Passion and untill the Dr. Answer his Scripture-reasonings in the Forecited Testimonies he is lyable to the Charge of imputing to the Scripture and to the Apostles Passion and Partiality As for his being a Presbyter himself what then can no Presbyter speak truely and impartially upon this head Besides he knows that several of his Witnesses for Episcopacy and whom he most Esteems are by him supposed Bishops of his high Hierarchical Mould and how shall we receive their Testimony in their own Cause And why may not we impute to them partiality and Passion and reject their Testimony unless their Episcopal Chair hath as that of the Pope a supposed infallibility anneâ—ed to it So that the Dr. is put to this Delemma either to quite his great Episcopal Testimonies as insufficient upon his own Ground or admit this of Jerom. It is the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens The Dr's Third Exception is That Jerom elsewhere owns the Bishop's Superiority whereof he exhibits First this Proof that in his Dialogue Advers Luciferians he gives this Reason why one not Baptized by the Bishop received not the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles Which the Dr. says makes it plain that he placed the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles A strange Proof indeed First we heard that Jerom Reasons the Point from Scripture that the Bishop and Presbyter are all one and therefore it is odd from Jerom's Naming a Bishop to understand him of his Hierarchical Bishop Again Jerom says quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbyter doth not A Clause and Passage we find the Dr. much harping upon but in his gloss upon this Testimony he doth in contradiction to himself and Jerom also appropriat to the Bishop the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism What if one Reason thus against the dispisers of this Ordinance Such a Person is not Sealed by the Spirit because not Baptized by a Pastor for the Holy Ghost Descended on the Apostles Will the Dr. disown this Reasoning Or will he own the Inference that therefore Pastors are equal to Apostles Or say it were such a Reasoning such a Person or Persons cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit not having heard the Converting Word Preached by a Pastor since the Apostles thus Converted and Ministred the Holy Ghost Will any but such as draw Reasons and Illustrations beyond the Moon as this Dr inferr that the Pastor is thus equal unto Apostles Will the Dr. in good earnest affirm that the Person who performs such Acts of the Power of Order as the Apostles did perform and with the saving Blessing of the Spirit is upon this Ground equalled in Office to the Apostles If so he must make all Faithful Pastors thus equal and overturn all his Reasoning from a supposed Succession of Bishops to the Apostolat The Dr's next Proof is drawn from Epist. 1. ad Heliod where he says the Bishops are in place of St. Paul and Peter And so say we are all Faithful Pastors whom Ierom makes one with Bishops according to the Scripture acceptation and at large makes it good in the place of Apostles as to the exercise of an ordinary Ministrie and the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Essential and necessar to the Church else our Lord had not promised His presence with His Apostles to the end of the World when He sent them out and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gospel and Disciple all Nations to Him Of the same Stamp is that which he Cits of Ierom on Psal. 45.16 That in stead of the Apostles gone from the World we have their Sons the Bishops the Fathers by whom they are Governed For I pray will this Dr. either assert 1. That Ierom held that the Power of Government and Authority Ecclesiastick died with the Apostles that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction was not to be preserved continued in the Church and Exercised by ordinary Church Officers and in this respect enjoined in the Fifth Comâ—and which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours and so are Ministers called in Scripture under the Character and Denomination of Fathers Or 2 ly Can he deny that Ierom holds that except Ordination or rather the Rituals of it at that time appropriat to the Bishop the Pastors and Presbyters performed all Acts of the Power of Order and Jurisdiction And that
the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man For if I must believe no otherwise anent the Office of these Angels and the Scriptures pointing out the same than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops their pretended Successors then the custom and practice of fallible Men becomes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio and demonstration a priori the great and chief ground why I believe Scriptures to have such a Sense and no other And thus we will give Men a Dominion over our Faith which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men A Principle which no sound Protestant will own Besides that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument and to instruct this Matter of Fact and that all Primitive Antiquity as he calls it doth testify for the Bishop which he has shapen out would inextricably baffle his indeavours as is above cleared It being evident that as the Writings of many of the First Writers are lost and not a fâ—w corrupted So many Eminent for Piety and Learning have written nothing in the First Ages which are therefore generally acknowledged to be very dark in the Matter of Fact The Affirmative proof lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear that neither the one nor the other has contradicted his supposed Testimonies else he but beats the Air and has said nothing to the purpose Thirdly The Scripture as hath been proved ascribing to Pastors the Power of Order and Jurisdiction and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus the Angel whereof is First here addrest Act. 20.28 Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14 1. Pet. 5.2.3 1 Cor. 5.4.5 When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors which surely is Antiquity prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity and of far greater veneration stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops Power and both are laid in even Ballances together which of the two will preponderat The Dr. for shame will not say the Second Hence I inferr that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture or quite this Plea And next he must acknowledg that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office and our Arguments drawn therefrom before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice Again Fourthly We may here ply â—he Dr with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould The Dr. thinks it strange how we can suppose the Church to have so suddenly altered the Government from Presbytrie to Episcopacy if Presbytrie was her first Government But I would ask the Dr since its evident in Scripture that Pastors and Presbyters have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them yea and in the premised Scriptures several such paralells its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in and competent to them And in special since the Elders and Pastors of the Church of Ephesus are enjoyned by Paul in his last Farewel to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time that all this Episcopal Authority competent before to Pastors of Churches and particularly of Ephesus is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop How came all the Churches of Asia to be so suddenly cast in this Mould And to press the Querie a little further if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity as the Dr. pretends yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself as well as by Augustin and Ambrose how comes Ierom to say that even in his time the Elders were subject to the Bishop by Custom not Divine Dispensation Comment on Tit. and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time Caetus Presbyterorum a Meeting or Court of Presbyters which he calls an Apostolick Senat How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra Canon 18 How comes Ambrose or a Father Coetaneous to him upon Eph. 4. to assert that after the Church was enlarged caepit alio modo gubernari it began to be Governed after another manner than at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. the Government of the Church in his time was not every way suteable and square to the Apostolick Appointment How comes Augustin Epist. 10. to assert with Ierom that by Custom of the Church Episcopatus was major Presbyterio How comes Firmiliâ—nus apud Cyprian Epist. 78. to assert that the Pastors or Presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem possesses the Power of Ordination And these Presbyters he calls Praepositi Presidents or Rulers using that very Term from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts that inter Presbyterum Episcopum inter est ferme nihil there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter and that which is spoken by Paul to the one agrees also to the other Now if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients in point of the Bishops Power as the Dr. pretends I would fain know what means this immusical Jarring and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion and even by these very Fathers whom he brings for his Vouchers Hence Fifthly it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies and his pretended Argument from all Primitive Antiquity is pitifully Lame and short of his Design upon two important Grounds 1. That his Witnesses are not Harmonious several of them giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops and that absolute Inhanced Power which he alledges For no Man of Sense can draw this Consequence from the general Name of Bishops used by him or from a simple calling of them Presidents will conclud them to be such as he pretends yea and not such de Facto far less Iure Divino since in other places they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion And therefore unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers whom he mentions as the most Arrant Self-contradicting Non-sensical Fools that ever Spoke or Wrote he must needs acknowledg with us that they use the Term Bishop in a general Sense and as common both to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidents as had then obtained and to other Pastors So that in such Characters appropriat to such Persons they could neither understand an Episcopal Presidency founded upon a Divine Right and Apostolical Institution as the Dr. pretends nor such an absolute Power as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government which he also asserts This considered with what is above offered doth so fully
Conference and as no members I would fain know if the Dr. will say that these Elders meeting with the Apostles Act. 15. which he will no doubt acknowledg was one of the best Moulded Councils yea and a Standart for after-Councils were no Members but called and meeting for conference only since in the Scripture account and three fold Partition of those that mett Viz Apostles Elders Brethren there is an intire joint concurrence with the whole procedure viz both in the Disquisition the Sentence the decretal Epistle and Appointment in reference to the Churches obedience It does also sute the Dr's consideration to shew how it can consist with reason and the Nature of a Church Judicatory that such persons as are no Members nor fit to be Members are in tuto to prepare Matter for Laws and take share in debates But the Dr's Forgery here is evident For 1. If Presbyters concurrence in Ordination was Authoritative not by consent only and they imposed hands as proper Ordainers even when Bishops had obtained Power in Judicatories by confession of Episcopalians themselves see Dr. Forbes Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. I would fain know why such Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers as had Authority to Ordain which is one of the greatest Acts of Ministerial Authority had no Authority in enacting Laws in Councils but sat as Cyphers 2 ly The Dr. will find Antiquity against this deputed kind of conferring or consulting Power which he allows to Presbyters in Councils without Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom hom 17. on Matth. calls Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs Vicars or Deputes And its strange that such to whom Christ entrusted this Vicarious Power had no interest and Authority in enacting Laws in his Church and in the Government thereof Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 8. shews that Dominus Sacerdotes in Ecclesia c the Lord condescended to elect to himself Priests or Ministers in the Church the Dr. will not say that he put this designation only upon Prelats And did he elect and constitute them for no interest in the Government thereof Nay on the contrary the Judgment of the Ancients is clear in this that the Power of external Jurisdiction and consequently the Authority of enacting Laws or Canons was common to Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians called the Presbytrie Senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat non consiliarios solum as our Dr. makes them sed assessores Episcopi not his Advisers only but his Authoritative fellow-Counsellors And I hope such he will grant as are in this Character have interest not only in preparing matter for Laws but an essential Official Right in the Authoritative enacting of them Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 44. calls them Principes Princes or Chief And if such in his Judgment the forementioned Authority is clearly by him attributed to them Augustin Serm. 6. calls the Brethren in Eremo Patronos Rectores Terrae And what pitiful Patrons or Rectors are they who have no Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom asserts expresly on 1 Tim. 1. hom 11 That they presided over the Churches as Bishops and received together with them the Office of Teaching and Governing the Church And if this with the preceeding Testimonies give not the Lie to the Dr's forementioned distinction anent Presbyters sole consulting interest in Councils and upon the Bishops Call allennarly without any Authority in enacting Laws let any Judg. Chrysostom moreover in the beginning of that Homily stating the Question wherefore the Apostle after he had spoken to the Office and Duty of Bishops passes over to Deacons omitting the order of Presbyters returns this Answer and Reason Because betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference and because that unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is committed And what he said concerning Bishops the same things also do agree to Presbyters And if with the Dr's good leave I might draw an inference from Chrysostom's assertion I would thus subsume But so it is that the Authority of Government and the enacting of Laws in Church Judicatories is by the Apostle ascribed to the Scripture Bishop whom he mentions Ergo the same Authority and Power is by the Apostle ascibed to Presbyters in Chrysostom's Sense Gratian in Decret Caus. 16. Quest. 1. Cap. shews that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum A Senat of Presbyters without whose Counsel the Bishop can do nothing They were not then called at the Bishops pleasure for debate only and preparing matters as the Dr. pretends but were the sine quibus non in the enacting of the Laws themselves The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decisive suffrage in Judicatories yet Cyprian Ep. 6. and 28. professes He neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy And the Fourth Council of Carthage condemns the Bishop's Decision unless Fortified by their Sentence So far was it that the Bishop's sole Suffrage gave the Strength and Formality to Laws that they were null without Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence This is clear by so full a consent of Antiquity that we will find That neither in Censuring of Presbyters Nor 2 ly In Judging the conversation or Crimes of Church Members Nor 3 ly In Excommunicating or Receiving of Penitents Bishops could do any thing without Presbyters Tertulian Apolog. Advers Gentes shews vs That the Churches Exhortations Castigations and Divine Censures were put forth by the Probati quique Seniores who did preside the accused Person being brought into the Congregation And this Authoritative Sentence of Presbyters was more approved than when passed by one Man As when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same Case The Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius because he passed it sine alicujus Fratris Consilio without the consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the Sentence of Ambrose because saith he hoc judicium nostrum cum Fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerat This his Sentence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow Presbyters or Ministers Yea the very Admonition of Offenders were not given by the Bishops alone but by the Elders August De verb. Apost Serm. 19. Thus also Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. Excommunication it self Tertullian tells us was vibrated by those that laboured in the Word and Doctrin and the Presbytrie that delivered unto Satan as Jerom shews Epist. ad Heliod So Epist ad Demet. they also Received and Absolved the Penitents Cyprian Epist. 12 shews that this was the custom nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo clero manus illi fuerit imposita such as were Excommunicat returned not to Church Fellowship before hands were laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy And writing to his Charge anent lapsed Christians he tells them exomologesi facta manu iis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita After Confession and laying on of the Presbyters hands they might be commended to God And such as returned from
atque Inspectioni Commissam non enim alicujus in alios Ministros Autoritatis aut alicujus prae aliis Prerogativae sed sâ—lius istius Curae ac Vigilantiae Respectu Episcoporum Titulo in Sacris Literis Insigniuntur That the Bishops are called such not with Relation to any supposed Subordinat Bishops or Presbyters but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care in which Respect alone they have that Title in Scripture but not upon the Account of any Prerogative or Authority which one Minister has over another Which how clearly it asserts our Judgment Principles and Pleading upon these Texts in Opposition to the Hierarchical Bishop and for the Parity of Pastors is convincingly evident But let us hear their Inference Thes. 30. which is thus Non ergo ex Divino sed ex Humano Instituto aliquis post Apostolorum tempora aliis ex Ordine Presbyterorum fuit Authoritate praepositus atque Episcopus dictus ex singulari Prerogativa sicut post Hieronimum non-nulli quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim Lombard Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Gratian Dist. 93. c. Legimus Dist. 25. c. olim Cusanus de Concord Cathol Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Citing first Ierom on Tit. 1. ad Evag. In summ that the Setting of one Presbyter over another in a supposed Supereminent Authority and Peculiar Prerogative under the Character and Designation of a Bishop is an Humane Invention only without any Divine Warrand as not only Hierom but several Popish School Men have acknowledged The Professors of Saumur speak also our Sense here fully Syntag. Thes. Theolog. de Divers Minist Evang. Grad Thes. 7. They hold the Office of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to be Extraordinary and Expired making peculiar to them their immediat Call Infallibility in Teaching their Universal Legation to all Churches their Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts c. The Pastors and Doctors Office they hold Ordinary and affirm they are the same with Presbyters planted in every Church Thes. 16.20 de Episcop Presb. Discrimine Thes. 7.8 they shew that the Apostles placed Presbyters Church by Church for the Government thereof citing Act. 14.23 and 20.17 28. where they Collect that these Presbyters were Commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take heed to the Flock and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they infer that it belonged to them to Watch over Inspect to see unto and take Care for such things as tended to the Conservation Propagation and Growth of the Church Adding Quod fieri sine Regiminis Cura Potestate non potest which could not be performed without the Care and Authority of Government Thes. 9. They assert that Pastors being thus in the beginning Constitute by the Apostles they did according to the Apostles Command and from the Nature of the Office Intrusted to them ex Officio sibi ab Apostolis demandato Govern the Church Communi Consilio by Common Counsel according to Hierom's Phrase Communibus Suffragiis Communi Solicitudine Cura by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care Adding Nullus tum eorum in reliquos Sym-Presbyteros Autoritatem Potestatem Imperium aut Iurisdictionem habuit sed par equalis Cura Solicitudo omnibus singuâ—is in totum Gregem competebat that in these First times no Presbyter or Pastor had Authority Power or Jurisdiction over his fellow-Fellow-Presbyters but the same and alike Care and solicitude over the whole Flock was competent to every one Thes. 10. they shew That tho there was one who as in every Colledge or Juridical Court was Primus or President yet that Primatus was Ordinis duntaxat non Authoritatis Potestatis Dominii Imperii Iurisdictionis sic enim non fuissent Sym-Presbyteri quomodo passim vocantur in Patrum Scriptis of Order only not of Authority and not importing a Iurisdictional Power and Dominion For thus they had not been Collegues or co-Co-Presbyters as they were every where called in the Writings of the Fathers Thes. 14. they shew That things being thus Constitute by the Apostles as every one of these Presbyters had not only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments Verum etiam pari Iure pari Autoritate ad Ecclesiae Clavum Gubernaoula sedebant quam ut dixi Communi Consilio Communibus Suffragiis regebant That with the same Authority also and Equal Jurisdiction Ministers did sit at the Churches Helm and Governed her by Common Suffrages Adding Quod hinc liquot quod omnes communiter Presbyteri Episcopi pariter in Scriptis Apostolicis adeoque Vetustioribus Scriptoribus vocantur promiscue That Pastors are called both Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously in the Apostles Writings makes the preceeding Assertion apparent Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus Id quod satiâ— manifestum ex loco Act. 20.28 Ubi Ephesinae Ecclesiae Presbyteri dicuntur â— Spiritu Sancto constituti Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam ex Philip. 1.1 Ubi Apostolus Epistolam suam inscribit Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulla factâ— Presbyterorum mentione quos Episcoporum nomine isthic procul dubio intelligit Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclesia Episcopi ex quo Episcopus singularem habuit ac praecipuam supra Presbyteros Autoritatem atque Potestatem ejusque Manus distinctum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine That the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter appears from Act. 20.28 where the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus are said to be Constitute Bishops of the Church by the Holy Ghost As also from Philip. 1.1 where the Apostle inscribes his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of that Church making no mention of Presbyters whom without doubt he understands by the Name of Bishops For there were never more Bishops in the same Church since the time that the Bishop had a Singular Power and Authority above Presbyters and his Office was distinguished from the Order and Office of Pastors Then they add Thes. 15. Id ipsum manifestam ex 1 Tim. 3.2 Opportet Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem c. nulla mentione facta Presbyteri Nam si alias tum fuiâ—set Episcopus alius Presbyter Paulus isthic Presbyterum non omisisset sed adjecisset eadem in Presbytero requiri vel si alia aut pauciora in eo requiri voluisset id procul dubio monuisset alioqui ea in parte Officio suo Defuisset That the same appears from 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishop must be blameless c. without mentioning the Presbyter For if the Bishop and Presbyter had been then distinct Paul would not in this place have omitted the Presbyter but would have added that the same things were required in him or if he would have required either other or fewer things in him he would without doubt have admonished hereof otherwise in so far he had been wanting in his Duty They add Idem liquet ex Tit. 1.5 7. Nam ubi dixit Titum se reliquisse in Creta
come The 8 th Prerogative he represents thus Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extitâ—runt Their singular Authority which was of such a Nature that none of their Disciples or Successors in an ordinary Ministry could be compared with them nor can be For as Apostles they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church P. 538. He describes the Pastors to be such as are set over some particular Flock Citing Act. 20.28 Here I need not tell the Dr that this Man also is of the Novel Scots Opinion and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence a Socinian as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office giving the same Sense of its Ingredients as we do and holding that the Apostles neither were nor could be succeeded in their Office and consequently that their Formal Office as such ceased with themselves He asserts ibid. the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter And thereafter tells us that Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding Teaching the Church Citing Anaclet Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap Ecclesiae si in Apostolorum Loco sumus c. Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry And also Urbanus Secundus ex August Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office we may propose yea oppose to the Dr. viz the Famous and Learned Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit against whom he disputes proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests and all other Orders of the Ministry I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of universalis patrum consensus universal consent of the Fathers The great Answer is Apostolis Episcopos successisse That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles in their proper formal Office And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter viz Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles And remarkable it is that the Catholick Iesuit and he pleads upon the same very Grounds viz The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus yea and our Dr's Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot lib. de Baptismo Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet c. That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy may be kept intire Thereafter the Iesuit as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well some will alledge the Dr. in this point is pretty near the Sacred Order I cannot here transcribe all that this French or Scots Novelist Presbyterian Rivet returns in Answer to this point which I really judge had our Dr. impartially read and perused it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet He is first severe to the Iesuit and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos or Priest whereby they represent Pastors De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia saith he frustra disputatur cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo ut antea docuimus c. That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught so upon the preceeding Question Par. 4. He tells his Adversary the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest has no Successor Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers if you will accord with Rivet but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists Thereafter he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita and our Dr. Negamus saith he Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hà bere He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors Thereafter reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's quod Episcopi Apostolis Presbyteri Discipulis suecâ—sserantâ— That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles and Pastors the Seventy Disciples He answers thus hoc falsum est ac utrorumque Officio contrarium quod extraordinarium fuit nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolorâ—m in Doctrinae publicatione Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio successores dici possunt That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists which was extraordinary and none did succeed them in the same Order Office and Authority altho all true Pastors in respect of the publication of the Doctrin and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin may be called Successors of the Apostles Here the Scots Presbyterian Opinion pretty clear Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers to our Dr's and the Iesuits Arguments Subjoined His Answer to that of confusion of Names as not inferring the sameness of things is thus faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur vera est synonomia si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves yet when the same things are attribute to those to whom the same Names are given there is a true Synâ—nomie or sameness of both Name and thing the Name being common with the definition Here in this one Jâ—dicious Answer he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head Then for Confirmation of this Identity he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5.7 And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do that the Name Qualities and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same For Tertullians Testimony which the Dr. Iesuita and our Dr cites he tells him That Tertullian speaks de humano ordine suâ— tempore recepto of the human Order or custom received in his time which was that the probatus quisque Senior or
his peculiar Charge So that whatever be the particular individual Limits of the Charge which is left to the Churches Prudence to assign yet the persons having such a Limited Charge as is above discribed flows from the Nature of the ordinary Ministry and the State and Case of the Church when the extraordinary Office of Apostolat is expired And to Convince the Dr. of this and of the Folly of this Lax Assertion that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood I would put to him this Querie Whether the Assigning unto one Bishop an Uâ—niversal Inspection and Primacy over the Catholick Church would be any impeachment of the Nature of his Priest-hood or Ministry Assigned to him by Gâ—d yea or not If not then who sees not that he owns the Lawfulness and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy especialy if the Church should Corroborat this by an Universal Constitution If he say that this extension were contrary to the Nature of the Priest-hood Then he Contradicts himself in Asserting that the Priest-hood of its own Nature requires no Confinment as he calls it and in Calling it so he Insinuats some sort of Violence offered to the Nature of this Ministry Besides these Constitutions he mentions Confining Bishops to a certain Charge are either cross or Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel-Ministry expressed in Scripture If cross thereunto then sure they are not Lawful unless he will say God gives the Church Authority to enact Constitutions cross to his Revealed Will and consequently paramount to his own Rules and Authority Which whether it be greater nonsense or Blasphemy is hard to determin If they be Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel Ministry how can he deny that such a Confinment or Constitutions proceed from the Nature thereof His Reason added viz. That the Apostles ordained Bishops for the Spiritual Service of such as should believe is as void of Sense or connection as any can be For so are all Pastors the true Scripture Bishops ordained by Apostles But will he be bold to say or if he say will not all Men of Sense hiss him That the Apostles ordained all and every Bishop or Minister for the actual immediat Service of all Believers of the Catholick Church as their proper peculiar Work and Charge This he must either say or his Reason is nought Nay will he not thus contradict himself in affirming his Secondary Apostles as he calls them to differ in Extension of Power from the first Apostles P. 105. We are told That the Apostles committed their Rectoral Power over subordinat Ecclesiasticks to particular persons succeeding in their Room in particular Churches Another piece of Repeated nonsense The Apostles by their Office had an Universal immediat Inspection over all Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers of the Catholick Church as himself describs their Office Yet this their proper formal Office thus described by him he will needs have them to devolve upon particular persons fixed to particular Churches as good Sense as to say the King Commits his Regal Primacy and Rectoral Power over his Kingdom when dying or leaving it unto the Man whom he hath enstalled in the Office of a Sheriff But the Dr. tells us that he will now propose the true State of the Controversy I am sorry a Doctor has disputed so long upon a Question and has yet the State of the Controversy to propose Common Ingenuity and Rules of Dispute would have prompted him in the first place to propose the true State of the Question and explain the Terms thereof But these Rules are too Pedantick for our Dr. who is more inclined to Pamphleting Harrangues than Systematick Divinitie Well what State of the Question offers he Thus it is Whether the Apostles committed their Apostolick Authority they exercised in particular Churches to such single persons duelie and regularlie chosen Or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs in a perfect Paritie and Equalitie I shall be glad to admit this State of the Question when one Exception is offered by way of Caution Viz That as we grant an Ordinary Authority which the Apostles exercised in particular Churches contained in their Office Eminenter which they transmitted to Successors So we deny that the Authority which they transmitted to these ordinary succeeding Officers was an Authority properly and formally Apostolical or such in a formal Sense as themselves exercised And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Sense and Judgement of sound Divines who distinguish the expired Apostolick Office and Authority from that ordinary Power and Authority which they transmitted to Successors What next We are told ibid. That the Scripture-confusion of Names might I presume to prescribe a better Term to such a Master of Language as our Dr. I should rather to evite an apparent Reflection on the Holy Ghosts Language call it Community or Homonymie will not prove Community of Offices when persons are undenyablie distinguished with regard to their Authoritie If we forget this mighty Caution of our warry Dr. we must not blame him if an unwearied Repetition will help us The Dr. will have this fixed that we fight not in the dark The Presbyterians do hold this as fixed as he What next P. 105.106 The LORD promised a perpetual Duration of the Apostolick Office not in their personal but Spiritual Capacitie he loving his Church as much after as before his withdrawing If then they conveyed their Episcopal Power to single persons in all particular Churches and not to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a Paritie and Equalitie then the Divine Right of Episcopal Government is clearlie Estabilished But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Petitio Principii and take that for the Ground and Topick of his Argument which is in the Question Yea and in the Question by his own Confession viz That the Apostolick Office is perpetual permanent and succeeded unto in a proper formal Sense What strange may I call it Impertinency or Inadvertancy is this Since himself asserts that we deny such a perpetual Office of Apostolat and he opposes above his definition anent their permanent perpetual Office unto Presbyterians assertion of the contrary and their Definition asserting the Apostles Transitorie Function 2. His Proof from Christs promise and constant care of the Church is in the Sense of all Protestants unsound and foolish and he is therein inconsistent with himself For in their Sense yea and by his own Confession there are many expired Prerogatives of Apostles yea Gifts of Officers in the first Apostolick Church which notwithstanding impeaches not either that promise of Christs constant Care of his Church or his constant Love thereunto And therefore it reflects neither upon the one nor the other that this formal Office of Apostolat consisting of such expired Prerogatives is ceased Nay himself confesses that without Impeachment of either of these the Apostles Extensive universal Power
Apostolick Warrand as knowing that the contrary Practice and Principles of almost the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines do in this Point contradict him He therefore pretends to Abstract from this supposed Necessity and the Grounds thereof and to plead only for the Lawfulness of the Order Yet least he should seem too Cool a Pleader he presents some things which he calls Positive Grounds of Episcopacy Whereof the First in Summ is That Christ hath appointed in his Church an Official Power which we call Episcopal paramount unto and above any Power that can be Exercised by a single Presbyter alone Which Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is acknowledged utrinque Lawful in it self the only Difference is that Presbyterians hold it to be Seated in a Colledge of Presbyters and the Episcopalians hold it to be Concentred in one Person yet to be Exercised by Presbyters Concurrence and Consent So that the Difference of this Diffused Episcopacy in the Presbytrie and Contracted in a single Bishop to be managed with Consent of Presbyters is like that between mâ—nus aperta and manus clausa Ans. The Surveyer doth but here Shufflle and Obscure the true State of this Question betwixt Episcopalians and Presbyterians Which is this viz. Upon our Supposal of that Authority and Government ascribed in Scripture to Pastors or Presbyters and their Essential Interest therein how an Officer who is pretended to be Distinct from them and Superior unto them and Enhancing and Concentring all their Power in himself can be consistent with the Scripture Prescriptions in point of Government The Surveyer should have known that the Scripture doth not only appoint the Official Power but its proper Subject So that the Removing it from its proper Basis and Subject is a palpable Impeachment of these Institutions in point of Government And therefore if by our Lords Warrand this Official Power is Diffused in a Colledge of Pastors or Presbyters the Concentring it in the person of one Prelat must needs be an arrant Usurpation in Men yea and if possible in Angels Next the Surveyer Narroweth and Disguiseth the Bishops Power he pleads for And that several ways 1. He overleaps his Arrogated Power of Order whereof he is the proper and primary Subject in the Diocess wherein Pastors Act but as his Deputs 2. His Civil Acclaimed Power 3. He seems to Tye the Exercise of it to the Consent and Concurrence of Presbyters wherein he dissembles the Nature of their Arrogated Jurisdictional Power For if he did mean a Concurrence and Consent which is Decisive Besides that he in this contradicts himself in Concentring this Power in the Prelat since frustra est potentia quae non potest reduci in actum he durst not affirm that the Official Power of the Prelat then existent by Law and whom he pleaded for was of this Nature For according to the Law establishing Prelacy they were to Exercise their Power with Advice only and of such of the Clergy only as they should find they themselves being Judges of known Loyaltie and Prudence Again should the Surveyer say this Advice was only Consultive not Decisive he did but Mock and Prevaricat in adding this Limitation of Presbyters Consent and Concurrence and in pretending thus to put some Limitations on the Prelats sole Exercise of his Power as if it did not swallow up and exclude the Official Authority of Presbyters and Pastors in Government In a Word as it is certain that the Diversifying of the Subject diversifieth the Species and Kinds of Government which is evident in that of Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy c. So in the point of Church Government depending upon Divine and positive Institution It is easie to discover such a vast Variation upon this Ground as might have covered this Surveyer with Blushes and which baffles his Notion with his own Similitude of the manus aperta clausa For he will not deny the Lawfulness of an OEcomenick or General Council in a Just Representative of all Christian Churches having an Authority diffused in all the Members which respects the whole Churches Now here is the manus aperta and in his Sense the manus clausa or the Monopolizing and Concentring this Authority in one person doth no whit impeach the Lawfulness of the Power it self Then advance the manus clausa an OEcumenick Bishop or Supreme Head over all the Church having all this Authority Monopolized in him which was before diffused in the General Council And here it may be demanded whether this Pleader or such as he did owne such an Officer as Lawful or not If such an Officer be owned as Lawful then farewel the Protestant Profession and the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches against a Papal Supremacy Universal OEcumenick Bishop If such an Officer be held unlawful then this Notion and Argument is quit baffled and excluded which asserted the Lawfulness both of the Diffused and Contracted Official Power For here the one Power is owned as warranded of GOD and instituted in its Nature and Exercise The other is disowned as contrary to His Institution What the Surveyer adds upon this Head touching a Lawful Demanour towards Powers that are usurped and entertaining fellowship with a Ministerial Church though called by an usurping Bishop hath been sufficiently answered by the Apologist and Others and the Difference so clearly stated betwixt the Condition of a Church wherein Prelats are obtruded upon the standing Church Judicatories in which Case Ministers are to keep their places and contend against them and such a State and Condition of a Church wherein the Government is razed and the Foundation of it laid upon a Princes arrogated Supremacy over the same and Prelats Authority as his Administrators in the Government thereof and withall in the Concurrence a formal and direct acknowledgment of both the one and the other being required as the Condition of Ministerial Communion that nothing needs here be further added The Next Ground the Surveyer adduceth is That Ministers Union and Association of themselves and setting over them one single Person to Moderat and Govern the Actions of the Meeting is Juris Divini and that by our own Confession Ans. The Surveyer durst not make his Application here or had he done so the absurdity of the Consequence from this Moderator or President to the Prelat he pleaded for would have palpably appeared and his Inconsistency with himself For 1. He saith that Associat Ministers set over themselves this Moderator and this he holds to be Iuris Divini and GODs Will And if so then sure it is neither Iuris Divini nor GODs Will that this Moderator should be obtruded upon them by an Extraneous Power without the least shadow of their Consent as he could not but know the Prelats he pleaded for were obtruded upon this Church 2. If it be GODs Will that this President be set over Meetings of Ministers to govern the Actions of the Meeting and preserve Due Order then it is not His
Right he calls partly Ecclesiastick Again the Text ascribs an Episcopal Authority and oversight to these Elders and Bishops which as is said in former Cases and Instances overthrows the Hierarchical Prelats sole arrogated Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction It hath further this unlucky aspect upon my Lord Bishop that the Bishops or Elders here are enjoined an immediat Ministerial Inspection over the Flocks and diligently to Feed the same by sound Doctrin are forbidden to be Lords over GODs Heretage much more to be Peers in Parliament which pitifully plucks the Plums of their Lordships Grandure and marrs their Figure in Herauldry They are bidden beware of the Filthy Lucre which will much straiten their Revenues which doth so far overstretch the allowed Maintainance of a Laborious Pastor But of this enough CHAP. III. Some more Exceptions and Answers of the Surveyer examined Viz To that Passage 1 Cor. 5 To that of Eph. 4 11. To which the Paralels 1 Cor 12.28 Rom 12 6 7 8 are to be joyned To that Passage Philip 1 1. And to 1 Tim 4 14 His unsoundness and inconsistency therein further made appear PRoceed we to that considerable Text 1 Cor. 5. the energy and force whereof in order to the evincing a Presbyterial Authoririty of Pastors in that Church is above spoken to He tells us It is alledged that the Church of Corinth not having a Bishop â—is acknowledged by the Apostle to have the Power of Ecclesiastiâ—k censures even of Excommunication and is reproved for not executing these Censures and exhorted speedily to execute the same that hence it is concluded seeing this Apostolick Church was so Constitut with such a Power of Excommunication by its own Officers and Presbyters without a Bishop that therefore all other Churches should have the same Power according to the Word of GOD. In Answer to this the Surveyer not unlike a Fugitive Criminal who will flee to a place of the greatest hazard otherways so he may escape the Pursuer Fleeth to the exploded Notion of the Independents a Party standing in most opposit Terms to the Episcopalians telling us that this Power of Iurisdiction and Censure is not found here in the Eldership or in them alone since the whole Church is spoken to in this Matter There is Fornication among you ye are puffed up c. and all the Saints Are concerned of whom he saith they Judge them that are within That it were strange that Elders who are not named should be concerned and not the People who are expresly named that there is no more mention of the Governing Presbytrie there than of the Governing Bishop Ans. The Surveyer here is so unhappy as to Raze the Foundation of all his pleading which if it have any foundation at all must needs be grounded upon and suppose a Distinction of the Church Representative and Collective Church Officers and Church Members Nay he Cuts the Throat of his Assertion P. 203. That there is an Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Censure and Disciplin Established in the Church for keeping Gods Ordinances in Purity which no person of common Sense or Reason can but ascribe to a distinct Select Society from the whole Community For if all were Correctors and Rulers there is no Correlate of this Relative Power or persons to be Ruled If he understand the Passage Do not ye Iudge them that are within of a Jurisdictional Power and Authority it must needs have some Object and consequently must have for its Subject some Select Order of Men distinct from the Collective Body Next who knows not that the Directions Generally addressed in the Epistles to the whole Incorporation or Body of the Church are to be understood and applyed pro unius cujusque Modulo according to Persons several places and capacities though the General Address supposes still the General Concern of all When the Apostle thus enjoins Warn them that are unruly and again if any obey not our Word in this Epistle mark that Man which all do understand of a Censuring mark as the word imports who will alledge that these Authoritative Acts were competent to every individual The Surveyer foreseeing this tells us P. 212. That though this in some things will hold yet in the usual Stile of the Apostolick Epistles there are distinctive Notes and Periods that each person may know the Precepts wherein they are concerned and Apostrophees made to several Ranks as Ministers Masters Servants to evite a dangerous Confusion And upon the same ground an acknowledged Iurisdiction in any of the Presbyters would have here procured a distinguishing of them from the People Ans. The Surveyers Concession That sometimes Precepts are not to be applyed and appropriat to all distributively but respectively according as several persons or sorts of Persons are concerned in these Commands contained in Epistles directed to the collective Body hath razed the Foundation of this Answer which from the Non-nomination of Elders concludes the collective Body of the People to be addressed only and stiffled it in the Birth Since he must acknowledge that sometimes peculiar Duties and such wherein some persons only have a special Interest are thus promiscuously and generally propounded and even in this same Epistle And then it would have suted his Thoughts to ponder how in this Case he could evite his own Consequence and Charge of a dangerous Confusion following thereupon unless he quite the Topick of this his Argument and Reason It would have likewayes suted his thoughts to assign his distinctive Notes and Apostrophees in the Passages cited and the Apostles Precepts touching the Lords Supper in the 11. Chap. As likewayes to assign such in the Passages which do intrust a Jurisdictional Power to Elders I mean such distinctive Notes and Apostrophees as would have distinguished the Bishop properly so called from his Minor and improperly so called Bishops in order to the eviting the Confusion of their Offices and to cut off the dangerous Presbyterian Consequence and Error of understanding the Bishop and Presbyter to be Indentified in Name and Thing He acknowledged that in some things this our Answer will hold And sure if in any Case it must in this where Rulers are supposed Existent and a competent knowledge of their Official Authority both in themselves and the People The Surveyer adds That there is a deep silence concerning Presbyters Iurisdiction or a fixed Presbytrie at Corinth at this time though there were Teachers and Eminent Teachers Extraordinary Prophets 1 Cor. 14. Ans. The Surveyer will not disowne that in that 1 Cor. 14. There is a Tryal and an Examination of the Doctrine ascribed to these Teachers therefore he cannot deny them the Authority of Iudging those that are within mentioned 12. v. of 5. Ch. But for the Surveyers deep silence which he alledges of a Presbyterial Jurisdiction here he might have found it removed by a full Scripture Sound had he pondered First in General the Jurisdictional Power ascribed to Pastors and Teachers such as is imported in these
Unto the Churches of Galatia The Surveyer inverts the Order and would make the Words run thus Paul an Apostle c. unto the Churches of Galatia and all the Brethren c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. should thus run and be Sensed Paul an Apostle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Sosthenes our Brother point blank cross to the Scope and Order of the Text. Thus also 2 Cor. 1.1 Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ c. unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Timothy our Brother Thus the Sense of this place Philip. 1.1 is with the Surveyer Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Iesus Christ to the Saints in Christ Iesus at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons with Paul What Sense or rather Non-sense is this He could assign no Instance of such a Trajection of the copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he here admitts nor any Reason why Timothy is not ranked with these Bishops The Surveyer P. 215. to strengthen one absurd Notion with another doth in the second place alledge That there was here a casual Muster of other Bishops of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof to consult the good of the Churches And tells us That the Apostle speaks generally as to the Saints at Philippi Ch. 4.21 And not only of that Church so of these Bishops and Deacons taken universally as mett there though not of that particular Church But this fantastical Muster-master of these Extraneous Officers as he can give no shadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact which is the Substratum of his Reason Answer So he doth in asserting Philippi to be the Metropolis of Macedonia either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick Sense contradict the Judgement of several of the Learned And as he still beggs the Question in supposing the Existence of his Diocesan Prelat so there is nothing in this Epistle that might be supposed to have the least respect to the Ends of such a Meeting or can give Ground to extend the Bishops Deacons or Saints beyond the Limits of that Church unless such an Extension be applyed to other Churches in the like case of Epistles addressed to them as Ephesus Rome c. Nay where there is in the Inscription of Epistles such an express Extension in reference to the persons addressed we find it in a distinct Clause Thus 1 Cor. 1.2 after this general Inscription and Designation viz. Unto the Church of GOD which is at Corinth there follows this Extension with all that in every place call upon the Name of Iesus Christ. Thus 2 Cor. 1.1 After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Corinth follows this express Extension with all the Saints that are in all Achaia The Surveyer in his third Answer will admit the Bishops and Deacons to be related to that particular Church But tells us This will not prove they were all Bishops of an equal Degree It is good that the Surveyer will at last admit these Bishops to be the settled Bishops here and will take them off and likewise the Deacons whose work is only to serve Tables from his alledged great and general Consults anent the Case of the Churches of Macedonia But for what is here forged and pretended we have told him that the Scripture Bishops or Pastors are of equal Official Authority and that he would here mind and take home his own Reason viz. that there is no such Notes of Distinction or Discriminating Characters as he stands so much upon in the Apostles Salutation The Surveyer tells us The general Name might be common to the Bishops strictly so called and the Inferior Bishops As in a Letter directed to the Magistrats of a City and terming them Magistrats in general though one only is supposed a Provost and others Bailiffs Thus Saluting the Bishops in cumulo he denyeth not their different Degrees Ans. Besides that the Surveyer is still renewing his Petitio Principii and supposing the Existence of his Hierarchical Prelat he should have pondered the Rule Similitudo ad Pompam c. A Similitude may illustrat a thing proposed or supposed but cannot prove a thing in Question Next this Similitude overthrows his Scope For 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cumulo but under distinct Epithets of Bishops and Deacons diversifying as he acknowledged Church Officers of a distinct Character and Office 2. He makes the Term Bishop to be the Name distinguishing the Diocesan as under that Character from Presbyters and who is supposed to be but one in one Church Thus looking to his Similitude he makes the Apostle speak as improperly as if a Plurality of Provosts or Provosts in the pâ—ural were saluted in a Letter to one City But the Surveyer P. 216. urges That since we own two sorts of Elders the Preaching and Ruling Elder and comprehend them under the Name Bishop we must owne it that there are diverse Ranks of Officers saluted under that Name Or if disowning this it follows that the Apostle did not intend to write to such tho supposed Church Officers Ans. This Dilemma is crocked and pushes us not If we say such Officers were not as yet existent in this Church it only follows that it was not yet fully constitute in all its Officers Or if in the next place we admit them existent the Surveyer hath no Advantage For 1. We admit this Divinely instituted Officer as eminenter included in the Office of the Bishop or Pastor both having the general Notion of Inspection applicable unto them But the Hierarchical Bishop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer by his Confession 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder impeaches not the equal Power of Pastors here saluted in the Plural but the admitting of the Hierarchical Prelat overthrows this and consequently the Apostles Scope But the Surveyer tells us he may upon our ground bring in the Superior and Inferior Degrees of Bishops and Presbyters under this general Name of Bishops Ans. We can comprehend none under this Designation who have not our Lords Institution as all Inspectors and Governours of his House must else they run unsent and cannot be called his Stewards not having a Commission from him We include the Elder as a Divinely instituted Officer whose Divine Institution we make good but do reject the Hierarchical Prelat as an Officer of Mans devising And the Surveyer might under Pretence of this general Name and upon such a Topick advance Cardinals Primats or whom he pleased The Surveyer in the fourth place will needs loose the Objection that the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior To which he gives this Return That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Inferior in respect of some common Dignity Qualifications or Accidents competent to both as the Name of Presbyter both via ascensus and descensus is given to Superior and Inferior Officers as Beza confesses on 1 Pet. 5. Ans. The Surveyer here hath disguised the Strength
be of the highest Office in the Church telling us That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office And he gives this Reason of his Judgment That since the Sacramental Actions are the highest of Sacred Performances he cannot but acknowledg that such as are impowered for them must be of the highest Office in the Church And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as a meer groundless Notion and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading Secondly Our Scots Episcopalians and many of the English plead for such an Episcopal Power as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors in Government as allows them a Share and Interest therein and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government Let any peruse Bp. Honyman part 2. Survey of Naph Bp. Burnet ubi supra Bp. Lightons Two Letters in reference to the Case of Accommodation yea Bp. Hall himself in the Defence of his Remonstrance presented to the Parliament of England against Smectymnuus printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident the Bishop in that Defence is so angry at the Word Sole in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists to keep their Sole for the use of their Shoes It is then clear that in the State of the Question or Ground of this Debate the Dr. is not one with his Fellows which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon The Divine Right of Episcopacy he endeavours First to prove by the Institution of our Saviour And his great Argument is That Christ in His Lifetime institut two Orders of Ministers viz. That of the Apostles and the Seventy Disciples whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles from this Ground That they are mentioned a part as Distinct and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue Eph 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 That the Scripture mentions the Twelve and the other Disciples distinctly and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples and by this Call and Ordination of Christ separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples that the Apostles immediate Successors were chosen out from the seventy Disciples for most part Thus sayes he Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem Philip Paul at Caesarea Clement Peter at Rome by the Testimony of Dorotheus Eusebius And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius together with Epiphanius and Ierem Matthias was one of the Seventy that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate Acts 1.16 And a Succession saith be in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person in whose place another succeeds and that the person succeeding had not that Power and Office before his Succession That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority he proves from Luk 10.16 compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face but shews that such as heard them did hear him c. As also from this That Ananias one of them Baptized Paul Acts 9.18 Philip another of them the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel Answer This Discours and Argument with reference to the Drs. Scope with a very ordinary Attention will appear to be but a beating of the Air and to consist of Magisterial Dictates instead of proof For First it is evident That the generality of all Protestant Divines and Churches yea many Episcopalians themselves do hold that the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is expired and died with their Persons so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession And indeed the thing it self is evident and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission unconfined Inspection extraordinary Gifts c. And that the Evangelists Office did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate and did consist in a planetary Motion to Water where they Planted and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles and Commissions from the Apostles to the Churches as they make evident in the many Journies up and down of Timothy and Titus in order to this end So that upon this Supposition tho a Subordination were granted yet if both Offices are expired it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers or essentially distinct Orders in the Pastoral Office which is the Point he has to prove This will be convincingly clear upon Two Grounds 1. That the body of all Protestant Divines do hold That neither Apostle nor Evangelist had any fixed Posts or Charges and so consequently the one could not Succeed the other therein nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them in this their Function And 2. That the Office as well of the one as the other was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations as is above exprest And therefore that State and Exigence of the Church being gone off so are these Offices suted thereunto And among many other Proofs I would fain know what he or any of his Perswasion will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture viz. Their Gifts of Tongues Gifts of Healing raising the Dead striking with Death and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat as Peter Ananias and Saphira Paul Elimâ—s the Sorcerer c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office If sutabâ—e Gifts be the Badg of an Office as to be apt to Teach is of the Pastoral Office it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one to another and the Office has a relation to both then certainly Extraordinary Gifts Works must be the Badg of that Office which is Extraordinary So that the Drs. Proof of fixed standing distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers from this Instance is quite overturned if the Office either of the Apostles or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary Next the weakness of the Drs. Proof further appears in that instead of Proving he takes for Granted without Proof First That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission from that of the Seventy for nothing of his pretended Proofs give the least shadow of this The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach as the Apostles themselves were and for what appears from Scripture with the same Authoritative Mission since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve and superadded to them Luk. 9.1 2. c. and 10.1 2 3. c. And for the Point of Succession of which afterwards the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof of either of these Two 1. That there were Successors to the Apostles in their formal Office of Apostolate 2. That these his
supposed Successors were of the number of the Seventy Disciples for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof or he says nothing Again in the 3d. place Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading that even upon this Supposition it is utterly lost and ruined unless he can make it appear that these Seventy had in their Commission the Doctrinal Key only but no interest in the Government which is his Supposition all along as to the Pastoral Office Now it is evident beyond contradiction that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government had both the Keys committed unto them only and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers as are called Bishops in a superior order to Pastors as specifically distinct from them intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First as well as the Power of Order and nothing at all thereof to the Second but the Doctrinal Key only Before I proceed let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office His Answer is That this is a begging of the question since we allow that Christ institut the Office but gave no signification that it was but for a Season But First How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question in supposing that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification He should know that we own and can make good the contrary And the current of all Protestant Divines owning the Apostolick Office to be extraordinary and expired must and do by necessary consequence hold That the Temporary Nature of the Office hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation that the Office was not to Continue but to Expire with the Persons who carried it The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession which is not ours but by him falsly imputed to us Next the Office it self in its Nature and End being as is said Temporary and owned so by the Body of all our Divines It necessarly follows that our Lords Institution terminat upon and relative to the Office was likewise thus Temporary and determined to a certain Season As under the Law Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances being to represent Christs Death the very Nature of the Institution did determin the Continuance till Christs coming and offering Himself and no longer As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited did expire at his Death Nay our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations to every Creature and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church in actu exercito both planted and to be planted to which they had an immediat Relation and instructing them with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues of Miracles c. did thus ex natura rei and from the Nature of the Institution it self discover His design as to the transient Office thus institut and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church it was to pass off with the same Sure should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl or for the continuance of such Gifts as the Dr. will acknowledg expired because of our Lords Institution and giving the Gifts and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office he would answer That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self now comprobat by the Event discovers the temporary Design thereof and that it was not to Continue and that therefore there was no need that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator in the Institution or Collation of the Gift Which Answer he may bestow for us upon himself as to the Point in hand Again to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles If he mean a Succession to their Office in its Nature and Extent as delineat in Scripture then he runs himself into gross Absurdities For 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut and that de facto there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs with an universal unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church to be continued therein with a Collateral and Equal Power 2. If he say this as he needs must if he speak to the Point and consequentialy he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors from among the 70 Disciples viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem Philip St. Paul at Cesarea Clement St. Peter at Rome For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World where Churches were planted or to be planted how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If their Ministry was confined to these Posts how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts succeeds the Apostolick Office which was of this universal Extent makes as good Sense and Harmony as to say that the Person who is installed Dean of Canterburry succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat and his Primacy over England 3. I would know whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas with these other Instances of Simeon Philip and Clement at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If he do not then his paralel Argument as to the Point of Succession is by his own Confession like the Legs of the Lame not equal it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances while the Persons instanced as succeeding are not of the same and equal Power and Authority If he say That he understands Successors in the same Apostolick Power then I would fain know how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon with a fixed Post at Ierusalem Philip at Cesarea Clement at Rome with the Succession of Matthias in the Apostolick Office by the Divine Appointment without the least hint of any fixed Station but with an universal Inspection as the other Apostles had But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma If he mean by Successors to the Apostles a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters in a certain Precinct not unto their Office and Authority every way or with reference either to their
Episcopal Authority in this Matter among Churches Constitut in their Organick Beeing In the 4 th place the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power to Reform and Correct drawn from this Passage doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection For 1. The Apostles themselves arrogat no absolut or supreme Power Paul disowns a Dominion and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1.24 I had alwise thought that in the Judgment of all Protestants yea of all Men of Sense who ever read the Scriptures there is none hath a supreme Iudgment or absolut Power over the Church of God but He who is the Churches Head and Husband there being but one Lord and all Ministers being Brethren one Master of the House of God who hath Dominion over the Ordinances under whom even Apostles are but Stewards and Servants which I suppose none if not this Dr. will deny 2. It s strang that in reading this Passage the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words viz As I had appointed thee which doth very clearly suppose and import both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus and his restricting him to his Rules and authorizing Information in this Matter And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein and absolut Power will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat In a word this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus is disowned by all sound Interpreters as might be easily made appear And in special the Belgick Divines tells us upon this Passage That Titus was not to perform this by his own Authority and good Pleasure only as the Dr. holds but according to the Order which the Apostle prescribed and did observe himself paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14 where it appears that the Elders concurred with Paul in Timothy's Ordination And this last Clause of the Verse they render As I commanded thee The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority is P. 399 That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete left by the Apostle before Titus was left there who yet had no power to Ordain else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry Therefore this power of Ordination was competent to Titus only not to Presbyters especially since it is extended not only to Ordination of Elders but also to Rebuking with Authority to the Correction of Offenders with the Rod of Excommunication chap. 2.15 To Admonish Hereticks and to Reject them from Communion of the Church if obstinat chap. 3.10 From all which the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches planted by them I Answer 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question and argue ex ignoratione elenchi and this one point being but supposed That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary and we may justly suppose it having above made it good this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination we have told him That it is a Presbyterian Act competent to mere Presbyters And therefore neither Timothy nor Titus could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures supposed in these Directions I answer That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative For either it is meant of a private Rebuke and this every Christian hath Authority in thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour and not suffer Sin upon him Levit. 19.17 or of a Ministerial Rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the Word Isa. 58.1 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Tit. 1.13 2 Sam. 12.7 And besides Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power Prophets Rebuked but had no Jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter tho he reproved him Moreover we find the Authority to receive Accusations and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures competent to the Juridical Courts and Church Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 5. Gal. 6.1 2. 1 Thess. 5.12 In which places a judicial Rebuke and Admonition is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors not to one Prelat not uni but unitati 3. As for the Drs. Notion of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church who had no power of Ordination else this Prescription which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain had been fruitless and an Invasion of their Power in the Drs. Judgment I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection For 1. Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices Pauls instructing Titus and his Authority in Ordination thereupon was a power and Authority Cumulative unto but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing and ordinary Authority herein It being certain that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists as is above described could not bevoided whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches these extraordinary Officers had still their Authority and Inspection vigent I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church will he own the consequence that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein as Bishop Surely not And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced 2. Elders once ordained its true have power to ordain Elders yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists and their interposed Authority in that infant-state of the Church wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules in reference to Government were to be delivered to the Churches and practised accordingly And in a word the Dr. neither hath nor can prove that Titus did ordain here alone or solely perform any other authoritative Act where Elders were present and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines Judicious Calvin upon the place will tell him That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture And we may retort upon the Dr. thus If neither Apostles nor Evangelists extraordinary and highly gifted Officers did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships or juridical Courts of Pastors much less ought any ordinary Church Officer arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ and Judicatories of His Church when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of
Excommunication is by the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 5. supposed to be competent to a Presbytry And therefore Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein For what the Dr. adds of the Testimonies of the Ancients touching Titus's Episcopacy at Crete such as Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. c. it is sufficiently Answered already and we need not repeat The Drs. Fourth and last instance to prove the Divine Right of Episcpacy from the Apostles practice is of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Timothy over Ephesus and that not only over the Laity to Command and Teach 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive or reject Widdows 1 Tim. 5.9 c. But also over the Clergy to take care for their Provision 1 Tim. 5.17 Not to admit Deacons but upon tryal nor Ordain the Elder till a good acquittance in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to receive accusations put the Guilty to shame 1 Tim. 5.19.20 And to exercise this Jurisdiction without Preferring one before another v. 21. which could not be without a Jurisdiction over them He has also ascribed unto him an Ordaining Power as to the laying on of Hands 1 Tim. 5.22 All which Authority that it was given him by Paul for a standing Form of Government the Dr. proves from this Ground because it was after the Presbytrie was formed and settled there and after Paul's great Labours in that large Church for Three Years And therefore he may be supposed not only to have Planted a Presbytrie there as in other Churches Acts 14.23 but also to have reduced it to much gâ—eater perfection than any other And by consequence Establishing this Authority in a single Person is such a Form of Government as the Apostle must needs have understood and intended to be of of that Nature as was to continue as a Pattern to other Churches It is Answered 1. There is nothing here of a New Argument but a Repitition of the former and a New Begging of the Question Viz. The â—tanding ordinary Office of Apostles and Evangelists which we have above convict of Falsehood But 2. To come a little closer to the Drs. New Instance since he presents here some Actings of the Power of Order which he acknowledges tho performed by Timothy and enjoyned to him by Paul in that Church yet are likewise Competent to Presbyters or Pastors Viz Teaching c. which together with other Actings of the Power of Order he makes common to Pastors and at large discourses this P. 427 428.429 c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diversifie these in this Instance and shew that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place such an exercise of the Power of Order as is above exprest will give him no peculiar Interest therein but joyntly with the Presbyters and yet that the Commands in point of Jurisdiction are delivered to him peculiarly and not to them Where will the Dr. shew this distinction and difference in the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy It should seem the ordinary Rule will take place here non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit since the Precepts are equally delivered and without the least Intimation of such a difference or distinction The person who makes the distinction seems Chargable with arrogant Anti-scriptural Boldness The Dr. pleads that the Apostolick Precept 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands suddenly on no man prescribes a standing Rule in Point of Jurisdiction Viz that the Prelat has a sole interest therein secluding Presbyters wholly from any Authority in this Matter For this he makes the Bishops peculiar prerogatiue P. 436.437 c. And he draws his great Proof in this place from the Apostles addressing this Precept to Timothy not to Pastors or Presbyters Now what if any shall lash the Dr. with his own Argument and Plead from the Apostles Solemn Charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.1.2 Preach the Word be instant in Season cut of Season and several such Precepts relative to General Ministerial Duties or Actings of the Power of Order such as a Right behaving in the House of GOD 1 Tim. 3.15 To be a growing Minister in the Words of Faith 1 Tim. 4.6 To exercise himself to Godliness v. 7. To be examplary to Believers in word and Conversation c. V. 12. To give attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrin not to neglect but to stir up his Gift to Meditat upon the things of God and give himself wholly thereunto to take heed unto himself and to the Doctrin and continue in them v. 13.14.15.16 with 2 Tim. 1.6 That such Actings of the Power of Order are proper only to the Bishop and such Ministerial Duties peculiar to him So that Presbyters or Pastors have no Interest or concern therein because these Precepts are pecuâ—iarly addressed to Timothy not to them What Answer and evasion can he have to save him from a Contradiction and inconsistency with himself If his own Argument be good against us upon the forementioned Ground why not the very same Argument in this Case against himself The Drs. only Answer and evasion which he can have is That these Commands as to the Exercise of the Power of Order or respecting Pastoral Duties in general tho peculiarly addressed to Timothy yet could give him no peculiar or sole Interest therein because Presbyters are elsewhere in Scripture Instructed with the same Power But 1. In this Answer he breaks his Argument all in pieces the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addressing these Precepts to Timothy But here he acknowledges that the peculiar Address will bear no such conclusion of Timothy's sole Interest in the Duty enjoyned And 2. If he say that the Bishops peculiar Interest and Jurisdiction is elsewhere evident in Scripture who sees not that he but pityfully beggs the Question and baffls his own General Argument And further he should know that the Presbyterians stand upon an advantagious Ground with him in this Point For we hold and can prove that the Power of Jurisdiction is prescribed and competent to Presbyters since the Scripture shews the Power of Ordination to be seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 with Act 22.5 Luk. 22.66 Matth. 18.17 Consequently correspondent Actings of a Jurisdictional Power All that watch for the Peoples Souls are in Scripture held out to have a joint Rule over them Heb. 13.17 In the Church of Thessalonica the Labourers in the Word and Doctrin jointly fed and laboured jointly censured and as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers were to be submittted to and obeyed 1 Thess. 5.12 So it was in the same Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these Elders or Bishops 1 Pet 5. And I would fain know why the Drs. Notion and Argument from the peculiar addressing of Precepts will not hold good in our Case against him upon the ground of these and such like Scriptures where the Power of Order and Jurisdiction is jointly ascribed to Presbyters without the least hint of a Superior Authority herein or their Precarious dependence upon
send it back to the Dr. with a Censure of Impertinency till it be returned with a Testimonial of a better proof than of his bare Assertion and ipse dixit The Dr. enquires how we can argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus citing Ius divinum Minist Evang. p. 159.167 if the Office they were ordained to were not perpetual And if perpetual then so is Episcopacy nothing different therefrom Answ. We hold the Ordination instanced to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination as well as in General a Power of Ordination in the Church Timothy's Ordination having this Scripture account that it was by Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie the Apostle Paul's presence and his Imposition of Hands tho supposed doth rather Strengthen than invalidat since neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy nor his designment for such an Eminent Office nor Paul's Imposition of Hands the Great Apostle of the Gentiles did Swallow up or exclud the Presbytries Ordinary Power and Authority but Timothy must pass through this Door of a Presbytries Authoritative Ordination and Imposition of Hands in order to the Exercise of his Office therefore much more doth this Authority belong to the Presbytrie now when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased And for Titus's Ordination in an active Sense or his Ordination of Elders the Apostle tells him expresly Chap. 1.5 the Passage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength that it was to be performed according to the Apostles appointment which appointment in the Sense of our Divines is none other else than that which himself examplified and is Intimat 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 i. e. with Authoritative concurrence of the Presbytrie or Eldership So that Titus had no Episcopal Authority therein notwithstanding of his Evangelistick extraordinary Office And this is invincibly made good in opposition to the Drs Design and pleading in that the Apostle in the same very Text wherein he enjoins Titus to ordain Elders doth identify and make one and the same the Office of the Bishop and Elder which were a mere implicantia in terminis if the Apostle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoyn the Drs. supposed Prelatical Power in Ordination as Competent to an higher Order of Bishops Superior to Prerbyters For the Drs. asserting the Office of Episcopacy and that of Timothy to be one and the same he therein beggs thâ— Question and supposes what he has to prove The Office of the Prelat and Evangelist being so vastly different as we have already made appear And therefore his Reason and Argument is pitifully absurd from our assertting the Power of Ordination as inherent to the Church upon the Ground of the Apostles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelists to conclud the standing Office of Prelatical inspection or Ordination The Dr. should also know that the asserting that a Church Officer such as an Apostle hath an extraordinary Authority conversant about Ordination can neither infer that the Power of Ordination it self is extraordinary and expired nor that every Person Ordained hath an ordinary standing Function Which the â—postles extraordinary Authority in the first Planting of Presbyters while the Churches were in fieri as to their Organick Being their Ordaining Evangelists extraordinary Officers together with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority as well in their Actings of the Power of Order and Preaching with Miraculous Gifts of Tongues and Confirming their Doctrins with Miracles as in Point of Jurisdiction their Extraordinary Censures above exprest doth evince and make evident The extraordinary Mission of the Twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Authority diffused and spread among all the ' Church Officers in the World none of which doth Succeed them into the same formal Office So Timothy's Evangelistick extraordinary Authority is derived handed down into and seated in a Presbytrie tho the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not Succeeded unto The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing to continue in all Ages and in all times doth not render the Apostolick Mission or Commission ordinary nor infer their being Succeeded in idem Officium eundem Ministerii gradum the ordinary Power being Institut and settled in the Hands of ordinary Officers by a New warrand and Commission according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination The Office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many Works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the Case is here The Evangelists extraordinary Office and Commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the First founding of the Churches for Watering the Apostles Plantation Building up the Churches in their Organick being and settling all the ordinary Officers thereof is changed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Church exercised and even in this of Ephesus For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity upon this head and touching Timothies Episcopacy over Ephesus they are sufficiently obviat by what is said above and in special by what we have offered and evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of the Names of Bishop and Apostle The Dr. brings an Anonymous Author to prove that Timothy was Enthroned forsooth Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by Paul A pityful Proof indeed and fit only for a nameless Author It being evident by the best searchers of Antiquity that the Office of Metropolitans had not a Being till several Ages after Timothy For Chrysostom his asserting that Timothy was intrusted with a Church or whole Nation If we shall assert that this is applicable to his transient or temporary Evangelistick Trust in correspondence to the extensive Office of Apostleship it says nothing to our purpose And the Dr. should know that Chrysostom upon Tit. 1.5 makes the Office of Bishop and Presbyter one and the same and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. design and arguing For other Authors who do call Timothy together with other Bishops then in being Apostles which the Dr. further Pleads it doth sufficiently evince what is said above of their improper equivocal acceptation of the Term since no person of Sense who ever Read the New Testament can take the Office of Apostle as delineat in Scripture to be applicable to Timothy far less to ordinary Bishops fixed in certain Posts Nay the Dr. himself and in contradiction to himself doth unawares bewray this in his Greek Citation of Theodoret who asserts that the Twelve Apostles were more strictly called so or rather according to the Truth of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles according to Truth or in very deed Clearly importing that the Name appropriat to other Officers was but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly as any Minister or Messenger of Christ may be thus called And if this be Theodorets general Rule as the Dr calls it that the Twelve Apostles were only such
Ordination of any higher Officer than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter I shall only add 3 ly That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice that they own the Ministers of the Word as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge and in the ordinary Power of Government their equals as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut which is above discribed doth make evident And it were strange that Evangelists should beâ—instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches who were inferior to Apostles That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie concurring Authoritatively tho Paul was present should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie tho inferior to an Apostle and that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree wherein was put forth both the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in Church Government yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head that we may understand how well he has laid his Measures for reaching his Scope and End let it be remembered what it is he undertaks to prove viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as a standing necessary Function in the Church to be transmitted to after Ages with the same Authority and Commission as delivered at first to the Twelve For this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for from that passage of Scripture where Our Lord said to his Apostles As my Father hath sent Me so send I you And according to this Rule let us examin his Instances His first proof P. 406 is from St. Clement who mentions in his Epistle to the Corinthians three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levits which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacons A strange proof and an odd Explication indeed How doth the Doctor prove that Clement did any otherewise express himself than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers signifying that there are diverse Officers in the New Testament Ministry as in the Old Again How comes the Dr. to explain him of Bishop Presbyter in the Singular and Deacons in the Plural And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest in the singular and Priests in the plural Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest over the Christian Catholick Church as of the Church of the Iewes Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this Moreover the Drs. Explication of Clement viz. That he means by the High Priest the Bishop by the Priests the Presbyter c. Baffles his Design and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors as holding an Office and Authority corresponding to that of the Priests under the Old Testament then certainly he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government such as the Priests had For the Dr. will not be bold to say that the Sanehedrin made up of Priests had not a governing Power or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest as he affirms it is in the person of the Bishop secluding the Presbyters And further to discover how the Dr. has abused his Reader and forefeited his Credit in this Citation let us take Notice that Clement to remove the Sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 tells them how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed an High Priest Priests and Levits and then tells them that for the times of the Gospel Jesus Christ sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits approving them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterward believe From which Words the learned Authors of the Append. Minist Evang. Have long since concluded against the Dr. and his Fellows 1. That in the first and purest times the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how small little Apostles these were I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power as are many Pastors now in Scotland 2. That Bishops and Deacons are the only Orders of Ministry owned by Clement as planted by the Apostles the first Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery in making Clement to assert three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles by Jesus Christ knowing that contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop and being endu'd with perfect knowledg they appointed the foresaid Orders Viz Bishops and Deaeons Upon which the Learned Authors of the Apendix do further note 1. That by Name we are not to understand the bare Name but the Honour and Dignity as the word is taken Philip. 2.9 Eph. 1.21 The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters p. 57.58 2. That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy is by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons in Clements Judgement What ever Remedy of Schism the Church afterward applyed in setting up one Bishop over another Clement tells us that the Apostles endued with perfect knowledg of things Ordained only Bishops and Deacons Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72 will find he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church to be Governed by Presbyters without Bishops Besides that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously and supposes them to be one and the same throughout the whole Epistle The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field Whose Six Epistles written on the way to his Martyrdom he tells us are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles So that we have no other evasion but to alledg they are Counterfeit from which imputation they have been Triumphantly vindicat so he expresses it by a Learned Pen And that therefore no Man of Learning without exposing his Reputation can call them in Question Who this learned Pen is who thus vindicats them the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know and if he mean Dr. Pearson as probably he doth he should know that his pretended Vindication was confuted by a learned French Divine Dally and his Proofs convicted of Forgery So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion That the Vindication is Triumphant And as for the Drs. Re-vindication this Author should know the learned L'Rooque a Famous Pastor of the French Church replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge in defence of Dally upon the Point of Ignatius's
all the Power of Government in the person of the Bishop excluding wholly all Presbyters from any Interest therein So that the Dr. in this unwary Citation contradicts Ignatius and himself and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians wherein Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family to be his Steward He hath again Wounded himself For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry under the Authority of the Master and tyed up to his Orders is point blanck contrare unto and toto coelo different from that Principality of the highest Degree before ascribed to the Bishop and owned by the Dr. as his and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office Sure to be a Prince and a Steward in Government are distinct things and entirely and wholly opposit if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it who disowns a Dominion and in stead thereof and in opposition thereunto owns a Stewardship in God's Family and humble Sevice or Ministry 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations Whereof the first is That these Epistles were Written not above Eight or Nine years after the Decease of St. Iohn and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church who were not Subject to them That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches so that they were not within the Altar but without it who were not subject to them And therefore it may be concluded there were no Churches without them I Answer that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early no body will doubt but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries as are above rehearsed was written by Ignatius and was his Sense of Church Government no Man of Sense or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr will believe And we find the contrair is asserted and made good by several of the Godly Learned Not to stand upon a more critical Answer and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author tho admitted unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts the Judgment of the whole Church to be correspondent thereunto and that none who either wrot not or whose Writings may be lost were of contrary Judgment which he neither attempts to prove nor will ever be able The Drs. next Inference is That since there were Bishops so early in this Age presiding over the Churches they behoved to receive several of them at least their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles since Ignatius at the writing of these Epistles had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch an eminent Church planted immediatly by St. Peter It being the constant practice of the Apostles to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies that there were de facto and de jure such Prelats as he pleads for Nor can he from this Ground perswad any rational Man of this unless he could evince two Things which he will do ad Calendas Graecas 1. Not only that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius but likewise the Sense and Judgment as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer as the Bishop is correspondent to the Scripture Account and Sense of the Church Officers mentioned in the New Testament and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government and the Institution of the Officers thereof which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty Again his Reason here is very odd whereby he fortifies this Inference viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted For if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops as he needs must if he speak consequentially I would fain know First What shadow of Proof he can give for this and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such For if this be asserted then it follows that Bishops were set up when there were no Elders to presid over contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows except Dr. Hammond And next I would know how the Dr. upon this Supposition will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction and that both to himself and Ignatius Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders and himself holds that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem when the Apostle Paul went in to them were mere Presbyters or Pastors Again if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion who takes still the Elders for Prelats so he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church not to suppose it only else in his principles these Churches where mere Elders were placed were manck and wanted the power of Jurisdiction And since he has produced nothing from Scripture that proves such an institution of Bishops or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses his Dream of Ignatius is as easily rejected by us as affirmed by him We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas when sent out among the Gentiles and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat of the Drs. Mould in either of the Antiochs the Scripture is utterly silent And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion As for Chrysostom Tom. 5. edit Savil. p. 99. his admiring of Ignatius Dignity obtained by the Hands of Apostles laid upon him It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity which the Dr. alledges For doth not the Dr. think that the Office of the Scripture Bishop is a great Dignity And he should prove not suppose only that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense which as he offers not to do so if attempting it he could not chuse but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself who as is above cleared asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter The same I repone to what the Dr. alledgeth P. 410 of Polycarp his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna as also what is made good by many Protestant Divines viz. That the Fathers and Ancients used the Name of Bishops in a general Sense that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
therefore in Ierom's Sense Pastors are such Sons and Successors of Apostles and have both Name and thing of the Scripture Bishop As for his Epistle ad Nepot asserting that what Aaron and his Sons were that are the Bishops and Presbters Ierom in this allusion in point of Government asserts only that God has under the New Testament as under the Old fixed a Church Government and Church Officers And giving the Dr. the advantage of this Sense that Ierom including the degenerat Custom of his time insinuats the premised difference betwixt the then Bishops and Presbyters I pray what says this to the Dr's scope viz To prove from Ierom's allusive Phrase and expressing himself thus The many Essential differences which he places betwixt Bishop and Presbyter No man of Sense can draw such an inference For 1. Ierom's Judgment founded upon so many clear Scripture Grounds as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when asserting and Disputing this Point ex professo ought in all Reason to preponderat any such General allusive Expressions and as a Comment Expound the same in a Sense most consentient to his Judgment if we will but allow him the Common priviledg of all Men to be the best Interpreter of his own Sense 2 ly The Dr. himself must acknowledg this else he will make Ierom plead for a Gospel Aaron or Universal Patriarch if the Words were taken in a strict Literal Sense as tending every way to equiparat the Government of the Church under the Old and New Testament The Dr. inferrs from this Passage Therefore as Aaron by Divine Right was Superior to his Sons so is the Bishop in Ierom's Sense to his Presbyters But he might as well infer Therefore as there was one Aaron set over his Sons and all the Priests and Levits of the Church of Israel so ought there to be in Ierom's Sense one Supreme President over al the Christian Church Besides 2 ly The Dr. dare not say that Aaron's Sons and the Priests had no Essential interest in Government and that it was inhanced and Monopolized in the person of Aaron as he holds and insinuats that Ierom also holds that it is thus Monopolized in the Person of the Bishop Ierom asserts that Presbyters and Bishops are all one Iure Divino consequently that they have the same Essential interest in Government So that whatever President he may suppose set over them by their Choice yet it neither doth nor can enhance nor seclude this their Power Thus we see that the Dr's alledged Contradiction in these Passages to his premised Testimony anent the identity of Bishop and Presbyter is but his own imagnation Besides that one of his Degree should know that no simile is to be strained beyond the Scope of the Author making use of it else it were not a simile The Dr. asks whether Ierom is more to be Credited when speaking without a Byass or when speaking partially and in his own Cause I Answer by a Counter-query whether Ierom's full and larg account of his Judgment when Disputing a Point ex professo and from Scripture is more to be believed and laid hold upon as expressing his Sense than a general dark allusive expression when under no such Circumstances and prosecuting no such scope and design and which of the two ought to preponderat And so I dismiss the Dr's Third Answer His Fourth exception to the premised Testimonie is That the translation of the Government from the common Counsel of Presbyters to one Bishop must be in Jerom's Sense Apostolick since it was made when it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollo's And therefore this Decree must needs have been made in Pauls time Ans. The Dr. might have seen this Phantastick exception long since removed First By Junius in the passage forecited scil de Cler. Cap. 15. Not. 16. where he at large expones this Testimony and removes this gloss tria distinguit tempora Hieronymus saith he c. Ierom distinguisheth Three Periods of time one wherein the Church was Governed by common Counsel of Presbyters The second wherein there were divisions in Religion and it was said among the People not at Corinth only I am of Paul c. For when these things were said at Corinth the Church was Governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters as appears 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 1. The Third and last wherein one chosen out from among the Presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the Vulgar had their own latitude Iunius here informs the Dr. that this was not said at Corinth only but among the People malum non Corinthi solum It was saith he a publick evil He adds that Paul himself prescribed no such remedy to the Corinthians And and afterward Not. 17. he tells us that Ierom saith That after it was said among the People this Change was made but not that this human Prostasie began at that time viz of the Schism but after that time To this Judicious account of the learned Iunius I shall add another of the famous Whittaker De Eccl. quest 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 29. where he thus obviats and removes the Drs. Quible upon Ierom's forementioned Testimony he saith not it was Decreed by the Apostles that one Presbyter should be set over the rest This he says was by the Churches custom not the Apostles Decree Then Jerom adds let the Bishops know that it is rather by custom than Divine appointment that they are set over Presbyters Had the Apostles saith Whittaker changed the First Order and set Bishops over Presbyters and forbidden the Churches to be Governed by their common Counsel truely this had been the â—ords appointment because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ unless we will ascribe to Custom not to Divine appointment what they decreed But the Apostles being alive there was nothing changed in that Order For the Epistle was written when Paul was in Macedonia c. The Dr. may in these accounts see his Error Jerom in the forementioned Testimonies proving a Scripture parity of Bishop and Presbyter through all the Apostles times and writings and even to John's time the surviver of them all could not be so bruitishly inconsequent as to make the Schism at Corinth the occasion of the Change of Government so long before his Testimony from John yea before Paul's farewel Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus from which he draws another of his Proofs but he speaks of an human Custom coming in Paulatim postea piece and piece and by degrees long after these times and but alluds unto that division 1 Cor. 1 where again the Dr. may see the Error of taking strictly his alluding Phrases expressing it in the Apostles words not of their times For as we heard Whittaker observe the Apostles never appointed such accressent Power of Prelats over Presbyters as a Remedy of Schism among all their Prescriptions of the Remedies of this evil Rom. 16. 1
the Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
thus called he was called in a special manner to the Apostleship of the Gentiles I have appeared unto thee saith our Lord to make thee a Minister and a Witness delivering thee from the People and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to open their Eyes c. Upon which the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them Act. 26.17 18 19. The Apostle also tells us Gal. 1.15 16 17. that when it pleased God who separated me from my Mothers Womb and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach among the Heathen or Gentiles immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me Compare this with Ephes. 3.8 Hence its odd to suppose that either he or Barnabas were at this time ordained Apostles For Barnabas that he was an Apostle looking strictly to the Description of Apostles some may doubt but supposing him such he being joyned with Paul under that Character Act. 14.14 we read of his Officiating and for what can be understood from Scripture in the same manner and by virtue of the same Office as the Apostle Paul to the Gentiles before this time For Act. 11.22 he is sent to Antioch by the Church at Ierusalem for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there And v. 25 26. he goes to Tarsus to seek Paul and brings him to Antioch and Taught there a year with Paul where the Christian Name first took place Next the Dr. finding himself puzzled with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to their Apostolick Office by mere Prophets and Teachers has no Shift but to alledge they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria since they could not else have derived the Office of Apostolat A pretty Evasion indeed from a Phantastick Objection First these Prophets and Teachers are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers who had also the Gift of Prophecy Vigent at that time So Pool 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat upon the place says they were such as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29 32. who the Dr. will not doubt are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established And with these spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 He adds that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office and singular for these times yet inferior to that of Apostles and in many accompanied with Divine Predictions The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That some take the two Words Prophets and Teachers for one and the same thing Others distinguish them thus that Prophets were those who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost had extraordinary Gifts to foretell things to come and to expound the Holy Scriptures But Teachers were such who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts to Instruct and Govern the Church in the Worship of God And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost mentioned Act. 13.2 viz. Separat me Barnabas and Saul they Paraphrase thus That they were separat from the Service of this Church where there were other Teachers enough to send them to the Gentiles whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning citing Act. 26.16 And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them they Paraphrase thus Not thereby to chuse them to be Apostles whereunto they were before chosen v. 1. and Act. 9.15 but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus So Cornel. a Lapide to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such as by the Influence of the Spirit foretold things to come So Menochius That they were Expounders of the Scripture by the Spirits Revelation So Lorinus A Lapide Piscator The last of whom takes them to be the same with Teachers All which how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers and the Persons upon whom Hands were Imposed together with the end of this Action is obvious to the meanest Reflection In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat and the Belgick Divines we may further notice this particular Account of Pool Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already the Laying on of Hands did signify 1. Their being set apart to this particular Imploymentt hey were now sent about 2 ly The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had 3 ly Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them and Success upon the Work they went for But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles and that as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria is a Dream much if not only beholden to the Dr. himself Again the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer For if these his supposed Bishops of Syria were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size how could they derive an Apostolat of the Primary and first Order as he calls it unless the Dr. make them intirely one which he sometimes tho in this inconsistent with himself disownes as we heard above when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power to make general Canons to the whole Church to the Bishops only to their particular Diocesses But the Dr. finds another Objection viz. That those Officers who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas are called Prophets not Apostles or Bishops He Answers That so was Iudas and Silas Act. 15.32 and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren as he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found appropriat to any Church Officer straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head But this Term being appropriat to such Persons and in such Circumstances as will not admit this Office and Character but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him His Friends the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible smell'd out no Prelacy nor Ruling in this Term but Translat the Word Chief Men Primarios Praecipuos Estimatos Honoratos thus Erasmus Vatablus Beza Piscator Camerarius Drusius Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes so Beza Chief Men then may be understood thus that they were persons as in Ecclesiastick Offices so of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office and that such discriminating terms of one from another will infer no distinction therein Besides some might alledg that if he will allow Members of the Church visible the Scripture epithet of Brethren and of the Brotherhood which Denomination we find applyed unto them 1 Pet.
2.17 That upon this ground Pastors or Presbyters who have a Rule appropriat unto them and are termed as in that capacity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the one and the other may very well come under the Character of Rulers and Brethren and by consequence that the Relation of the one to the other may well come under this complex Phrase of Rulers among the Brethren especially since in the Council Act 15. the Elders and Brethren are distinguished as Church Officers from privat Church Officers from privat Church Members Again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and even among Brethren doth evidently and frequently in Scripture reject the Dr's Mitr'd Notion Particularly Heb. 13.7 where they are spoken of in the Plural as over that Church both in Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin And v. 17. they are in a Plurality supposed both to Rule and watch for Souls And v. 24 they are distinguished from the Saints under this Denomination And consequently in all the Three Passages put under the Character of Rulers among the Brethren but as having all a Relation to this Church and actually and jointly Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin Consequently they are such Rulers among the Brethren as are all Faithful Pastors And therefore of a quite distinct Character from his supposed Ruling Prelats The Dr. affirms That Ordination was confined to such as were admitted to the Apostolat as the laying on of Hands in Ephesus was by Paul committed to Timothy upon whom he himself imposed Hands And unto Titus at Crete whom he left to Ordain Elders 2 Tim. 1.6 Tit. 1.5 To this we have spoken at large and need not here stand upon a prolix resuming of what hath been offered in Answer thereunto Only in a word we may see that the Dr. Shoots short of his proofs which is obviously evident to any that considers that he neither proves nor can prove these his groundless Postulata and suppositions without which he misses his mark and his Argument has no imaginable Foundation such as 1. That the Offices of Timothy and Titus were ordinary and the same with his described Hierarchical Prelat This we have already disproved and by clear Scripture evidence made the contrary appear 2 ly That the Apostles Precepts in point of Ordination to Timothy and Titus did import their sole Authority therein in Churches constitut so as to seclud all Authority of Pastors or Presbyters in the same even where they were settled and could concurr The contrary whereof we have also made evident Again whereas the Dr. thinks to strengthen his Plea in telling us That the Apostle by Imposing Hands on Timothy Ordained him an Apostle or Bishop of that Church We have evinced the folly of this alledgeance and that the Apostles imposing Hands upon Timothy rather strengthens than impugns the Presbyterian Cause Since 1. It is evident that the Presbytrie and consequently Ordinary Pastors whom the Dr. wholly excluds from Ordination laid Hands upon Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 and had an Authoritative interest therein And 2 ly That the Text mentions Paul's Laying on of Hands in order to Gifts but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie in another Mould and Phrase Hence its easie to cut the Sinews of the Dr's Arguing with a Notion of hii own set down but a few Lines above He enquires how could the Prophets at Antioch derive an Apostolat to Paul and Barnabas if they had not been of that Character Now I would ply the Dr. with this Counter-query how could Imposition of Hands and Authoritative Imposition be performed by Pastors and Ministerial or Evangelistick Authority be derived by them together with Paul to Timothy if Pastors were not of such a Character as had an Ordaining Power Here is a Query founded upon the Dr's own medium and his Answering satisfyingly the second will clear him in Answering the First Hence what he adds P. 438 439. viz. That through the whole Scripture History Ordination is performed by those of the Apostolick Order or by secondary Apostles as he calls them◠doth in this appear groundless For here we find the Power of Ordination seated in and exercised by a Presbytrie And we have told him and above evinced that tho we suppose Paul present and imposing Hands with them it rather confirms than invalidats our Argument from this place for Pastors and Presbyters Power in Ordination Not to insist upon the Dr's recent instance of Prophets and Teachers Authoritatively Imposing Hands upon Paul and Barnabas which tho not importing a formal Ordination yet considering the circumstances and context viz. The Persons Imposing hands scil Pastors and Teachers the Persons upon whom they imposed Hands scil Apostles together with the end and design i. e. their being solemnly set a part and Blest and thus sent out upon a special Legation it s an Instance strongly pleading and as we use to say a majori ad minus for a Power of Ordination in Pastors in relation to Ordinary Church Officers And whatever may be said of instances as to Ordinary Pastors in these Infant-times of the Church rare when extraordinary Officers such as Apostles and Evangelists were existent and their Offices vigent the Episcopal Authority so clearly and frequently as we have proved ascribed and apropriat to Pastors doth certainly includ this Authority of Ordination as essential thereunto The Dr. adds That if we Consult Primitive Antiquity the best Interpreters of Scripture in Matters of Fact at least we will alwise find the Power of giving Orders confined Limited to Bishops I need not much digress to tell him that the after-practice of Churches is acknowledged in matters of Fact and even by Eusebius himself in a great measure dark and uncertain and is also acknowledged and found much opposit to Scripture And therefore a slippery and unsound ground and Comment as to Scripture Matter of Fact and in order to such a conclusion I might add that if the Dr's Reasoning hold good it is in point of Right as well as in matter of Fact the sure and sole Comment upon Scripture But for this bold and Universal assertion of the Dr's it is easily convict of falsehood by what is above offered The 4 th Council of Carth. Canon 22. Decrees That the Bishops Ordain not without the Clergy And if we suppose this Canon obeyed there wanted not abundance of conformable instances In Cyprians time the Pastors had the Power manum imponendi of Ordaining Ep. 78. And in Aegypt in absence of the Bishop Ordained alone as Ambrose on Eph. 4. asserts Besides what is at large made out to this scope by our Writers in reference to the Chorepiscopi and this for a very considerable extent both of time and place Cyprian Ep. 33. Writing to his Charge certifies them That Aurelius was Ordained by him and his Collegues who were present with him And least the Dr. start at a supposition that Cyprian called Presbyters his Collegues let any peruse Ep. 33. and this will convincingly appear We
their Doctrin and Practice they disown all dominion and Prelatical Principality in the Church and all outward grandure and greatness as inconsistent with their Office and the Office of all Gospel Ministers But to the Topick and ground of the Dr's Argument I Answer directly that the Apostles as they understood so they practised our Lords Precept in the sense we owne 1. In that they practised a compleat equality of Official Power among themselves This I hope he will not deny or if he do its easie to set all Protestant Divines in pursuit of him 2 In that they never exercised nor attempted to seek any Civil Greatness or Dominion such as the Prelats he pleads for do own as competent to their Office They knew that their Lord when but desired to give advice in a Civil Cause gave this return who made me a Iudg And declined the Imployment And that therefore neither they nor any of their Successors were to be Civil Counsellors and Spiritual Peers in Parliaments and Princes Courts 3. They disown all Dominion in one Pastor over another and discharged it earnestly Thus the Apostle Peter to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. Thus also Diotrephes affecting a Preheminence is rebuked by the Apostle Iohn And Paul owns himself and other Apostles as Stewards only in the House of God and disowns a Dominion as we have heard Next As for their Iurisdiction over subordinat Ecclesiasticks which is the Substratum of the Dr's great Answer and Question I do deny First that they exercised any Episcopal Jurisdiction properly taken over them Secondly such a Jurisdiction as did Cross this Precept The Proof of both these will fully discover the vanity of the Dr's Second Reply And First that the Apostles exercised no such Episcopal Authority over Ecclesiasticks or Churches planted as the Dr. pleads for is evident thus 1. Their Apostolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching reached to prescrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches consequently was cumulative thereto not privative thereof which appears in their enjoyning the exercise of Spiritual Iurisdiction as inherent in Church Officers as Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in Pastors both in the designations of Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops attribut to them As also in their frequent enjoyning the Peoples obedience and subjection to them as in that capacity Heb. 13.7.17 1 Pet. 5.2.3 1 Thess. 5.12.2 The Apostles did not as the Prelats invade the decisive Power of Pastors in Government but took along their decisive Votes and concurrence as we find in that Council Act. 15. where its evident that in every Point the Elders or Ministers conccurred with the Apostles in the Disquisition Sentence and decretal Letter 3. As the Apostles planted Churches with Pastors or Preaching Presbyters instructing them with Authority to Feed and Rule as Bishops or Rulers set up by the Holy Ghost so they committed the Government of the Churches to them in their last farewells without the least hint of Super-institut Officers of an higher Order So that the Apostles instructing Pastors with such Authority commanding its exercise enjoyning the Churches obedience to them exemplifying and Authorizing their interest in highest Judicatories yea making even Evangelists as Timothy pass through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination in order to the exercise of his Office Not to insist upon even Apostles submission to the Authoritative Imposition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers when sent out upon a special Gospel Legation To which we may add the Apostles owning Pastors as Brethren Fellow-helpers Fellow-Labourers Co-Presbyters or Elders It follows inevitably 1. That as to the Perpetual Pastoral Charge the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of the Sacraments and the appendent Jurisdictional Power which by the Apostles Doctrin is a Lower Step to this and connected therewith they own the Pastors or Preaching Presbyters their Equals and their proper Successors in this Ministerial Authority consequently the ordinary Church Officers of the highest Order to whom they committed the Keys of Doctrin and Disciplin 2. That the Exercise of their extraordinary Apostolick directive Power and Authority which they could not divest themselves of while alive did no whit impeach the standing Authority of Pastors nor did it includ any Jurisdiction properly over Churches constitut and Moulded in their Organick being By Iurisdiction properly I mean such as is of a standing necessity in order to the Churches Edification in all times or such a Jurisdiction over Churches as may be supposed paramount unto or privative of the Jurisdictional Authority of Pastors and of Organick Churches Secondly That the Apostles exercised no such Authority over the Churches as did cross our Lords Precept and Prohibition is evident in that 1. Our Saviour discharged Imparity among Church Officers of the same kind and therefore this could not impeach the Apostles Authority over ordinary Officers 2. Our Lords instructing them with such a measure of the Spirit as was sutable to the First founding of the Churches and with Authority as his living and infallibly inspired Oracles to plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government therein Unless the Dr. will say that our Lords Precept did cross and contradict his design he must needs ackdowledg that the Apostles in exercising this directive Power and extraordinary Authority over ordinary inferior Officers could not cross this his Precept and Prohibition they being our Lords immediatly called infallibly inspired and extraordinarly Gifted First Messengers in order to this end Thus we have seen the vanity and insufficiency of the Dr's Second Answer But there is no end of Vanities The Dr's Third Answer is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown swelling boast That which he says baffles and exposes our Argument to all intents and purposes is that our Lord did that himself among them which now he Commanded them to do one to another And the doing of this one to another in obedience to his Command could not infer a Parity unless we Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal For our Lord recommends what he enjoins from his own constant and visible Practice among them that he their Lord and Master was their Servant And therefore it became the greatest among them to be Modest calm and humble toward their Brethren which would qualify them for Ecclesiastick Promotions This poor and mean Answer and Reason of the Dr's is a notion for which he is beholden to his Popish Masters And being here subjoyned to such big words brings to mind some Poetick Phrases Quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu And Projicis ampullas sesquipedalia verba And that of Partuâ—iunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus There 's no doubt that the Dr. has as much exposed and baffled his own Judgment and Reputation in this thrasonick weak Answer as in any thing else But to the point First I must tell him that if this Argument tending to prove from this Text
proceed therefore The Dr. P. 19. is so taken with the Invincible Strength of this his Answer that he falls into a Compassionat Regrate for his Presbyterian Brethren telling his Reader That its very sad that any should be so infatuated with their new Schemes of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense degrades our blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples For what he Commanded to the Apostles he Practised among them himself If I were to give Way to such a Retaliating Regrate as this would tempt some unto I would Echo it back in telling him that its very sad that a Man who is bold to Chartell this whole Church and sets his Name with a D. D. to such a bold Pamphlet as this should in a pretended Pleading for Episcopacy and Answering a Presbyterian Argument against it in the premised Scriptures so betray his Cause and Proclaim his Folly as to Charge with infatuation the Body of Protestant Divines in their Pleadings against the Pope and Support his Mitre in pretending to plead for Episcopacy As to our Lords practising himself what was Commanded to them I have already demonstrat the futility of this Notion and what an Aegyptian Reed it is to support his Conclusion Our Saviour practised Humility and called the Apostles to such an exercise of it as did sute that Humble Ministry he enjoyned them and was opposit to that Proud Dominion and inequality they were affecting And this wise Critical Dr. with this his new Sword will needs cut the Gordian Knot of the Argument here made use of by our Lord when exciting to Humility and Parity such persons as are of unquestionable equality in point of Official Power denying the Strength of all such reasoning He tells us that what our Lord enjoyned was toto coelo different from Parity And thus must be antipode and in the highest Line of opposition thereunto and consequently a Primacy And this Confirms that which before I Charged upon him anent his owning a Primacy among the Apostles He says They were not to exercise their Iurisdiction as Lords of the Gentiles by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but in an ingaging behaviour of Charity and Humility Yet still the Dr. supposes their Jurisdiction included a Supremacy and Chiefness of Power one over another And so here is good sound Popish Pleading But Protestant Divines have long since Taught his Reverence that all Earthly Dominion it self and worldly Pomp is forbidden all Greatness and Grandure whether Civil or pretendedly Ecclesiastick and this as opposit to the Nature of their Power and vocation which is a Spiritual Laborious Service and Ministry for the Salvation of Souls And thus stands in contradiction to all sort of Domination and Lordship Moreover he apparently falls into a pityful inadvertancy in identifying Civil Dominion with a Spirit of Pride there being a Lawful Commanded Civil Dominion appointed of God And if he Object that the Princes of the Gentiles whom our Lord instanceth in thus exercised it As the Mould of his Phrase will not admit of that defence so our Saviours instancing such Gentile Princes as were called Benefactors or Gracious Lords and in Luke using the simple not the Compound verb which points at a Civil Rule and Dominion simplely considered intirely excludes this his subterfuge and shuts up this postern Whittaker hath long since told him De pontif quest 1. that the word which Luke makes use of is applyed to denote Lawful Rule and that all the Princes of the Gentiles were not such as did Tyranically Overrule or Reign unjustly and that the Clemency and Justice of many of them is Celebrat And both he and Iunius ubi sup does shew that it is the Dominion or Lordship it self not the unwarrantable Exercise or manner of attaining which our Lord here Condemns For that which the Dr. adds ibid. of Pauls answering his Episcopal Character when the Care of all the Churches was upon him in employing his Episcopal Power to Edification I have already told him of what Nature that Care was and how it differed from the pretended Inspection and Dominion of Prelats His care of the Churches was an Apostolick directive Inspection suted to his Extraordinary Office and Gifts which no ordinary Officer can pretend unto and in its exercise so far from Exemplifying a Prelatical Dominion that both in Doctrin and Practice he baffles it out of the World in enjoyning the highest Acts of Jurisdiction to Pastors or Presbyters as these of Corinth enjoyning the whole Episcopal Authority to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus in his last farewel to that Church ascribing the Power of Ordination to a Presbytrie though himself was present in the Action Identifying in his Epistles to the Philippians to Titus the Name Office and Qualifications of Bishop and Presbyter disowning all Dominion in the House of God Ascribing to himself a Ministry and Service only so far was he from Arrogating to himself a Spiritual Lordship in God's House or a Civil Peerage in the State such as the Prelats whom the Dr. Pleads for do usurp And if in all these he answered his Episcopal Character as who will doubt but he did and obeyed this injunction of our Saviour by consequence he condemned the Prelatical Character so many ways opposit thereto Besides he pronounced a woe upon himself if he Preached not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.16 and Preached it in Season and out of Season Thus enjoyning Timothy 2 Tim. 4.1.2 And therefore pronounced a woe upon non-Preaching Prelats who look upon this as no part of their work He preferred the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin to the Person who Ruled only 1 Tim. 1.17 And thus Preaching Pastors to non-Preaching Prelats who look upon their pretended spiritual and Civil Rule as the proper Characteristick of their Office and Preaching but a little piece of supererogatory Work but no exercise of their Prelatick Office and but obiter to the Actings of their supposed Grandure He enjoyned Christs Minister and Souldier to beware of ingadging in Worldy affairs if they would please Christ who has Chosen them to be his Souldiers 2 Tim. 2.4 And thus condemned Prelats holding Stat Offices as pleasers of men of Princes of themselves and not of Christ. He tells us next P. 20 That the Fathers of the Church advanced above their Brethren to Ecclesiastick Power had this Notion of their dignity that they were the Servants of others As for the advancement of Ancient Fathers we say that as the equality of Pastors is Christs Pattern upon the Mount and that as Ierom expresses it the Apostolick Churches were Governed communi Presbyterorum consilio so the First Fathers or Bishops were fixed Moderators only and had no Jurisdiction above their Brethren and even when this Usurping Jurisdiction above Pastors was Gradually Advancing some of the best Bishops as Cyprian particularly owned the Pastors as their Collegues in Government and were far from the fastuous
be evident to any who will compare their Writings with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments from these Scriptures cited by him and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter From Act. 20. We thus Argue First That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock Whence we collect 1. That the Pastor is the true Scripture Bishop 2. That by his Office he Feeds and Rules the Flock and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost Next it hence follows that whatever Authority Power and Jurisdiction is imported in the Name Bishop falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command given to these Elders or Pastors who are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office the Diocesan Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretended Paramount Inspection over them evanisheth as a mere Chimaera especially since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors 3. It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy now present with Paul and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him for at Writing thereof the Apostle was at Macedonia And the Sacred History informs us that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy and gave the Elders this Charge In a Word this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge for after this they were to see his Face no more So that these being the Apostles last Thoughts to speak so and Testamentary Instructions in Point of Church Government we have here the the Samplare and Pattern shewed by this great Apostle upon the Mount of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions And since the Episcopalians will not call the Gospel-Church a Speckled Bird and her Government of diverse Cuts they must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14 doth furher clear From hence we further Argue First These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly are the Apostolick Bishops and these only Ergo the Hierarchical Prelat is no Apostolick Bishop 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors he is Pastor Pastorum 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock as such We Argue Secondly from the Text thus These Apostolick Bishops have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them by God both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key And therefore the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground 1. As Snatching away the last from Pastors and Arrogating it solely to himself 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes And this in a double Respect 1. In the Case of the Pastor to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key 2. With Respect to himself who is obliged ex Natura Ratione Officii or from the Nature of his Office to Preach the Gospel to no Flock but to Govern only Thirdly All this Scriptural Episcopal Jurisdiction is by the Apostle ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost in Presence of Timothy while there is Altum Silentium of any Interest he had over them in this Matter Whence it may be inferred 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein And 2. By clear Consequence it follows that nothing here enjoyned them inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him in these Duties or his Supereminent Inspection over them 3. By further necessary Consequence this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy in the first Epistle written to him it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only to pass off with that Exigent It being infallibly clear that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church and his Directions to Timothy while residing therein Finally It is hence infallibly concluded 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing as is properly and formally Episcopal or of the Hierarchical Mould This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders as their Essential Right and Priviledge 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats or Diocesan Bishops as their Succedaneous Substitutes upon their withdrawing unless we will make the Apostle Paul to Model this Church in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches And in a Word it hence follows that whatever may be pleaded as to Matter of Fact neither this nor any Church else could ever after Iure divest themselves of this Authority I mean the Church Representatives or Officers thereof in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God From Tit. 1.5 7. The Presbyterians Argue not merely from the Promiscuous Use or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning and the Connecting Particle and Illative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points at the very Topick and Ground upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not a Nominal only For thus his Argument lyes The Presbyter or Elder must be so and so Qualified for such must the Bishop be So that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two as different Orders of Ministers breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications because such are proper to the Superior Office No doubt the Holy Ghost who thus Reasons ascribes to them not only the same Name and he knew best how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words but likewise the same Qualifications Work and Office Episcopalians will not disowne it that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work from that of the Presbyter or Pastor So that they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications Office and Duties or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech and Unsoundness in Reasoning And therefore the Office of the one and the other is clearly supposed one and the same From Philip. 1.1 Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church We inferr 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto 2. That they could not be Diocesans 1. Because the Deacons the lowest Officers are immediatly subjoyned to them And Prelatists will not say that there were no Pastors in that Church but only Diocesans 2. It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical
Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds that these who have Laboured in Reforming the Church these Five Hundred Years have Taught that all Pastors be they Entitled Bishops or Priests have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word Citing first the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next Marsilius Patavinus Defens Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr we will find Bishop Iewel fully Combats him in this Point Defens Apol. cont Hard. Edit An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding saith he to make it an Heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one Knows he how far and to whom he reaches the Name of an Heretick Then he Cites Chrystos on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing that inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no Difference Ierom ad Evagrium asserting that Apostolus perspiâ—ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos The Apostle clearly Teaches the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same calling the contrary Opinion a Vecordia or Folly Also August Quest. Vet. N. Test. Quest. 101. Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter Amb. de Dignit Sacerd. Episcopi Presbyteri una est Ordinatio Asserting that the Ordination and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same All these and many more Holy Fathers saith Bishop Iewel together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings Advice must be holden for Hereticks I will add and all these and many more together with the Apostle Paul by this Dr's Advice must be holden for Novelists and Scots Schismaticks But there are other Bishops will yet enter the Lists with our Dr Bishop Pilkinton on Revelation and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church Bishop Bilson Perpet Gover. Cap. 2. Yea more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 Dr. Humphray in Campian Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration 3. Whittaker above Cited So also ad Rationes Campiani Ration 6. Confutat Duraei Lib. 6. Chemnitius Gentiletus the great Examinators of the Council of Trent the one a Divine the other a Lawyer doth both Condemn as a Trent Error our Dr's Assertion anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter the one by Scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon Law We have heard that Dr. Reynolds for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter tells us It s needless to speak of the particular Persons since it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Poland the Low Countreys and our own Witness the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 11. Now from all that is said whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches be not for the Official as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum and Sophistical and Childish Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers who shall Weigh what is said in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason Before I proceed I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument He says this is our great Argument That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture And therefore we conclude that our Argument a Confusione nominum is demonstrative and solid As if when we maintain that in Scripture there is no distinction betwixt these Offices we meant a Nominal only and not a real diversity Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites or conferred with any Presbyterian who understands the Controversy he would have found that from the Scriptures Cited and many Paralels it s an Official oneness not a Nominal only we plead for and that our Arguments therefrom has such Nerves as he durst not medle with The Dr. tells us P. 23. That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest falls not under his enquiry nor is it very Material considered with Respect to the common Priesthood and Subordinat Officers they might be of the same Order tho at other times when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Here I must say is a strange Confusion and that not Nominum but Rerum 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion got into the Heads of his Countrymen and some others but never heard of this 1400 years For curing of which he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet yet he will not enquire whether a Bishop be of a higher Order or not to a Presbyter i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he have the Right in this Debate If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order his Countrey Presbyterians are Right their Arguments which ly level to this scope are good and Conclusive and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop The Antithesis whereof viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop of a Superior Order eo no nine the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris focis yet he says the enquiry into this Point which to all men of Sense is the Cardo Questionis is not in it self Material Let any ponder whether this stout pretended Signifer doth not here let fall his Standart and even flees at the First alarm 2. He tells us when Authority and Iurisdiction is named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Now I do appeal to all Men of Common sense whether the Dr dos not here Assert 1. A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter 2 By clear Consequence that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter or else how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him 3. That the Bishop under that Character and eo nomine is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him Now all this being his Assertion in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors how can he decline the enquiry whether the Bishop be of an higher Order Let any Judge if he says not this upon the Matter the thing is Clear in it self in the Scripture Accounts and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments or make good my own 3. He tells us they are sometime considered as of the same order with respect to the common Priesthood I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial
evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters as the High Priest above other Priests is as Ignorant an Assertion and Arrant Untruth as the Dr. could readily have let fall Whereof I will 1. Convince him out of his own Mouth unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he still begg the Question 2. From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office First He does acknowledge that the High Priest was thus Termed upon the Ground of Special Ministries which were Essential and Peculiar to him Now I pray what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos and even in the Point of Order in the Apostles Days above his Fellows Next the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies with Blood and Incense and had this Prerogative above other Priests the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born Tyed to his Family c. And would not the Dr. Blush to Assert such like Prerogatives as Applicable to the Proestos or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days But he adds Salmasius grants That when the pretended Equality prevailed a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it But if Salmasius assert that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed it is undenyable that he denyes to this President or Chair-man such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for and allows him only the Chair of Presidency not Principality A Moderator's Chair and no more Again I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence Salmasius asserts that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors when there was a Proestos set up during Life Ergo he asserts that this Proestos was ab initio in the Apostolick Age or approved by the Apostles For what he adds P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age He should have Named them and where they assert this For as for what he adduces of Salmasius I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion And Beza I am sure whom no doubt the Dr. will owne as an Eminent Pleader for Parity condemns this Humane Prostasie as the Episcopus Humanus distinct from the Divine much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers the premised Account of them discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines No doubt if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters for this is the Parity which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General as he is for Imparity and the Prelatical Hierarchy their Stickling were not to be Valued But what are these palpable Evidences which convinces our greatest Sticklers Something saith the Dr that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction Some mighty Evidences then we must expect The first which he adduces is That of the Apocalyptick Angels among whom he tells us we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna But 1. How has he proved that these Angels were single Presidents and that the Term is not taken Collectively 2. How does he prove that such as acknowledge them single Persons do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore Beza I am sure acknowledges them only such Whom the Dr or any other do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church is not the Question but whom he can prove from Scripture to have been such and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture The Dr's next supposed evidence is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees To which I Answer in short First That the Dr. can neither prove 1. That the Apostles or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority to be continued in the Church Nor 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues such an Authority Since 1 They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority 2 Inconsistent and contradictory to one another 3 They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office admitted of no Succession and upon this very account can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends far less make the thing evident beyond contradiction What the Dr. adds further in this Page Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters and of the Ancients dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question with the former wherewith instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter he fills up idle Pages How often shall we tell him that the point in question is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings after the Apostolick Age What Comparisons Cyprian Clemens or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino And what proof from Scripture from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop under this Character above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter as he is bold to assert We often tell him that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies And tho that were made one Ground and say further he had disproved it in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed But proceed we P. 29.30 He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies Especially says he since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients and their words thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character from all subordinate Presbyters 2. The Dr. is obliged this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers and insinuat Argument to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office into higher and inferior Orders and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer as comes under the Character of Bishop from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors As for determination in Councils
Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite or Tripartite Division of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters in the Scriptures and inspired Writings of the Apostles And we do again as often before Challenge one Instance of this We have already told him and that not once That we hold that there is a Subordination of Officers and Courts of Judicature Represented in the New Testament yea and a tripartite Division of Officers viz. Pastors Ruling Elders and Deacons But that Officers Ordinary and Extraordinary Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. are of one Official Authority and equal in their own kind we maintain and are still challenging his contrary proof And to this Point it is palpably impertinent to tell us of Ecclesiastical Writers distinguishing Bishops Elders and Deacons Besides that the early Prostasie that obtained and the Bishops Nominal distinction thence ensuing might easily be productive of such a Division or Phraseology in some of the Ancients as he mentions who never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head and the Authority which Presbyters are clearly found to exercise in Judicatories after the Proestos came in together with the First Bishops acknowledgment of Presbyters collegiat Power with them as Cyprian particularly Besides the acknowledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter as having one and the same Ordination especially by Chrisostom and Ambrose doth evince this beyond contradiction I might add that the Office of the Presbyter or Senior who Rules only acknowledged by the Ancients as Presbyterians have made appear might easily in some Writers have produced this Tripartite Division of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon wouthout the least Shadow of advantage to his Cause The Dr. in the close of this Page soares aloft in a Triumphing Vein telling us That we may easily perceive that our Argument against Episcopacy founded upon Dichotomies is not only weak but foolish and extravagant But truely the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments against Episcopacy upon this head to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies and offering in Answer thereto such trivial babling Repetitions has discovered to all judicious Readers that weakness folly extravagancie which he imputes to us To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing person hereof let it be considered that he Cites Smectymnus Ius Divin Minist Ang. The unbishop of Tim. and Tit. Alt. Damasc. Mr. Dur. on Rev. He would be thought to answer these Authors and their great Argument he represents thus That it is taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter There is no doubt but that this is one great Topick and Argument and Mr. Durham makes use of that Term of Identity in the Title of his Digression upon this head But dare this Man say or tho he should have the Brow to say it will any who ever Read so much as one much less all of these Authors believe it that it is a mere Nominal Identity that they plead from and not an Official in all the parts and ingredients of the Office Or that the Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a confusione Nominum as he expresses it and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds which in the Texts mentioned by him and other Paralels do evince an Official Identity Why then bottoms he all his Answers and impertinent quiblings upon this palpably false Supposition To make what I assert evident to conviction one of the Authors he names viz Ius Div. Minist Ang. proposes the Question thus We undertake to prove that according to the Scripture Pattern which is a perfect Rule both for Doctrin and Government a Bishop and Presbyter are all one not only in Name but in Office and that there is no such Officer in the Church Ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters Then they propose no fewer than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments all running to this issue to prove an Official Identity The Topick of the Fourth whereof is thus proposed They who have the same Name the same qualifications for their Office and the same Ordination and the same work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer Then subsuming that thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bishop and Presbyter They subjoin Scripture-proofs to every one of these Clauses and Assertions and thereupon conclud that they are one and the same Officer Now upon this small view of but one of these Authors let the World Judge of this Mans Impudence in asserting that not only that Authors Arguments but all the Arguments of the Authors he mentions concluds only a confusione nominum as he expresses it in a distinct Character and whether his founding of all his supposed confutation of Presbyterian Arguments upon this supposition and quiblings about a Dichotomie be not extravagancy with a Witness Moreover let the Serious Impartial Judge since these Authors he mentions presents so considerable a Number of Scripture-Arguments For that which this Man calls a New Foolish Opinion in order to his design of making men believe he has fully Confuted them and convinced them of folly whether he was not in Conscience and Reason obliged fairly to present their Arguments to his Readers view and offer formal Replys to them I may further pose the Impartial Reader upon it whether this Man who has never encountered their Arguments nor tryed their Strength in a fair and formal Dispute and yet would fain Triumph in this boasting Pamphlet charging all their Arguments with weakness folly and evtravagancy has not Written himself a Fool of the first Magnitude and a personat Thraâ—o in Disput I must not forget that while I view that Fourth Argument of the Ius Div. Minist Ang. I find they have upon the Margin Ambrose's Testimony upon 1 Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi ordinationem subjicit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est After the Bishop the Apostle subjoins the Ordination of the Deacon and upon what other ground but this that the Bishop and the Presbyter have one and the same Ordination One would think that this is a little more than the assertion of a mere Confusio Nominum and that both from Scripture and Antiquity But to proceed our Dr. P. 35. Censures Blondel Salmasius Dallie as â—mploying their Learning to support their own Hypothesis with this Argument of the Confusion of Names And the Dr. regrats that Sir Tho. Craig a Man otherwise learned in Law was deceived with this fallacy We see that in the Dr's Sense learned Men have been imposed upon by this Scots Notion but when he has exhibit and answered their Pleadings whom he here mentions then and not till then his Censure is to be admitted But he tells us That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius Good Mr. Dr. ye know the Answer of Protestant Divines to the Papists Objection where was your Religion your Church and Doctrin before Luther viz. That it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirm of the
Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter And many Learned Protestant Divines think they have made it good whom the Dr. may please to advise if his leasure from Pamphleting work together with some piece of petty interest and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles will admit of the perusal If it be found in Scripture it was a pretty while it seems before Aerius But there is an English Divine of some considerable account good Old Whittaker if it were not that he had got the Scots new Notion in his Head who hath a Saying somewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum Aerio sâ—â—sit Hieronymus quo minus curandum est toties nobis objici Aerium ab insulsis hominibus Si fuit in hac re Haereticus Aerius socium haereseos habuit Hieâ—onymum nec illum modo sed alios etiam veteres patres Graecos pariter Latinos quemadmodum Medina confitetur Thus he Controv. â— 4ta quest 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Here we find he spares not to call these of the Dr's Judgment Blâ—ckish Men in objecting this anent Aerius affirming that not only Ierom but likewise both Greek and Latine Fathers were of Aerius Judgment in this point The Dr. might likewise have found that Michael Medina Lib. 1. de Sacr. Hominum Orig. continen Cap. 5. holds that not only Ierom but also Ambros. August Sedulius Primasius Chrysost. Theodoret OEcumen and Theophylact. were of the same mind with Aerius As also the Waldenses and Wickliff What more P. 35. Apostle Bishop and Presbyter are sometime remarked without a Distinction yet the Government of one among many is particularly demonstrated This is somewhat obscure No doubt Apostles Bishops and Presbyters have general and common Names For the Government of one among many in his Sense I do still call for the Dr's Proof but have no Return We are told next P. 35 36. That our Saviour is called an Apostle Heb. 3. That the Names seems restrained to the Twelve and yet Matthias is called an Apostle that the Name was bestowed on several others besides the Twelve as Paul Barnabas Adronicus Junius Epaphroditus That our Saviour is called a Bishop 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Government of the Apostles Episcopacy Act. 1.20 That Priests of the Apostolick Power and Iurisdiction are called Bishops That thus all the Fathers understand 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1.7 That the Bishops Philip. 1.1 are by Chrysost. OEcum Theoph. Theodo understood of Priests still Priests of the second Order For they conclude Epaphrod Bishop of Philippi from Philip. 2.25 The Dr. is never wearied of this Nominal Argument which seems one of Achillean Strength to him I am sorry he is put to so much Pains in Print to raise such Formidable Batteries against this New Notion and am afraid some Facetious Witts will alledge he is but getting himself a Heat in Cudgelling and Beating a Man of Straw of his own Upsetting But in short it passes much my Comprehension what he would make of all this if not to prove that palpably distinct Officers do sometimes come under general Names And who knows not that this Argument and Answer is still ex ignoratione Elenchi None of us doubts of this which he offers in Thesi But the Dr. will easily acknowledge that these Officers mentioned have in the Scripture Accounts their Marks of Distinction clearly set down which makes it evident that their Communicating in the same general Name will not conclude an Identity in the Office And thus the Dr. and we are easily agreed in the Application of the Answer when he has exhibit to us such Scripture Discriminations of the Office of the Bishop and Pastor or Preaching Presbyter such a clear Official Imparity and Difference as is betwixt the Office of an Apostle and Presbyter and betwixt our Saviours Apostolate and that of his Disciples and betwixt his Episcopacy or Overseeing Care and that of Apostles For the Denomination of Apostle I need not tell one who sets a D. D. to his Name in the Frontispiece of his Book how Protestant Divines understand the Name properly taken and do define the Office as distinct from all others That first Matthias and thereafter Paul were added to the Number of Apostles none doubts That the Name is sometimes taken improperly when attribute to certain Persons is as little doubted As for Adronicus Iunius who are said to be of Note among the Apostles the Phrase imports in the Sense of some that they were well known to the Apostles Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy Luk. 10. Others to be of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty mentioned Act. 1.15 Or of these Converted by Peter Act. 2.14 See Pool Annot. That 1 Tim. 3.1 and Tit. 1.7 are understood of Priests of the first Order with Apostolick Power by all the Fathers must pass current only with those who will take the Dr's ipse dixit for Proof But let them at their Leasure Pose him whether St. Chrysost. and Ierom upon these Passages were of that Judgement and whether he reckons them among the Fathers That the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip. 1.1 Understood it of the Priests of the second Order he should have proved from their Words and that they understood Epaphroditus to be Bishop of Philippi from Chap. 2.25 Our Translators renders it with the current of Protestant Divines as I have made good your Messenger which the Context convincingly discovers viz. The Messenger that ministred to Paul's wants But the Dr. has no shift but to censure them as following Beza A pityful shift indeed The Episcopal Translators who in their Translation so Zealously patronize that Cause that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the utmost endeavour translated to that Scope yet are so befooled in the Dr's Sense as to translate this passage so advantagious to Episcopacy contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Fathers yea and the Greek Fathers so well seen in that Language and all this to follow a Presbyterian Novelist But the Dr. preferrs Salmasius to his Episcopal Masters who thinks the word Apostle signifies Legatum Dei ad homines He is now become of sudden Fond of Salmasius But should have given us a better Account than a bare naming of Walo Messalinus putting us to search all the Book in order to an enquiry of what he here asserts I might tell him further that the Complex Phrase your Messenger and the Explication of ministring to Paul's wants sufficiently restricts the Term Apostle in this place tho it were granted that ordinarly it is thus taken But one Word more before I part with the Dr. on this Passage If in the Sense of these Fathers the Bishops mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle were Priests of the second Order only and Epaphroditus the Chief Priest or Bishop Then 1. It seems the Apostle Paul was somewhat rude in his Salutation to mention only these inferior underling Priests with the lowest petty Deacons passing quite over the High Priest without
to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power or acknowledge this his Description naught which he so vainly offers in opposition to the Account of this Office offered by Protestant Divines 2. He sayes That this power was constant perpetual and to be transmitted to Successors Here I ask him whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President or to devolve their Collateral Universal Power over all Believers and all subordinat Officers to respective Successors coming after every one of them If the Dr. adhere to the first he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal And indeed his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy does much oblige him thereunto If he assert that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor then his Descripâ—â—on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor has transmited unto him A Perpetual Spiritual Constant Universal Inspection over all Churches both Ministers and Believers For this essential Authority of Apostles he affirms they were to transmitt to Successors and that according to the Command of our Saviour But to proceed Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication P. 97. The Apostles Permanent Successive Power was to Preach the Gospel Govern the Churches they Planted give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks Inflict Censures Communicat this Authority to others Hear Complaints Decide Controversies Settle Church Discipline Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Necessity of the Faithful requires He tells us He understands the Gifts that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things This being Essentially the Apostolick Office it remains for ever in the Church the ordinary Necessities thereof requiring it should continue till Christs coming Here First I would enquire again since the Power thus described is in the Dr's Sense Permanent and Successive and necessary to the Church whether is it so as devolved upon every Person Succeeding and in the same Extent and for the same Eâ—ds as the Apostles Exercised it If it be not then every Body of Common Sense knows that this Apostolick Power and Office cannot be called Permanent and Successive and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize will prove this and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office which he describes If this Apostolick Power and Office be devolved in its entire extent and to every Person Succeeding then every Person thus Succeeding has an Entire Unconfined Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches all Ecclesiasticks and Believers to use his own Terms and are obliged by their Office to Preach unto and Govern them all as the Apostles did to give Rules Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers If he say that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern I Answer even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches and their Relation in Actu Exercito as immediat Catholick Officers thereof And the Dr in saying That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers without Exception which very Power he affirms they were to Transmit to Successors confirms what I said and cuts him off from this Evasion To clear this further in the second place it may be asked whether these supposed Successors are Authorized to Plant Churches give Rules to them Decide Controversies Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did with Respect to the End Manner and Extent foresaid If not then sure this Power is Transient not Permanent and Successive as the Dr. calls it If they have this Power of Apostles as above exprest Then first there lyes upon every such Successor an Obligation to Plant Churches where they were not For he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant to Govern the Churches Planted and to give Rules and Directions thereanent The Absurdity of which Assertion is sufficiently apparent and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts no less evident But while we speak of Successors giving Rules the Dr. would do well to inform us what Rules he means whether the Apostles Rules or others If the same then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules this Work being already done If others then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules as no Church can now acclaim in the Sense of all Protestant Divines If he say he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules in particular Cases Then I Answer This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules as all Men know but is toto coelo different from it both in its Nature and Extent So that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars But in the next place the Dr. has told us of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors and in the Sequel of his Reasoning must atribute it to every one of them And here I would enquire of him how did the Apostles Decide Controversies The Dr. will not deny that any one of the Apostles by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility could decide Controversies infallibly as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ And what Bishop or Succeeding Church Officer I pray has this Power and Authority We know General Councils have erred in their Decisions But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop by this his New Notion Or if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision either as to Extent or Authority then he is still in the Briars and baffles his own definition and explication Further the Dr. has told us the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof by imposition of Hands and we have heard that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion he restricts it to such Gifts as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things Be it so but will he say that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost This he cannot assert Then I say 1. He must acknowledge that here is a defective maimed not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession rather than the rest Finally the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles Supreme and no doubt since it is with him one Criterion of the Apostolick Office and competent
Officers and Members are temporary expired Priviledges For this he clearly distinguishes from them And it being thus the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this Whether to some of them who are of Special Character or to all If to all then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another as being all Infallible and Supreme in the Exercise of their Government If to some only under what Character are they Primats Arch-bishops or Patriarchs And whether are they subject to one Head If to one Head then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist Yet it will be hard to say that they were not subject to a General Council as to their Doctrine and Administration And sure I am the Dr. will assert that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory and this their Supreme Authority he asserts to be Constant and Permanent still necessary for the Church and died not with their Persons So that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies But further to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him two things are again considerable First He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat but to be still vigent as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest who was an OEcumenick President over that Church over all inferior Priests and all their Courts For he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge Hence iâ— inevitably follows that this Supremacy is in his Sense applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President that the Christian Church may come up to its Pattern And it being thus let us in the next place see how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points 1. In making this Constant Supreme Spiritual Power over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles and by them derived to their respective Successors 2. In holding in discriminatim and without any note of distinction of one from another that the Bishops yea all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles he means in a proper formal Sense For this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as is said Further I would gladly know whether our Dr. ownes any church-Church-Power to have been transmitted to Presbyters or Pastors and to be asserted Act. 20 28. 1 Pet 5.2 Heb. 13.7.17 and many such places pleaded by the Presbyterians It is probable he will acknowledge this so that it be within their Precincts insubordination to the Bishops Now I pray why will he deny them the Priviledge of Succession to Apostles in point of Church Power He hath no Shadow of Ground unless upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bishop So that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power as he defines that of the Bishops as succeeding Apostles therein And I beseech him why are not the Bishops upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior Bishops equally cut off from this Priviledge If he say the Bishops Power reaches to Church Officers under them not that of Presbyters I have already told him what an Insignificant Evasion this is and that he cuts himself off from this Answer in that he makes this Apostolick Power which is Transmitted to Successors to be a Jurisdiction and Authority over all Subordinat Officers all Ecclesiasticks and all others Believing in Christ. And he tells us That the Apostles were to give Directions to their Suceessors in the same Office So that if it be not thus understood who can reconcile his Words to Sense For he distinguishes the Successors to their Office from such as he calls Subordinat Ecclesiasticks who have no such Authority And to say the Office is perpetual and permanent that the Office imports Essentially a Supreme Power over all Church Officers and Members and is thus distinguished from all Inferior Offices that this very Office is derived to Successors as being Essential and necessary to the Church Government in all Ages and yet that these Successors one or more have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of Ground or District is such a palpable Contradiction and Non-Sense as none can be more evident We are told P. 98. That the Essence of the Apostolick Office consisted not in the forementioned extraordinary Priviledges but in the Rectoral Power Transmitted to their Successors in all Ages I have told him and made it appear that their Rectoral-Power necessarly included these Priviledges and since he acknowledges that the Essence of their Office consisted in their Rectoral Power it does necessarly follow that these being of the Essence of that Power they were Essential to the Office We acknowledge with him that they were by their Office distinguished from Subordinat Officers The Dr. infers That therefore this Distinction must consist in something so peculiar to them as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this Character Before I come to a direct Answer I will here cleave all his Reasoning asunder with a Wedge of his own Setting The Apostles Universal Unconfined Inspection over all Churches Planted and to be Planted and as Catholick Universal Ministers thereof in Actu Exercito is that whereby they are distinguished from other Officers who are not of that Character And being thus distinguished this must of necessity be the Essence of their Office for it is the Essence from which Essential Distinctions flows Yet we will find the Dr. Disowning and Denying this P. 96. Next from hence its easie to infer that to give Successors the true Apostolick Character and Power it must be of this Nature and Extent else its Hetrogeneous unto and comes short of its Pattern Will any Rational Man deny that the Rectoral Power derived to Apostles by our Saviour wherein he says the Essence of their Office did consist was of this Nature and Extent Now let him produce if he can any one Officer or Successor with this Character Again that whereby they were distinguished or what was peculiar to them may be understood two ways 1. Materially or Simplely 2. Formally or as making up their Complex Office with its other Ingredients and as properly subservient to the proper formal immediat Ends thereof In the first Sense there were several things whereby they were not properly distinguished from other Officers at that time considering them materially and remotely such as Gifts of Tongues Miracles c. which others had in their own Sphere and Degree But formally they were proper to Apostles considering their Degree Circumstances and proper immediat End Others had Gifts of Tongues and of Miracles but these Gifts were distinguished from those of Apostles upon the Ground above exprest I would make it evident by a Scripture Instance Our Saviour shews what Miraculous Signs shall follow
in the Church of Epesus And truely they are highly Censurable who will deny the Doctor so Just a Demand so necessarly following upon the preceeding Concession and the Scripture Records of the Exercise of his Power in that place And no doubt had the Dr. knit all his Consequences as well as this he had past for a fair and Triumphant Disputant and Acted as a Man worthy of his Cape and Orders Only we must be permitted together with this Concession to Whisper the Dr. in the Ear That he Exercised the same Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as in Ephesus yea and both before and after he was there and he knows the Consequence which these that have got the Scots Notion in their Head will draw upon him viz. That therefore Timothy had no Special Relation to that Church nor Ordinary Inspection therein What is his Third Desire of a Concession viz. That this Power was committed to him alone not to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity and Equality If he mean the Evangelistick Power or an Evangelistick Inspection supposing as is often told him the Existence of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Offices which we hold with all Sound Divines to be expired Supposing likewise the Foundation of the Churches to be a laying and which we may call the Scaffolding which the Dr. hath told us was to be removed when the Building is perfected And withal understanding the Term Alone as Exclusive of Pastors and other Inferior Ordinary Church Officers And so as not to Confine the Evangelistick Office to Timothies Person This Demand is easily granted But here we deny two Points 1. That this Inspection or Extraordinary Evangelistick Power was so committed to Timothy over this Church at this time as to Exclude or Inhaunce the Pastors Ordinary Power or to infer his Sole and consequently Episcopal Interest in Government 2. That the Ordinary Power of Government was not committed by Paul to a Colledge of Presbyters as the Dr. supposes or that the Non-committing of Timothies Formal Office and Power as an Evangelist to such a Colledge will infer such a Conclusion Since thus we would fasten a Contradiction upon Paul in Intrusting the whole Episcopal Power over the Church of Ephesus after this to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity The Fourth Undenyable Point the Dr. will have us to grant is That there is no mention of a Spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters to which Timothy was Accountable for his Administrations I Answer 1. There was no need because in that Infant-State of the Church when to use the Dr's Phrase the Churches Fabrick was but in an Imperfect Scaffolding Posture the Ordinary Church Officers and Judicatories were a Framing he was Accountable to the Infallibly Inspired Great Apostle of the Gentiles Paul who Enjoyned him to order Things in the Moulding of that Church as he had Commanded and Appointed him Besides that the Nature of Timothy's Work being a Temporary Transient Inspection to pass off with that Exigent to give Way to his other Imployments elsewhere there was no Access for such an Inspection in the Colledge of Presbyters Here I cannot but take notice that the Dr. still adding the Clause of Spiritual when speaking of Timothy's Power must be minded of the Bishops Temporal Civil Authority which they claim 2. We find mention made of a Presbytrie that Ordained him and whether if ever fixed in any particular Post or Charge after Pauls Death the mention of a Presbytrie that Ordained him will infer an Accountableness is left to the Dr's Consideration As also whether the mention of that General Rule 1 Cor. 14.32 That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets will infer an Accountableness of all who come under a Character of Prophets to their Collegiat Meetings The Dr's Fifth Concession he will have from us is That the great and most eminent Branches of Episcopal Power were lodged in his Person Viz. the Ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function the care of the Widows the censuring of Elders the Authoritative prevention of Heresies about which he tells us the Episcopal Authority was most conversant in the Primitive times I am glad that the Bishops high Office is become of so condescending and humble a nature and genius that the mean business of the care of poor Widows or Church Eleemoâ—ynaries is become one of the most eminent Branches of their Power I see these Branches runs far out and their Lordships must have long Aâ—ms But may I hope that the Dr. will take along in his next famous Work since he hath in this place forgot it the little mean and humble exercise of Preaching the Gospel constantly and assiduously since we find that Timothy was here enjoined it and that in Season and out of Season to which these Eminent Branches may stretch out if at least the Dr. can obtain a Licence for it of their Lordships with such restrictions and proviso's in respect of their State-Imployments as this unwarry Man Paul forgot to put in who lays this in an unlimited general Precept upon the Bishop Timothy and with the solemnity of an alarming Preface of Laying this Charge upon him before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the Dead at his appearing and his Kingdom 2. Timothy is found so far from having the Dr's Eminent Branches of Episcopal Power lodged in him that in the Scriptural Accounts he is found to have neither Root nor Branch of the same The Bishops Power is supposed Ordinary his was not the Bishops Power is pleaded for as necessary to the Churches exedified State in all times and when Moulded in its Organick Being his was suted to the Moulding thereof when in fieri as to such a Being the Bishops Power is in Fixed Diocesses Timothies was not but a transient Ministry like that of the Apostles The Bishops hath sole absolute Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over all Pastors of the Diocess Timothy had no such Authority but only of an Inspector and Moderator for the time of his transient Mission The Bishops assume a negative voice in all Judicatories of the Diocess which the Dr. here owns for he will have them subject to no collegiat Meetings of Pastors had Timothy assumed this he had contradicted and baffled the Apostles Carriage Act. 15. where ordinary Pastors or Elders are found concurring Authoritatively with the Apostles in the whole procedure of that solemn Council both in the Disquisition the Sentence and the Epistle enjoyning the Churches obedience thereunto And I must presum to add with the Dr's good leave that this Council is of more venerable Authority and the Constitution thereof of a more Divinly-exemplifying influence than any he can appeal to as patronizing the Hierarchical Prelat for whom he pleads Again had Timothy ordained alone without Pastors where they were to be had he would have crossed the Rule of his own Ordination and Pauls
even of Purest Times presents unto us must be brought to this Touch-stone and Standard of the Scripture Institution as being thereby Regulable And therefore can make up no part of this Rule In determining this Question the Surveyer in the first place Will not have the Fulness of Ordinary Church Power committed by the Apostles to any single Presbyter as if he had Actual Power of Ordination or Iurisdiction That the Power of Order the Administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed to the Pastor is of it self Evident That the Power of Jurisdiction is committed to him as he is by Office a Member of the Judicatory which is the proper adequat Subject of this Authority of Ordination and Jurisdiction is equally evident The Surveyer challengeth us to shew such Colledges of single Presbyters as had that Plentitude of Church Power committed to them by the Apostles and exercised the same especially taking in Ruling Elders Ans. If by Plentitude of Church Power be understood the ordinary Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times and as abstracted and distinguished from the extensive Power of Apostles Evangelists We say it is found seated in the Colledge of Pastors and Presbyters both in the Acts of the Apostles and else where in the New Testament The Apostles instituted Pastors or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church and sure not to preach only and administrat Sacraments but to Rule seeing they have the Name and Thing of Governors Rulers Overseers Bishops ascribed to them And if they were to Rule sure in Collegiat Meetings We find the Exercise of this Power commanded and commended to Pastors or Presbyters Thus by the Apostle to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus Act. 20. By the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 5. to the Pastors of the Churches to which he wrote We find this Jurisdictional Power accordingly exercised by them both as to Ordination and the highest Censures 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Cor. 5. And the Circumstances of these and such like Texts do cleary evince that this Jurisdictional Power was to continue thus exercised by these Societies or Colledges of Presbyters when the Apostles were gone off the Stage and that consequently they are the Proper Subject of the Power immediatly derived from them As for the Ruling Elder his Institution and Office being found in Scripture he is upon Divine Warrand supposed a Member of these Judicatories when the Churches are fully constituted in their Organick being But the Surveyer tells us We cannot make appear that in these Meetings of Presbyters there was an Equality of Power since Superior Officers were with them Ruling and Ordering their Church Actings Ans. Though de facto it were found that in these Meetings Superior Officers were present yet if they be found Officers of an Extraordinary Authority and whose Power was Cumulative unto not Privative of the ordinary Power and Authority of these Meetings This is utterly remote from speaking any thing to his Purpose and Conclusion 2. Whereas the Surveyer peremptorly poseth us Where such a Meeting of Presbyters is found in the Acts of the Apostles he should have added or else where in the New Testament without Superior Officers ordering their Meeting We peremptorly Pose him what Superior Officer is found set over the Colledge of the Elders of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge touching the Exercise of a Ioynt Episcopal Power over that Church What Superior Officer is found set over the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of Philippi Or over these Pastors and Bishops mentioned 1 Pet. 5. or these Ruling Teachers mentioned 1 Thes. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 Sure these Governing Teachers mett for Government and these Meetings if found thus Constituted and Exercising an Episcopal Power we have therein Convincing Instances of an Episcopal Power in a Colledge of Presbyters without the Inspection of any Superior Ordinary Officers For as for Apostolical Directions hereanent they could no more impeach this Authority than Directions with Reference to the Power of Order could impeach the same The Surveyer P. 196. brings for his third Ground The Apostles committing the Plentitude of Ordinary Church Power to single Persons in a Superiority over other Ministers Instancing the Asiatick Angels Rev. 2.3 And Pauls Directions to Timothy and Titus whom he sent and instructed with a Iudiciary Power into Ephesus and Crete and to ordain Ministers which had been to no purpose had this Power been competent to Pastors Ans. This Trite Argument hath been above at large spoken to Therefore we shall but briefly touch it in this place First For the Asiatick Angels We have made appear First That the Collective Sense of the word Angel stands upon the most probable Foundation and is owned by the greatest part of sound Interpreters as being most suteable to the Style of Prophetick Writings representing many Persons by a singular Typical Term whereof frequent Instances are exhibit to the Style of this very Book in representing many Persons or a Series of Men by one Symbolical Term such as Whore VVoman Beast c. Besides that the Angel is found plurally addressed Chap. 2.24 Next That admitting the Angel to be a single Person will only plead that he is the Angelus praeses or Moderator yea and so pro tempore and addressed as the Parliament is in the Person of the Speaker That no Address is made to him with respect to any Jurisdiction over Pastors nor can any Reason be given wherefore the Commendations and Reprehensions respecting Ministerial Dutys must be fixed in an Exclusive Sense upon one Person c. Next For the Directions to Timothy and Titus It is above made appear that their Office was Extraordinary and passed off like that of the Apostles with that First Infant State and Exigence of the Church since it is made Good they were Evangelists in a proper formal Sense 2. That upon this Ground they could have no Successors in their Formal Office and Inspection which imported a Relation to no particular Church nor can consequently represent the Authority of any ordinary Officer with such a fixed Relation of this Nature and Extent It is likewayes made appear that the Episcopal Pleaders from these Directions must either upon this Ground extend their Power equally with that of Apostles or make it appear that these Directions of this Nature and importing this Authority were applicable to them no where else and in reference to no other Churches where they are found to exercise their Office Either of which are inevitable Absurdities Finally It is made appear that this Inspection was of a Transient Nature did suppose the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Official Authority of Pastors and therefore cannot prove a sole and single Authority of a Prelat over Church Judicatories But sayes the Surveyer What need was there to send them for this End to these Churches if a Iurisdictional Power was competent
imbodied Society or Court as is the proper Subject of a Jurisdictional Censuring Power and to whom the Appeal is to be made after more privat Dealings which if evinced the Hierachical Prelats arrogated Power monopolizing this Jurisdiction and to use the Surveyers term concentring this Authority in himself solely is sufficiently overthrown as contrary to the Scripture Pattern and cross to this great Rule and Standart For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Consentient Judgement of Criticks and Interpreteâ—s that it naturally signifies a Caetus and Caetas evocatus a concio convocatorum an indicta concio thus Suidas thus Demosthenes and in Scripture it points out generally a Convocation as Act. 19 32. and a Convocation in curia or a Caetus civilis v. 39. And sometimes it s put for the Assembly of Believers sometimes for the Church Militant sometimes for a Province Kingdom or City Compare Eph. 5.23 with Act. 8.13 Rev. 12.5 Rom. 16.5 And here good Interpreters do consequently take it to Represent the Ecclesiastick Senat or Presbytrie making it one and the some with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 Hence the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies in Concione delibero Verba facio to Consult Deliberat and Discourse in Publick Assembly The Text convinces of this For 1. The Gradation is from the Lesser to the Greater Number 2. Our Lord v. 19 20. speaks of an agreeing on Earth and gathering together in his Name Besides that the Surveyer himself expones the Church of the Rulers and Governours who if they have a joynt Essential Interest in their Jurisdiction he overthrows his Opinion of Concentring this in the Prelat if he ascribe the Jurisdictional Decisive Authority to one who is Chief making the rest but his Assistants he again contradicts himself in seeming to ascribe this Ruling Power to the whole Meeting for thus the Sense could not be as he says tell the Rulers and Governours For what he adds of Commissioners it is palpably absurd For 1. The Church Representative or the Officers thereof have a Divine immediat Institution are set by God therein and have not a derived Authority from the Church 2. It is the Court it self not the Deputed Commissioner one or more which is the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power 3. To make the Paralel hold he behoved to say the Prelats have a derived Power as Commissioner from the Church the Falshood whereof is apparent The Surveyer adds P. 206. That the attributing a Iurisdictional Power to the Church is nothing against him who allows not to one single Bishop this Power without the Council of Presbyters according to the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 23. though nothing is to be done without the Bishop Ans. In Stating the Question with the Presbyterians P. 192. he tells us It is whether this Power be equally Diffused in the whole Colledge of Presbyters or Concentred in one Person Now if the Person of the Bishop be the Centre he cannot allow this Official Power to step beyond that Centre So that no Members of the Meeting have any Interest therein He adds here as likeways in the place before Cited That the Bishop must exercise this Power with the Concurrâ—nce and the Assistance of Presbyters But this can import no Exercise of Jurisdiction since privat Persons may Counsel and Advise who have no Decisive Suffrage And he knew that in the late Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy the Clergy were to Advise the Bishop only and scarce that So that our Prelats in such Exercise of their Power baffled that Act of the Council of Carthage which he mentions The Surveyer adds That there is a Plurality of Officers even where this Inequality of Power is supposed whether Iudging or Advising But if one only Judge and the rest are but mere Advisers the Judging Power being thus Concentred in one there is no such Court as is the Subject of a Jurisdictional Power So that the Surveyer bewrays great Impudence in saying that the Determination properly flows from them all since the Authority is thus Concentred in one But says the Surveyer since the Organick Church is made up of Rulers and Ruled the Notion of a Church will not import an Equality of Power in all Ans. This Paralel is palpably unjust and impertinent since the Church Organick considered thus complexly doth necessarly and essentially include Members and Officers Rulers and Ruled and consequently a necessary Inequality But the Surveyer could not deny that in this place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church imports a Society or Colledge of Rulers only which can come under no such Consideration of a necessary Inequality The Surveyers Fourth Answer is in Summ That we find the highest Censures of the Church inflicted by the Authority of single Persons who ever otherwise concurred So Paul excommunicat Hymeneus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1.20 And to say he acted as a Member of a Quorum is to make him a vain Boaster and to make the Scripture speak what we will Ans. The Surveyer must acknowledge yea hath acknowledged the difference betwixt the Apostolick Authority in the Framing and Constitution of Churches and the Exercise of their Power in Churches already constitute in their Organick Beeing In the first Case there was an indispensible necessity of exerting a singular Apostolick Authority when no Officers were to concur and Churches were not fully Moulded in their Organick Beeing And we heard himself distinguish the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Power In the other Case when Churches were constitute it is evident and hath been made good that they did assume the Official Concurrence of ordinary Church Rulers The Surveyer challengeth us to produce a Warrand for our Assertion of Pauls acting here upon an extraordinary Apostolick Authority Thus he challenges the Apostle Paul to produce his Warrand for this his Apostolick Acting which he has long since produced and recorded if this Man had been pleased to read and consider it Whereas he tells us It was none of the extraordinary Characters of the Apostles to act in these Matters by his own only Authority We say it was where Churches were not constitute and no ordinary Officers to concur And this Surveyer might be challenged as the Affirmer to prove that this Act was put forth in an Organick Church where ordinary Officers were to concur or else in denying this to be one of the Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office he asperses his Apostolick Power and Authority He adds That what was beyond their immediat Calling infallible Direction illimited Iurisdiction c. was transmittable to his Successors and actually transmitted to Timothy and Titus It is Answered we have made appear that their immediat Calling considered with reference to its Nature and End of Planting Churches Constituting the Officers Ordinances thereof did necessarly include this Authority in this first Framing of Churches which neither was nor could be transmitted unless it be pleaded that the Churches Foundation could
impeach the intrinsick ordinary Authority of the Church Officers in the inflicting of that Censure though this Miraculous Effect attending the same were ascribeable to Apostolick Authority Again the Surveyer in the Series of his Reasoning shutting up both the Sentence in its self and this Miraculous Appendant which two he must needs distinguish unless he totally deny the Right of Excommunication in the Churches within the Sphere of an Apostolick Prerogative renders useless and casts a blot upon several Clauses of the Sacred Text such as their Solemn Meeting together here enjoyned and that expresly in order to the delivering of the Man to Satan which doth include the intire Sentence and Punishment and that this Punishment is expresly said to be inflicted by many viz. the Church Officers as distinct from the Church Members for thus they are called in Opposition to the Collective Body Besides that the Apostle in this Passage joyning first in their gathering together and then mentioning his Spiritual Confirming Presence holds out that the first was an Authoritative gathering together the other a Confirming Approbation for their Encouragement in this Exercise of their intrinsick Power and Authority as all Sound Interpreters take it Again the Separating here enjoyned must be an Active Iudicial Separating this Person from them as the Leper and Unclean Person under the Law was thus separat from the Congregation which doth import an Authoritative Interest of Church Rulers in putting forth this Censuring Act whereas the Surveyer makes it a consequential withdrawing only from a Person already Censured The Surveyer in his third Answer tells us That though a Censuring Power were in these Church Officers it can make nothing for us unless we could prove they were single Presbyters in the Modern Notion There were Prophets here above ordinary Officers who might have this Power and it is uncertain whether ordinary Presbyters were here settled Ans. The Surveyer hath forgot that he hath acknowledged upon that Passage 1 Cor. 12. That there were here such Pastors and Teachers as will include the Bishops and likewise Presbyters Besides that the Apostle diversifies the Ordinary and Extraordinary Gifts v. 8.9.10 Likewise he knew there were in Corinth many Instructers and such as were settled in every Church Act 13.1 2 3. Compared with Ch. 14.23 Viz. Preaching Elders and Presbyters so that he could not with any Shadow of Reason suppose they were all extraordinary Officers And in a word if he asserted there were here mixed Officers he not only made the Power and Authority of the extraordinary Officers to swallow up that of the Pastors but likewise he crossed his monopolizing this extraordinary Power in the Apostle Again since he could not say the Apostle in these Injunctions doth by distinctive notes or Apostrophees diversify the Ordinary from the Extraordinary Officers in the point of this high Jurisdictional Act he baffled and excluded his First Answer And in a word giving by this Answer a Jurisdictional Power and Authority in this Act to a Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers and asserting that it was joyntly thus put forth by them he did thus bid farewell to my Lord Bishops singular prerogative in this Matter and generally in Point of Government His last Answer is That if this Power were supposed in the ordinary Church Officers of Corinth they might have had this by delegation and Commission of the Apostle But where did the Surveyer read this Commission What account can he give of such a delegated Power beyond the Essential Authority of Pastors to deliver to Satan purge out the old Leaven to meet together for this great Jurisdictional Act And why was the Apostle Paul so fatally Cross to the Diocesan Prelat as not to deliver this Commission to him But we must know this Chimerical fancy stands upon the strong Pillar of this infallible Surveyers may be or might be and this is all the proof we must expect But what is the last shift and dead lift We are told next That this Instance of the Church of Corinth is but one which cannot make a Rule without the sure knowledge of the Divine Direction which the Apostâ—les had to keep an uniform course in such extâ—rnal Mattâ—rs Ans. As none will say that the Apostles did constitute the Christian Church as a speckled Bird with a Hetrogenous or various Mixtures of forms of Government so in this Pâ—int they had their Masters great Rules and Measures prescribed to them and such Rules as overthrows the Hierarchical Bishop First We may remind the great Rule in Mat. 18. recommending a subordination of lesser to greater Judicatories pointing likewise at the Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers as the proper subject of the Jurisdictional Power in opposition to what he pleads for viz the concentring this in one Prelat Next what surer direction can we have in this Point than that the Apostles are found Establishing wherever a Church was gathered such Officers as have Names and Titles of Intrinsick Official Power and Authority ingraven upon them and are found exercising an equal Official Power in Government Thus in the Passage now debated and 1 Cor. 12.28 Comp. with Eph. 4.11 and with Act. 14.23 Tit 1.5 7. Heb. 13.7 17 1 Thes. 5.12 Presbyterian Writers do exhibit a large account and induction of these Names and Titles importing Authority Such as that of Presbyter or Elder Act. 15.2 4 with 20 17 1 Tim. 5.17 1 Pet. 5.1 A Title of Political Rulers Iudg. 8.14 Thus expressed by the LXXII Interpreters The Title of Bishop importing a Power and Charge over the Flock Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.5.7 A word made use of also by these Interpreters to point at the Civil Magistrats Power Num. 31.14 The Title and Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Conductor Captain Governour Leader A word setting forth the Power of Civil Rulers Deut. 1.13 2 Chron. 5.1 And thus they are distinguished from the Church and Saints Heb. 13.7 17 24. The Title of Stewards over the Lords House and Family Of Pastors and Shepherds who are to feed Pedo and Pabulo a Title likewise attributed to the Civil Magistrat Isa. 24.28 comp 1 Cor. 4. 1. Luk. 12.42 Gal. 4.2 Rom. 13.2.3 Now our Lord Commanding his Apostles to Disciple all Nations or form them into Churches and the Apostles pursuant to this Commission being found to have placed such Officers in the Churches and these being found exercising a joint Official Authority in greater and lesser Judicatories either the Apostles Divine Direction herein must be acknowledged and their walking up to it in this Point of an uniform Mould of Government or their Faithfulness in the execution of their great Trust is impeached and called in Question Thu we have seen that after this pregnant Text hath tossed this Pitiful Sursveyer from one extream to another in seeking some shift of Answer and driven him upon the Pinacles and Precipies of contradictory Answers all his fantastick quiblings issueth in this miserable shift of
Gifts their immediat Mission their extensive Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches as some Episcopalians who speak more cautiously than the Dr. do express and limit this Succession then it is easy to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of the Answer is as much in a Premunire and that his Answer may be easily broken with a Wedg of his own setting and that his Adversary may easily pull his Spear out of his Hand and Kill him with it For 1. His Answer to those who alledg the Apostolick Office and Power to be Temporary as suted to the Necessity and Exigence of that Time and Case of the Church without intention of deriving it into a Succession is First That this is said without so much as a plausible colour of Reason And if there be no plausible colour of Reason in denying a Succession to the Apostolick Office the Dr. in embracing this Answer is without all colour of Reason 2. He tells us That we acknowledg our Saviour institut the Apostolick Office and that in His Institution He gave no Intimation that it was but for a Season and that thus in calling the Apostolick Office such we presum to make Christs Institutions Temporary without producing the Intimations of His Will and that upon this Ground we may repeal all Institutions of Christianity c. But I pray whether doth not the Dr. in this Answer make our Lords Institution of the Apostolick Office Temporary as in its Nature suited to that Exigence of the Time and Infant State of the Church And whether he is not upon his own Ground obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords Will hereanent And if he cannot produce it or rather doth hold it clearly intimat in the Nature of the Office it self then the Dr. must either confess our Exception and Answer to his premised Argument about a Succession to the Apostles to be valid and sound or this his Answer and Evasion to be nought and that he is therein contradictory to himself and liable to that Absurdity wherewith he charges us viz. Of making temporary and cassing all our Lords Institutions and over-ruling the Will of God by arrogant Presumption Which is the high-flown Imputation the Dr. puts upon our Answer But to bring this Matter to a short Issue and to strick out the Bottom of his great Notion and Topick The Power of the Keys or the Power of Order and Jurisdiction lying in authoritative Dispensing of Gospel Ordinances viz. The Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments together with the appendent Power of Disciplin and Government which was the substantial main Piece of the Apostolick Authority and Office and to be derived in a Succession as necessary for the Churches Preservation in all times we hold to be seated properly in the Pastoral Office which succeeds to that of the Apostles in the respect and for the end mentioned and in point of this Authority and Power we hold that any Pastor is equal to an Apostle which beside many other Reasons that might be adduced appears demonstratively by this Scripture Ground viz. That it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles in the first Constitution of Churches planted Presbyters or Pastors therein as the highest Ordinary Officers to feed with the Word and Government Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.5 with Act. 20.17 1 Cor. 5.4 12. v. compared with 2 Cor. 2.6 c. And not only so but left these Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successors committing the whole Government to them in their last Farewels to the Churches without the least hint of a Super-institution of any Officers of an higher Order Act. 20.17.18.28 1 Pet. 5.2 3 4. compared with 1 Thess. 5.12 13. c. Hence it may be thus Argued These whom the Apostles placed as Chief in the first Constitution of the Churches and left as their immediat Successors in their last Farewels which they gave to the Churches these have no ordinary Officers superior to them in the Church by Divine or Apostolick Warrant But the Apostles placed first Presbyters or Pastors feeding immediatly with the Word Doctrin and Government as their proper immediat Successors and to these they committed the Churches in their last Farewels Therefore the Pastor hath no ordinary superior Officer to him in Church Government by Divine or Apostolick Warrant Thus we see the utter Insufficiency of the Drs. Proof from this Argument anent the Seventy Disciples which may save us the labour of pursuing such Advantages as the Exact and Critical Disputant might have against him in his way of handling this Argument It is not clear from his Discourse whether he place these Seventy Disciples in the Office of Evangelists or of ordinary Ministers If he suppose and assert the First the Strength of his Argument is sufficiently Refuted by what is said above it being palpably absurd to infer different Degrees of the Pastoral Office from the Superiority of Apostles to Evangelists If the Second the Consequence is as absurd the many Prerogatives of Apostles above ordinary Pastors making such an Inference palpably ridiculous His Proof of the Succession of these Seventy to Apostles in their Office upon which he founds his Assertion of the Subordination of the one to the other is drawn from the Succession of Simeon to Iames at Ierusalem Philip to Paul at Cesarea Clemens to Peter at Rome In which he palpably falls short as to two essential Points thereof 1. He offers no Divine but an Human Testimony as to this Matter of Fact viz. of Dorotheus Eusebius 2. He offers no Proof from Scripture that the Persons instanced were of those Seventy mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord sent forth after the Twelve Apostles That the Apostles were chosen from among the Disciples or that they are first named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Ephes. 4. is a pitiful hungry Proof For the Dr. will not say that the Seventy were not also taken from among the number of Disciples or that all coming under this general Denomination were Church Officers And as to the other point of the Nomination of the Apostles first in the Catalogue of Church Officers even supposing it will import some special Prerogatives of these Twelve it is utterly remote from proving either First that these Seventy might not have been in the character of Evangelists and consequently had a correspondent Authority eo nomine Or Secondly That supposing them by their Mission to have had the same extensive Authority with the Twelve Apostles that the foresaid Prerogatives of Apostles did enervat this their Authority and Commission which was immediatly from our Lord as well as that of the Apostles and in its Nature and Extent never retracted or limited for any thing can be seen in Scripture For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy as being in Office not in Power and Jurisdiction To which he answers That the Office including the Power must import a Superiority
fall within the compass of these expired Prerogatives so several of the Prelats pretended Prerogatives are contrary and repugnant thereunto such as their exercising an ordinary Power in fixed Diocesses the Appostolick Inspection was Unfixed and extraordinary and they were Officers in actu exercito of the whole Church Next the Bishops account themselves sole Pastors of the Diocess tho Pastors are therein Ordained and Fixed For they are the Fountains from whom the Power of Order and Jurisdiction in the Diocess is dierived and the Exercise of both depends upon their Lordly Disposal And this Preheminency no Apostle ever claimed their Office being only a Declarative Executive Ministry not a Lordly Dominion Besides the Prelats negative Voice and sole Decisive Power in Judicatories is point Blank contrair to the Apostles Carriage in that Synod Act 15. In which the Question was stated and debated in the ordinary way of Disputation and the Ordinary Officers did concurr and joyn with the Apostles in Authorizing and enjoyning the Decrees And further the Bishops thâ— ordinary Officers yet deny a Subjection to the Prophets in greater or lesser Assemblies of the Church whereof they are professed Officers and yet we find Paul asserting Universally and indefinitly That the Spirits of the Prophets are Subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 Nay we find himself receiving Imposition of Hands and sent out by a Presbytrie upon a special Gospel legation which did consist not of Fellow-Apostles but of Prophets and Teachers Act. 13.1 2.3 But to what Assembly of Prophets are Prelats Subject either as to their Life or Doctrin Thirdly As to the perpetual ordinary Power given to the Apostles and transmitted by them to the Church They did neither claim nor exercise Superiority over other Ministers but we find them accounting them Brethren Partners Fellow-Labourers and themselves Fellow-Elders with them and as to the Pastoral Charge their Equals For that ordinary Power the Apostolick Office contained Eminenter which they transmitted to others But it is evident that as they planted Elders with equal Power in the Churches so in their last Farewels they committed as is above cleared the Government unto them without any hint of Imparity in its exercise Act. 20.28 Tit. 1.5 1 Cor. 5.1 Pet. 5. To which we may add in the Fourth place that the Apostles Discharging Lordly Dominion and Preheminency amongst Ministers over the Lord's Flocks or among themselves And the Apostle Iohn condemning expresly this in Diotrophes will infallibly prove that they neither allowed in others nor exercised themselves any such power else their Doctrin would contradict their Practice Hence it s infallibly clear that to make good the Drs. Proof of a Succession to the Apostles by Instances which he here undertaks there are two Points he must clearly prove and make good as the Affirmer 1. That these pretended Successors did de facto exercise and hold the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat 2. That de jure the Apostles by their Doctrin and Practice did devolve such an Authority upon them to be perpetually transmitted to the Church by Succession And therefore if in either or both these he fall short in his Instances of a pretended Succession he but beats the Air and loses his Design of proving That the Apostles communicated the same Office to Successors which our Saviour had communicated to them which in terminis he asserts p. 394. This being premised let us see how the Dr. proves by Instances the Succession of Apostles to Apostles as an Office still to be continued in the Church His first Instance of Succession is that of St. Iames in Ierusalem whose Succession in an Apostolick or Episcopal Preheminence there he labours much in the Proof of pag. 394 395 396 397. But. first tho this Matter of Fact were granted that Iames the Apostle or Evangelist not to stand here to discuss which did exercise his Ministry or Apostolate there how will it prove a Succession to the Apostolick Charge and Office in the Drs. Sense as above delineat And where is his Proof of any of the Apostles devolving this Charge upon him To prove either or both these as the Dr. here doth from any Scripture or History which suppose Iames to be in Ierusalem in the exercise of his Ministry requires to make the Reasoning valid such rules of Logick as hitherto has not been heard of What a strang Phantastick Proof is this Scripture affirms Iames to exercise his Ministry at Ierusalem Ergo he had devolved upon him by the other Apostles the Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as exercised by them and committed to them by our Saviour and this as a perpetual Function in the Church This is such Arguing and Rope of Sand-connection as any may laugh at and it is evident to common Sense that tho the exercise of Iames's Ministry in Ierusalem be granted yet the Instance is as far short of being a demonstrative Proof of what the Dr. asserts and aims at and reaching his Conclusion as the Pigmey's Arm is to fetch down Ulysses Helmet The Dr. in handling this instance endeavours to prove that the Iames spoken of Gal. 1.19 and called the Lords Brother was none of the Twelve Wherein he contradicts good Interpreters as might be cleard by a multiplicity of Instances if need were The Belgick Divines upon the Place take him to be the same mentioned Mark 10. And upon Act. 12.2 They shew that after Iames was killed this Iames spoken of here is he who left behind him the Epistle of Iames and is called the Lords Brother And upon v. 17. They affirm that this was Iames the less The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. upon Gal. 1.19 Do assert That he was one of the Twelve Apostles paralelling this passage touching Iames with Mark 6. The Drs. Proof that he was not an Apostle because Paul reckons him a part from the Twelve 1 Cor. 15.5.6.7 is utterly insufficient The Authors of Part 2. Pool Annot. draw no such Conclusion upon that verse but insinuat rather the contrar And the Dutch Divines are peremptor that the Iames mentioned in that Text was the Apostle Iames and one of the Two in the Catalogue of Apostles The Drs. Proof from his being mentioned a part from the Twelve is a pitiful lax Conceit For if the Apostle saying v. 7. That our Lord was seen of Iames then of all the Apostles will prove that Iames was not of the number his saying v. 5. That our Lord was seen of Cephas then of the Twelve will by the same Reason prove that Peter was none of the number The Doctor would needs have him the Thirteenth Apostle and the first that was made an Apostle after the Twelve I had thought that Matthias was the first Person made an Apostle after our Lords Ascension to make up the number of Twelve and supply the room of Iudas and that Paul was next added by our Lords special Call from Heaven but when
any Officer of an higher order Moreover will the Dr. be bold to affirmâ— that what was prescribed to Timothy in Point of Order and Jurisdiction was confined within the Church of Ephesus and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches as the Apostle enjoined him And if this last must needs be asserted upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches as is above from Scrpture evinced and delineat it follows by inevitable consequence that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him while at Ephesus can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as there especially since the Apostle here enjoins him to do the Work of an Evangelist i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister as is above described not the work of a Prelat over this Church If the Dr. deny this he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches or else must quite his plea. But finally to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches before Timothy had these Prescriptions in point of Government Adddressed unto him therein From whence the Dr. concludes that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person presiding over Clergy and Laity Besides the exceptions above touched to which this is lvable I would First know of him whether this Pâ—esbytrie or Presbytries so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order as himself acknowledges competent to them such as Teaching and the like And if so as himself doth hold and suppose notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him Especially since it s known the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties exprest in the Precepts abovementioned And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy in the Power of Order and such Ministerial Duties as are contained in the forementioned Precepts nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein why I pray shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction What will the Dr. Answer if one should improve his own Argument thus Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie to use his own term and that there were many Pastors gifted to Preach and admonish yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy gave this Commandment to him not to them Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only And sure I am whatever Answer he can give to this which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture will loose and Answer his own Argument against us In a word its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time and shew that when pertinently improven it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows Which retortion I thus offer After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus with reference to the Clergy and Laity as he speaks the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus as to both Order and Jurisdiction without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them herein or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers upon him in the exercise of this their Power notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them when the Apostle gave this Charge and that it was his last farewell-Charge when never to see their Faces more Now if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before and Constitut him their Bishop what a pityful inconsistency retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice in the Instalment of Timothy to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule Surely if the Argument from Priority of time be valid it must be signally so in this Case wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text and to use the Drs. expression and Address him in his own words ibid. this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches and to be sure the Government now at last Established at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers since the Apostles ordained other Apostles and Bishops to presid over the Churches But sure looking to his Scope and Pleading nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould For he cannot but acknowledg That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat viz. To found and plant Churches through the World to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them and this with extraordinary Gifts and infallible directive Authority as Christs immediatly sent and first Ambassadors Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches with an ordinary and limited Power for I hope he will not make them all universal Patriarchs Now how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles any may judg yet he will have them not only Bishops but Apostles properly so called such as were the first Apostles and as succeeding them in their formal Office Besides in speaking of this Divine Right he tells us His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers Which is a General easily accorded by us as is said and no way will come home to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge The Dr. tells us ibid That if the ordaining of Presbyters be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office as we hold why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops as good an Argument for the perpetuity of that Office I answer when the Dr. shall make it good that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church as we can prove and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders or make it appear that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus any Rules for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop or for his Qualifications as in that Capacity as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor in both these Epistles then and not till then the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted But till then we must
Epistles and being again opposed by Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveridge prepared and had almost finished his Second Defence which by the importunity of the Favourers of Prelacy was concealed Of which see the Learned Mr. Iamison in his Piece called Nazianzeni quaerela c. Part 2 d. Pag. 112 So that the Dr. hath no reason to speak so bigg and call this vindication Triumphant None can deny several of these Epistles fathered upon him to be Spurious as his Epistle to the Blessed Virgin and his two to the Apostle Iohn not to mention that of the Virgin Mary to him and for the Six mentioned by the Dr. he should know that as Learned Pens as he can mention have made appear that they are depraved and Corrupted if the Dr. will allow Usher Arch Bishop of Armagh and the Learned Rivet Videlius and Cook in his Censura patrum to be reckoned among that Number Yea Baronius himself the great Popish Historian who as Causabon holds presents from these Epistles the Papists refuges for several of their Errours yet acknowledges that somethings therein are defective in curia librariorum The Man was not so happy as to light upon the more polit Coppies found out by our Dr. and his Fellows In the forementioned Appendix the Dr. might have seen several Reasons adduced to prove these Epistles not to be genuine Such as 1. That diverse things quoted out of these Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theodoret are either not found in them at all or found altered and Changed 2 ly That they Charge the Holy Martyr with supercilious Pride in extolling his own knowledg Epistle to the Trallians as reaching the Orders of Angels Arch-Angels differences of Powers and Dominations Thrones and Powers Cherubims and Seraphims c. Which none will believe to have fallen from the Pen of so Humble a Martyr nor can any but acknowledg that it is as far from the Simplicity of his times in an arrogant self-boasting as East from West And 3 ly His strange and anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy wherein he these forged Epistles rather goes beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty The Learned Authors of the foresaid Appendix have given several instances hereof which do palpably evidence such â—n Anti-scriptural Popish Strain as no Man of Sense can impute to this holy and early Martyr Nay none who owns the Scriptures of Truth but must needs accuse of Error For instance among many others in the Epistle to the Trallians he affirms The Bishop to be possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all c. And how will the Dt. make this accord with that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believed In the same Epistle he enjoins a Reverence to the Bishop as to Christ as the Holy Apostles has commanded But where is this commanded In the Epistle to the Magnesians he enjoyns that nothing seems Right that seems not so to the Bishop For what is contrary to his Judgement is enmity to God The Apostle Paul spoke with more caution and Modesty when he enjoyned thus Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians he enjoyns the Princes the Emperour c. and all the Clergy to obey the Bishop and this at such a time when there was no Christian Emperour or Prince nor many Years thereafter In the Epistle to the Smyrneans he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King but I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests c. He affirms they are guilty of greater punishment that do any thing against the Bishop than they that rise up against the King Thus preferring them above Kings Yea he saith That such as do any thing without consulting with the Bishop is a Worshipper of the Devil And what Censure these sayings put upon the Reformed Churches Govern'd without Prelats yea what repugnancy is therein to the Holy Scriptures I think may be obvious to the Dr's meanest reflection So that he might have been asham'd to bring for his proof such spurious Epistles â— Yet he is bold to cite sâ—me of these Passages particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians and Magnesians altho he is forc't I suppose for very shame to smooth the expressions and curtail them For instance in stead of that Expression in the Epistle to the Trallians wherein he asserts the Bishop to be Possest of all Principalitie and Authority beyond all as much as it is possible for Men to be Possest of as it is truely translated out of the Greek The Dr. Represents only this what is the Bishop but he who hath all Authority and Power Which altho it be much the same with what is above rehearsed yet is far short in extent and Expression But if the Dr. hath so high a veneration for these spurious Epistles I would fain know how he will reconcile this and such like Expressions with that one Scripture Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers c. Unless the Dr. will deny the Bishop to have a Soul he cannot exeem him from the obligation of this Command And if he be thus subject how is he Possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all as much as is possible for Men to be Possest of Or how will the Dr. make this accord with that Interest and Authority of the Civil Magistrat not only in Civils over all his Subjects but also in the Church and Kingdom of Christ which the Dr. in the same Book owns and asserts He also Cites the Epistle to the Magnesians wherein Obedience to the Bishop is enjoyned and contradicting him in any thing discharged which the Dr. will not deny to be cross to that limited Obedience which the Scripture enjoins to be given even to Parents by Children Who are Commanded to Obey them in the Lord only Moreover he Cites the Epistle to the Philadelphians wherein it is affirmed that such as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop such as are not are cursed And what censure this puts upon the Reformed Churches and how it Anathematizes them as not United to the Bishop I need not tell the Dr. nor what a black Theta he marks himself with in the Judgment of the Reformed Churches if owning such an absurd assertion I cannot stand upon many things that might be further noticed to evince the impertinency and Fooleries of these Citations Only it is very worthy of our observation that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epistle to the Magnesians obliges us in a piece of Ingenuity in expressing Ignatius's commending Obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytrie c which seems to allow the Presbytrie a Commanding Authority together with the Bishop as several of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause smooth the Episcopal Power but this I am sure is cross to the Drs. Scope and pleading who enhances
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
Ierom and approve his Testimony who affirms that upon occason of Divisions the Government was altered and immutata ratio as he speaks it is a pityful and palpably absurd inference to argue upon this that either Ierom or we do impute this providential issue and Mans sinful abuse and miscarriage to the Divine Institution it self And if the Dr. own such a consequence he will justify all such abuses and Ieroboams Plea for setting up his Calves at Dan and Bethel because he judged it could not consist with the safety of the Kingdom which God had given him over Israel that the Ten Tribes should go up to Ierusalem to worship after the Kingdoms were divided Secondly He says We hold that upon this occasion it was universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should preside over all the rest which was the beginning of Episcopacy And this appears as dark and confused an Account as the former For 1. As to the Office of a President or Moderator whose Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting to gather the Votes and moderat the Procedures we hold that the very nature of all Government essentially requires this and consequently Church Government and that this was alwise and necessarly practised as in all Church Government so since the beginning and is examplified in that first Christian Council Act. 15. wherein we judg it probable that the Person presiding was the Apostle Iames And therefore its gross Non-sense to say we hold this Presidency to have been first introduced upon occasion of Schism But next if the Dr. by by a President over the rest mean such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is either advitam or who has such a Presidency as encroaches upon or inhances the Decisive Votes of Pastors this indeed we acknowledg with Ierom came in Paulatim and by peice-meal tho at first he was but a mere President advitam and had some Honour and deference upon this account And this we hold was the rise of that Prelacie which in Process of time swallowed up all the decisive Power of Pastors and their exercise of Government But the Dr. badly represents the Matter P. 415. when he calls this a Chusing of one to preside over the rest which is applicable to any President of a Judicatory or mouth of a meeting or unto a speaker in Parliament Thirdly The Dr. says we hold that this remedy was Universally agreed upon If he means that upon occasion of Schisms we hold that this custom of the fixed President with Authority and deference as above exprest came in by degrees and became Universal in Process of time as additional corruptions ordinarly do this is easily accorded But if he mean that we hold there was a Formal General Council decreeing this as the Dr. with his Fellow-Pleaders fasten this gloss upon that Passage of Ierom prospiciente concilio toto orbe decretum he should know that we disown such an Opinion and have sufficiently made it appear that Ierom intended no such thing since in collating his two Testimonies viz his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus and his Epistle to Evagrius the contrary is evident For Ierom makes this a Consuetudo or Custom and says it came in Paulatim or by Degrees And no man of Sense can but distinguish betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice spreading it self and growing up to a custom and a practice taking its rise and Original from a formal joint Decree of a General Council The Dr. having set down some part of one of these Testimonies of Ierom alledges that we hold or guess as he expresses it that this Universal Decree was about the Year 140. We hold indeed with Blondel that about this time the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took place but that we hold or guess it was by an Universal Decree is the Drs. groundless imputation which he can Justify from none of our Writers Let any Peruse the Learned Iunius his account and explication of this Testimony de Clericis Cap. 15. Not. 16. together with the Authors of the Ius Divinum Minist Evang. Part. 2 d. P. 56.57 and the Appendix thereto P. 102. 103. and this will be convincingly apparent Well what says the Dr. to this Testimony Having given out our Sense of Ierom's words wherein he contradicts his former Gloss his First exception is That Ierom being Born but about the Year 330 is a Witness far short in Antiquity to these early Witnesses which he has adduced That he is a Hundred Years after Origen three Hundred after Clâ—ment and one Witness must not stand against so many early Harmonious Witnesses We have made it appear that none of the Drs. early Witnesses give a Relevant Testimony to the Point and These he undertakes to prove viz. the derivation of the Apostolick Office in its proper formal Sense to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to Pastors and inhancing their whole Authority in Government We have made appear that all that his Testimonies amounts to prove is only a General designation of Bishops made use of by the Ancients and at most a supposal of some deference and fixed Presidency which they had in Judicatories And who sees not that this is utterly short of proving what he intends So that his Witnesses are mute in our Cause and speaks not to the Question and Iâ—â—errogatur The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. asserts and endeavours to prove that the Bishop hath for his peculiar prerogative annexed to his person and Office as Bishop 1. The Legislative Power which he calls the Essence of Government in the very same manner as he supposes the Apostles possest and exercised it 2 dly The sole Authority to Consecrat and Ordain 3 ly The whole Authority of Spirituall Iurisdiction to Cite Examin Judg Censure and absolve Delinquents 4 ly To Confirm the Baptized From all which he as intirly excluds all Pastors in Meetings never so frequent and formal and allows them no more Interest in any of these than if they were no Church Officers at all So that their medling in the least with these his supposed sole prerogatives of the Bishop is in his Judgment as gross Antiscriptural encroachment and stepping beyond the Duties and limits of their Function and Office as if they should invade the Kings Authority and prerogative Now the Office of the Bishop being of this Nature and extent in the Dr's Judgment let any Person of Candor or Conscience give sentence upon it what the Witnesses before adduced by him do say to prove this and what strength there is in their Testimoneis to reach this conclusion Again 2 ly As the Drs. pretended early Witnesses are but general and ambiguous in their Testimonies and consequently can make no Faith in this Matter so they are so far from being unanimous as he calls them that upon the contrary several of them as is above cleared do give Witness against him Particularly Clemens and Ignatius two of his most Ancient Witnesses
which he says is as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastick History he therein crosses the Judgment of Learned Protestants who have made the contrary appear as is above evinced The Accounts of this supposed Succession being Contradictory one to another and sometimes Persons Contemporary made Succedaneous therein yea and the very Name and Office of Persons designed being of a various and different Nature and Signification some of these pretended succeeding Bishops being mere Presbyters But says the Doctor who will question an ancient Monarchy because of some Defect of the Historical Accounts of its Succession I answer The Original of the Monarchy being clear in History and also the Successors of the first in Point of an Historical Faith this will not be questioned And when the Dr. shal let us see the Bishops of his Mould set up by the Apostles and present to us the Scripture Escutchions of their Power together with clear Historical Accounts of their first Successors accordingly we shal admit his paralell Argument else it is a mere non sequitur The Dr. in the next place tells us That the Story of Jerom's Universal Decree being Unattested and Contradictory to all Antiquity it must needs be lookt upon as a mere Figment of his Fancy But from what is said its evident that the Dr. instead of Impugning the Decree which Jeroms Testimony speaks of has been in all that is premised but Fighting with his own Shadow and a Figment of his oâ—n Fancy and has never touched his Meaning and Scope nor has shown any much less all Antiquity against what Jerom asserts The Dr. demands an Instance of any Church of another Form of Government than Episcopacy Which Demand he might have found sufficiently answered by Presbyterian Writers who have made appear that the first Apostolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially The Authors of the Jus Divinum Regim Eccles. have long since exhibit clear Scripture Proofs of this which the Dr. should have Answered before he had made such a Challenge Besides the Multitud of Fathers who maintain the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters will go far in this Proof And if Blondels Demonstration from Antiquity Apol. Sect. 3. P. 308. c. that Bishops came not in till the year 140. hold good surely all the existent Churches in that Period of Time are so many Instances of such a Government And for this Church of Scotland we have its first Presbyterian Government attested by Iohan. Major de gest Scot. Lib 2 Fordons Scotochron Lib 3 cap 8 Blond Sect 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Governed by Presbyters without Bishops and that in that year the Bishop of Rome sent Palladius as our first Bishop So that we had our Union to the See of Rome together with Prelacy We come now to the Dr's last Exception to this Testimony of Ierom wherein he reposes great Confidence Ushering it in with an especially Considering Well what is that under his Consideration the Dr. will Amuse us with and Arrest our Thoughts upon This Conceit saith he reflects odiously upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters common Counsel which was the Occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions for Removal of which the Church found it needful to dissolve those Presbytries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room But the Doctor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long since removed and that his supposed Reflection depends not upon any Words of Ierom. Ierom says That Diaboli Instinctu by the Devils Instinct there fell Divisions and Factions one saying I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo and that thereupon this Remedy of setting up fixed Presidents was fallen upon Which the Learned Whittaker has told the Dr was a Remedy worse than the Disease And Ierom himself distinguishes this Humane Custom from the Divine Institution Now where is the Dr's Consequence Because Jerom says that for preventing Schisms at that time the Government was changed doth he therefore charge this upon the Apostles Government or Christs Institution He may as well say that a Mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will inferr his imputing them to the Ordinances Was there not Discord among the Apostles under Christs own immediat Government But did this Discord or the Record thereof in Scripture reflect on His Holy Government Paul and Barnabas divided and parted asunder but doth Luke in Recording this charge it upon the Apostolick Government To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference yet further to appear let these three things be considered 1. He confesses that Jerom asserts that the Apostolick Government of Presbyterian Parity was the Occasion only of these Schisms Therefore say I he makes it not the Cause If the Dr. assert this he will pitifully expose his Learning in not distinguishing these things which are so obviously distinguishable and reflect upon our Saviour in saying he came not to send Peace but a Sword and Division to kindle Fire upon the Earth to set a Man at Variance against his Father and to make those of a Man 's own House his Enemies as if His Holy Doctrin were the Cause of these Evils Paul tells us that his Corruption and Sin took Occasion from the Commandment and was irritat by the Law but prevents so gross a Mistake as to suppose any Imputation upon the Holy Law thereby Is the Law sin saith he God forbid He abhorrs the Consequence as absurd and blasphemous 2. The Dr. holds that Jerom asserts The Church found it necessary upon this Occasion to change the first Government by the Common Counsel of Presbyters and as he expresses it to Dissolve Presbytries and Introduce Episcopacy Wherein he abuses Ierom and pitifully Wire-draws his Words offering a mere Distortion of them For 1. Ierom speaks only as is above cleared of an Innovating Custom growing up by Degrees not of a Government introduced by the whole Church upon Ground of Necessity 2. He makes Ierom assert that upon the first Introduction of this Custom Presbytries were wholly dissolved which is most cross to Ieroms Meaning For even in his own time long after the first Origine of this Custom he says quid facit c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbytrie doth not So that in the first Introduction of this Episcopus Praeses Ierom could far less suppose a Dissolution of Presbytries or total Abolishing of their Authority as the Dr. foolishly suggests but only such a fixed President or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who as in that Capacity had a Deference and the Care committed to him but not so as wholly to exclud Presbyters Decisive Suffrage Again in the 3 d. place what ever may be said of this after-Practice and Frame of Government Ierom expresly denies a Divine Right or Ius to it and distinguishes it from the Truth of the Divine Appointment which first took place So that tho we should grant to the Dr that in Ierom's
Government that it occasioned Schisms For upon supposal of the soundness of Ierom's Scripture proofs the parity of Bishop and Presbyter being the mind of Christ and his Apostles this Government could never give ground to Schisms nor could the Church warrantably alter it upon any such pretence So that whensoever and by whomsoever the change was made it was made contrary to the revealed will of the great Law-giver The Second Point of unsoundness the Dr. is Chargable with is that in the beginning of his discourse upon Ierom's Testimony he professes that he will not disput with us the Sense of this Passage but allow it to bear our Sense Yet in several of his Answers he impugns our Sense Especially his 4.5 6. and not only our Sense but the Sense of sound Protestant Divines as is above evident His Conceit about Ierom's making the Decree or Custom he speaks of to be the Schism at Corinth which is his Fourth exception and his Supposition That Jerom by toto orbe decretum understands a formal joint Decree of the whole Church not a gradual Custom and that Jerom makes the Church to redress upon necessary grounds the Government appointed by Christ and his Apostles and thus to impeach his Divine Wisdom which are his other exceptions All these I say as they are Distortions of Jerom's sense so directly opposit to the Sense given by us and by all sound Divines yea and such as have been long since refuted by Protestant Writers in Answer to Popish glosses and exceptions with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join Issue So that we may judg of the affinity of both their Causes by the near cognation of their Pleadings CHAP. IV. The Dr 's Fourth Argument Examined taken from our Saviour's alledged allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches WE do now proceed to the Dr's last Argument to prove That the rightful Government of the Church is Episcopal taken from our Saviours Allowance and Approbation thereof in his Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia directed to the Seven Angels called Seven Stars in His Right Hand or the Seven Lights of the Seven Churches Rev. 1.20 and 2.1 And in every Epistle owned as his Angels and Messengers The Dr. tells us that if he can prove them to be Seven Bishops presiding over Clergy and Laity of these Churches at that time they are unanswerable instances of Christs Allowance and Approbation of the Episcopal Order This trite and often Baffled Argument taken from the supposed Episcopal Power of the Seven Asian Angels has been so frequently scanned and tossed by Writers on this Controversie that the Dr. since he makes here such a Parade should either have brought some new Strength upon the Field or offered an Answer to the many clear returns given to this Argument However to clear our way in examining what the Dr. says upon this head which is nothing else but some Old Musty stuff repeated I premise two things 1. That the Collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles 2. That allowing the Angels to be single Persons will nothing help the Drs. design and pleading For the First that the collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles appears thus 1. This suits best the Stile of this Book which is by mystick visional Representations to includ many individuals As one singular so all the individuals of the Church both Members and Officers are represented by One Candlestick And why not also all the Ministers by one Angel A term which of it self and in this place imports no Jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the Angelical frame and qualities of Ministers 2. This is also suitable to the style of this Book as it is Epistolare the Address may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest As an Address from the King to a Speaker in Parliament will give the Speaker no Jurisdiction and Authority over his Fellow-Members When our Lord said unto Peter only expresly not to the rest of his fellow-Disciples I will give unto thee the Keyes c. who but brutish and partially affected Papists will conclud that he was Prince or Primate over the Apostles And that they had not and even by this promise an equal Authority with him in the use of the Keys This the Dr. must acknowledg unless he will justify the Popes Pleading from this Text. 3. This is suitable to Scripture Prophetick Writings and to this Book as such to represent many Individuals by one singular The Four beasts the Twenty Four Elders do not signify so many individual persons The singular Names of Woman Beast Whore Dragon signify a collection of many individuals So the one Spirit of God is called the Seven Spirits with reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8.20 One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deut. 17.12 i. e. The Priests in the plural So the Priests Lips should keep knowledg and the Law sought at his Mouth Mal. 2.7 Here also the Priest for Priests in the Plural Blest is that Servant whom the Lord c. i. e. Those Servants Particularly as to the term Angel It is said Psal. 34. that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly i. e. many Angels since they are all Ministring Spirits to them 4. It is suitable to Scripture and this Book to represent an indefinit number by a definit Thus all Iudahs Adversaries are represented by the Four Horns Zech. 1.18 All the Godly and the Ungodly are represented by the Five Wise and by the Five Foolish Virgins The Seven Angels standing before God Represents all the Angels Ch. 8. of this Book for in Ch. 7. mention is made of all the Angels who do thus stand And with the same indefinitness we are to understand the Septenarie number frequently elsewhere as the Seven Pillars which Wisdom Hews out Prov. 9. The Seven Pastors or Shepherds Micah 5. The Seven Eyes Zech. 3. And in this very Book Ch. 4.5.15 The Seven Candlesticks Lamps Viols 5. As we find the Scripture and this same Apostle First Naming a Multitude and then contracting it into a Singular as 2 Ioh. 7. v. Many deceivers are entred into the World Then This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist And sometimes the Individual in one Sentence turned into a Multitude as 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved i. e. the Woman bearing Children if they continue in Faith and Charity i. e. such Women in general So this single Angel is turned into many and spoken to in the Plural in one and the same Epistle Thus Rev. 2.24 Unto you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.10 We find John changing the singular Angel into a Multitudâ— Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer Behold the Devil shall cast
some of you into Prison that ye may be tryed In a word what ever Characteristick of this Angel the Dr. shall produce we can make it appear to be applicable to Presbyters or Pastors First Is it a Commission to Preach and Baptize This he will grant belongs to all Pastors Is it the Power of Ordination The Scripture shews us that this is Seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Matth. 18.17 Is it the Ruling Governing Power All Ministers are such Angels All that Watch for Souls do Rule over them and all Labourers in the Word and Doctrin have an equal joynt Interest in Feeding Censuring and Ruling in the Churches over which they are set Heb. 13.17 1 Thess. 5.12 And People are accordingly to submit themselves to them Therefore this Prostasie and Ruling Power is no sole Prerogative of a single Angel or supposed Bishop Thus it was with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. And it is much more suteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of a Plurality of Ministers to whom in a plain Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather than to Explain that plain Text by a Metaphor and contrary thereunto to set up one Angel or Diâ—cesan Bishop over that Church with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction The Dr. will find this our Sense of the Angel to be no new Opinion when he considers that Augustin Homil. 21. upon this Book thus takes it Expounding the Angel of Thyatira the Praepositi Ecclesiarum or Governours of the Churches So Aretas Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2.9.10 Primas in Apoc. Cap. 2. Ambros. Ambert Anselm Pererius Victorin Tirin Haym Bed Perkins Fox in his Meditations on the Revelation pag. 7 8. Pilkintoun Bishop of Durham in his Exposition of Hag. Ch. 1. v. 13. The second thing I premise is that the Dr. hath no advantage tho it be yielded that the Angel is a single Person For 1. He may be the Angelus Praeses or the Moderator Angel not the Angelus Princeps or the Lord Angel yea and the Praeses or Moderator for the time as a Speaker in Parliament Ephesus had many Angels Act. 20.28 1 Tim. 5.17 of equal Authority who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost and set over that Church accordingly and they are spoken to in the Plural though the Angel is named in the Singular Number 2. This Angel is said to have no Jurisdiction or Superiority over the rest of the Ministers nor can the Dr. shew where this Angel is spoken to with reference to Ministers as subject to him which notwithstanding is his begged Supposition and Petitio Principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesan Division of the Churches were long after this and not until the 260 year after Christ in the Judgment of best Antiquaries 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common Duty of all Pastors Finally suppose it were granted to him that a Superiority were imported in Naming this Angel it may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts and in such Moral Respects not of Power and Jurisdiction The Dr in Order to this his Scope proposes generally the Method of his Proof shewing That he will prove that they were single Persons 2 ly That they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches 3 ly That they were the Bishops or Presidents of these Churches Before I examin his Proofs it is pleasant to consider how well this Undertaking of the Dr. answers his Scope which all along in this Dispute is to prove a Succession of ordinary Officers in the Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in their whole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction excluding Pastors from the least Interest therein By his Principles these supposed Succeeding Prelats are the sole Governours of Churches have the sole Legislative Power wherein he says the Essence of Government consists the Power of Consecration and Ordination to Ecclesiastick Offices and that of the same Nature and Extent as he supposes the Apostles had it by vertue of their Apostolical Mission The Bishops also have by his Principles the sole Executive Spiritual Jurisdiction Monopolized in them as their peculiar Prerogative viz. as the Dr. explains it to Cite Examin Admonish Offenders Exclud from or Admit to Church Communion Censure or Absolve Bind or Loose The twelve Thrones to Judg Israels Tribes promised to Apostles he understands of the Authority of Judging and of all Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church Visible committed to them and by them to the Bishops as their only Successors in this Authority To which we may add the Confirming of the Baptized by Imposition of Hands which he also ascribes to them as their sole Prerogative This the Dr. at large insists upon from P. 433. to P. 438. Now to prove all these Prerogatives of the Bishops and this Extensive Power so paramount to all Authority or Interest of Pastors in Government as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure from the seven Asian Angels Because they were single Persons or of great Authority in the Churches or President-Bishops in these Churches is such a Proof as the Simplest may Laugh at For 1. Will any Man think that their being Saluted as single Persons will prove this Extensive Authority Why may not a Senate be Saluted in the Consuls a Parliament Addressed in the Chancellor or the House of Commons in an Epistle to the Speaker 2 ly Say that they were Presidents and admit that they had Deference and Authority as such as the Consul in the Senate will this suppose or by any Shadow of Consequence or Connection inferr that they had such a Power as is here described and such as swallows up wholly and absolutly all Authority of the Members of Church Judicatories Nay the Dr. will as soon joyn the Poles together as unite this Antecedent and Consequent Besides in calling them Presidents he discovers this and confutes himself since the Terme both Name and Thing in all Languages and in the Sense of all Men is appropriat to such as are set over Juridical Courts Civil or Ecclesiastick the Members whereof are still supposed to have a Decisive Suffrage and Interest in the Government Again 3 ly The Dr. says he will prove that they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches But if he speak to the Point and prosecut his Scope he must call it Absolute and Sole Authority intirely exclusive of all Interest which Pastors or any other Church Officers may claim therein Come we to the Dr's Grand Proofs First That they were single Persons he proves from this That they are mentioned as such the Angel of Ephesus the Angel of Smyrna And thus all along Addrest in the Singular Number I know thy Works I have a few things against thee Ans. This Argument is abundantly removed by what is premised anent the Collective Sense of the Word Angel which our Lords Addressing the the Epistle to one Angel doth no whit Impugn in the sense of sound Protestant
cut off the Dr's third Argument which he prosecutes P. 424 425 c. that nothing needs be further added as there might be with Advantage if a particular Examen were made of his Citations The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair or Primacy over the Asian Churches The Sottishness of which Conceit and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office is evident to any of common Sense since the Apostles by vertue of their Office which extended to all Churches planted and to be planted were Ministers thereof in actu exercito and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops forsooth to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province The Citation speaks of a Province in general which the Dr. will needs have to be that of Ephesus and the seven Angels must be these seven Bishops by whom he governed that Province Again the Angel is called by Augustin the Praepositus or President therefore he was an Hierarchical President as the Dr. has shapen out What Consequence is this As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna from Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 15. and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus Lib. 5. Cap. 24. we have spoken to it already and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles as likeways to Eusebius's History Besides that in Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Irenaeus calls Anycetus Pius Heginus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt We also did shew that he thus expresses himself further Nec Polycarpus Anyceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandam esse diceret We have also already made appear that Polycarp his supposed Bishop disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr since Writing to the Philippians he ownes only Bishops and Deacons as the two Orders of Ministry and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ. To which we may add that Bishop Bilson himself acknowledges Perpet Gov. P. 158 159. that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches when Iohn wrote to them it is abundantly removed by what is said above in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop by Ancient Writers as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus which we shall take notice of he tells us that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas the Faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of Patmos immediatly before the Angel of that Church to whom Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clement succeeded to Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Paraeus says indeed that these of Pergamus had cruelly slain Antipas but adds quis fuerat ex Historia parum constat that there is no Light from History who he was He adds Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem c. that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church and under Domitian a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds that he to whom our Lord wrote might be tempted to lay aside his Office for fear of the like Punishment c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair and of his Name Paraeus says nothing neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office than that of Pastor seeming to take these Churches for Congregational And if the Office to which the Angel succeeded was that of a Pastor only where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair which he here assigns him Besides Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound touching the Office and Character of Antipas Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool do affirm That no Ecclesiastick History makes mention of Antipas and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note And that no History giving Account of him has inclined some to think this Epistle is wholly Prophetical and that Antipas signifies all such as oppose the Pope as if it were the same with Antipapa The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels is That it being apparent that there were Bishops presiding in each of these Churches when Iohn wrote consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches So that they being Bishops our Saviour in these Epithets allows and approves of the Episcopal Order But by what is above replyed it is evident that nothing which the Dr. has adduced amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops as he has shapen out in one or all of these Churches And therefore our Lords writing to these Angels gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order which he asserts And so to the Dr's Summ of all as he expresses it viz That the Episcopal form is of Divine Right upon Ground of our Saviours Institution Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles and conformity of the Primitive Churches and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone from what is above replyed that it is evident that the high-flown Hierarchy he pleads for has no Foundation either in our Lords Institution or the Practice of the Apostles is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church or our Saviours Approbation in his Epistles to the Asian Churches but as opposit to all these is by the Churches of Christ to be rejected and disowned CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government considered THE First Prerogative of the Bishop as contradistinct from a Presbyter is with the Dr. to make Laws and Canons which is the Essence of Government and supposes a Legislative Power else faith he Christs Wisdom is impeached if he left a Governed Society without a Legislative Power I need not stand to tell the Dr That by consent of Protestant Divines the Churches Power is not properly Nomothetick Architectonick Legislative but Ministerial and declarative of Christs Institution in reference to Ordinances the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government of his House The Dr. proves this Authority P. 433.434 from the Apostles Power Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision And says That in their Decree they exercise a Legislative Power laying upon the Churches to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity That as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the
have told him before that Firmilianus saith of them that Rule in the Church quod Baptisandi manum imponendi Ordinandi possident potestatem and who these are he shews a little before viz. Seniores praepositi We have also told him that Chrysostom himself was found accused in Synod ad Quaercum Ann. 403. that he had made Ordinations with the Sentence and company of the Clergy And in the forecited Council of Carthage Canon 21. it is enacted That the Bishop Ordain not without the Clergy And Canon 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impose hands with the Bishop The Authors of Ius Divinum Minist Evan. in the Appendix together with Smectymnus and several other Presbyterian Writers have exhibit so many clear instances of this that we need only refer the Reader to their Learned Labours for the discovery of the Drs. folly in this Assertion In the close of his discourse upon this point he tells us That this is so undenyable that tho Ierom equalize Presbyters with Bishops yet he is forc't to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ans. If we should suppose Ierom to speak of the general custom of that time and place and neither absolutely nor Universally as to the practice or Matter of Fact far less of of a Divine Right the Dr's undenyable proof is soon overturned but especially it s Razed when we tell him that Ierom's excepta Ordinatione is well enough understood of the Bishops ordinarly assumed Chief interest in the rituals of Ordination tho Presbyters as is above cleared did intrust this to him as having a joint and essential interest in the thing it self The next peculiar Ministry of the Bishop which the Dr. assigns is The execution of Spiritual Iurisdiction viz. to Cite examin Offences before their Tribunals to admonish the Offender exclud from Church Communion or receive upon Repentance The Dr. discourses at large in proof of a Spiritual jurisdiction Established in the Church and proves it soundly from Matth. 18.16.17.18 Expounding that Clause tell it unto the Church of a Delation in Order to an Authoritative admonition and from those Passages in the context If he neglect to hear the Church let him be as a heathen c. and that other whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Concluds well a Power in the Church of excluding from and admission into Fellowship Citing that Paralell Math. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keyes c. which he also well explains by what is said Isai. 22.21 22. anent the Key of the Hâ—use of David i. e. the Government of his Church committed to our Lord in the Type of Eliakim's substituting to Shebna who was over the Household He expounds well the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven of the Government of the Church and the Power of Binding and loosing of admission to or exclusion from Church Fellowship All this is easily accorded But now comes the main Point and the Cardo questionis This Power saith the Dr is wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order This is soon said but to prove it hoc opus hic labor est It were superfluous here to remind the Reader how the Dr. understands the Episcopal Order or how far in a sound Scripture Sense of the Episcopal order this assertion might be admitted But to the Point the Dr. proves his Assertion from this ground that in all the forecited places it was only to Apostles that our Lord derived this Iurisdiction they alone being the Stewards to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Family to whom alone he promised Twelve Thrones to Rule and Govern his Spiritual Israel as the Chief of the Tribâ—s Governed the Natural Israel Math. 19.28 Upon which ground he tells us that the Heavenly Jerusalem has the Names of the Twelve Apostles upon its Gates Rev. 21.14 c. And the Twelve pretious Stones v. 19.20 Do in his Sense denote the Power and dignity of the Church As also the 144 Cubits of the Walls Measure amounting to Twelve times twelve he takes to denote the Apostles equal Government of the Church From all which the Dr. thrusts out as his project of the whole his former Notion and Topick of our Lords lodging this Jurisdiction in those of the Apostoliek Order derived from the Apostles which saith he was administrat accordingly either by the Apostles immediatly or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Order Ans. All this in so far as relates to the Dr's scope is nothing but a repetition of what is already Answered I shall easily accord with him in this that as our Lord placed and left in his Church a Spiritual Jurisdiction so his Apostles were the First and immediat Recipients of this from himself I do likewise consent to the Dr. in this that this Spiritual Authority was to be continued in the Church and Transmitted to fit Administrators and was not to die with the Apostles As also there is no doubt that they were to deliver our Lords mind and the Standart and continuing measures and Rules of all the Ordinances of the House of God the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government thereof in which Respect they are called the Churches Foundation But in all this the Dr. has not laid one Ground-Stone of his proof which as we have often told him lyes Chiefly in these two Points 1. That the Office of Apostolat in its entire nature and extent and as exercised by the Twelve was by our Lord intended for an ordinary Function and Office to be thus continued in and transmitted to the Church and devolved on Successors who were accordingly to exercise the same Office and Power 2 ly That these Successors were so invested with this Apostolick Power and Office as they had the whole Government the Power of Order and Jurisdiction monopolized in them in so far as the Pastors and Presbyters appointed and set up by Apostles in the Churches had only the Doctrinal Key entrusted to them but not that of Government whereas both the one and the other were committed to these supposed succedaneous Apostles Now its evident that if the Dr. prove not these he says nothing And that both these are unsound and Antiscriptural Suppositions we have already made appear 1. From the many evidences and clear Scripture discoveries of the extraordinarie expired nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office And 2. From the Apostles intrusting and transmitting to Pastors or Presbyters and devolving upon them both the Keyes of Doctrin and Government as their proper and imediat Successors as also from clear Scripture Grounds and instances which do evince their actual exercise of the same But next to examin a little more closely the Dr's Proofs I would gladly know of him or any of his Perswasion whether they do not look upon and understand that Text Math. 18. as containing a constant Fundamental Law and Rule given to the Christian Church to prescrib the Method of removing
Scandals as also the proper Subject of the Keyes and Iurisdictional Power and of that Power in special which is called Critick The Dr. holds That Christ here established a Iurisdiction in the Church he also acknowledges That the Church here meant hath Power of Authoritative Admonition and the Binding and Loosing Power since he holds it to be the same with that Binding and Loosing Authority which our Lord promises to Ratifie in Heaven Iohn 20.23 Matth. 16.19 He understands by this Jurisdiction this Authority and Exercise of the Keyes pointed at in these Paralells Nay he acknowledges P. 443. That in the Forecited Passage Matth. 18. our Lord institut the Power of Censuring And I need not tell him that Words of Institution of any Ordinance are the proper Standart and Measure thereof and the Pattern shewed upon the Mount Now what is meant by the Church the proper Subject of the Keyes in the Dr's Sense and Pleading is the Question The Dr. will not say it is the Political Magistrat as some have alledged for he holds That our Lord spoke this to his Church as a distinct Society and having distinct Officers from the Kingdoms of the World And whereas some have alledged that we are to understand this Church of a Iewish Sanehedrin the Dr in the whole Strain and Scope of his Discourse disownes this for he asserts That in this Text our Lord is speaking to the Christian Church and establishing a Spiritual Jurisdiction therein Neither can he understand by the Church the whole Collective Body according to the general Notion of the Word for the Dr in the Strain of his Discourse makes this Power and Authority peculiar and proper to Church Officers as is evident in his Paralells above-rehearsed and the Church Representative to be the proper Subject of that Jurisdictional Power here enjoyned Now all this being evident in his own Pleading since the proper Subject of this Power is by our Lord exprest who knew best how to express it by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church I would fain know by what Warrand the Dr. can can make this Term peculiar to one single Person viz. a Bishop so as it must be holden to express his sole Prerogative Or where will he shew or make it appear that in any Greek Author Sacred or Prophane the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes one single Person If he say that by the Church the Community of Church Rulers or Bishops is to be understood viz. that all Bishops in common and every Bishop apart hath this Power and Authority I Answer this understood of Scripture Bishops or Church Officers in general and of such Church Officers of particular Collegiat Churches is easily accorded But if he mean of his Hierarchical Bishops in Bulk and of every one of such a part he both Beggs the Question and Crosses the Scope of the Place For 1. Howsoever we take the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church whether for the Church Universal to whom Officers and a Government is given immediatly or for particular Churches to whom in a mediat Sense the same Government and Charge is given we must of necessity understand it to be given to such parts of this whole as do come under the Denomination and partake of the Nature of a Church and according to the Dr's Sense above-evinced an Imbodied Society or Juridical Court must in that Statute be understood which can never be applicable to a single Person And besides this would invert our Lords Method of Procedure and the Gradation here held out and enjoyned which is as the Dr. himself acknowledges from one to two or more and the last Result and ultimat Appeal is to the Church or the Imbodied Court of Officers with whom the Jurisdictional and Critical Power is lodged 2 ly Granting that this Jurisdictional Power in Order to the first Planting of Churches was for this end at first lodged with the Apostles yet the fore-mentioned great Rule and Fundamental Law as above Sensed and in a great Measure by the Dr. himself will still evince that the Apostles were not to Exercise it to the prejudice of the Authority given thereby to the standing Officers and ordinary Authorized Courts of the Christian Church unless they can be supposed to have had a Power Paramount thereunto For wherever a Christian Organick Chuch was gathered by vertue of this Precept tell the Church the Scandals were to be delated to the Officers thereof who consequently according to the Nature and Tenor of the foresaid Law are supposed to have the Binding and Loosing Power whatever Apostolical Authority might reach in Churches not Constitut or in way of Apostolical Direction to Churches Constitut as in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian yet this was not Privative of but Cumulative to the ordinary Power of Collegiat Organick Churches as is often told him I might further urge the Dr. with this that that Passage Iohn 20.23 cannot but be extended to a Doctrinal as well as Iurisdictional Remitting or Retaining Binding or Loosing the Doctrinal Key as well as Jurisdictional being Primarly given to Apostles to be by them derived to Successors Our Lord in his Gift to Apostles divided them not And therefore neither were the Apostles to divide them in Devolving this Power upon and Committing this Authority to Successors And since the Dr. acknowledges that the Apostles by virtue of our Lords Commission Devolved upon Pastors the Doctrinal Authority and Committed to them that Key thus P. 427 428. why not I pray the Jurisdictional also both being inseparably tyed together Nay the Dr. himself upon the Matter yields this for he tells us ubi supra That the Command Go Teach all Nations Math. 28.19 did reach Pastors as the Apostles Successors in this Ministerial Duty and that Preaching was one of the principal Imployments belonging to the Apostolical Office And if the Apostles were to commit to Pastors one principal part of their Office why not also the less principal Besides that the Command Go Teach or Disciple all Nations will clearly includ the Jurisdictional as well as Doctrinal Key The Dr. adds ibid. That yet this Command of Preaching was not restrained to their Office since inferior Officers Preacht as the seventy Yet he adds That none Preacht but either by immediat Commission from Christ or Apostolical Ordination But I pray were any in his Sense otherwise allowed to exercise Disciplin but in this method Why will not the Dr. allow the exercise of Disciplin to the Seventy and such a Mission of Rulers consequently For Timothy whom together with the Seventy he probably Judges to have held an Evangelistick Office he pleads had Authority both to Teach and Rule And the Teachers Act. 13. he holds to be Bishops So that in his Sense Government being annexed in these instances thereunto the Lord did extraordinarly call in these times of the Church some persons who were not Apostles Therefore his Reason is insufficient to prove that the
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
himself two gross Absurdities 1. That Paul had and Exemplified a standing lawful Episcopal Authority wherever such Prescriptions were exercised and to whomsoever they could reach And this Reaching over all Churches his Care being thus extended as is above cleared the Dr. makes him a standing Primat and Patriarch over them Exemplifying a sort of Patriarchal Primacy to be Transmitted in the Church 2 ly That his Apostolick Prescription of the Duties of Church Officers was not Cumulative unto but Privative of whatever Authority and Interest in Government they might acclaim or in the Exercise of the Power of Order And thus suppose the Bishop of the Dr's Mould set over the Church of Corinth had neglected his Duty as these Officers are here found faulty in this point Pauls Apostolick Direction in the Dr's Sense and Pleading nullifies his Power and proves he had none Or supposing an Archippus or negligent Minister had needed his Apostolical Direction to perform such Acts of the Power of Order as were proper to his Function Pauls Prescription of Duty by the same Reason swallows it up and makes it null Certain it is that neither could the Apostles divest themselves of this directing Power of Judging upon neglect of Duty which had been a divesting themselves of their Office nor can they be supposed without the grossest Consequences striking at the Root of all Church Authority to have by their directing or judging Power exauctorat such to whom the Direction was given of their Power and Interest in their respective Duties whether as Members or Officers of the Churches Pool Anot Vol. 2. Expound this 4 th v. of the Power and Authority of Christ concurring with them while gathered together And upon v. 5. Expounding the delivering to Satan of Excommunication and casting out of the Church They give this Reason because the Apostle speaks of an Action which might be and ought to have been done by the Church of Corinth when they mett together and for not doing of which the Apostle blames them Thus clearly Asserting the Intrinsick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth herein and upon the same Grounds which we have Asigned To the same Scope do the Belgick Divines Expound this whole Passage paralelling it with the great Precept Matth. 18.15 Both upon v. 4 5. and upon 2 Cor. 2.6 touching the Subject of this Jurisdictional Act viz. That it was Inflicted of many they Expound of Church Governours or Officers Diodat upon Chap. 5. v. 4. thus Senses the Words That they were to perform this as the Lords Ministers by Authority received from Christ and that the Command is directed to the Pastors and Conductors of the Church being gathered together in Ecclesiastical Judgment having the Apostles Declaration instead of his Voice and Vote And to obviat such a Notion and Fancy as that of our Dr. upon this he adds That this was without doing any prejudice to the ordinary Ministry of the Church of Corinth And that Paul uses his Apostolical Power Modestly only to excite the other viz. the ordinary Power of Pastors and to strengthen it And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this Incestuous Man but all such Scandalous Kind of People who by their Infection might plunge again into the Ancient Corruption c. And upon v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within He says That it is certain that a Judge cannot exercise his Jurisdiction but only over those that are within his Precinct and subject to his Tribunal Clearly Asserting a Spiritual Tribunal in this Representative Church To the same Scope he Expounds the last verse The English Annot. upon v. 2. of this Chap. in Correspondence to the Exposition and Answer premised and in Opposition to the Dr's Reasoning do shew That the Apostle finds fault with the Corinthians for that they had not Excommunicat this Incestuous Person before he had Wrote unto them and Charged them so to do because the Fact was Notorious and the Church Scandalized And upon v. 4. which mentions the Power of Christ they shew That the Power of Excommunication and Absolving is Christs and the Ministry thereof only Committed to the Governours of the Church And the delivering to Satan mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel Matth. 18.17 We need not spend time in multiplying Instances of Sound Expositors in opposition to the Dr's Sense of this place That there is here an Allusion to the Iewish Synagogue is the Consentient Judgment of the learned viz. in their Way of Excluding and casting out the Scandalous Thus Grotius Estius Hammond Simplicius Piscotor Beza c. Pareus Paralelling v. 5. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. shews that the same Persons are Authorized to Comfort and forgive him who inflicted the Censure viz. the Church Officers What we have said might be further improven from the end of the Action which was the purging out the Old Leaven and taking the Scandalous Person from among them and the Character of the Censure it self called a Punishment inflicted of Many in Opposition to the Dr's Design and Argument But the thing it self is obvious And therefore we proceed The Dr. Adduces next Paul's Threatning not to spare 2. Cor. 13. But to proceed with Ecclesiastick Censures And his mentioning Two or Three Witnesses to establish every word according to the Words of our Lord when he Institute this Power of Censuring Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity according to the Power given him to Edification And to come with a Rod He must needs saith the Dr mean Apostolical Censures and Excommunication to be Execute and Performed in his own Person in which Respect he delivered Hereticks of the Church of Ephesus to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 It is Answered First all this is easily removed by the often Adduced Distinction of the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Authority and of a Cumulative and Privative Exercise thereof Altho the extraordinary Power upon fit Emergents such as either the supine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers or the more endangering spread of Offences or obstinacy of Offenders or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers in whom this Power was Lodged and Seated was alwise in readiness and to be Exercised for the Churches good and Edification yet nevertheless this Exercise as we have often told him was never exclusive of nor derogatory unto the Churches ordinary Intrinsick Authority nor except in Cases mentioned or Extraordinary Emergents without the actual Concurrence of the ordinary Church Officers And if as the Dr. says the Apostle here insinuats a method of procedure suitable to our Lords Institution Matth. 18. It could not be otherwise Besides he Threatens this severity as a proof of his Apostolick Power 2 Cor. 13.3 which some understand of his Miraculous Power to inflict Bodily Afflictions Others of his Power to cut off from the Communion of the Gospel Churches thus Pool Annot. And if the Dr. will allow that by mentioning Two or Three Witnesses he ties himself to
the Method of procedure which our Lord Institute Matth. 18. he must by Parity of Reason allow the other part of the Institution touching the Juridical or Censuring Church to have its own place therein And that Consequently the Apostle was to take along the Authoritative concurrence of the Church Officers of Corinth in this procedure But the truth is he quite mistakes the Passage For in that Clause of Two or Three Witnesses the Apostle Intimats only the certainty of his coming the Third time He had taken up thoughts of and was preparing for his Journey and giving them previous warning of his coming he alludes to that of Deut. 19.15 to ascertain them thereof accordingly Thus Pool Annot. and Interpreters generally He had been at Corinth once Act. 18. Afterward he had twice purposed and promised to come once in the 1 Ep. Chap. 16.5 And now again here And then he adds in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses c. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat thus senses this Clause in the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses c. The meaning is saith he these Three warnings of my coming shal be as so many Witnesses by which if ye do not amend you shall be sufficiently convinced of incorrigible Rebellion to proceed to a sentence already penned 2 Cor. 10.6 cum jam bis terve id dixerim tandem ratum erit thus Grotius As for the Apostles threatning sharpness of Censure v. 10. And his Apostolical Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 It receives the same Answer by the forementioned distinction of the Apostles ordinary and Extraordinary Power and the cumulative and privative exercise thereof And if the Dr. will not take this from me may I hope he will from a far greater The Learned Iunius in Answer to Bellarmin pleading much to the Dr's Scope and Sense from this Passage of the Apostle Shall I come unto you with a Rod offers the same distinction De Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rod secundum illam c. According to the common ordinary Rod saith he Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. but according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira He adds in respect of this common Rod Paul saith 1 Cor. 5. You being gathered together and my Spirit in the Name of the Lord Iesus But as to this singular one he saith Shall I come unto you with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 This common Rod he denyes to have been in the Hand of any one Man whether Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular Prerogative in Churches constitute Grotius and others do here take in the same which Iunius mentions of the extraordinary stroke either the inflicting of Death as upon Ananias and Sapphira or Blindness as upon Elymas or Diseases The Belgick Divines joyn together the Exercise of punishment and Discipline in this Clause While I have been mentioning Iunius I must upon this occasion shew that in opposition to the Dr's Pleading in Relation to Successor Bishops to Apostles by Testimony of the Fathers Iunius will tell him De Clericis Cap. 14. Not. 15. that this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs Institution quia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in Ecclesia Succederetur Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles according to Degree And that the Fathers understood it of a Succession ex simili non ex pari of similitud not Parity And a similitud Secundum quid or imaginary according as Bishops were then Moulded The same Answer and distinction above Rehearsed serves for what he Adduces of Pauls delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 And that this is the Sense of Sound Divines appears in that this is made Paralel with 1 Cor. 5. wherein the Apostles Extraordinary Authority is by them distinguished from the Churches Ordinary Power As for his further Proof from the Apostles deriving this Spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus the pretended Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and their supposed singular Authority and Censures and Judicially Cognoscing upon Ecclesiastical Causes which he draws from these Passages 1 Tim. 5.19 20. Tit. 3.10 We have above spoken to it at length and provenfully that the Evangelistick Function of them both who were fixed to no particular Posts together with the clearly supposed Power of Church Judicatories when Established as is evident in several Paralells and of the supposed Concurrence consequently of ordinary Officers with them in the Nature and Scope of these very Instructions themselves doth clearly eveâ—t his Pleading For what he adds of the Censuring Power of the Angels of Ephesus and Thyatira Rev. 2. What we have made already good of the Collective Sense of the word Angel and the Insufficiency of admitting him to be a single person or President to bear the weight of his Conclusion discovers the Vanity of this his Repeated Notion in this place The Dr. adds that the Bishops of the Primitive Ages were the sole Administrators of Spiritual Iurisdiction This we have above convict of untruth And whereas he tells us further that they ordinarly admitted their Presbyters Concurrence for Advice we have made appear that their Concurrence after Bishops were set up yea and by Confession of Bishops themselves was Authoritative not for Advice only The Dr. will needs have Cyprian to challenge a singular Authority of Excommunication Ep. 38 39. But if he will not set him by the Ears with himself Ep. 6 18 28. where he professes he neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy and Ep. 78. where he shews that Presbyters had the Power of Imposing Hands and of Ordaining and unless also he can disprove what is made good anent their Ordaining alone especially in Aegypt in absence of the Bishop what we have touched anent the Chorepiscopi their Authority and Power herein which is at large made good by our Writers the Dr. must acknowledg that he misses his Mark in this Citation Cyprian also is so far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of sole Censuring as the Dr. wouâ—d make him that Epist. 33. he ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues even in the Point of Ordination and disownes any such usurped Authority In the Ordination of the Confessor Aurelius he thus expresses himself hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi a mâ— a Collegis qui presentes aderant ordinatum sciâ—tis Thus also Ep. 58. speaking of the Pastors he expresses himself Ego Collegae Fraternitas omnis And Ep. 6. shewing his earnest desire to meet with the Pastors while absent from them he gives this Reason ut ea quae circa Ecclesiae gubernacula utilitas communis exposcit tractare simul plurimorum examinata limare possemus And speaking there of the turbulency of some persons he says they were such as nec a Diaconis nec a Presbyteris regi posse c. Upon which Pamelius has this Note hinc non obscure colligitur
ad huc Carthagini prerogativam illam Presbyterorum Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae qua communi totius Presbyterii i. e. Presbyterorum Diaconorum collegii consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis Citing thereafter Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pastors or Presbyters as to the Apostle of Christ. And least the Dr. alledge this imports no more than a Consultive Power Cyprian Ep. 18. having mentioned what was written by Lucian in name of the Confessors which they desired to be communicat to the Presbyters and as he expresses it per me collegis omnibus innotescere to be by him made known to his Collegue-Presbyters he adds quae res cum omnium nostrum concilium Sententiam spectat praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Thereafter he shews that having sent Letters of Copies to many Collegues he had an acquiescing Answer in this his purpose To which we may add what is above touched of Cyprians Judgment in receiving the Lapsed Ep. 12. and several other places that the Pastors or Presbyters had a necessary interest therein doth by necessary consequence inferr that they had the same interest in the Sentence as in the Absolution As for the 38 Epistle which the Dr. Cites I find nothing in it that will conclud what he asserts having perused that Epistle That which he seems to take hold of is that expression of Cyprian accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit ut abstentum se a nobis sciat upon which Passage the Annotator upon Cyprian doubts whether he means Excommunication properly and strictly so called or not or rather that which we term the Lesser of a Suspension from Ordinances for some little time quo elapso saith he Presbyterium de Contumacia vel Paenitentia eorundum judicabat c. Moreover speaking of Felicissimus he says to the Presbyters cum post haec omnia nec vestra autoritate presentia fractus c. clearly pointing at the Authoritative Interposing of the Pastors in this Matter And that he does not mean the stricter Excommunication seems by this probable that speaking of several Delations of his Crimes which the Delators had offered to prove he adds quae omnia tunc cognoscemus quando in unâ—m cum Collegis pluribus permittente Deo convenerimus which speaks his reserving a further Censure to a more full Enquiry into the Cause yea and this Enquiry he will not undertake but with the Authoritative Concurrence of Presbyters called by him his Collegues And in the Matter of Augendus his Corresponding Guilt with this Felicissimus he says sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum non esse Communicaturum and Sententiam ferat si ultra cum co perseveraverit i. e. upon Supposition of his continued Contumacy Wherein it is evident that no Sentence is passed upon this Person as the Dr. alledges and that in the Censuring of both Cyprian supposes a necessary Interest of the Pastors or Presbyters And the ensuing Epistle pointing out the actual Censuring of these two with several others not mentioned in the preceeding Epistle confirms what we have said The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the first Council of Nice to suppose a Power of Excommunication to be solely in the Person of the Bishop But besides that the Words he cites are remote from proving it the Presence of Presbyters being therein presupposed it is evident by several Testimonies of Ancient Fathers as well as by that Act of the fourth Council of Carthage mentioned that Presbyters did Authoritatively concur in Ordination and Censures for which see Smectym Sect. 8. and Ruffin Hist. Lib. 10. See Council Antioch Canon 10. Council Ancyr Canon 13. And determined against this sole Usurped Authority of the Bishop either in Censuring Presbyters or in Judging the Conversation and Crimes of Church Members or in Excommunication or Receiving Penitents We have also heard that the fourth Council of Carthage Canon 23. condemns the Bishops Decision unless fortified by the Sentence of the Clergy This is so evident that the Dr. is forc'd to clap his Wings closer and Correct himself adding That afterward to prevent Abuses in the fourth Council of Carthage it was Decreed that the Bishop should hear no Mans Cause but in Presence of the Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless Confirmed by their Presence Well then to Correct Abuses issuing from his supposed Canon of Nice here is by his own Confession a Counter-canon Decreeing the contrary And where is now his bold Assertion of the Universal Practice of the Church founded upon a Divine Institution which Patronizes this supposed Power of the Hierarchical Bishop And if we may ply the Dr with his own Weapon and Argument and present to him a Dish of his own Preparing how doth he here make a Divine Institution Comprobat by the Churches Universal Practice a Seminary of such Abuses as this Council found necessary to remove Likewise how doth this Council by its Censure Lash the supposed Practice of Cyprian and puts among the fore-mentioned Abuses to be necessarly removed Ay but says the Dr The Sentence in this Case was the Bishops not the Clergies I Answer if they were sine quibus non in the Sentence by what Shadow of Ground can he assert that it was solely the Bishops And we heard above Cyprian in Express Contradiction to the Dr Assert that not the Concurrence only but the Sentence is properly the Clergies as well as his Moreover if a Paralel Argument in Point of Ordination which the Dr. also doth appropriat to the Bishop may be Judged valid in this Case as no doubt it is we have made appear from Canon 2. of the Fourth Council of Carthage that they Decree in this Case that omnes Presbyteri presentes manus suas Iuxta manus Episcopi super caput teneant cum Presbyter ordinatur And the Dr. cannot deny that ex natura rei and in the Scripture Sense Imposition of Hands in this Action of Ordination is Authoritative not Consentient only and supposes the Actors to have this Badge of the Ordaining Power I mean it in a Ministerial Sense as it is competent to all Church Officers We have also told him that Dr. Forbes as Learned an Episcopalian as our Dr. in his Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. holds that Non tantum duntaxat ut consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen est ejus manum imponere sed tanquam ordinantes seu ordinem conferentes ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes That not only as Consenting which is proper to the Vulgar who cannot Impose Hands but as Ordaining or Conferring Orders and by a Divine Authority they do in this Action or Rite pray for Grace to the Ordained Which contrary Testimony of our Scottish Episcopalian not only in Point of Fact contradicts the Dr but from
their Arguments at the putting off of his Armour But now that we are come to the Point the Dr. P. 15. tells his Friend That he can give but a short History of our Arguments for the Divine Right of Parity And good Reason since he is for little slight Skirmishes not for the Shock of more close and dangerous Encounters Our Arguments he reduces to three Heads 1. The express Command of our Saviour 2. Consequences from Texts of Scripture 3. Testimonies of Ancient Writers I shall not insist in Criticizing upon the Dr's general Partitions Only as for what he offers anent our Saviours express Command and Institution of Presbyterian Government and Parity of Pastors he should have done well to name the Authors who assert this ere he had so confidently ascribed this Assertion to Presbyterians No doubt had he dealt fairly in a particular Condescendance upon our Arguments drawn from Scripture for Parity of Pastors and offered clear Scripture Replies to them Presbyterians would have thanked him for his Diligence in endeavouring their further Light and Conviction on this Head But to prevent his Mistake or any else of his Perswasion I must further add that as for the Argument from Antiquity however he and his Party do magnifie it stuffing their Books and Pamphlets therewith instead of more solid Scripture Reasoning And altho we are not afraid to try their Strength in this Method of Arguing yet Antiquity or the Testimony of Humane Writers is none of the Foundations upon which we do build the Ius and Divine Right of the Government we maintain but the Lively Oracles the Scriptures of Truth allenarly And we look upon the Testimony of Antiquity or of Ancient Writers as an Accessory Humane Illustration in some Matters of Fact but no proper proof or to be ranked in eodem genere with the first and as tending to refute the Charge of Novellism wherewith the Dr. and his Fellows are bold to asperse our Principles in this point The Dr. now falls upon the first Head of Arguments taken from a supposed express Command of our Saviour anent the Parity of Pastors exclusive of the Iurisdiction of a Bishop I heartily wish he had here specified and defined this Jurisdicâ—â—on He tells his Friend p. 16. We prove this from Matth. 20.25 which he sayes we insist upon more than Forreign Presbyterians and he professes he will hear our Argument from hence calmly and deliberatly with Reverence and Attention He adds the paralells Luk. 22.25 Mark 10.42 43. Naming in the Margine the Reverend Mr. Dickson and the Answer to the Iraenicum by G. R. Our Argument from hence the Dr. represents thus That the Officers of Christs House were by his own express Command established in a perfect Equality even in such a Parity as excludes the Power and Iurisdiction of any higher Order than that of a Presbyter in the Modern Notion Before I come to represent the Dr's Answer to this Text premonishing again what is before animadverted upon the Term of express Command I shall First Shew what we plead from it Secondly That our Pleading is Consonant to the Sense of Sound Divines For the first It is apparent in the premised paralell Texts that the Tentation of Ambitious Emulation among the Disciples haâ— prompted them to a Sinful Contest about Primacy or which of them should be greatest to prevent the Mischievous Effects whereof our Saviour Cautioned and Rebuked them Discharging them expresly the Lordly Grandure of Earthly Rulers to Exercise Lordship and Dominion one over another in Opposition thereunto Commending Humble Ministerial Service and Spiritual Diligence in their Stewardship both which he enforces from his own Exemplary Humility Hence we infer 1. That our Lord discharged Superiority and Inferiority among Officers of the same kind so that none are greater than another in their Office no Apostle no Evangelist above another that a compleat Parity in their Official Power is commanded And therefore by clear Consequence a compleat and entire Parity among Pastors And by further clear evidence we argue that superior and inferior Degrees among them are discharged 2. That whatever Priority of Order be allowed among Officers of different kinds we conclude that our Saviour in these places discharged Dominion and Principality in any of them of whatever kind all Masterly Power such as Civil Governours Exercise There being one Master of his Family only whereof all Ministers are Brethren and Fellow-Servants Because in Exemplifying what he discharges our Saviour gives the Instance in such Rulers as are called Benefactors or Gracious Lords and in Opposition thereunto Commands an Humble Ministerial Service not a sort of warrantable Dominion as the paralell 1 Pet. 5. makes it evident So that he gives here the Lord-Prelat two Deadly Wounds 1. In that he makes himself an Officer of an higher Order and Degree than the Pastor holding himself to be a Pastor specifically distinct from the Preaching Presbyter Thus Dividing and Cutting out the Pastoral Office into Antiscriptural Distinâ—t Official Kinds whereas our Saviour discharges this among Officers of the same kind 2. In that he Lords over his Brethren and Fellow-Pastors and that both in a pretended Spiritual Capacity arrogating a sole Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction a Masterly Power and Principality over Church Judicatories and likewise in assuming the Earthly Lordship Place and Grandure which is expresly here discharged Now if from what is said it be evident that such an Office and Officer is discharged the Prelats Office is unlawful and an Official Parity in the Pastoral Office clearly concluded And that it may appear that this is no Novel or distorted Exposition let us In the second place view what Patrons it hath To begin with the Belgick Divines upon Matth. 20.21 they shew that the Occasion of the Contest was the Apostles Ignorance of the Condition of Christs Kingdom to which they were called viz. Not to a Worldly Rule but to Serve and Suffer And upon v. 2â— they shew that all who are called to the Ministry of the Church are discharged a Worldly Rule Upon Luke 22.25 they assert a Lordship and Worldly Power to be forbidden paralelling this with 1 Pet. 5. which discharges a Lordship over Gods Heritage The English Annot. on the place of Matth. shew That the Lord to appease their Contention told them they were not to expect Worldly Greatness and Dominion in following him and whoever usurps this affects that which God has not given that they were to look after a Life of Teaching and Labouring not Lording citing 1 Pet. 5.3 And though in a general Sense they assert there are Orders among Ministers generally considered viz. Apostles above Evangelists Pastors above Elders yet the Prohibition of all Worldly Power to Ministers they do here assert and whatever Power is opposit to a Laborious Service and Ministry Diodat on that passage of Matth. shews That our Saviour bespeaks the Apostles as Ministers shewing that they ought to place their Dignity not in Worldly
with Ministers of the New Testament Church The Moral Law being the constant Standart of Truth and Duty in all Ages our Saviour who came to fulfill all Righteousness and establish the Law was therefore concerned to vindicat the same from corrupt glosses but this bears no proportion to his Scope in the Case of the Disciples that old Ministry and Policy being now ready to evanish The Dr. proceeds to another Text and tells his Reader that we Cite 1 Pet. 5.2.3 to serve the same design We have made appear that our design in pleading this and the preceeding Texts is the same with that of Protestant Divines and that the design the Dr. serves in his Glosses and Answers is Popish as to the intentio operis at least a design to support the Popes Triple Crown with Bellamin and his other pleaders and Advocats Our Argument from this Text against the Prelatical Hierarchy is this Looking to the Apostles scope he first dehorts Ministers and none will doubt all ordinary Church Officers from the evils they are constantly tempted to viz. Covetousness Lordship usurpation and Dominion over Gods Heritage evils of a close connection and cognation that they do not Act the Diotrephes seeking Preheminence over their Brethren or affect a Masterly Dominion over the People for that both comes under the Denomination of Gods Heretage none will doubt He likewise dehorts from Reluctancy at their Laborious imployment Next there is a positive exhortation presented to Ministers viz that they be examples to the Flock that is that the Graces they Preach to others shine in their Walk and in special that of Meekness and Humility which most nearly Resembles their Glorious Master the great Shepherd of the Sheep that this appear in their conduct and Government as that of his who leadeth Gently and would not have Ministers to Rule with Rigor as those Reprehended Ezek. 34.4 Hence from the Scope and contexture it appears 1. That the Pastor Labouring in the Word and Doctrin being here addressed as the Apostles Co-presbyter and Fellow-elder is owned by him as the highest ordinary Church Officer and that this Apostle now shortly to put off his Tabernacle doth Aaron-like invest him in his Robe â—or highest Sphere of an Ordinary Minister 2 He enjoyns them to exercise Episcopal Authority As also Paul did the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. which must respect Ordination and Jurisdiction in the full extent thereof and their equal interest therein 3. All of them are discharged to Lord it or exercise a Dominion over one another or over the Flock but to exercise a humble exemplary Ministry Hence we further inferr against the Hierarchical Prelat 1. That the Apostle ascribing this comprehensive Authority to Pastors which comprehends both the Doctrinal Key and that of Jurisdiction For I hope our Episcopal Brethren will acknowledg that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Episcopal Authority and inspection includs both he cuts off the Hierarchical Prelats pretended super-Inspection paramount thereunto Hence 2 The Pastor being found thus discribed and installed in this comprehensive Scriptural Episcopal Authority the Hierarchical Prelats Office which swallows up this Power and Authority of Pastors and arrogats to it self solely the Name and thing of a Bishop is discharged as unlawful 3 We argue a minore ad Majus against that Office from the Text thus All Masterly power of Pastors over their Flock is discharged Ergola Fortiori much more that of Prelats over Pastors themselves Now for the Judgment of Protestant Writers in corespondence to this our Sense we might exhibit a great cloud of Witnesses but of the whole we offer only these few instances The Belgick Divines make this 2. v. paralel with that which is enjoined Act. 20.28 to the Elders of Ephesus as to the Authority and exercise of a joynt Episcopal inspection competent to Pastors And the 3. v. they Translate not Exercising Dominion the very same thing which our Lord prohibit to his Apostles Pool Annot. 2. Part. doth also make the Command in this 2 v. praralel with Act. 20.28 and Ioh. 21.15.16 and Paraphrases the Command as importing both to feed and Rule and enjoining the exercise of the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key jointly yea and hold it to be of such a Nature as to the main designs of the Gospel as was enjoined to Peter himself and his Fellow-Apostles The Clause of taking the oversight they expone thus being Bishops or acting as Bishops over it superintending Inspecting and Watching over it viz. the Flock paralelling this with Act. 20.28.29 where such Pastoral Episcopal Feeding and Rule is enjoyned in Pauls farewell to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus The prohibition or negative part of the Precept v. 3. not as being Lords they Expone of not exercising such Lordship and Dominion as temporal Lords paralelling this with Matth. 20.25 26. Luk. 22.25 as also with 2 Cor. 1.24 where Paul disowns Dominion and with 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul or who is Appllo But Ministers Yea even Grotius Comerarius Menochius expone the Command of Feeding v. 2. as importing Government or Rule paralelling this with Ioh. 21.15 16 17. Act. 20.28.29 The Clause of taking the oversight is generally understood of superintending and acting the Bishops Episcopum agentes Beza Piscat Valla. Erasm. Gerard says it s an allusion to their Name as if the Lord enjoined them to be Answerable to it The ensuing Verse is understood of imperious Dominion over GOD's Church Thus Piscat Menoch c. Turret Institut Theol. Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 8. produces the same Text collated with 2 Cor. 1.24 as proving a prohibition of all Lordly Power to Ministers shewing that this is the prerogative of Christ the Chief Sheepherd and that in opposition to such Lordly Power Pastors are called Ministers Messengers Servants Stewards of the Mysteries of God Maccov from this Passage Collated with Act. 20.28 concludes the identity of the Episcopal and Pastoral Office Loc. Commun Cap. 82. P. 845. The Eng. Annot. upon the place do shew That such a Magisterial carriage is forbidden as is Taxed 3 Ioh. v. 9. in Diotrephes Love of Preheminence But now What is the Dr's great Answer to this Text He says It s the Apostles Commentary upon our Saviours Words and Commandment This is very true He next adds That it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church To which I Answer it is certain the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Paralel with Matth. 20. Luk. 22. where Peter learned the prohibition and imports Dominion but not Tyranical Dominion properly It being made use of by the LXX to express Lawful Dominion 2. We have told him that the positive part of the Precept refuts his gloss which the Apostle doth not thus express in the Dr's Sense not proudly or insolently Domineering but using Dominion moderatly as the Apostle would have presented the Precept if a Lawful Lordship had been allowed but
Bishops therein and by clear Consequence the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines upon these Passages correspondent to our Sense and Pleading it were a large Work The Belgick Divines upon Act. 20.28 from that Clause the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers do plead as above For having told us that in the Greek it is Bishops and that from this the Word Bishop is derived they add That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church from whence it appears that in the Holy Scriptures there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops pointing to Philip. 1.1 upon which Passage they shew that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church referring again to Act. 20.17 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3 Where they shew That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus not as Bishop but as Evangelist for a time to Confirm the Church Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew That the Word Bishop is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference as appears in the following Description compared with other places citing Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 7. Diodat on Act. 20.17 shews That by the Elders we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse he shews That the Word signifies Overseer Guardian c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church without any absolute Dominion only for the Profit and Good of the Flock Philip. 1.1 he paralells with Act. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5.17 Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat 1 Tim. 3.1 he understands of the Bishop or Pastor who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church On Tit. 1.5 the Elders who are immediatly after called Bishops he understands of such Pastors and Conductors as were to be placed in Churches where was a Competent Number of Believers Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands Act. 20.17 as speaking of such Elders as are Governours and Pastors of the Church And shews that the Term and Title respects not their Age but their place And upon v. 28. they shew That the Overseers there mentioned are the same who are called Elders v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them Upon Philip. 1.1 By Bishops they understand Pastors and Teachers asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one in the Apostles days and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28 1 Cor. 4.1.2 1 Thes. 5.12.13 1. Tim. 3.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Tit. 1.5 Heb. 13.17 Iam. 5.14 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of shewing that this is the Sense both of Ancient and modern Interpreters Thereafter they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters who takes them for Diocesan Bishops Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 They shew That the Term Bishop is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment and Paralels this with the Title of Angel mentioned Rev. 2.1 Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach they shew That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem mentioned Chap. 11 30. Upon v. 28. they shew That the term Episcopus or Bishop is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church and Minister of the Word as elsewhere Also upon Philip. 1.1 on that Clause the Bishops and Deacons they shew That the Synod of Nice did forbid Two or more Bishops to have their Seats in one City And before that Cornelius Bishop of Rome upbraids Novatus with Ignorance as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes that he knew not there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church in which he could no be Ignorant there were Forty Six Presbyters And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi In one City it cannot be supposed say they there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense as the word was afterward taken Here therefore by Episcopi and Diaconi we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the Government of the Church was Committed And Deacons who not only had the Care of the Poor but also Assisted Ministers in their Ecclesiastical Function Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 they shew That the Term Bishop doth properly relate to the Flock referring to Philip. 1.1 And having shewed that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats and consequently as it relates to Pastors But that they Disowne this as not being the Scripture Acceptation is evident not only from that Reference to Philip. 1.1 but also from this that the Clause of Desiring a good Work they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13 where after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such as Laboured among them viz. In the Word and Doctrine he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake asserting thus the Bishops good Work to be one and the same with that of the Pastor and consequently the Office By the Elders mentioned Tit. 1.5 to be Ordained in every Church they understand the Pastors to be Ordained where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful And the Apostles Reason v. 7. For a Bishop must be Blameless c. they paralell with Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office from these places The Professors of Leyden Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and that the Pastors Dâ—ctors Elders and Deacons are the only standing ordinary Church Officers Thus Thes. 17.18 19 20. c. Ascribing to Pastors the Authority of Government as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament Thes. 25.26 Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28 they shew that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2 where they tell us the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Adding that in the Epistle to the Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops for whom the Apostle prays for Grace he understands such qui Philippi Verbo Gubernationi praeerant who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government distinguishing them from the Deacons who were set over the Churches Treasure Adding that Tit. 1.5 such whom the Apostle Named Presbyters v. 7. he calls Bishops non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios sibique Subordinatos Praesules sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae
ut istic constitueret Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docet quales essent illi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5 7. where after the Apostle had said that he had left Titus in Crete to place Presbyters in every City he shews how these Elders must be Qualified A Bishop must be blameless Asserting Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians so Close and Throng as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience Presbyterian Scriptures Presbyterian Sense Presbyterian Arguments Canted over by Dull Novelists one after another and which is yet more by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion But this that follows will possibly please worse Maccovius Redivivus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificorum Socin c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii or the Popish Cause and Doctrin which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom the Dr's Reverence It is even thus Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris tum ordinis potestate tum jurisdictione That the Bishop by Divine Right is Superior to the Ministers of the Word both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher Bellarmin lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The â— â— he thus represents consuetudo Romanorum quae Distinguit inter versantem verbum Dei Episcopum The Romish Custom which distinguishes betwixt the Preacher of the Word and the Bishop As our Romish Dr. doth This is Rude but how is this Refelled by Maccovius Why It s even thus Refellitur primo Philip. 1.1 Ubi idem Presbyteri predicantes Episcopi dicuntur Secundo Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.1.2 Uâ—i idem docentur esse Presbyteri Praedicantes Episcopi His two Proofs are that in these premised Scriptures the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor and the Bishop are held out as one and the same Another Novelist asserting this New Coyned Doctrin and falling into the same error with the Scots Presbyterians is Antonius Walleus de funct Eccâ—es P. mihi 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminenâ—â—â— inter Pastores ut unus gradu altero sit superior jure Divino adeo ut uni Potestas in alterum concedatur potestas scilicet mittendi aut deponendi ministros potestas excommunicandi aut admittendi leges praescribendi regendi c. qualem sibi bodierni Episcopi ascribunt whether there be such an Eminency among Pastors so as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right and has Authority over another the Authority of the Mission or deposition of Ministers the Authority and Power of Excommunication or relaxation of prescribing Laws and of Governing c. such as the present Bishops arrogat and appropriat to themselves Then he shews that he speaks of Spiritual Authority And thus Answers hoc est quod nostri negant adversus episcopales This is that we deny against the Episcopalians Here is a bold Novelist He after shews that the Divines of that Church were of his mind and thus exhibits a Muster Roll of New Coyned Novelists But he presents his praecipua Argumenta Chief Arguments What are these 1 in tota scriptura ejusmodi eminentiae potestatis nulla fit mentio That in all the Scripture there is no mention of such Eminency and Power of a Bishop above Pastors 2 quia in illis Locis ubi ex professo de ministrorum novi Testamenti gradibus fit mentio unius generis Pastorum Scriptura tantum meminit ut 1 Cor. 12.28 constituit in Ecclesia primum Apostolos secundo Prophetas Tertio Doctores Et Eph. 4.11 ipse dedit alios quidem Apostolos alios vero Pastores Doctores c. sic Rom. 12.6 Act. 20.17.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. That in those places where there is express mention of purpose made of the Degrees of Ministers of the New Testament the Scripture owns only one kind of Pastors as 1 Cor. 12.28 He set in the Church first Apostles secondarly Prophets Thirdly Doctors or Teachers and Eph. 4.11 He gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers c. Thus Rom. 12.6 Acts 2â— 17.28 1 Pet. 5.1.2 The 3 d Reason or Argument is thus quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos Presbyteros fuisse plane eosdâ—m ita Act. 20.17 convocavit Presbyteros v. 28. Dicit Spiritum Sanctum eos constituisse Episcopos Ita Phil. 1.1 Paulus Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus Sanctis qui sunt Phillippicum Episcopis Diaconis Et ad Titum 1.5 ideo reliqui te in Creta ut oppidatim constituas Presbyteros Et v. 7. opportet enim E-Eiscopum unius esse uxoris virum c. That the sacred Scriptures shews the Bishop and Presbyter to have been one and the same Thus Act. 20.7 the Apostle called together the Elders and v. 28. he saith that the Spirit of God had made them Bishops Also Philip. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus Servants of Iesus Christ to all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons and Tit. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City and v. 6. For a Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife c. He adds that Ierom Comment in Tit. Eph. ad Evag. doth from these places collect as an old doting Novelist too that the Bishop and Presbyter is all one the one Name signifying the Age the other the Office he Cites also Ambrose in Eph. 4. as holding the same He adds sic Augustinus plurimi alii in hanc sententiam that Augustin and many others were of this Judgment to whom he also adds Bucer de gub P. 258. C. deinceps Thus Walleus holds that this forementioned Scots Presbyterian Sense of the Scriptures premised has for a considerable time been a working Notion for want no doubt of our Dr's clearer Instructions But this bigot Novelist goes on to add Denique ex nullo Scripturae loco prohibetur uni Presbytero aut Pastori ordinario ullam dari potestatem sive in verbi predicatione omnes enim sunt Doctores Pastores sive in Sacramentorum Administratione ut Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 11.23 sive in exercitio Disciplinae 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 sive in Ecclesiae rectione Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1.2 Heb. 13.17 obedite praepositis vestris qui non datur alteri That from no place of Scripture it can be made good that there is any Power given to an ordinary Pastor or singular Prerogative above another either in
the whole Gospel times last times and latter dayes And some will alledge there has been Separation and Singularity Old enough in years But if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick New Testament High Priest and Patriarch and the standing of the Old Testament Oeconomy as Exemplary to the New and who has for several Ages pretended to follow this Copie and who he is who has been for some Ages separat from tho once Universally wondered after and followed viz. The Good Old Gentleman with the Triple Crown I think Protestant Schismaticks as well as these their forementioned Opinions may be supposed to have been in this Assertion much in the Dr's View But that I be not tedious and may hasten to consider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Answer to the premised Scriptures and the New Protestant Glosses upon them which moves his Spleen to such declamatory anger against his Poor pur-blind Countreymen one thing I would suggest to him if I may do it without putting him into a Chaff which is this 'T is known that there is a certain English Dr. of as great Figure and Reputation almost in England as he is in Scotland and of a great Name to this day who having got this New Scots Notion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters into his unwarry head was bold to exhibit a great many Testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers for this New Opinion his Name is Doctor Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls the Dr. would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity and undeceive his Countriemen and others in the Point of this dangerous Error in examining his Citations It s long since the Epistle was Exhibit to publick view and is in many hands and upon a little enquiry the Dr. may easily have a view of this dangerous Piece For if these Citations hold the Opinion is not so New and Singular as the Dr. Suggests but it seems is an Old notion revived again As the Dr. knows the Waldenses revived Old Points before them and from them the Protestant Schismaticks have taken up the same and in special so Learned an Antiquary as the Dr. cannot be ignorant that this very Scots Dangerous New Notion against which his Pamphlet is levelled was condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff and the Waldenses as testifies Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap 5. But now that my hand is in before I come to examin the Dr's Answers to the premised Scriptures I must be bold to Exhibit to him some more of the Heretical assertors of Presbyters Power and interest in Government in correspondence to the New Scots Notion Festus Hommius Disput. Theol. Adversus Pontificios Disput. 25. De Minist Eccles Ordin Thes. 1. He calls the Office of Apostles and Evangelists Extraordinary and holds it to be expired Thes. 2. primus itaque ordo Ministrorum Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti ordinariorum est ordo Pastorum qui etiam Episcopi Presbyteri praesides laborantes Ministri Praedicantes servi dispensatcres praesides duces in Sacra Scriptura appellantur That the First order of the Ordinary Ministers of the New Testament is that of Pastors who in Scripture are called Bishops Presbyters Labouring Presidents Dispensing Servants Leaders Rulers c. Thes. 3. inter Episcopum Pastorem seuâ— Presbyterum in verbo laborantem Respectu Muneris seu ministerii nullum in sacra Scriptura verum essentiale discrimen reperitur haec enim vocibus hisce Promiscue utitur cum unum eundemque Ministrorum Novi Testamenti ordinem designat Quia in una Ecclesia Civitate plures tempore Apostolorum Episcopus fuisse diserte Scriptura Sacra Testatur That betwixt the Bisâ—op and Pastor or Presbyter labouring in the Word and Doctrin there is no essential or Official difference found in Scripture which uses these words promiscuously pointing out thereby the same Order of the New Testament Ministers Since it doth clearly Testify that in the times of the Apostles there were many Bishops in one City From whence he draws this Conclusion quare Epsicopi jure Divino Pastoribus neque gradu neque dignitate neque ordinis potestate neque Iurisdictione majores sunt That therefore Bishops by Divine Right are neither in Degree Dignity Power of Order nor Jurisdiction greater than Pastors Here is extensive Scots Bigotry I cannot but also observe how Crabbed and unlucky expressions he has Thes. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination of the Gospel Ministry by the term of Priesthood because Christs Priesthood is Eternal and admits of no Successors he doth upon this ground Reason thus quare Ministri Novi Testamenti nusquam in sacra Scriptura Sacerdotes proprie dicti appellantur That the Ministers of the New Testament are no where in Scripture called Priests Adding proinde pontificii Pastores cum nomen munus sacerdotis sibi arrogant non tantum palam judaizant sed etiam blaspheme sacrilege in Sanctissimum munus Domini in vâ—lant That therefore the Popish Ministers in arrogating to themselves the Name and Office of Priests do not only palpably Judaize but also make a Blasphemous and sacralegious Invasion upon the most Holy Office of Christ. Musculus loc Commun de Offic. Minist is Scots Presbyterian in grain in this Point P. mihi 360 361 362. after he has asserted from Scripture Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office and the identity of the Pastoral and Doctoral office with Ierom Because the Apostle Eph. 4. says not that our Lord gave some Pastors and some Doctors but Conjunctly Pastors and Doctors he adds eosdem esse Presbyteros Pastores ex eo patet quod 1 Pet. 5. Legimus Seniores ab Apostolis admoneri ut gregem Dei pascant That Elders and Ministers are by the Apostles admonished to feed the Lords Flock 3 tio saith he eosdem esse Presbyteros quoque Episcopas Pastores ex eo patet quod Act. 20. Legimus adhunc modum A Mileto autem missus Ephesum nuntius accersivit Presbyteros Ecclesiae qui cum venissent dixit iis vos scitis a primo die c. Et aliquanto post Attendite igitur vobis toto gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos ad pascendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei Quos Lucas vocat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae hos Paulus vocat Episcopos dixit eos ad hoc esse a Spiritu Sancto positos ut pascant Ecclesiam Dei sic palam videmus eosdem esse Presbyteros Episcopos Pastores He adds for his Third Reason that it appears from Act. 20. that Presbyters Bishops and Pastors are the same because Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church who being come to him he enjoins them to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to Feed i. e. to Rule and Govern as the Original Word
his Super-eminency above them is insinuat yea Asserted The Dr. is bold to assert that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Of this alwise we demand one instance the Dr's extensive Phraseologie boasts of a Plenty of Instances but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury especially when as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto But here as often elsewhere he plys us with generals alien from the purpose He tells us P. 26. Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy were called High Priests it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names to have inferred an Equality since their Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction Here again a Poor Repeated General Alien from the Point If this Dr. had intended to Dispute not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk he should instead of Begging Poorly the Question in Supposing it have made that good in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests were distinguished and what was appropriat to the one denyed to the other under that Dispensation so there is exhibit in the New Testament the same Discriminating Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians yet as an Officiperda so far mistaking his Mark and Measures that he never comes near the Point which they deny and he undertakes or stands obliged to prove He adds ibid. Bishops were called Presbyters who had Presbyters under them in the Days of the Apostles If he mean this of ordinary Officers distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters I deny it and that there were any such ordinary Officers with such Authority over Pastors under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter He tells us that the Presbyters signifie the Priests who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations A New Begging of the Question I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers and do consequently hold that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould The Dr. is bold to tell us That tho all Bishops are Presbyters yet not all Presbyters Bishops and therefore to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names is neither good Logick nor Good History But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers he shews himself no good Historian in Obtruding such Doctrine And since instead of proving he still beggs the Question and that doubly First In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names without respect to the Official Identity exhibit in the places which we plead Next In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter and grounding all his Answers thereupon without the least Offer of a Proof it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii P. 27. He will not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters from the High Priest among the Iews But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered what then would he prove Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order I have often told him that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not from his Fancied Dichâ—tomies but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power And where there is such a Dichotomie as he alledges as Philip. 1.1 our Argument proceeds not merely upon this but also upon this Ground and Topick that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context as necessarly infers this our Conclusion The Dr. tells us next That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this at least what the Series of his Reasoning concludes even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church And therefore needs Stumble no Protestants nor Amuse them tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet or upon his Breast as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church He adds That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat as is clear from Philo the Jew He told us the Scripture distinguishes them pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo since the Presbyterians are satisfied in the first and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self But to proceed P. 28. He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question telling us of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division as reckoned either among themselves or with relation to the People as the Priests were by a Tripartit while reckoned by their Distinctions That Community of Names was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be But still we are Wearyed Calling upon our Triffling Dr to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings to the Point which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy in the Old The Dr. affirms That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews above other Priests who yet was Ranked among them without a Nominal Distinction But as in the rest so here the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Prâ—estos or first Presbyter Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact or such a Proestos in that Age Will that merely prove the Ius If the Dr. say so and he does say it in his Way of Arguing then he Claps the Lawful Mitre or a Divine Warrand at least upon the Head of a Diotrephes and Stamps this Ius Divinum upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity and other Tares which the
subsistence required the same in all times And besides these succeeding Officers when invested with this ordinary Power were still subordinat to them as Apostles and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority I know that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers the Dr. excluds the Bishops in the Series of his Reasoning that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors But how absurdly and inconsequentially as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines in this Point is already evident and shall yet further appear To proceed the Dr. tells us That by the second i. e. their extrinsick extraordinary priviledges suted to the First Plantation of Churches they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success in the Conversion of Infidels in the Government of Churches Wherein I differ from him in tâ—is that he makes their Extraordinary Apostolical priviledges necessary only for the bene esse which were necessary Simpliciter for the Planting and Government of the Churches in that infant State thereof The very exercise of their Apostolical Authority as such did consist in exerting these extraordinary priviledges For thus their Mission their Gifts their extensive Power essential to the Apostolick Office taken in a formal sense Respected the founding and watering of the Churches in that Infant-state of Christianity the Establishing the Gospel Ordinances therein and all its ordinary standing Officers I must then mind the Dr. that when he speaks of the Apostles ordinary permanent essential Power by Essential he must not nay cannnot understand that Power which is Essential to them as Apostles strictly or under that reduplication qua Apostles For then their Office were not extraordinary but a standing Office to be succeeded to in its intire Nature formally as they were invested with it and did exercise it which is cross to that Sense of the Apostolick Office exhibit by Protestant Divines as I shall further make appear The Dr. will needs distinguish their Essential Apostolick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives their transient temporary Priviledges who were the first Apostles and were Limited in the exigences of the First Christian Mission Wherein he speaks confusedly For 1. These Prerogatives suted to the Churches First exigence were in such manner suted as was the very Office it self and consequently were Essential ingredients thereof for this end Hence 2. The Essential Office of the Apostolat as such or taken in a proper formal Sense could admit of no such spliting and distinction unless the Dr. will split and distinguish the Essence which he should know consists in indivisibili The Essential Apostolick Office the Dr. tells us P. 96. is necessary peramanent perpetual citing Matth. 28. Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World Hence in his Sense the Command and Promise in that place imports the standing Essential Office of Apostolat to the end What Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Interpreters let all judg Pool tells us The Promise imports his presence to the end with his Ministers Preaching Baptizing Teaching to observe what he has Commanded That it relates to Gospel Ministers in their Ministrations as the Apostles successors thus the English Notes and Belgick Divines But that it imports a standing Apostolick Office to the end no sound Protestant ever dreamed To proceed to make this appear the more saith the Dr. ibid. The Apostles as such were formally and essentially distinguished from all other Ecclesiastick subordinat Officers This indeed makes it appear more if one contradictory Proposition will prove another For if the Apostles were Formally and Essentially i. e. in respect of their essential formal Office distinguished from all inferior Officers all Officers who were not in a proper formal Sense Apostles How could any succeed them in this proper formal Office And consequently How could that Office be permanent It being certain that such Functions wherein they were to be succeeded could not be their Characteristick as Apostles and their mark of distinction from succeeding Officers For instance the Function of Preaching and Baptizing with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Government was a Work and Office wherein they were to be succeeded The Apostles were at first enjoyned go Teach Baptize and Disciple the Nations Paul enjoyned to the Elders of Ephesus to Feed and Rule by the Word and Discipline within their Percinct Hence these Duties simplely considered could not be that wherein they were distinguished from inferior Officers For 1. In respect of this Pastoral Work both the Apostle Peter and Iohn owned themselves as Co-presbyters which could have no good Sense if in this they were distinguished from all others 2. Hence this distinguishing Criterion had then evanished when inferior Officers had it So that the Dr. in his Series of Reasoning is driven upon this Scylla or Charybdis either to say that their Essential Office perished with themselves and consequently was not permanent in opposition to what he asserts P. 95. or else in respect thereof they were not formally and essentially distinguished from inferior Officers in contradiction to what he asserts P. 96. I know the Dr's tacite Evasion is that he supposes the Bishops not to be Subordinat Officers which how cross it is to the Series and Contexture of his Reasoning as well as the Sense of sound Divines we shall further mâ—ke appear The difference of their Office from that which is properly and formally Apostolick being so palpable that himself is forced to place a Distinction betwixt the Function of the one and the other yea and calls them a sort of secondary Apostles Thus distinguishing them from those he would have to be Primary But the Dr. will now enquire ibid. What distinguished the Apostles from the Seventy two from Presbyters in the Modern Notion as he speaks I could wish he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion from Deacons and other Offieers of the New Testament He undertakes 1. To exhibite the Presbyterian's Account of the Apostolick Office and tells us That the Presbyteriand and Socinians contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity affirm that the Apostolick Office is ceased as extraordinary that the Apostles were distinguished from Subordinat Ecclesiasticks by infallibility in Preaching their power of Miracles their being immediatly called by our Saviour to the Apostolat by their unlimited and unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations This is such Stuff as I dare challenge and appeal all Protestant Churches and Divines to give Judgment and Character upon the person who presents it which I am sure will be such as will fasten upon him an infamous Stigma Nor shall I here much medle with or stand upon the shameless Man his comparing us to and ranking us with the blasphemous Socinians in this point citing their Racovian Catechism Sect. 9. Chap. 2. But to convince all that are but acquaint in the least with the Protestant Doctrine in this point I shall exhibit in some
to all their Successors the Bishops in this Apostolick extent For he affirms that this Power of the Apostles is perpetual and necessary in the Church and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein And here the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould in Point of Power these Bishops are whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office For that de facto there is a great variety in the extent of their Power he will not deny Whether doth he hold that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor or the Arch Bishop or only Primats If every Bishop does thus succeed which the Series of his Arguing seems to import then I would know how a Bishop with a derived subaltern subordinat Power limit to a certain and may be not a very great Precinct or district can be said to succeed the Apostles in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks Let him make Sense of this if he can If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district Then 1. They no more succeed the Apostles in the Power by him described than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne 2. If he once break square thus and infringe his own Rule his measures and description he must consequently acknowledge that a Government in the smallest precinct yea even of a Pastor over his Flock is eaten us a Succesion to the Apostles If he say the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks and consequently no Apostolick Succession in his Sense I Answer neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession If he own that only Arch Bishops are such Successors Then 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops in universum as succeeding the Apostles in a Rectoral Power 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks Preach if their Lordships please give Rules of Disciplin hear complaints decide Controversies c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist how can he deny even to Diocesan Bishops this Succession 3. Suppose but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government there according to his Pattern and Principles But to proceed if the Dr. hold that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession I would know upon what ground he can defend this in his Principles I know none except that of the extent of their Power be alledged But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself For the Apostolick Power which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent extended to all Churches to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers And besides suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled the Dr. will not assert that he has an Authority paramount to it by his Office and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he existent whose Power may be paramount to his in the Council or otherwise Thus we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto has involved himself and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone which still returns upon him and renews his Labour But in the next place the Dr. P. 97.98 tells us That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Power of Miracles Languages other Spiritual Furniture were temporary extrinsick advantages necessary for first forming the Christian Church and when this Fabrick is erected Scaffoldings are removed But I should think if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts as necessary advantages and furniture for the same then they were intrinsick not extrinsick to the Office it self Which I will prove to the Dr by a paralel Argument the Topick whereof he must needs owne To be apt to Teach to have Spiritual knowledge and the Gift of utterance in a competent Measure prudence a competent knowledge of the Scriptures and Languages thereof he will acknowledg are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin Therefore say I they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office For 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts in order to admission to that Office And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office with the Gifts for it and the one in an ordinary way must be made Appear by the other I hope the Dr and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning Now let me subsum upon this Conclusion In like manner the Apostolick Office required these works or duties whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame 1. They were to teach all Nations this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues wherefore on the day of Penticost they were thus sealled Yea were Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal 2. Another piece of their work was to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles then new and unknown thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world as also to the Iews as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand This Work required the Gift of Miracles 3. They were to form the Christian Church and lay the ground plott of its Government and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship This required an infallible directive Power and Authority in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation in actu secundo to all Churches so that they were while alive solely such Officers thereof Hence their very Office being of this Nature and supposing the Christian Church a forming erecting it is certain that taken in a proper formal Sense with these its Ingredients iâ— is the Scaffolding which is removed when this Fabrick is erected since now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission Commission and Authority Further The Command Go teach all Nations he must hold still vigent as essentially included in the Apostolick Office for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power from their extraordinary expired Priviledges P. 96. so that he must needs acknowledge that this requiring the Gift of Tongues it was essential thereunto Again he holds there is a Supreme Power of Government constant and transmitted to the Church And this Supreme Power necessarly requires 1. Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government For that upon the ground of such a Supremacy the Apostles had an Infallibility in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government delivered to the Churches the Dr. will not deny 2. He cannot deny this necessary Consequence That therefore they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power And this in his Principles he must needs hold to be transmitted For if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two surely nothing will And the Dr. will not say that Supremacy over all Church
or well known with the Apostles Diodat and the English Annot. take it to import Excellent Evangelists or Preachers or such as were well known to the Apostles But now our Dr. P. 101.102 〈◊〉 obviat one main Objection taken from the narrow Limits of the secondarie Apostles as he calls them This saith he alters not the Nature of their Apostolical Power within their Bounds no more than Kings of Judah can be denyed the Honour of sitting upon the Throne of David in full Power and Royality after the Apostacy they were as truâ—ly Kings as any of their Predicessors as Solomon tho the number of Subjects was not equal Ans. I pray was not in his Sense the Rectoral Spiritual Power which our LORD conferred upon his Disciples and Apostles of the Nature and Extent above exprest and such as he calls Supremâ— over all Church Officers and all other Believers And sayes he not expresly that this very Power thus described by him is Essential to the Apostolick Office and Permanent and that the Apostolick Office being no other than this remains for ever in the Church How then is it possible that such Officers as derive down this extensive Apostolick Power should crumble into a petty Diocess How are such petty confined Successors Supreme and over all Church Officers 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Reason cutts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument It is true Kings â—â— Iudah sat upon Davids Throne in full Power over Iudah But I pray did they succeed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity as they left it I trow not Now he has told us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles in that same Supreme Authority over Church Officers and all Believers which Christ committed unto them Should England be divided into two Kingdoms or into an Heptarchy will any say that the Man who succeeds to one of these petty Dominions succeeds to the Crown of England or unto the Kings thereof because they possess a part of his Throne and Dominion Surely not And so the Case is here In a word since in the Dr's Sense the narrowing the Limits of the Authority impeaches not the Episcopal Power and since he will no doubt owne the Maxime Majâ—s minus non variant speciem Nazianzen and such Bishops as aâ—e said to have had but little Dorps for their Diocesses had this Apostolick Power What consequence this will bear in reference to Pastors some whereof have a larger District I have already told him P. 102. The Apostles Bounds and Provinces of their Inspection was not as equal as their Power it self wherewith they were vested Who doubts of this Whatever was their Condescension this way and adjusted Measures of Travels for the more commodious spreading of the Gospel yet by vertue of their Commission their Authority reached the whole World and all Churches planted and to be planted and this conjunctly and severally As when the twelve Spies were sent to Canaan whatever wayes they might have separatly gone in a voluntary Condescension yet their Authority and Commission joyntly and a part immediatly and formally reached to a search of the whole Land But I need not labour in proving this For the Dr. is â—o ingenuous as to confess it telling us That the different extent of places to which they went did not alter or change that Rectoral Power and Iurisdiction wherewith they were endued But thus he inferrs ibid. no more did the Apostolick Authority transmitted to Successors differ from that which was lodged in the first Apostles tho confined in its exercise to narrower Limits But good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pittyfully Lame the Original Authority lodged in the Apostles by our LORDs Commission is by your Confession and Description immediatly relative to all Churches and all Believers in them So that this immediat Relation and a Right to Officiat upon Occasion accordingly was still Vigent and Existent with any one of the Apostles tho ordinarly exercising their Ministry in never so narrow a Circle every one of them being Universal Doctors Bishops and Inspectors of the whole Catholick Church planted and to be planted and that ex natura officii as Apostles But I hope ye will not say this of the Bishop he being properly and immediatly related only to his Diocess It had been a gross absurdity to say Paul or Iames are only Apostles of such or such a Province and have a Relation Apostolical to no other Church as it is proper to say this Man as Bishop of such a Diocess has an immediat Relation to it and to no Diocess else How often shall we tell the Dr. whose nauseous Repetitions forces us to repeat that the Apostles were capable of no particular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocess being as Apostles vi natura officii Catholick Doctors of the Church Catholick and constant infallible Inspectors and Directors of its Government and all the Ordinances and Officers thereof And consequently that this their proper formal Office of Apostolat went off and expired with that infant State and Exigence of the Church and could never be succeeded unto by any Church Officer P. 103. We are told That the Apostles by lot divided the places of their Travels and went about what fell to their share None doubts of this in general tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots and who were to go to Asia who to Scythia c. is a piece of Discovery on the back of the Bible which we let pass among the rest of the Dr's profound Notions He adds It s plain that when Matthias was chosen it was to take the lot of his Ministry and Apostleship Who doubts of this either And that every Apostle had a share of this Ministry of Apostolat because all of the same Office But this will noways infer except by the Dr's Logick which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet that they were capable of a fixt Relation to any one Post or Watch Tower of the Church That they Governed the Churches where they resided as the Dr. next tells us we doubt not Tho I add if the Churches were constitute in their Organick Beeing according to Gospel Rules their Apostolick Inspection was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers Constitute therein He adds ibid. They committed their Apostolical Episcopal Inspection to particular Persons who succeeded them even in their Apostolick Authority This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question which the Dr. still Cants over without Proof We have often told him that their Apostolick Rectoral Power as he calls it related immediatly to the Catholick Church And to say that this they committed to particular Persons related to one fixed Post and by Consequence solely Pastors or Bishops thereof in an immediat proper Sense and subject to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judicatories which he must needs hold unless he embrace the Independent Principles and he cannot deny that de Facto the Bishops he pleads for were and
are thus subject is as great Non-Sense as to say a Man succeeding to a Privat Cure succeeds a Metropolitans Place or that the Person who succeeds to an Episcopal Chair doth succeed to the Papacy in its supposed Rectoral Power The Dr. doth here again Cant over That their Rectoral Pâ—wer distinguisht them from all Subordinat Officers And from hence we rationally inferr that all Ordinary Officers being Inferior and Subordinat to them this Rectoral Power reacht all Officers and Believers as to the Ius it self and consequently the Exercise upon Occasion And that therefore the Dr. absurdly calls this their Power Permanent and as absurdly holds that Officers related to particular Posts did therein succeed them P. 103 104. The Dr. thus proceeds When the Evangelical Priesthood still Priesthood got its Qualified Officers Bishops and Priests were not to encroach upon one another but every one was to Feed the Flock within the Limits alloted to him Now here is a Confession which contradicts and baffles all his Pleadings For even these pretended succeeding Bishops and Apostles in his Sense could not without Impeaching Christs Order and Encroaching on their Fellows go beyond their Limits in the Exercise of their Ministry And he will not deny that this Limited Ministry flowed from the very Nature of their Fixt and Limited Office But will he dare to say that any one of the Apostles were thus Limited or had an Office of this Nature or that they would have Encroached upon the Authority of any of these his supposed fixed Bishops if Officiating within their Bounds and Exercising their Apostolick Rectoral Power in an immediat manner without their previous Consent as one Bishop or Pastor cannot yea may not upon this Ground thus Officiaâ— But saith the Dr ibid. They were not so Confined to their Sees but that their Episcopal Care reacht the whole Church as far as was possible and Christian Charity did require I Answer 1. So is no Pastor fixt to his Post but as a Watchman upon Ierusalems Walls and thus having an immediat Relation to the Catholick Church his Pastoral Care in its Exercise in an Orderly Way is capable of a further Extension The Church of God is a City that has Watchmen set upon her Walls and in their several Posts whose Care must in a mediat Sense reach the whole City but cannot in its Exercise be extended but according to the Garrison-Laws and Discipline So that thus the Dr. will make any Pastor succeed the Apostles For he will not deny that the Pastoral Care is of this Nature Nor can he assign any Reason why since the Bishop is tyed to his Limits as well as the Pastor the Pastoral Care is not capable of such an Extension of its Exercise as is suteable to the Churches Edification But 2. The Dr. speaks improperly and confusedly when he assigns no other Rules and Measures of this extended Care but Christian Charity and a Possibility thereof merely For unless he turn Independent and deny all Subordination of Church Officers and Courts he must needs acknowledge that this Extension of Exercise must come under the Regulation and Authoritâ—tive Inspection of Superior Judicatories the Spirits of the Prophets being subject to the Prophets And the Church Representative must be still supposed the proper Ministerial Judges of her greater Good and Edification which is the great Ground of this Extension So that its pitifully impertinent to say that its only Christian Charity and the simple Possibility of the Thing in it self considered whereof the Person himself is supposed Judge that regulats this Matter of so high Importance Who will say that a Sentinel's Exercise of Military Inspection can be extended beyond his Post and Station assigned him by the Governour and Officers of the Garrison upon mere Charity and a Possibility of this further Extension without Respect to what the Military Discipline and the Authority of the Governour and Officers will allow Now to subsume I beseech this Dr. to tell me plainly and speak it out were the Apostles by vertue of their Office to extend their Apostolick Inspection from one Church or Countrey to another only after this Manner and by such Rules and Measures And dare he deny that they were to follow the Spirits Conduct every where and by vertue of their Office had an immediat Access to Exercise their Authority over all Churches wherever they came and were subject to no Churches Inspection or Direction in this Matter Can he not here see a palpable Distinction of the Office of Apostolat from all ordinary Officers as that of the Commanders of a Garrison who are called to go the Round over all the Posts and Sentinels to take Inspection over and Direct them differs necessarly and essentially from the Office and Charge of those who are in these fixed Posts whether their Inspection be of a Larger or Lesser Extension And hence it appears that unless the Dr. can let us see such Officers in Scripture whose proper Work was of this Nature succeeding the Apostles in the Inspection mentioned and having such a Power devolved upon them he will never prove it from the Occasional Transient Officiating of Fixed Officers beyond their Limits Directed and Authorized therein by and under the Inspection of Superior Church Officers and Iudicatories As for his Citation of Causabon Exercit. 14. ad Annal. Baron N. 4. touching the Bishops peculiar Care of their own Flock yet so as suo quodam modo they Cared for the whole Church I nothing doubt but that it may have a Safe and Sound Sense when applyed to every Pastor whose mediat Care actu primo suo modo reaches the whole Church And the Citation quite baffles the Dr. For if their care reached to a peculiar Charge committed to them in solidum it was toto coelo different from the Apostolick care and Charge as is above made good And the Dr. in saying that this exactly resembled the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office shews himself to be as bad unskilful in the Art of Limning as unsincere and unskilful in Disput. For such a Confined Limited Ministry under such Regulations as is above expressed can no more Represent the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office in a proper formal Sense and in its intire Nature as delineat in Scripture than a hand or Foot can Represent the Lineaments of an intire Body For what he adds ibid. That Confinment to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood but Rules of Prudence and Ecclesiastical OEconomy and Canonical Constitutions He speaks confusedly and without Sense For this being the Nature of the Priest-hood or Ministry viz That it is Gods Ordinance designed for Edification it must be consequently Adapted and measured to this end And therefore whatever Person hath an ordinary Ministry committed to him must have it in such a proportion as his Case and personal ability can reach God committing to no Man an immediat inspection of the Catholick Church as
and Titus are found actually Recalled in these same Epistles For what the Dr. adds That his Occasional Travels disingaged him not from his Episcopal Inspection It is long since Presbyteriaâ—s and in special the Authors mentioned by him have Baffled this Answer telling him and such as have pleaded thus that they are challenged to prove that any one appointed Overseer of a particular Church had such a Planetary Motion and Transient Imployment as that of Timothy is proven to have been Or 2. That either he or Titus after this Imployment did constantly or ordinarly return to Ephesus or Crete and not to the Places of the Apostles present Abode or Imployment 3. They also tell him that this Answer is a Begging of the Question since all the Ground of Instalment exhibit here by the Dr. and his Fellows is in that Charge in Reference to Ephesus wherein this Transient Imployment is clearly held out The Dr. adds ibid. That Presbyterians would not take it kindly if told that the Relation to their Flocks were lost if upon Occasions they were Imployed now and then to Visit Forreign Churches Certainly they would not but they take it as unkindly that the Dr instead of an Illustrating Argument and Proof by this Paralell Beggs the Question still and draws a Simile from an Instance wherein there is a palpable Disparity and Dissimilitude For in the Instance adduced the fixed Relation Instalment and Title is supposed 2. The ordinary fixed Attendance upon the Pastors Charge in Consequence thereof whereas in the Case of Timothy his fixed Instalment is begged not proved but rather a Transient Occasional Imployment pointed at in the very Place which he Cites Whence it clearly follows That this Transient Unfixt Ministry was Timothies Ordinary Imployment and Ministry The Dr. proceeds to tell us ibid. That the Ancients took no notice of this Objection against his Episcopacy at Ephesus and that in the 11. Act of the Council of Chalcedon Twenty seven Bishops are Reckoned from Timothy What notice the Ancients took of this Objection is not the Question But for the Catalogues Presbyterians have long since told him what a poor Argument this is and have largely baffled this Phantastical conceit particularly Ius Divinum Minist Ang. in Prop. 7. of the Appendix in several weighty Considerations to which I refer him They have therein made appear that in these Catalogues besides that there is an Homonomy in the word Bishop the nearer they come to the Apostles days they are the more uncertain and contradictory one to another that the Catalogue-drawers spoke in the Language of their own times and in these Catalogues is a far other design than what is pretended by the Episcopalians that the Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists who were not Bishops nor could be properly as not having an ordinary but extraordinary Office the proof of a successive Line of Bishops from them which is drawn from these Catalogues appears palpably unsound and impertinent Before I pass from this since the Dr. mentions Act. 20.4 5. to prove that Timothy was left at Ephesus by Paul He had done well to look downward to the 28 v. where he would have found the whole Episcopal Charge over that Church committed after this to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus before Timothies face in Pauls last farewell unto them and this without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them or of their precarious dependence upon him in this Matter And here he might have seen a passage looking like the Apostles committing their Episcopal Power or what was ordinary in their Function to a Colledge of Presbyters and consequently a Scriptural Decision of this Question and Controversy against him But to proceed The Dr. P. 107 108 undertakes to prove from the Epistles that an Episcopal Authority was Committed to Timothy And to clear this by instances viz. That he is Charged not to rebuke an Elder but intreat him 1 Tim. 5.1 Not to receive an accusation but before two or three Witnesses v 19. To rebuke such as sin before all v. 20. Not to lay hands suddenly v. 22. To ordain such Deacons as were blameless 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Where his particular Relâ—tion to that Church is insinuat the Apostle Writing to him to instruct how to behave himself in the House of GOD c. To these the Dr. adds his Charge of the care of Widows and Objects of Charity and ordering the publick Worship and Liturgies of the Church 1 Tim 5.9 1 Tim. 2.1 1 Tim. 5.21 He and he alone saith the Dr is Charged to observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by partiality Ans. 1. If all these prescriptions suppose only in Timothy an Evangelistick and consequently an exraordinary expired Inspection not an Episcopal and ordinary then this Parade of the Dr's Argument is cut off with one Blow For as for his proof of an Episcopal Relation to that Church drawn from the Apostles shewing his scope to direct him how to carry in the House of GOD it is so clearly adapted to an Evangelistick Inspection over that and other Churches that it can afford him no shadow of a Reason or Evasion For Convincing the Dr. of this I shall make use of his own Paralel Argument and turn his Weapons point upon him He hath told us that no Presbyterian would think his Relation to his Particular Flock untyed if imployed to visit now and then Forreign Churches Now suppose that in this transient visitation of such Churches the Church Rulers do write several directions to such a Pastor in reference to Government adding as a pressing Motive that he is therein instructed how to behave in the Church of the living God which is his House in case he continue any time in this imployment as the Apostle here adds the limiting Clause if I tarry long Will the Dr's Argument hold good that this will infer such a Pastors relation to these Churches If he says this he Contradicts himself And on the other hand he will not dare to affirm that a Minister in this Case is not capable of such directions which would upon the Matter infer that these Churches were not the House of God and that a Minister is not concerned how to behave in them And if this will not conclude such a Pastors particular Relation to these Churches but supposeth only a transient Imployment in this Case then I say his Reason and Argument is naught which Infers Timothies special Episcopal relation to Ephesus I mean to that Church from this expression of the Apostles Scope in the premised directions Moreover the Dr. will not deny that Timothy visited and watered several other Churches after this at Ephesus and after the directions given while officiating therein Now I would fain know if the Dr. will deny that these directions together with this expressed scope thereof viz that he might know how to behave in the Church of GOD were clearly applicable to him in
shape Prelat's Diocesses by this Standart he will extend his Measures far beyond Ephesus What more is contained in those addressed Injunctions His relation to that Church saith the Dr. and the perpetuity of his Power But we have above made appear that these Injunctions can no more evince a peculiar Relation to that Church than to others where he exercised his Evangelistick Office as well as in that of Ephesus And for the perpetuity of the Power we have told him that the intimation of Timothie's transient Employment in that Church presented in the beginning of the Epistle the express Command of doing the work of an Evangelist therein an Office acknowledged by Protestant Divines to be expired the Apostles express recalling him from this transient Employment to the further prosecuting of his Office else where as likewise his ascribing the whole Episcopal Power after this to the Pastors of this Church of Ephesus in Timothie's presence without the least hint of his Interest therein convinceth this assertion of Falsehood But to prove that his Power was not transient but successive and perpetual the Dr. presents unto us the Apostolical Command put upon him to commit his Power to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others This proves indeed a Succession of a teaching Ministry and of the Scripture Bishops and Pastors who must be apt to teach and hold fast the faithful Word But that it imports a committing his Evangelistick Authority to Successors is the Dr's Anti-scriptural Dream Wherein he runs cross 1. To the Judgement of sound Interpreters as all know since they understand by that which was to be intrusted to these Faithful Men the Doctrine of the Gospel not the Authority of Timothy 2. He doth herein cross the Scope Context And that in three Points 1. In that there is here a Plurality of Successors supposed to whom this was to be committed And if Timothie's Authority was to be devolved upon a Plurality Dr. farewel the Derivation of an Episcopal Power to a single Successor 2. The great Characteristick of these Faithful Men is as is said that they be apt to teach which is the very Character of the Pastor Chap. 3.2 3. The thing which is to be committed is That which Timothy had heard of Paul Sciz The true Doctrine of the Gospel and the Pastoral Charge thereanent which is likewise intrusted to all Ministers of the Word Act. 20. Tit. 1.9 But the Dr. will needs have that which is enjoyned in this Precept which is Faithfulness and Ability to teach others to be by Timothy committed to a single Successor as it was in solidum his sole Prerogative Really Dr. this is at least slender Dealing of Charity What! All Faithful Teaching monopolized in the person of the Bishop committed to him in solidum excluding Pastors Many will suppose that if this Work be enhanced in the Bishop the Diocess will be meanly fed especially since besides his personal incapacity to feed the whole Diocess his Sermons drops very rarely and many poor Sheep may starve in the interval But to proceed the Dr. ibid. will have his Adversaries to grant That Timothy 's power exercised over Ephesus was the very same which he pleads for as due to Bishops in their particular Sees That he had an Evangelistick Power we grant and that Bishops take or usurp an Authority and Inspection which with some Presbyterians is said to have an apparent Resemblance of that of Timothy is true But that the Function exercised by Prelats is one and the same with that of Timothy is denyed For 1. We have proved that neither Apostles nor Evangelists had a fixed or ordinary Authority over particular Churches or any such special Relation thereunto as Prelats do pretend 2. We made appear that the Authority which they exercised was not exclusive of or paramount unto the ordinary Authority and Decisive Power of Pastors in Government that in Churches constitute they had neither a sole Power nor sole Exercise of Ordination and Jurisdiction such as Prelats assume who according to the Nature of that Government are the proper sole Pastors of the Diocess and the whole power of Order and Jurisdiction is properly and originally seated in them no Pastor having any thing of this or the Exercise thereof but according as it is lett out or derived to them at the Bishops pleasure For they deny universally that the Pastoral Office hath in its Nature included any Interest in Government Now this Dominion over Church Judicatories thus exclusive of all Authority of Pastors in Government no Evangelist nay nor Apostle ever exercised it being such a Dominion in the House of GOD as is disowned and discharged by them 2 Cor. 1. ult 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Besides the Dr. knows that he pleads for a power in Civils and a Civil Peerage as due to Prelats which he dare not say that Apostles or Evangelists ever exercised nor can he or any of his Party make it appear that the Apostles gave the least shadow of a Warrand for it in their Doctrine But to proceed the Dr. adds ibid. That we pretend that Timothy exercised his power in the Church of Ephesus under the Notion of an Evangelist not as proper Bishop of Ephesus That he was enjoyned and accordingly exercised this Office and had a Command put upon him to perform the Work of an Evangelist there is that which under this prodigiously profound Dâ—'s Correction a Man tinctured with the New Scots Opinion viz The â—postle Paul pretends And this Office we hold to be distinct toto coelo â—â—om that of the Bishop The Dr. saith he will examine this afterward wherein I shall afterwards trace and search him But at present the Dr. will have some things to be granted which cannot be denyed If such indeed its pitty the Dr. were denyed so just a Demand What are these First That the power which Timothy exercised was Lawful in it self GOD forbid we should assert that Paul enjoyned or authorized an unlawful power But Lawful and Law being Correlats the good Dr. will allow us to Distinguish Lawful into that which is so upon ground of a Standing Law or Ordinance And that which is so upon a temporal and transitory Precept and authorized by an Extraordinary Authority for the time Which might be exemplified in a multiplicity of clear Scripture Instances if we were not discoursing with a venerable Dr. who can distinguish General and Special Ordinary and Extraordinary Precepts c. Lawful in their own time and Circumstances We know the Apostolick Universal Authority was Lawful writing authentick binding Epistles in the Execution of this Authority constituting Officers Church by Church modelling them in their Organick Being delivering to them the Ordinances their Disciplining all Nations laying on Hands in order to the Spirits Miraculous Gifts anoynting the Sick with Oyl in order to the healing of them c. What next The Doctor in the Second Place will have us grant That this power was practised by Timothy
Precept supposing the same Had he Censured alone or assumed a sole Interest therein he had crossed the Apostles Doctrin who makes Censures the joint Authoritative Acts of the Collegiat Meetings of Pastors 1 Cor. 5.1 2 4 5 c. 2 Thess. 3.14 As for the exercise of such Episcopal Power in the Primitive times the Dr. will never prove the Bishops sole Power herein in the First and Purest times yea and even after the Episcopus Praeseâ— was set up and had obtained in Judicatories The Sixth Concession which the Dr will have from us is That this Authority was not of it self of a temporary duration transient or extraordinary but such as the constant necessities of the Church doth make necessary in all Ages That it was temporary and transient is that which we maintain and is the Sense of Sound Protestant Divines as is already made appear and we must have better Arguments to take this from us and beat us from this Post than our Dr's begging assertion without proof or a Shadow of it If the necessity of the Church calls for such an Office as this of Timothy according to the Scripture Character and Accounts then sure for that of Apostolat also in a proper formal Sense with all its Prerogatives viz That there be persons impowered to give infallible Commands to transient Evangelists and by infallible direction of the Spirit enjoining and Authorizing the exercise of their Function recalling thus the persons Authorized by an infallible Authority from one Church to the further prosecuting this Work in another and this in order to the Moulding and Watering of these Churches Hence 2. This Power not being properly and formally Episcopal but contrary to such a Function as well as in it self extraordinary and passed off with that first State and exigence of the Church neither can the Churches constant necessity crave it nor doth it in the least patronize the Bishops acclaimed Power For what the Dr. adds of Timothy's committing his Power unto faithful Men such as were able to Teach others We have above discovered the insufficiency of this Argument to bear the weight of his Conclusion And he must prove not barely assert that the Trust Committted to him was ordinary before it will be admitted or his ruinous Consequence built upon this rotten Foundation that therefore there was no need of an extraordinary Officer to manage it But now that the Dr. hath Done with Timothy he prâ—ceeds to Titus telling us P. 110.111 That the same Power was committed to Titus in Crete as one of Pauls Fellow-labourers And the exception that he was an Evangelist which he cannot but know to be the Sense of the generality of sound Pâ—otestant Divines our Dr. is bold to call a ridiculous subterfuge Truely if as ridiculous as his Arguments and Answers it were so at all will But why ridiculous Because it is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who are called Evangelists I could wish the Dr. had been pleased to give us the definition of Evangelist properly so taken that it might be seen how good Harmony he keeps with Protestant Churches and Divines in this Point I must add that our critical Dr. seems very way-ward and ill to please He will not have Titus an Evangelist because no where so called Now he cannot but Confess Timothy is expresly called Evangelist yea and emphatically enjoyned to do the work of an Evangelist yet neither will he admit him to be such We told the Dr. that the Professors of Leyden have this notion of the Office That Evangelists were either scriptores Evangelici de vita morte dictis factis Salvatoris c. such as wrote the History of our Saviours Life and Death or ab Apostolis ad Evangelium una cum ipsis praedicandum vocati c. such as were called by the Apostles to Preach the Gospel together with them and attended them as their Fellow-labourers unless when they were by the Apostles set to oversee some Churches for a time such were Barnabas Silas Timothy and Titus to whom some add the Seventy Disciples Here is the Protestant Notion of the Office which clearly appears Scriptural And upon the equality and sameness of Timothy and Titus Function and Work concluds them both Evangelists I must further tell the Dr that in Ambrose sense Evangelists were such as did Evangeliz are sine Cathedra Preached without a fixed Charge And Saravia himself de diversis gradibus Minist Cap. 6. upon that Precept of Paul Do the Work of an Evangelist tells us That he will not deny Timothy the Name of Evangelist since Paul enjoyned him to perform this Office The Man knew Paul put not upon him an empty Name But further the Dr. will have nothing in the Office of an Evangelist inconsistent with the Dignity of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon That the Evangelistick Office as in Scripture delineat stands opposit to that of the Hierarchical Bishop I have above made good How he comes to say it s not inconsistent with the Dignity of these Offices is some what Mysterious since the general acceptation of the Evangelistick Office is that it was next in Dignity to that of Apostles at least above all Ordinary Officers And for the Dignity of Deacons it seems Odd that the Lowest Office hath a Dignity suteable to that of Evangelists The Dr. tells us further That Eusebius Notion of Evangelist is one who Preached the Gospel to such as had not heard it or at least had Resisted its Light and were not Converted Eusebius takes the Title two ways either for such as Wrote the Gospel or those that Taught it and those again were either such as had ordinary Places and Gifts or whose Places and Gifts were Extraordinary not Settled upon any Charge but were Apostolorum Vice or Vice-Apostles having a Vicarious Care of the Churches as the Apostles had the principal Which Justles with the Dr's Account And in the Passage of Eusebius Cited by him he makes the Evangelist Work to be a Watering the Apostles Plantations as well as a Preaching to such as had not heard the Gospel But he adds That its agreeable to the Function of either of these Offices to Preach the Gospel to such as are not yet acquainted with it This is hardly intelligible 1. That the Evangelists Office consisted in mere Preaching and to such as were in the Character of Infidels or Resisters of the Gospel as it appears not to be Eusebius Sense so he cannot shew it to be the Sense of any Sound Protestant 2. The Dr. will not say that Timothy's Preaching-Work in Ephesus where he was called to be instant therein in Season and out of Season respected not mainly the Members of that Church wherein he was also called to give Attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrine And moreover by the Dr's Confession to many pieces of a Iurisdictional Work which he must either grant to fall within the Compass of his Evangelistick Office and consequently
Jerusalem having a fixed Relation thereto as his proper peculiar Diocess and Exercising an ordinary Episcopal Iurisdiction over that Church The first Proof is That Peter pays a Deference to him in enjoyning notice to be given him and the Brethren of his Escape from Prison Act. 12.17 Here is an Account given of an Important Mercy to a Fellow-Apostle and other Ministers at Ierusalem but a Deference to him asi Bishop of Ierusalem in the Sense above exhibit even granting the ordnary Exercise of his Apostleship there is such a Consequence as no Rational Man can admit For 1. Were not all whether we may suppose them Apostles or Brethren present concerned in this and capable of the Deference of this Information Yea are they not thus Represented 2. Suppose Apostles present without any such Residence or supposed Episcopal Relation will the mere Deference of such an Information prove this Yea say this supposed his special Residence there and consequently his and the other Brethrens Concern in the Information can any Rational Man imagine that this Deference thus expressed will suppose any more than such a Residence for the time Besides that the more Severe Critick would Interrogat him how this Information simplely considered comes under the Character of such a Special Deference and Honour as the Dr. makes it Will the Report of an Important Mercy prove this since another End is evident viz. The Instruction and Comfort of the Person Informed simplely considered The Critick would also Pose the Dr. upon this What Deference was paid in Peters first Personal Visit to the House of Mary and the other Praying Persons with her I think if mention had been of Iohn Mark his Personal Presence this Deference by the help of the Dr's Logick and Quickned a litle by his Zeal for Prelacy would have put fair to set him up as Bishop of Ierusalem at this time But the Dr. tells us this Deference is taken notice of elsewhere as Gal. 1.19 Gal. 2.1 9. For the first Passage the Apostle tells v. 18. that he went up to Ierusalem to see Peter Here is some Deference He adds that he saw none of the Apostles save Iames. What Deference is here insinuat and in special eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem will require a new Essay of the Dr. to draw it from the Text. Pool takes the Naming of these here to import That the other Apostles being scattered and gone off to prosecute their Work these two Apostles were only at this time resident there Thus it seems the Dr's great Topick from a Residence at Ierusalem as peculiar to Iames is much Weakned by this Testimony And his Reverence did not well to raise this Ghost As for Pauls second Journey to Ierusalem Recorded in the other Passage and the mention of Iames with Peter and Iohn as Pillars I know not what Shadow of Argument can be drawn therefrom for his pretended Episcopacy at Ierusalem more than of Cephas and Iohn Whatever Eminency in Moral Respects is here insinuat sure it is Shared among all the three without any Shadow of a Preference of Iames to the rest and far less eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem unless the Dr. draw the Strength of his Argument from his being first Named and thus Patronize the Popish Argument from the first Nomination of Peter to prove his Primacy Which is long since Baffled and Disowned by all Protestant Divines The Dr. alledges that Presbyterians would needs Impose upon Mens Senses and Belief their own Dreams as if some Phantastick Person should pretend he sees Visions of Armies and Battallions in the Skies and Challenge and Threaten others to see what they see not If his Consequences in this and many other places of his Pamphlet be not of this Nature surely never any were But the great Demonstration of the highest Class follows which the Dr. Prefaceth with a most of all What is that Why Act. 15.19 He pronunces the Sentence of the Council by his Episcopal Authority Here is an Airy Vision indeed a Demonstration the Rules whereof are existent only in the Dr's Brain The Sentence and Decision of this Apostolick Council upon Conference and Debate was pronunced by Iames Ergo as a Deference exhibit to him by all the Apostles above themselves yea and eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem What a Rope of Sand is this I know it s ordinarly supposed he presided in the Council but that this doth import any Official Deference or Supereminency over his Fellow-Apostles and far less as Bishop of Jerusalem is a Consequence as far remote from this Concession and Supposition as East from West The Dr. saith he pronunced the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority Thus it seems his Episcopal Authority was a higher Sphere of Authority than ever he had by his Apostolat And if so the Dr. hath Razed all his former Pleadings for a Succession of Episcopacy to an Apostolat and must devise a higher Function than even that of Apostolat to found Episcopal Authority But the Dr. will not be thought now that he is in a Calmer Humor to plead that James alone Decided by his sole Power without Concurrence of oâ—her Apostles but as Bishop of Jerusalem he presided in the Council But here it might be asked what sort of Presidency it is that the Dr. here ascribes to James in this Council Whether the mere Presidency of a Moderator or that which is properly Episcopal having the sole Rectoral Power included therein The asserting of the first only seems not Consonant to the Dr's Scope which is to prove an Episcopal Authority in Judicatories as here Exemplified If he assert the second then in Contradiction to himself he robs the rest of the Apostles of this Rectoral Power Monopolizing it in the Person of James Or if he should ascribe this Episcopal Power to him with respect to the Inferior Clergy there present he cannot deny that his Fellow-Apostles Shared with him herein And so there is nothing of sole Episcopal Power Exemplified in this Instance or any thing else except a mere Presidency which might be allowed upon the Account of his ordinary Residence at Jerusalem by his Fellow-Apostles not unlike unto a Moderators Office allowed by a Synod to the Minister of a City wherein it is assembled which doth nothing impeach the same Rectoral Power competent to every Pastor of the Judicatory But as to the Episcopal Rectoral Power the Dr. cannot be ignorant that his Fellow-Pleader Bishop Downam in his Defence with whom the Dr. will not desire to Justle and Deal Stroaks is clear and positive in this Assertion of the Bishops sole Authority in Government That James presided in the Council I have told the Dr is supposed though I conceive it a pretty hard task to offer a demonstrative Argument from the Text to make it good But that it was as Bishop of Ierusalem is a phantastick Dream which hath no shadow of Ground That Passage My Sentence is the Authors of the 2 d. Part of
Phrase in reference to Salmasius his Answer to this Objection appears to be a silly subterfuge fit for nothing but to move their Laughter who are seen in this Debat and unworthy to have been uttered much less printed by a Man who sets a D. D. to his Name The Dr. cannot but know that the pinch of this Debate and state of the Question betwixt him and us is Whether all that 's spoken of this Angel can be competent to one individual the contrary whereof Presbyterians have made good and not anent the Concerns of particular Persons in some special Precepts of a general Epistle which is in terminis addressed to the whole Church The Dr. adds as another mighty Answer That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him alone tho the Conclusion be to all the Faithful at Ephesus Ans That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him immediatly no Body doubts As for that Conclusion The Lord Iesus be with thy Spirit Grace be with you there can nothing thence be inferred but that the Apostle in the Precepts addressed to Timothy designed the Good of the whole Church And altho what is contained in the Epistle have this general Scope yet it is to be applyed pro unius cujusque modulo and Peoples Duties and that of Ministers are to be distinguished But in the plural Adress of the Angel the same Duties are as is said enjoyned to the same Persons and to the same Scope And the Mystical Term Angel is represented in a plain plural Mould as pointing at a Plurality of Church Officers Besides that in this Conclusion the People are distinguished from the person of Timothy So that the Conclusion doth not solely and immediatly reach them But this holds not paralel with the Direction of an Epistle to a Plurality thus Mystically represented by one single Angel The Dr. adds further That the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches are said to be Angels in Imitation of the Jews among whom the High Priest was dignified with that Name as Mal. 2.7 Where the Word Messenger may be translated Angel I like not the Doctor 's Iewish Imitations If the Pattern was drawn from Mal. 2.7 Even granting this to the Dr that the Term Angel is with Allusion to that Term of Messenger the Term and Designation is Scriptural And had his Eyes been single he might in looking upon that Text have found that the Term of Messenger and Priest hath a plural Signification And consequently our Exposition of the single Term Angel in a Collective Sense in these Epistles and Application of the Plural Address to the single Angel to be Exemplified in that Scripture But the Dr. will needs suppose gratis and Magisterially Dictat unto us his Petitio Principii That the High Priest only was Dignified with that Name But he and his Fore-leader Dr. Hammond hath piâ—ifully mist the Mark in this Notion it being palpable that the Scope is to direct the Lords Priests and Ministers in their common Duties to which they were called and to say that the High Priest alone was here designed and intended will infer that the first Verse of that Chapter O ye Priests this Commandment is for you is to be understood only of the High Priest that he alone was concerned to give Glory to the Lords Name as is enjoyned in the 2. Verse and he alone threatned in the same Verse with a Curse to be inflicted upon his Blessings that he alone was to have the Law of Truth in his Mouth and to keep knowledge as Verses 6 7. and that at his Mouth only the Law was to be sought Whereas all the Priests were Teachers and Solemnly Addressed the People in Teaching together with Moses himself Deut. 27.9 10. and were sent to Teach the People 2 Chron. 17.8 Besides that had the Dr. been through in Searching this Controversie he might have found that as the Term Levi represents in this Chapter the Multitude of Levites so Presâ—â—terians do plead that the Term Angel whereby the Officers of every Church of Asia is represented hath nothing peculiar in it beside what is applicable to every Minister of the Gospel whose Angelick Frame as well as Office and Authority is hereby pointed out And therefore cannot in this place Indigitat an Officer Superior to Pastors or Ministers The Dr. asserts That the Angels Authority was extended to Laity and Clergy But he must be admonished that his new Term of Clergy and Laity were not then begot and he must prove not assert without Proof this his alledged Extension of the single Angel or Prelat his Power and Authority The Dr. pleads that the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels because of their Spiritual Power to Reform and Chastise these Abuses Ans. No doubt Ministers have great influence upon the good or ill Frame of Churches and this will say as much yea much more for us than for the Dr for upon our Supposition of a Plurality of Pastors Addressed in the Angel it s much more suteable to suppose a Peoples good or ill Frame and Spiritual Condition to be influenced by the good or bad Carriage of their Pastors who have an immediat Inspection over them than to suppose it flows merely from the good or bad Carriage of one Prelat set over their Clergy and themselves this Inspection being the more remote And the Dr. knows we may call in an old gray Hair'd Witness Experience to testifie that there hath sometimes been some diligent Pastors and a thriving People in a Diocess where the Bishop hath been naught And besides that the Dr. here pitifully beggs the Question he should have seen how to evite the Inconvenience of Timothy so eminently commended for his Faithfulness Stedfastness and Piety his falling as Bishop of Ephesus from his first Love and by his bad Carriage influencing this bad Frame in that Church and leading them wrong As likewise he should have seen how to make it appear that the Important Duties of Faithfulness holding fast what is attained not to Fear Sufferings Warnings of a Prison Tryal c. are applicable to one Person solely As likewise how several of these evils charged upon the Churches could be the Objects of the Bishops supposed Spiritual Chastising Power such as their Dead Frame Falling from their first Love c. The Dr. ibid. will in the next place loose the Objection taken from Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and to the rest in Thyatira Whence he tells us we plead that the Epistles were directed to a Community because the Compellation is in the Plural To this he Answers That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out in the most Ancient Manuscripts particularly the Alexandrian preserved in the Royal Library 'T is pity the Dr or a Man of his Sense was not called in to Instruct or Inform our last Translators whâ— were no doubt as favourable to the Episcopal Cause as he though I will not say they would have allowed all
Will that this Moderator or President should have their whole Authority Concentred in him as this Surveyâ—r pleads and so as to smallow up their whole decisive Suffrage and render them mere Cyphers This he cannot but acknowledge to exceed far the mere governing the Actions of the Meeting and preserving of Order Which is the proper Work of a Moderator I might add that the admitting it is GODs Will that Ministers set over their Associat Meetings one single person to Moderat will not so much as infer that he should moderat ad vitam Since 1. This will bring under the burden of whatever abuse of his Power he may be guilty of and exclude all Help and Redress 2. This will deny the Judicatory or Meeting the Advantage and Use of these governing Gifts and Graces that may be supposed in other Members And sure the Surveyer could not but acknowledge this contrary to the Divine Law since the Gifts and Graces of every Minister are given by GOD for the Advantage of His Church and to be improven accordingly The Ministration of the Spirit saith the Apostle is given to every one to profit withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Metaphor taken as some do judge from Bees bringing all to the common Hive Thus we see that unless the Surveyer degrade the Bishops to mere Moderators this Reason is utterly remote from and absolutely short of reaching any other Conclusion The Third Ground is That it is Juris Divini by way of Approbation that the Churches in their Ministerial Combinations for Government should have one over them who hath a singular Power for prevention of Schism and Disorder and such a Power as what is Right or Wrong in the Church may be imputed to him as is manifest from the Epistles directed to the Angels of the Churches Rev. 2.3 whom Beza Cartwright Reynolds c. hold to be single persons Ans. It is not clearly discernible what strength is in this Reason beyond the former since it still runs upon the Ius Divinum and necessity of a President in Church Meetings in order to this as its native and great End viz the Prevention of Schism and Disorder And if this be the Rule and Measure of such a Presidency the Surveyer had been hard put to it to prove that this doth necessarly infer and require that it be such as swallows up the whole decisive Power and Authority of Pastors in Government And that Disorder and Schism cannot be otherwise prevented by a President than thus Authorized and that reserving to Pastors their decisive Authority and Power cannot as well reach this End 2. For what the Surveyer adds That the Power of the President must be such as what is Right or amiss may be imputed to him as using his Power Well or Badly As it may have a terrible Sound in the Ears of the Hierarchical Prelat who hath an Authority and Power extended not only to all the Pastors of the Diocess but the whole Body of the People therein as this Surveyer owns P. 194. Since he hath thus a Work and Office of such a Nature as is impossible to be managed Besides that the Charge of all the evils within the Diocess lyeth necessarly upon him So likewise it is more than this Surveyer could prove that what was well or amiss in the Asian Churches is chiefly imputed to one Person For 1. It is not enough to say that some Authors though acknowledged Godly and Learned do hold them to be single persons but the Grounds hinc inde of those who hold them to be such and of those who understand the Word Angel in a Collective Sense must be weighed in the Ballances of the Sanctuary 2. Beza's Judgment is that the Proestos or President is first advertised that by him all the rest of the Colledge and also the whole Church might have notice made to them of that which concerned them all And further that not so much as the Office of a Perpetual President can be hence inferred as that which he holds to be the Foundation of the Tyranical Oligarchy whose Head is the Antichristian Beast 3. Granting a Presidency for prevention of Schism and disorder over these Churches the Question still is to be discussed what Presidency it was And that it could not be of the Surveyers Supposed Episcopal mould is evident and by thâ— Presbyterian Writers made good from several Grounds As that 1. It cannot be made good that any directions in these Epistles respecting Government diversifie one Pastor from another or suppose his Iurisdiction over the rest 2. That without fastning a contradiction upon the Scripture Account of the Presbyter or Pastors Office this cannot be admitted Pastors having the Name and thing of Rulers Governours and Bishops attributed unto them yea and the Episcopal Power being found committed to the Pastors of Ephesus the first of the Churches here addressed in Pauls last farewell to them Act. 20. And none will deny that the whole Churches were settled in an Uniform Mould of Government That the Collective Sense of the word Angel is most sutable to the Scope of these Epistles and paralel Scriptures is above made good and needs not be here repeated The Surveyer alledges P. 193. That if single persons had not been intended they would have been compared by the Spirit of God not to single Stars but Constellations Thus this critical Master of Language will needs Teach the Spirit of God how to express himself But since he acknowledges that these Churches tho made up of several Congregations do upon the Ground of an Unity in Government come under the denomination of one Candlestick why may not also the Pastors and Ministers because of a combination in Government come under the Denomination of single Stars Besides that these Stars or Angels are as is above made good sometimes addressed plurally and thus upon the matter held out as Constellations He adds That we may as well extend the seven Candlesticks beyond the Seven Churches as the Angel beyond a single Person But the Spirit of GOD calling these Candlesticks the Seven Churches and the Stars generally the Angels of the Churches not the Seven Angels sufficiently discovers the impertinent folly of this Objection But says the Surveyer ibid. by this Collective Sense of the Word Angel we will take in the Ruling Elders as Messengers of the Lord of Hosts or else assert that these Churches had none Ans. The Divine warrand of the Ruling Elder is made good upon clear Scripture grounds and if he have a share and Interest in Church Government the Surveyer could give no reason why he might not in so far come under this Denomination as a Church Officer supposing that our Lord addresseth in these Epistles both Church Officers and Members For what he adds of Blondels Sense of the Authority of these Angels P. 6. of his Preface It is evident to any that reads it That he ascribs the Power of Presidents only unto them and holds that the Proestotes
or Presidents acknowledged alwise the Power of the Colledge of Presbyters to be above their own and were subject to the Injunctions of the Meetings as well as any other Member The Fourth Ground which the Surveyer layeth down P. 194. is this That as there are ordinances merely Divine so also mixed Ordinances which have a Divine ground and with all adjoyned thereunto a positive human Institution such as Calvin holds geniculation in prayer to be The Episcopal Power being in it self Lawful the Subjecting of it in one person in a certain Circuit is most suitable for preserving Unity supposing the Person to be of greater worth and consequently recommended by the light of Nature and in so far by the word of GOD and further warranded by a Lawful Church Constitution Ans. This ground easily appears foolish and unsound when we consider that not only the Power it self is of Gods appointment and institution but likewise the Subject thereof and and Officers Cloathed with the Power so that whatever Authority the Church may be supposed to have for regulating the Exercise according to the general Rules of the word and of Christian prudence yet no Church under Heaven hath Authority to lift up the March-stones which God hath set and impeach his Institutions in Point of Government Which Guilt is certainly Contracted either 1. In setting up a New Officer Cloathed with such Authority as he hath not allowed such as we have made appear the Prelat to be both in Respect of his acclaimed Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority 2. In Robbing the Pastor of that Authority allowed by the great Masters Appointment and Institution which as we have made appear doth in its Essence respect an Interest both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction As for Calvin he is found in that place to speak nothing of the Nature of this Geniculation or what may give light touching the Nature of those mixed Ordinances Besides that the Surveyers Reason here adduced from the Light of Nature appears to Confound the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and without Respect to the Gospel Rules of Government to found a Claim thereunto merely upon the greater Worth and Ability A Principle which will also brangle the Civil Government And in a word this Principle of Monopolizing the Power in one Person in a certain Circuit for this end of Preserving Unity will tower up this singularity of Government in one person over the Bishops the Arch-Bishops till the Hierarchy resolve in a Papacy at last Proceed we to the Surveyers Fifth Ground ibid. resolving in a Partition of Three or Four Particulars to infer a direct positive Institution for the Superiority of one Church Officer of a certain Circuit over others Whereof the First is That Iesus Christ from his Received plenitude of Church Power from his Father to be made use of till the Elect be gathered in sent his Apostles with plenitude of Power for all Church Offices necessary for Edifying and Preserving the same as Power to Preach administer Sacraments preserve the Church in order by Godly Disciplin for which he Cites Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me even so send I you c. Ans. As it is acknowledged that the Apostles were sent forth for the Great end of laying the Foundation of the Gospel Churches and Establishing the Ordinances and Offices thereof so that whatever Officers they are found to have Instituted and Authorized for the Churches preservation and Purity of Order ought to be received with all due Reverence so it is evident that their Office was in this Respect Extraordinary and that they were Distinguished from all other Officers by their immediat Call their immediat Instructions from Christ inâ—allibility in Doctrin a greater Amplitude of Power c. Hence we have made appear there was no Shadow of a Prelatical Power in their Office the exercise thereof since none of the Apostles were set over any fixed Diocess but had an immediat Relation to the whole Church they exercised their Ministry sometimes joyntly and promiscuously in the same place they Ordained no Inferior Officers alone without the Concurrence of other Officers where they might be had nor Challenged as Prelats a sole Power of Jurisdiction over the Churches c. The Second Subservient ground which the Surveyer P. 195 adduces is That the Apostles had Successors to themselves in that plenitude of Ordinary Church Power for that Power was not to Cease till the end of the World according to the Promise Matth. 28.20 I am with you alway to the end of the World meaning with them and their Successors Ans. That the Apostles had Successors that derived down an Ordinary Church Power in reference to the Preaching of the Word the Administration of the Sacraments and such a Governing Power and the exercise thereof as is necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times is easily admitted And this ordinary Church Power we maintain with the Body of all Protestant Divines to be derived down by the Pastor the proper Successor of the Apostles in this Work as hath been above cleared And this is most Properly that plenitude of Power which was to continue to the end For this Surveyer in this Discriminating term of Ordinary Church Power seems to exclude any Succession of Church Officers to the Apostles in eundem gradum and properly The Surveyer tells us in the Third place That there are three probable Pretenders to this Succession of Apostles Viz Single Presbyters in the Modern Notion Colledges of Presbyters in a full Equality of Power Or some single Persons having Superiority of Power over ordinary Presbyters The Pretensions of the People or of any other to the Church Government He tells us he doth pass as Irrational And so do we Only I must here say That as what a single Presbyter may do in extraordinary Cases in Point of Jurisdiction is not here the Question And that therefore his three Pretenders may be Justly reduced to two So in his confident Rejection of all other Pretenders as Irrational he should have been aware of touching the Kings Crown and more consistently defended his Erastian Supremacy in Church Government Since in the last Edition of our Scots Hierarchy he was Owned and Established as the chief Officer and Head of this Church The Surveyer will have this Question of the Matter of Fact upon which the Jus depends to be determined by Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles and the first and surest Light Church History can afford in the Churches purest Times I have made appear that this Question of a Divine Fact must be decided by the Scripture Light allenarly and by Consequence not from the Acts of the Apostles Solely excluding what further Light in this Matter is to be had from their Instructions in Point of Church Government contained in their Epistles and likewayes from other places of the New Testament So that whatever Practice of the Church the History
to Pastors This Objection is above fully removed And here again we repone 1. The Infant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an Evangelist and Directions from an infallible Apostle 2. Episcopalians must confess that in many Points wherein Timothy and Titus are immediatly addressed ordinary Pastors and Presbyters have a necessary and essential Interest and that therefore they must acknowledge this to be one end of these addressed Instructions that Pastors or Presbyters may have a clear Vidimus of their Ministerial Office and Duties And that by consequence the addressing of these Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude Pastors from the Jurisdictional Power And no more make this peculiar to these persons than the Injunctions respecting the Reading Preaching of the Word Convincing the Gain sayers and Rebuking the Scandalous solely applicable to a Prelat as his incommunicable Prerogatives The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song That its the greatest possible evidence that can be in such a Matter of Fact that immediatly after all the Apostles Death until the Council of Nice the Church had no other Government but that of Bishops Ans. This Assertion especially as respecting the Patriarchal Bishop of the late Edition viz with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction tyed to Preach to no flock and deriving all his Power from the Civil Magistrate is so grosly absurd so palpably false that the very Repetition is a Confutation the contrary having been demonstrated by several Learned Pens The best Antiquaries confess these first times dark as to Matters of Fact But the Surveyer quite mistakes this Question which is not anent a mere Matter of Fact or the Churches Practice simplely Considered but anent the Apostolick Instructions and Institutions in point of Church Government viz what Officers the Apostles set up and Instituted in what order and Cloathed with what Authority how qualified for their Office and instructed therein how they are found to have exercised this Power when thus Instituted and set up If this be clear in the Scripture Records then no defects or aberrations therefrom either in or after the Apostles times can direct or warrand our Imitation nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule unless we will extend this to Regulat us as to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out Both Scripture and Church History do give us an account of the early aberrations from the Divine Rule both in Point of Doctrin Worship and Government such as those anent the Resurrection Justification by good Works Worshipping of Angels the Error of the Nicolaitans and in Point of Government the Mysterie of Iniquity the Embryon of a Papal Primacy was working in Pauls time and early appeared in Diotrephes aspiring after a Primacy Not to stand upon the Millenary Error the Error anent the Vision of GOD and others early appearing thereafter The Surveyer will needs strengthen his Notion by the Maxim Lex currit cum praxi consuetudo est optimus interpres Legis What interpretation and Sense this is capable of in reference to Human Laws or of what use is left to the Consideration of the Gentlemen of the Long Robe But sure with respect to the Divine Law 't is dangerous and sadly lax Divinity Israels Consuetudo and early practice of Idolatrie and the Worshipping of Images as that of the Golden Calf with a pretended design to Worship the Lord Jehovah was a shrewd and gross interpretation of the Second Command The People who told Jeeremiah that they would pour out Drink Offerings to the Queen of Heaven because their Progenitors in a long tract of time had done so were much in this Surveyers Mind But the great Lawgiver who enjoyned his People not to walk after their Fathers Commandments nor Judgments though of never so Large an extent and long Continuance but after his Laws and Judgments is of another Mind Tertullians Rule and Prayer is good speaking of Custom in it self considered and simplely Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas interpretare quas consuetudo non novit nam si nosset non esset Did Custom know Scripture it would be ashamed of it self and cease to be any more Upon which ground he pleads that the Eternal Light himself might arise and expone his own Scriptures The Surveyer tells us That in these preceeding grounds he hath pleaded only for the Lawfulness of Prelacy though the necessity is not denied But sure if these grounds evince any thing they prove a Necessity as well as Lawfulness If the Apostles Directions and Practice in the Institution of Church Officers pursuant to their great Masters Commission together with his supposition of the Apostolical and Christian Churches Universal Reception and Practice will not evince and prove this I know nothing will Besides that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine Institution which will bear this Conclusion of Necessity not of Lawfulness only But in this proof of the Lawfulness of Prelacy the Surveyer tells us he intended to quiet the Minds of People anent the Covenant obligation against it A good Pillow of security no doubt this had been had he proved that Universally and absolutely no Oath can oblige against a thing in it self Lawful or retrench our Liberty thereanent and answered the Arguments urged by Casuists on the contrary But it is not our purpose to digress on this head He adds That if Lawful it is Juris Divini that we submit to a Lawful Human Ordinance and Command for the Lords sake Which Reason were valid had he made good that the Human Ordinance in this Circumstantiate Case had for its object a thing Lawful And that the Human ordinance is the First Rule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of a Practice hic nunc though in it self Lawful And further that the Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loose solemn Oaths and Vows upon the Lawgivers themselves and the Subjects against such a practice as is commanded CHAP. II. The Surveyers Exceptions and Answers which he offers to the Scriptures Pleaded by Presbyterians Examined Particularly To these Passages viz Matt. 20 25 26 with the Paralels Mark 10 42 Luke 22 25 To that passage Mat. 18 17 and Act 20 17 28 Tit 1 5 7 1 Pet 5 1.2 The Vnsoundness and Inconsistency of his Exceptions and Glosses made appear THE Surveyer having thus presented his Episcopal Strength and his great Grounds for proving Prelacy Lawful doth in the next place undertake to Answer the Scripture Arguments that are pleaded for Presbyterian Government which we shall now Consider and Examinâ— The First Scriptures he tells us P. 197. that are made use of for proving the Parity of Ministers in the Government of the Church and disproving Imparity or Superiority of any over others are Mark 10.42 Matth. 20 25 26. Luke 22.25 Where because our Lord is speaking of the Kings and Great Ones of the Earth their Exercising Dominion and Authority over their Subjects
Prohibition the Apostles exercised Authority over Ministers it doth not Discharge such an Authority of Pastors over Pastors Ans. The Laws of our LORD delivered in the New Testament and the Correspondent Recorded Practice thereof doth State a clear distinction betwixt the Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers and Pastors and that both with respect to the Nature and Extent of their power The Surveyer tells us the Ambition beginning among the Apostles the cure should have been applyed to them Ans. So we affirm it was in our Lords prohibiting either a Prelatical Dominion among themselves or over Inferior Officers But this could not impeach their extraordinary Inspection over the Churches which was together with their Office to pass off and die with themselves when that Case and exigency of the Church was over The Surveyers Second Counter-evidence P. 199. is drawn from 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set in his Church First Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers which is an ordinal Numbering with reference to the Object they were imployed about as Presbyterians hold upon this ground the Pastors Office Superior to the Elder Ans. Not to stand upon this his ordinal numbering nor upon an enquiry wherefore the Evangelist is excluded by the Surveyer in this Account of ordinal numbering whom we find Numbred Eph. 4.11 It is Evident that 1. This Instance is extravagant from the Point For from our Assertion that the Prohibition of Unlawful Dominion over their Fellows was given to Apostles as representing Pastors or Ministers he draws a Conclusion that thereupon will follow a Discharge of the Superior Authority of one Pastor over another he means an Official Superiority the Contrary whereof he undertakes to prove by Instances and here his great Instance is drawn from the Apostolical Authority which the Apostles exercised over inferior Officers or the supposed ordinal Numbring of Extraordinary Officers But I pray what is this to prove the Official ordinary Superiority of Pastors over Pastors or to evince their Superior Degrees among themselves Apostles Prophets Evangelists c. were placed in their several Degrees or had their special Pieces of work in the Churches Infant State therefore there ought to be the same Degrees of the Pastoral Office What Consequence is this 2. He is inconsistent with himself in this Reasoning For 1. He hath already distinguished the Apostles Official ordinary Power in the plenitude whereof he alledges Prelats do succeed them from another which he must call extraordinary else his Distinction is chimerical and must fly with one Wing And 2 He alledges some things are spoken to them alone in their Apostolick Capacity which concerned none else and thus distinguishes that capacity from the capacity of Pastors Now when he is about to prove that the Apostles qua Pastors or in that Capacity and under thus reduplication strictly and properly were above other Pastors and consequently that there are different Degrees of the Pastoral Office As if he had forgot his Distinction he draweth his Argument from the Apostolical Acts of Superiority over inferior Officers and the supposed Degrees of Apostles Prophets and others in that extraordinary Function wherein he palpably baffles his former suposition and Distinction That in the Text Cited together with the Paralel Eph. 4.11 there is a Numbering whether we call it ordinal or not of Extraordinary Officers now past off with these first times of Christianity is the consentient Judgment of sound Divines and by Consequence that no Argument can be drawn from hence for distinction of Degrees in the Pastoral Office The Surveyer P. 200. cannot understand how the Pastor having a Doctrinal Superiority over other Officers of the Congregation should in Point of Disciplin which is but a Personal application of the Word sink below his Assistants in the Session and have his Voice swallowed up by theirs But he might much more wonder at his own Principle who alledges the Pastor to have in dispensing the Word and Sacraments an Authority and Power of the same Nature with that of the Hierarchical Bishop and yet when he comes from the Pulpit and sitteth in a Judicatory with the Prelat losses all Authoriry in Government and according to the last Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy become a mere Cipher without a Figure having no Power but to advise the Prelat and scarce that As for the Pastors Authority in the Session we say that although the higher Honour allowed to the Labourer in Word and Doctrin above the Officer who Rules only and who doth not thus Labour will allow the respect deference of a constant Presidency in the Parochial Church Judidicatory yet Ruling Elders having an Essential interest in Church Government he cannot have the sole decisive Vote though there is still access to appeal to a higher Judicatory in case of mal-Administration The Surveyers Third ground is That if Governing Superiority be inhibit to Pastors over others it is either of one over others and thus we unjustly distinguish this Monarchical Government of one while we allow the like Government of many which in an Aristocratical form may have as much of State and Command as of one If we say that he Discharged all Superiority of many or of some Number over others this will in favour of Independents destroy Presbyterian Government and the Subordination of Iudicatories Ans. This is in part already removed by what we have offered anent the Essential difference in Point of Government betwixt the Judiciary Power as Subjected in a Colledge or Society and the Monopolizing and concentring it in one Person 1. We have told him that our Lord hath Established and Instituted both the Nature and Subject of Church Power 2. Having Instituted Pastors of an equal Official Authority all Pastors as Members of the Judicatory have an Essential interest in the decisive Votes and an equal decisive suffrage therein upon this Ground so that there is a Clear exclusion of the Monopolized Government in one Person who appears excluded and Discharged by our Lords Instituted Principles and Grounds of Government since this Concentring of Government in one robs Pastors of this their Decisive suffrage excludes a free and full Conference and Debate in order to a sutable Determination by a free suffrage as is exemplified in that Council Act. 15. And therefore this Dominion of a Prelat over Pastors besides his Pompous Civil Dominion brings him palpably within the Compass of this Prohibition 3. That the Presbyterians Subordination of Judicatories cannot fall within the Compass hereof nor come under the Surveyers imputation of State and Dominion is many ways evident 1. This is founded upon the Light and Law of Nature and the Nature of all Governments 2. This is notably consistent with the Jurisdictional exercise of the Pastoral Office and the ends thereof both which the Prelatical Dominion destroys This Subordination is founded upon our Lords Institution as is evident Matth. 18. where the gradation in Point of Censure and Appeals is from the Lesser to the greater Number which
the Prelatical form inverts and destroys As for Commisions of Assemblies which the Surveyer next quibles about We say that it is no extrinsick Judicatory exercising any extrinsick power but a more Compendious meeting of the whole Assembly with their Conjunct power for the purposes delegated and limited both as to the Time and Object of their power and are accountable to the ensuing Assembly for their Administration What the Surveyer adds touching their power to punish all Ministers who will not obey their Acts c. It is palpably impertinent for no Censures or Punishments were to go beyond the Limits of their Instructions and Commission nor ever did or could Assemblies engage to own them any otherwise so that in whatever point they did Malverse the Assembly was still as an equal Judge to be Appealed unto The Surveyers Fourth Ground and Instance P. 201. is That in the Texts under Debate our Lord supposes some of his Disciples in Comparison of others were to be great and chief in respect of Power and Authority else the Speech were not to the purpose And that our Lord directs such as attained to this Chiefty and Greatness to Demean themselves Humbly and Usefully let him be as the Younger which is no Direction to Undervalue such but only prohibits an Affectation of Honour separat from the worthy Work mentioned 1 Tim. 3.1 Ans. This Popish Gloss of Bellarmin and others we have already at large Confuted which as we have above made appear establisheth and fixeth the Popes Mitre instead of Levelling against it as this Text certainly doth Protestant Divines more appositely to the Scope and Contexture have told the Papists that our Lord said not he who by my Appointment should be Chief or enjoy a Principality or Supremacy but he that from the bad Disposition of Iames and Iohn would seek this must in place thereof endeavour and emulat Spiritual Faithful Diligence in the Ministerial Duties and thus to be Chief in Vertue and Reward That this Popish Gloss of a supposed Lawful Chiefness or Principality in the Church so overthrows the Scope that it makes our Lord rather to have Inflamed than Quenched by his Answer the Ambitious Sute of the two Brethren and the Disciples Emulation thereupon That this Gloss will prove the Disciples Concernment in the Enquiry anent the Person who was to be Chief The Surveyâ—r though apparently excluding a Civil Chiefness or Kingly Power yet allows a Spiritual Principality His Caution that the Clause let him be as the Younger will not import a Direction to Undervalue such is fruitless and impertinent since the Lord recommends therein a humble Ministerial Diligence as is said The Bishops Work 1 Tim. 3. is the Work and Office of the Laborious Pastor and Scripture Bishop but the Aspiring Seeker of a Chiefness which the Surveyer would bring within the Compass of that Text is condemned with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diotrephes who aspired after the same For what he adds of the Motive drawn from our Lords Humility We have above made appear that in the Series of their Arguing he and his Fellows doth underprop by such a Notion and Gloss of this Passage a Primacy or Papacy It is enough that we add here that our Lords Exemplary Humility who is the Master of the House is in this place presented the more strongly to enforce his Servants abhorring all Ambitious Usurpation one over another since they are all Fellow-Disciples and Servants The Surveyers Fifth Ground and Counter-Instance P. 202. is this in Summ That our Lord mentioning in this Prohibition the Authority not of Kings over Chief Grandees but over their Subjects were our Gloss of his discharging all Governing Superiority admitted it would reach a Prohibition of Government over the People and therefore our Lord discharges not the Rule of one or some Ministers over Ministers but only the Lordly and Earthly Way of it Ans. As the Dominion and Arbitrary Power which our Lord here discharged is certainly such as respects both Ministers and People Church Members and Church Officers and a fortiori as reaching Church Officers because respecting Church Members Whence the Apostle Peter Copying out this Direction of his Master exhorted Ministers not to Lord over Gods Heritage So we have made appear that the Power and Dominion of the Hierarchical Bishop is such as encroaches upon the just Liberties both of Ministers and People robbing the one of their Decisive Suffrage and Jurisdictional Power the other of their just Liberty in the Call of Ministers and in other things Here again we may notice how this Surveyer overshoots still his Mark and wanders from the Point while endeavouring to prove that an Official Inequality of Pastors is not here prohibited And drawing his Proof from the supposed Superiority of Apostles over ordinary Pastors Again the Surveyer acknowledged that there is here discharged a Dominative Worldly and Lordly Government and thus the Text forces him to give a Deadly Blow to his Darling Prelats who owne the Title Name and Thing of Lordship and both Civil and Spiritual Dominion they being owned as Spiritual Lords and Lords of the High Court of Parliament The next Scripture made use of for Presbyterian Government and against Episcopacy which the Surveyer P. 203. undertakes to Answer is that Passage Matth. 18.17 If thy Brother trespass against thee c. go tell the Church c. Whence he saith we argue That Christ our Lord giving out the great Charter of censuring Iurisdiction to be exercised among his Subjects doth not give that Power to one Man a Bishop but to the Church and one Man cannot be a Church In Answer to this the Surveyer in the first place professes to disclaim Erastus way which denys an inherent Discipline and Government in the Church for correcting Offences and keeping Ordinances in Purity Which contradicts his Zealous Pleading for the Kings Ecclesiastick Supremacy in this Pamphlet as it was then established by Law and screwed up to the highest pinacle of an Arbitrary Dominion so that the Prelats were declared to Act as his Commissioners accountable to him in their pretended Ecclesiastick Administrations and the Government it self is in our Laws called and owned as his Majestie 's Ecclesiastick Government But though the Surveyer pretends to disowne Erastus way yet he spends a considerable Discourse in fighting with their Weapons In order to this Scope he tells us That a Course is here prescribed for charitable removing privat Quarrels arising among Brethren both to gain their Friendship and their Souls too from the guiltiness of the Breach of Charity which he tells us is clear from v. 21.22 And from the paralel Luk. 17.2 3 4. Hence he inferrs that our Lords Direction is in Limitation to privat Injuries and not be extended to the whole Latitude of all Offences to which this Direction cannot be extended Ans. First It is evident that our Lord here prescribs this Method of removing Offences viz. That when more privat Means reach not
be twice laid For Timothy and Titus we have above spoken to their Authority and Office and made appear that it was transient and extraordinary as that of Apostles and to be Exercised with the Authoritative Official Concurrence of ordinary Officers or Presbyters where they were Planted The Surveyers Fifth Answer and Exception P. 207. is That there is in this Text an Allusion to the Jewish Church Courts wherein there were Chief and Subordinat Rulers both in the Sanhedrin and Synagogues Ans. Unless the Surveyer can make appear that the whole Iurisdictional Power and Authority therein was so Concentred in one Person as there was nothing of it left to any of the Members and that their Work was only to give Assent unto the sole Decisive Determination and Sentence of that one Person this Answer will never help the Hierarchical Bishop whose Power was of this Nature according to our Laws If it be supposed that the Jurisdictional Power was competent to the whole Colledge in these Meetings the Passage stands still in its Condemning Force against the Hierarchical Bishop That the whole Jurisdictional Power in the Sanhedrin was Concentred in the Person of the High Priest none can without extreme Impudence assert We heard that the Learned Iunius and several others do assert that the ordinary Jurisdiction was penes concessum Sacerdotum competent to the whole Meeting of the Priests The Levits as well as the Priests were to shew the Sentence of Judgment in Matters and Questions brought before them Deut. 17.8 9 10. So Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19.8 9. restoring this Sanhedrin set the Levites as well as the Priests to Judge the Controversies that came before them by way of Appeal And though we find that the High Priest did pronounce the Sentence of Judgment 2 Chron. 19.11 with Deut. 17.12 this will not infer the Surveyers Conclusion of his sole Decisive Suffrage since the Moderator of an Assembly may pronounce the Sentence flowing from their joynt Decisive Votes For the Rulers of Synagogues since we read of them and of Chief Rulers in the plural Mark 5.22 Act. 13.15 compared with Act. 18.8 17. it is evident there could be no peculiar Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest His Last Exception to this Passage is That the Remedy here prescribed was presently to be made use of upon the rising of Scandals and therefore was not for Scandals to arise a long time thereafter Ans. This first Seminarie of the Christian Church being at present under our Lords immediat Inspection there was no such Access for a present Use of this Remedy therefore this Rule and Remedy was mainly prescribed for after-times as the Charter of the Churches Jurisdiction The Author of the second part of Pool's Annot. well observes upon this Passage That we are not to understand our Saviour as speaking with relation unto the present time but the time to come and giving Laws which should take place and abide from the gathering of the Christian Church And if the Church be understood of those that have the Authority of Binding and Loosing they shew that the present Church of Apostles was to constitute particular Churches to whom when constituted in force of this precept such Offences were to be told c. The Surveyer asks Suppose Scandals then arising V. G. Iudas giving Scandal to Peter would our Lord have sent them to the Sanhedâ—in of the Jews Upon the Ground I now offered the Negative Answer is clear The Complaint was to be made to this glorious Head of the Church in whom all Church-Authority is truely concentred and in telling him the Church was told But the Surveyer tells us of Bucers Assertion That Christ and his Apostles were a sufficient Representative Christian Church And this Primitive Presbytrie and Representative he professes to accept well of where was no Equality of Power in the Members Ans. The Surveyer knew there was here an absolute Dominion of the Churches Glorious Head over a Society of Officers And if he will still have such a standing Pattern of a Representative Church viz. a Supreme Vicar having the Radical Authority thereof the Pope will joyn issue with him in his gladful Acceptance thereof That there was no Equality of Power in the Members contradicts his former Assertion anent an Equality of an Official Power among the Apostles unless he will put Christ the Glorious Head among these Members and degrade Him from his Head-ship He tells us further That in this Primitive Pattern there was no Inter-mixture of Lay-Elders A witty Knack and Notion indeed He hath told us P. 199. of several Classes and Degrees of Church Officers which he thinks exemplifies the continual standing Measures for the Christian Church from that Passage 1 Cor. 12.28 First Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers after that Miracles and he will not doubt Evangelists likewayes are of the Number who are reckoned Eph. 4. Our Surveyer saw no mixture of these in this Presbytrie nor of the Pastor whom he distinguishes from the Apostolick Office the Bishops being with him their Successors So that the poor Man was upon the Charybdis or Scylla either to acknowledge that this Presbytrie was not so compleat as it ought to have been and thus forced to contradict what he here asserts That according to this Form all others afterwards should be framed for this will make the Pattern and after Copies manck and defective Or else if he acknowledge that in this Primitive Seminary and Embryon of Church Judicatories all ordinary Officers were not present he behoved to confess that his Charge against Lay-Elders as he calls them because not here was impertinent and groundless The Surveyer calls for such a Presbytrie to end all our Controversie That is a Presbytrie with a Head having a Soveraign Absolute Dominion over all the Members And since he would not with the Millenaries have our Lord to reign personally on Earth he here wished for a Supreme infallible Vicar to end the Controversie In his Dislike of hetrogenous Mixtures in Church Judicatories he might have reflected upon the High Commission Court with its threefold Inteâ—mixture 1. Of Members viz. His Reverend Fathers the Bishops and Lay-Lords Nobles and other States-men 2. Of Matters cognoscible and Objects of their Power viz. Scandals and Civil Crimes 3. Of the Actings of the Câ—urt like the Popes Ecce duo gladii Fyning Confyning Imprisonment As also Ecclesiastick Censures of Excommunication Deprivation c. One Remark further I add upon this Passage of Scripture The Surveyer founds his Argument upon the Allusion made to the Jewish Courts But 1. It is evident in general there are Scripture Allusions that will not so much as plead for the Lawfulness of the thing alluded to witness the Psalmist allusion to Charming and our Lords warning that he comes as a Thief 2. Should he plead for a compleat equality betwixt the Iewish and Christian Church Judicatories he would plead for an Oecumenick Bishop and fixed President over the whole
Christian Church as there was a Supreme High Priest set over the Iewish so-that this Argument proving too much and beyond his Assertion proves nothing 3. It is enough to found the allusion that there be some likeness of the things compared and thus in this Case there being in the Jewish Church Courts a sutable Subordination of the Lesser to the greater and a Correspondent Official Power seated therein the allusion stands good intire and evident upon this ground that Christian Church Courts are of such a Nature The Surveyer P. 207.208 makes his next Assault upon our Argument for the Official identity of Bishop and Presbyter drawn from Act. 20.17 28. where the Elders of the Church sent for by Puul to Miletus are called Bishops And from Tit. 1.5 7. where he that 's called an Elder is called also a Bishop and the Names are used as Synonimâ—us so 1 Pet. 5.1.2 the Elders are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have oversight over the Flock The Argument with the Surveyer runs thus If there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in Office there ought to be none now But there were none such in the Apostles days Ergo We do for Brevity rest upon this hint of Argument having spoken to it above as deducible from these Texts His fiâ—st Answer is That the first proposition is not so indubitable as it seems And his proof is that Beza though holding the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter to be â—ne and the same yet acknowledges the Lawfulness of that Episcopacy which he calls human And therefore though no such Bishops had been in the Apostles time the Churches appointment of such a Constitution guided by the Spirit might be a fit means for Conservation of Peace Ans. First The Surveyers founding the unsoundness of the proposition upon the supposed sentiments of Beza as it appears palpably unsound unless Beza were supposed infallible so it is evident and if we could here stay upon it might be made good at large from many Passages of Beza which we have elsewhere produced that he disowns the human Prostasie as a recess from the Divine appointment and the fiâ—st step of the Churches defection in point of Government On Philip. 1.1 he tells us of the community of the Name of Bishop and Presbyter which Continued till he who was in the Assembly set over the rest began to be peculiarly called the Bishop from hence saith he the Devil began to lay the first Foundation of Tyrannie in the Church of GOD. And discoursing further of the Ascension that was made from Bishops to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs c. He hath this remarkable Passage at the close of his Discourse Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline even in a hair-breadth from the Word of GOD. Now this Surveyer might have pondered what Sense or Divinity it could be in him or Beza to assert that the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declinings from the word of GOD. To this Scope we might Cite many Passages of Beza See for brevity Beza ad Cap. 9. apud Sarav num 20. Beza Resp. C. 11. N. 3. Likewise in Quest. 2. Referent Sarav P. 92. In which Passages and many such like we find him clearly condemning this Human Prostasie in so far as transcending the Limits of a Moderators Office The Surveyer next coming to the Second proposition of the Argument tells us That its sooner affirmed than proven that there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in the modern notion And he compares the Presbyterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens who concerned himself in every Ship arriving in the Harbour as his own property A Charge easily retorted since in such like Hypochondriack distempers the Surveyer as his Fellows would needs have the Hierarchical Bishop of their New Notion to be lodged under the Denomination of the Scripture Bishop Yea and in a Distemper beyond that of the Man at Athens will often lap him under the Denomination of a Presbyter where there is not so much as an appearance of this auspicious arriving Vessel The Surveyer tells us That the Name of Presbyter is not in Holy Scripture a distinguishing Name of one sort of Officers from all others although sometimes the Scripture requires that it must be looked on as Distinguishing those that are under that Name from other Officers Ans. The proposition he impugns is That in the Apostles days there were no Bishops Superior to Presbyters no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould or Bishops of his Modern Notion That from these places Cited it is aparent that the Ordinary Church Officers Instituted by Apostles were Bishops and Presbyters of the same Official Mould and Authority to whom the Feeding and Governing of the Church is enjoyned promiscuously And all his Answer to the Proposition amounts to this that the Name of Presbyter is sometimes a more general Name than to point at an ordinary Officer An Answer utterly remote from the Point as is obvious to any that considers That it touches not 1. The Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages Cited and their equal Official Authority as ordinary Church Officers given to Feed and Rule the Church jointly which is a necessary Consequence of the former 2. The unwarrantableness of such an Officer as the Hierarchical Prelat whose Office encroaches upon and robs them of that Power allowed them of GOD which is another Necessary Consequence drawn from this Ground This Charge is the more evident in that he hath acknowledged that sometimes these Names of Bishop and Presbyter distinguishes those that are under the same from other Officers And in the Passages Cited he cannot but acknowledge them thus distinguished Sure they are so at least for any thing he hath said He tells us he will in this and other Considerations remove our Mistake But sure he hath here presented his own He adds P. 209. That in the Rehearsal of Church Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 with Eph. 4.11 Presbyters are not in the Number though Bishops and they are comprehend under the Name of Pastors and Teachers which shews that the Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers Ans. The Surveyer could not but grant that the Hierarchical Bishop according to his modern Notion as distinguished by this Name from the Pastor or Presbyter is in none of these Rolls and therefore upon his own Principle this Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers And where is then his warrand for the Hierarchical Bishop as thus distinguished Likewise the Surveyer very unhappily made the Name of Teacher the Characteristick of his Hierarchical Bishop who looks upon Teaching as none of his work nor is Chargeable qua Prelat with any deficiency in his Office though his Sermons drop but once or twice pro forma and on Solemnities from one years and to another In a word as the
Surveyer in this Reason quite ruined his Cause and assertion so it is evident that in the Scripture Accounts of the institution and work of Presbyters the work and Office is found the same with that of these ordinary Officers Cited 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. since both Teaching and Government are evidently committed unto them Act. 20.28 with Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Tim. 5.17 But for the Divine Institution of his Hierarchical Prelat or any proper designation for his Office in that Capacity our Surveyer after all the Travels of his Surveying Notions brings us home nothing but a non inventus est He adds as a proof of his former Assertion That he knows no place of Scripture where the word Elder must needs point out an Officer fixed to a particular Charge in Teaching and Ruling having no other above him in Power or having Power over any other Officers But he should have pointed us to the place where the Diocesan Bishop of his new Mould is represented in Scripture under the Name of either Bishop or Presbyter And if he give over this discovery and the Answer of our demand hereanent he must take home and Lodge this Argument with himself and when he falls upon a good answer bestow it for us upon himself But for such Presbyters or Elders as he doth desiderat he might have found them in the same Text of Act. 20.17 28. impowered with the ordinary Office and Authority of Teaching and Ruling the Church as succeeding the Apostles in this ordinary Office yea and fixed as the ordinary Officers of this Church of Ephesus for this end as likewise Elders thus set up with an Episcopal Power and fixed to their Charges Tit. 1.5 with 1 Pet. 5. Likewise 1 Tim. 5.17 We have Elders or Presbyters supposed to have a fixed Relation to that Church having also a Teaching and Governing Power Yea Act. 14.23 We find such Pastors or Presbyters ordained Church by Church or in every Church But the Surveyer adds That Presbyterians hold Elders to be of two Ranks and therefore if the Ruling Elders are not to be here supposed they make the first Constitution of Churches manck and defective without Ruling Elders or Deacons Or if they include both under the Name of Elders he can with beteâ—â— Ground include the Majores Presbyteri or Bishops distinct from the Minores or Pastors Ans. Whether we assert there are Ruling Elders here or not his Hierarchical Bishop is not in the least helped or his Pleading for him strengthened For if we shall say that in this first plantation of the Churches there were only Teaching Elders or Pastors appointed who were in tuto to appoint and ordain Ruling Elders and Deacons his absurdity is easily evaded if we shall but suppose that which is easily supposable that in the first Constitution of Churches there was a gradual procedure and the chief Officers the Pastors first ordained and impowered as above said If we embrace the other Answer and affirm that Elders of both sorts were here ordained his Inference hath no shadow of a Connection hereupon since we do make good from Scripture the Distinction of the Teaching and Ruling Elder who both come under this general Designation But for his Hierarchical Bishop his Institution Name or Office the Surveyer can give us no shadow of a Pâ—â—of and but beggs the Question in supposing such an Officers Existence Besides though it were granted that such a Distinction could be admitted where finds this Surveyer the Deacons in these Catalogues And how will he thus evite the Rebound of his own Blow and his own absurdity of a manck Constitution of the Primitive Churches For what he adds That Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons is called a Presbyter of his Church of Lyons It is certain Bishops were sometimes so called and therefore they were the more guilty who did appropriat the Name Bishop to a pretended Office Superior to a Presbyter especially since this Retention of the Name Presbyter was from some Impression of the New Testament Times and Writings wherein the two Names are promisâ—uously used to point at one and the same Officer And it would seem this Name which with Beda signifieth Sapientiae Maturitatem should have been rather assumed by these pretended Fathers than that of Bishop which with him imports industriam curae pastoralis the Industry of the Pastoral Care a Work that Prelats are found little to concern themselves about There is another Passage wherein he might have seen such Presbyters as he desiderats viz. Act. 15.22 23. where mention is made of Apostles and Elders meeting in that Council at Ierusalem who must needs be understood of fixed Pastors of that Chuch The Surveyer P. 210. offers to our thoughts Whether James the LORDS Brother called by the Ancients Bishop of Jerusalem and is a Distinct person from the two of that Name comes under any of these Denominations We have above made appear in collating this Passage with Gal. 2.1.9 Gal. 1.19 That this Iames who is called the Lords Brother is called an Apostle and such an Apostle as Peter and others v. 17.18 Which is also clear from this that we read of a Iames the less Mark 15.14 Which as Ierom contra Helvidium reasons had been no fit Distinction had there been three Iames's The Harmony of Interpreters taking Iames to be an Apostle in Gal. 1.19 is above made appear such as Estius Paraeus Gomarus Menochius Piscator Tirinus Simplicius c. The Surveyer was not to be troubled in a Counter-enquiry To what purpose he proposed the Question Or next under which of these Names he comprehended the Deacons But for us a rational Account may be given If it be said they are comprehended under none of these Names there being in this Meeting put forth a Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in none of which Deacons as such have an Interest their Work and Interest being to serve Tables To that Passage 1 Pet. 5. where the fixed Elders or Presbyters of the Churches have ascribed unto them an Authority in Feeding and Ruling the same The Surveyer Answers That the Name of Presbyter is common to all Church Officers Higher and Lower even to Apostles as Beza acknowledges Ans. He hath already acknowledged That it must sometimes in Scripture be looked on as distinguishing those pointed out thereby from other Officers So that it may here denote a Preaching Pastor in special notwithstanding that in a general Sense Superior Officers had that Name such as Apostles He could not deny the peculiar Office of a Deacon though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes appropriat to Superior Officers And besides that the proper Name and Designation of the Superior Officer he cannot shew to be given to the Inferior though the Superior in a General Sense have sometimes the Name of the Inferior attributted to them He might have here seen that these Officers or Presbyters have an Episcopal Inspection and Oversight over the
Flock ascribed unto them and that of such a Nature as imports a compleat Official Equality and Excludes Lordship over GODS Heritage Which doth clearly Justle out his Hierarchical Prelat as having no Interest in Church Government The Surveyer further tells us There is no ground to assert that the Presbyters Act. 20.17.28 were such only in the Modern Notion and none of them Bishops in the Modern Notion And to obviat an Objection from their Relation to Ephesus he adds That they were not only Elders of that Church but of the Churches of Asia about so far as in a transient Visit they might get Intelligence This often baffled Subterfuge Episcopalians have been told is contrary to the Sense of Ancient Fathers Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom contrary to several Councils contrary to the Syriack Translation which reads the Text thus be sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Dr. Lightfoot holds they were the Twelve upon whom the Apostle Paul imposed Hands and gave them the Spirit Act. 19.6 and such others if any such were whom Timothy had ordained See Lightfoot Harm Chron. N. Test. The Text says He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Sure of that Church to which he sent and there is no shadow of a hint of any other Elders there present Again he sent for the Elders of the Church in the Singular Number viz. that particular Church But the Surveyers Gloss will read the Elders of the Churches in the Plural viz. of Asia then mett at Ephesus The Scripture expresses Provincial Churches in the plural as the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 Churches of Iudea but otherwise of the Church of Ierusalem Corinth in the singular which were in Cities Neither will the old rotten Evasion help the Surveyer viz. that v. 18. it s said he Preached throughout all Asia and v. 25. speaking to these that were conveened he saith you all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God from which he pleads there were others present as well as the Elders of Ephesus who might be proper Bishops in their places Since it is evident that the Term All ye doth properly relate to the Elders of Ephesus then present and was immediatly spoken to them Such Universal Terms used in such a Sense and to such a Scope are very ordinary and caseable as if one should say to a certain Number of an Assembly ye are all now dissolved it would not imply the presence of all the Members Again the Apostle might speak many things which did import the Concern and Duty of all though the Speech were directed immediatly and personally to those only that were present When he said You all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God the Surveyer will not be bold to say this will infer that these all were present or that the Speech did import so much As for the Passages Cited viz. v. 18 25. It is Answered that the Apostle spent most of these Years in Ephesus only viz. two Years and three Months and the Superplus in the places adjacent So that these Elders could not be ignorant how the whole was spent Some have observed further that there is nothing of a peculiar Address here to a supposed Bishop of Ephesus and that all these Elders are Charged with the Oversight of that Flock But the Surveyer will not have the Presbyters here to be meaned in the restrained Signification or that this Term should restrain the Term of Bishop But we restrain none of them from their due and Native Signification as importing the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor As for his enlarged Signification stretching to an Hierarchical Prelat it is the Chimera of his own Fancy whereof he hath offered no Shadow of a Proof To that Text of Tit. 1.5 wherein the Bishop and Elder are found clearly Identified and a Plurality of them fixed in that one Church The Surveyer P. 211. repones again his Old Recocted Crambe of the Majores Minores Presbyteri as comprehended in these Terms and tells us of an Analogical Reasoning which the Apostle uses from the Qualifications and Duties of the Bishop properly so called to shew the necessity of the like in all Presbyters who are comprehended under their Order Ans. As his Supposition of the properly and improperly called Bishops is still begged by him without any ground as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him So his Gloss and Reason adduced is clearly cross to the Text Since the Apostle shewing Titus how the Elders to be ordained in every City were to be qualified adds this Reason of Advice for a Bishop must be blameless this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for is causal shewing the Identity of the Office as well as the Name else the Reasoning were false Should a Chancellor in one of the Universities saith Smectymnus who useth this illustrating Similitude give Order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the Degree of Batchelour of Arts but such as were able to Preach or keep a Divinity Act for Batchelours of Divinity must be so What Reason or Equity were in this And we may enquire here what Reason is this The improperly called Bishop must be so and so qualified because the Bishop of the higher Order and distinct Function must be so qualified Gerard. 〈◊〉 Minist Eccles. useth the same Reason to shew the Absurdity of such a Gloss. The Apostle in the Series of his Reasoning Identifies both the Work and Office of Bishop and Presbyter But this Surveyer will needs correct him and cast in his Limiting Cautions and instead of that identity that the Apostle asserts of the Offices make them only in some Sense the same not intirely He tells us That in Sacerdotal Acts they are the same But he cannot say that the Apostles Identity here asserted reaches and includes only the Acts of Order and is not to be extended to the Exercise of Jurisdiction As for the Acts of Order the Hierarchical Bishop is in their Principles the proper Primary Subject of the Sacerdotal Acts and Authority in the whole Diocess whereas that of the Pastor is Precarious and Subaltern to his and fixed to one Flock He calls P. 200. the Acts of Jurisdiction a Personal Application only of the Word or of the Power of Order yet he doth here Diversifie them so that though he assert the Pastor is the very same with the Prelat in the Sacerdotal Acts he is not so in those of Jurisdiction But we cannot stand to Trace all the Inconsistencies of the Surveyers Notions This distinction of Presbyters of the First and Second Order in a New Petitio principii serves his turn as an Answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5. And here we are again told That the Presbyterians allow two Ranks and Orders of Presbyters Where it would seem he Screws up his Hierarchical Prelat in this and the preceeding Answers to a Divine Right and thus quites and Justles with what he often pretends anent a
Names mentioned viz. Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops Ministers Stewards Ambassadors And next in Special that this Church of Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church and under the Inspection of a Presbyterial associat Ministry 1. There was a great multitude of Believers there mention being made of many Believers of many Baptized and added to the Church All whom Paul Baptized not himself consequently are supposed to be Baptized by other Ministers God likewayes having a great Harvest of Souls there much People in that City upon which Paul was encouraged to stay among them for so considerable a time as the Year and six Moneths compare Act. 18.1.7 8 9 10 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congregations 2. There is correspondent Plenty of Ministers and Preachers found there pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church and not one single Congregation first Paul stayed all this time at Corinth as a Master Builder having other under Builders Act. 18.11 1 Cor. 3.10 an occasion of their Doting some upon one some upon a second some upon a third Teacher So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there who had their several Flocks and Followers And Paul speaks of their not having many Fathers though they had ten thousand Instructers compare 1. Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. 5.14 Mention is likewayes made of a Subordination of Prophets to Prophets 1 Cor. 14.29 Considering likewayes the Division of Tongues and Languages this Church could not be one Congregation but united in a Presbyterial Classical Unity Which in a word is further confirmed from this Principle that we read of a Plurality of Churches there while the Apostle sayes Let your Women keep silence in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayes not the Women in general but your Women in that Church Yet this Plurality of single Congregations in Corinth are called and owned as one Church in the Inscription of the Epistle which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity for thus they were jure-charitatis nor in regard of an Explicit Church-Covenant whereof the Scripture is silent nor in respect of the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments for these were dispensed in single Congregations severally since they could not all meet in one Congregation So that of necessity they are owned and designed as one Church in regard of one joynt Administration of Government among them by one common Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders associated for that End See Ius Divin Minist Eccles. P. mihi 206.207 208. That the Prophets mentioned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pastors and Ministers of that Church not extraordinary Officers as the Surveyer insinuats since Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to ordinary Pastors are imposed upon them for the well ordering their Ministerial Exercises is upon this and many other Grounds made good by Mr. Rutherfurd in his Due Right of Presbyt P. 466.467 The Surveyer in his next Answer is in with standing the Evidence of this Scripture driven upon the contrary extreme of ascribing the Authority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apostle Paul solely He tells us That the Apostle speaks of the Sentence as proceeding from himself though the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto the Corinthians that they are charged for not mourning that the Incestuous might be taken away by such as had Power And it were improper to say a Man were to take a thing away from himself Ans. The plain reading of the Text is a sufficient Confutation of this Distortion and Gloss. The Apostle certainly reprehends this Church and imputs a Guilt to them as to Non-procedure in this Matter Now the Question is wherein their Negligence appeared And this is best seen and understood in pondering the Duty enjoyned viz. their Iudging such as were within Purging out the Infectious bad Leaven the Delivery unto Satan c. comp v. 5 7 12. with 2 Cor. 2.6 If they had no Authority hereanent why is such a Defect and Negligence reprehended This Surveyer in making them only the Promulgaters and Executers of the Apostles previous Sentence taketh the Guilt of this Negligence from the Corinthians and puts it upon the Apostle Paul The Surveyers Gloss upon the Apostles Rebuke as to their not mourning over this Wickedness viz. That they sought not with Tears to such as had Power to inflict the Censure If meant of a Power lodged in the Apostle is contrary to the Scope since they are enjoyned to deliver the Person to Satan and to put him away from among themselves But says the Surveyer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged imports the Apostles sole Determination that none are taken in as Sharers with him in this Censure and imports he required only the Execution of their Sentence We have already removed this Objection the Apostles giving his Apostolick Judgment as touching the Necessity and Expediency of the Thing can no more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Interest of the Ordinary Church Officers herein than his giving his Apostolick Judgment in any other Uncontroverted Duty wherein the Persons enjoyned the same have an infallible Interest will bear such a Conclusion Suppose the Apostle giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in his Ministry And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage and the Duties thereof as one that had found mercy to be faithful can this prejudge the Interest of the Persons concerned in the Duties enjoyned Or would the Surveyer have said that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers in any Point of their Ministerial Duties and shewing them that he had judged such and such things to be their Duty will conclude they had no Authority and Interest therein antecedaneously to such Judging and Enjoyning Surely not at all Nay suppose his Hierarchical Bishop set up in this Church with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Censures and that upon his Neglect of putting forth his Power Paul had thus declared that he had already judged the Necessity and Expediency of such Duties will this prove that the Bishop was destitute of all this Authority antecedaneously to such Judging or had none previous thereunto The Surveyer could not say it and no more could he assert it in this case The Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I do also which looks like the Apostles corresponding with the inherent Authority in these Officers so that the Apostles Judging in this Case was to prevent and obviat their Pretences of Delay and quicken them to their Duty But the Surveyer P. 213. from that Passage when you are mett together with my Spirit and the Power of the Lord Iesus inferrs That something was to be done beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth viz. Delivering of the Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly which Paul only by his Miraculous Power could effectuat Ans. Suppose such an extraordinary Appendix distinct from the Censure it self which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt it doth no whit
expones to be the Pastors and other Guides of the Church paralelling this Sense of the Elders with that of Act. 11.30 where we read of the Churches benevolence sent to the Elders and Church Rulers for the Relief of the Poor Saints in Iudea The Belgick Divines upon the place Translate this Clause of the Eldership That is say they of the Assembly of the Elders or Overseers of the Church c. The Eng. Annot. upon the place having added to the word Presbytrie the Phrase of Eldership thus proceed Some by Presbytrie understand the Office of a Presbyter which Timothy received by imposition of Hands but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in Scripture for the Office of a Presbyter but for the Company of Elders who here laid hands upon Timothy when he was Ordained And they add the agreeableness hereunto of the Canon of the 4 th Council of Carthage and the Practice of the Reformed Churches to this day Pool 2 d Part Paraphraseth this Passage thus That Timothy's Office was given by the Revelation of the Divine Will by the extraordinary Influence of the Spirit of GOD and the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie was a declaration of it The last clause of 6. v. 1 Ch. of 2 d Epistle they thus Paraphrase That he is called to the improvement of those Spiritual abilities given him upon the Prayers of Paul the Presbytrie when he was by them set a part to the work of an Evangelist for the end for which GOD had given them to him To these Expositors many others might be added exponing this word and term of a Collegiat Meeting such as Mâ—nochius Tirinus Zegerius Sligelius Beza Simplicius Vorstius c. But now to proceed after this little digression with Interpreters to our Surveyers Instances and Exceptions taken from the Terms in Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 11. We Answer that the exception is palpably absurd For he could not deny that these terms Church and Power are Ordinarly taken in Scripture in another Sense than in these Passages though the circumstances of these Scriptures plead for varrying from that Acceptation But he neither did nor could make it appear that this Term Presbytrie under debate is ever in Scripture taken in this Acceptation nor could he deny that it is taken in our Sense elsewhere So that his Exception touches not the Point And as much ridiculous if not more is that other Exception which he offers to the paralel Passages viz. That Rulers therein signifies Civil Rulers and Rulers who were Enemies to Christ For whatever were the Moral Qualities of the Rulers if the Word signifies a Collegiat Meeting of Rulers it is enough to our purpose and evinceth our Argument from the paralels to be good and valid unless he could evince a contrary Acceptation which he doth not so much as essay He could not deny that the Legal Constitution of one Assembly or Parliament is a far and distinct thing from the Qualities of the Members who consequently come truely under these Denominations upon the ground of a Legal Constitution And supposing our Sense of the Word Presbytrie and the Matter of Fact to be such as we assert he could not without making himself most ridiculous infer from these Paralels that the Members Constituent of this Presbytrie were either Civil Rulers or bad The Surveyer P. 217 218. is bold to call this our Exception against his Sense viz. That the Office hath no Hands to impose a ridiculous Objection flowing from a Mistake of the Meaning of the Text which attributes not the imposed Hands to the Presbytrie as to an Agent or Efficient but only limits and determines that Imposition of Hands which Timothy had from the Apostle or other high Officers of the Church to the particular use and end for which Hands were imposed on him viz. the giving him a Power of a Presbyter or Elder Ans. Here is a strange Exposition obscuring rather than clearing the Text. Had the Apostle no other way of expressing the end of the Ordination and its Nature than by telling him of Hands of the Office laid upon him which in all common Sense doth relate to an Agent or Instrument and not to the Limitation and Use of his Office A Man may thus fasten the most Fantastick Senses upon Scripture Besides he holds that there were eminent high Officers with Paul and concurring with this Imposition of Hands upon Timothy Why then will he strike off their Hands from being here meaned when Imposition of Hands is so expresly mentioned The Surveyer thus further Senseth the Words Neglect not the Gift given thee by the Laying on of Hands not Confirmatory not Reconciliatory but Imposition of Hands Ordinatory whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter Ans. Besides that this Division of Imposition of Hands is as odd as his Sense of the Text it is strange that he admits of Imposition of Hands upon Timothy in order to this end of making him a Minister and yet denyeth the Presbytrie here to import a Collegiat Meeting thus imposing He holds that the Sense is Neglect not the Gift given by the Laying on of the Hands whereby thou was ordained Now pray what hinders these Hands to be the Hands of the Collegiat Meeting imposing the same Whereby the Sense is ours or otherwise in Contradiction to himself he makes the Office the Ordaining Agent If he acknowledge this place paralel with 2 Tim. 1.6 he cannot but see a like Construction in both of the Term of Hands with the Genitive Nor can he deny that the Imposition of Hands is ever constructed with the Office in other Paralels Act. 6.6 and 13.3 He calls our Reason against his Gloss ridiculous but whether his Return be not more ridiculous is left to the Reader to judge We are told for his next Answer That were a Presbytrie here admitted there is nothing in the Context to evince that it was a Classical Presbytrie to which only we ascribe Ordination and not a Congregational or Paroch Presbytrie Ans. Here again the Surveyer is driven to seek shelter among the Independents but is ruined in this Shift For upon his Supposition that a Congregation or one Pastor with Unpreaching Elders is the Subject of an Ordaining Power the Prelatical as well as the Presbyterian Ordination is overthrown The places above referred to and hinted at do abundantly clear and evince the Divine Institution of Classical Presbytries and Collegiat Meetings of Pastors of several Congregations in order to a Ministerial Rule and Jurisdictional Authority over the same and consequently that they are the proper Subject of the Ordaining Power The Treatise above mentioned Ch. 10. besides several others have abundantly evinced this Point that the Fraternity or Community of the Faithful and consequently of the particular single Congregation cannot be the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power nor the Power of Order and â—oth are cleared by a large Account of the one and the other See P. 95 96 97
two things First What the faithfulness of Moses under the Legal dispensation did reach unto which our Blessed Lords Soveraign Faithfulnesss doth exceed 1. Moses appointed the Officers of the House of God their several Orders and Degrees their Work and Duties in so far that his Institutions did amount to determin a species of Government 2. All his Appointments hereanent were fixed and unalterable so as none might add to or detract therefrom 3. They were hence not Committed to the disposal of the Civil Magistrate to mould them after the Rules of worldly Policy 4. These Officers were not to denude themselves of any part of the Authority and Function committed to them or of the exercise thereof Hence it inevitably follows that the Government and Officers of the Church of the New Testament is in all these Points of the like Nature the Species is determined the Offices and Officers are unalterable are not to be Fashioned by Mens Laws at their arbitriment are to continue in this Fixed Mould of his Institution and Method of its Official Exercise till his Returning again Secondly The Scriptures Perfection clears this abundantly all things to be believed and practised in order to Salvation are perfectly contained therein and there being so much delivered in Scriptures touching the Government Laws and Offices of the House of GOD and in order to the Instruction both of Church Rulers and Church Members in their Respective Duties if these Directions Laws and Institutions be not compleatly correspondent to these ends the Scriptures perfection is palpably impeached and the infinit Wisdom of the Lawgiver blasphemed To this Argument the Surveyer Answers That in order to the great end of our Lords Prophetical and Kingly Offices He hath given particular Commands concerning the Essentials of the Government of His House and general Commands to direct the Prudence of His Church to order what is Left to Christian Liberty for the best Ends And that it is preposterous to fancy a thing necessary and then alledge Christ hath instituted the same because Faithful but rather upon this ground we must reason the necessity of the thing from his Appointment Ans. This is removed in a word by this one Position That if we acknowledge these Essentials do include all necessary Offices and Officers of the Church and do draw the Limits and Measures of their Actings Qualifications and the Nature of their Power with such Exactness as none may justle with or encroach upon their Priviledges therein We can offer such Scripture Discoveries in this Point as do sufficiently lay aside the Diocesan Prelat and prove him such an Heteroclite as his Office cannot be brought up to the Scripture Rules Thus we are so far from such Reasoning as this fancycal Surveyer imputs to us that on the contrary we do suppose and prove the Scripture Institutions in this Point and upon the Scripture Discoveries thereof we reason the Necessity from our Lords Faithfulness But if the Surveyer did hold that the Offices and Officers of the House of GOD their Duties and Qualification are such things as falls within the compass of the Churches Liberty to dispose as she thinks fit 1. It might be enquired what he or those of his Mind will owne as Essentials Next To what end are all the Scripuâ—e Directions and Institutions in this Point delivered unto the Church of GOD And why upon this Ground the most extended Hierarchy may not be pleaded for 3. How this can consist with that express Design of the Scriptures Perfection viz. To make not only the ordinary Christian but also the Man of God the Minister of God perfect and thorowly furnished to every good Work or every piece of his Office and Duty and with this further Expression of this Design of Ministerial Instructions proposed by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3.15 viz. To instruct the Man of God how to behave in the House of God which is His Church In Answer to this the Surveyer acknowledges the Scriptures Perfection to make the Man of GOD wise to Salvation and furnish him for every good Work either by the general or particular Precepts thereof but that it belongs not to the Perfection of the Scripture to contain the particular Rules for all the Circumstantials of Church Government more than it doth for all the particular Practices of our common Life Ans. Behold the Hierarchy in this our Surveyers great Essay turned into the Dwarf of a mere Circumstance Behold also his Zeal for right ordering of the House of GOD what Officers must Rule therein what the Nature of their Work and Power is what Duties are committed to them what the Nature and Species of the Government must be whether it must run to the Extrems of Monarchy or the Anâ—baptistical Morellian way of Anarchy or the midle Forms All or either of these is but a mere Circumstance with our Surveyer Let any Judge if he gave not here manus victas to the Presbyterians and yeelded up his Cause to them For no Man of Sense will call the Matters instanced mere Circumstances And if they be not the Scriptures Perfection for the ends mentioned must clearly reach the Determination thereof The Surveyer told us That the work of the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Doth import the Work and Office of the Hierarchical Prelat And he has acknowledged here the Scriptures Perfection to furnish the Minister of Christ for every good Work yea he hath asserted P. 194.195 That the plentitude of the Apostolick Power committed by our Lord to the Apostles for the great End of the Churches Edification and Union was by them committed to the Bishops as their proper Successors Now how these Assertions can consist with his Describing and Owning here the Work and Office of the Bishop as a mere Circumstance wherein the Scriptures gives no certain distinct Sound must be put among the rest of his mysterious Inventions Two or three things further I add and I have done with this Surveyer First It is generally acknowledged by all Sound Divines That there is no Lawful Church Office or Officer of the House of GOD but what must have our LORD' 's positive Grant or Institution And this is fortified by several Grounds 1. Whatever is not of Faith is sin in general and whoever pretends to Officiat in Christs House and Kingdom as an Officer therein acts sine titulo and his Actings are void And therefore he cannot act in Faith if there be not a Divine Warrand for the Office he sustains and the Official Exercise and Actings thereof 2. If we acknowledge Christs Kingly Power and Headship over the Church as a political Body whereof he is the political Head giving her her Laws and Officers Isa. 9.6 Matth. 28.18 Ioh. 5.22 As in all Kingdoms no person can claim an Office of State or Magistracy without the Warrand of the Laws and the Kings Authority thereto Interposed so all Church Power and Authority must be conveyed to Church Officers by this Glorious KING 's Authentick
Pomp and absolut Dominion of the Prelats whom the Dr. pleads for And if any of them held this Notion of their pretended Dignity when their Power came to the length of incroaching upon that of Pastors in Government they held but an empty Chimerical Notion Contradictory to their Practice As the Popes Notion of his being Servus Servorum Dei The Dr. ibid. returns again to his Post telling us That it appears from what he has said we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Doctrine from the Texts above instanced Thus the Protestant Pleadings therefrom against the Papacy has no Shadow of Argument with him But whether our Arguments or his Answers be most Substantial is left to the Reader to Judge from what is said He tells us That Wallo Missalinus Glances at this Text but lays no great Stress upon it But the Dr. has not exhibit either his Words or Argument as neither Beza's Reflection upon the Passage in his larger Notes Tho he tells us as some great Discovery forsooth that Beza holds That all kind of Iurisdiction is not here forbidden but such as is joyned with Imperious Bitterness and Domination And what he would make of this I would fain know Did ever any imagine that all kind of Jurisdiction is here forbidden Did our Lord discharge all Government in his Church by this Precept and Prohibition As for Beza's expressing thus that which is forbidden it is evident to any who are acquaint with his Writings that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurisdiction which is joyned with Domination or Lordly Rule of one Pastor over another to be a Sinful Abuse of Jurisdiction and consequently to fall within the Compass of what is prohibited in these Texts I proceed to another Notion and Answer of the Dr's We are told next ibid. That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was establisht by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church If our Saviour had pulled down that Ancient Policy and commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between the Mosaick Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament Here the Dr. obliges us in affording still more Light in taking up his Judgment and Principles in Point of Church Government viz. in his Sense the Iewish Policy by our Lords Warrand was at this time standing as the exact Standart and Plat-Form for the Gospel Church Government And therefore we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places and Dignities and Honours in the Church and that he holds that our Saviour did not forbid but supposed the Lawfulness of a Chief Rule and Principality of one Disciple over the rest in the Church Nay P. 27. he is clear and positive in this That that Hierarchy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof was divided in a Supreme and Subordinat Priests was never abrogated consequently stands imitable and imitated in the New Testament I think the Dr. will find the clearest Pattern at Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy In Answer whereunto I need only say That the standing Policy of the Jewish Church never abrogat but continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Testament Church Government is so notoriously known to be the great Popish Argument for the Papal Hierarchy pleaded by all the Antichristian Rabble and Locusts who stand up for this Monster and Mystery of Iniquity and so Universally condemned by all Protestant Churches and Divines that there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man as of that Number in their Judgment than such an Assertion That all our Divines do hold the Abrogation of the Iewish Church Policy is so clear that it would Load much Paper but to Recite their Names Rivet Cath. Orth. Tract 2. Quest. 4. brings in his Iesuit Ballaeus with this Argument in his Mouth That because one High Priest under the Old Testament had the Chief Government therefore it ought to be so in the New And tells him that there is Multiplex Abusus or a manifold Abuse and Corruption in this Pleading He shews him further that every thing in that Dispensation reaches not us that the High Priest was Typical of Christ as the Apostle shews Heb. 7. That if a Parity of Government were pleaded there should be a Dedication of one Family for the Ministry as there was for Priests and Levites c. Turret Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 15.16 After he has set dâ—wn the Judgment of the Ancients against a Primacy in the Church he brings in the Solution of the Popish Objection and Argument taken from the Government of the Church under the Old Testament which he Baffles from several Grounds such as 1. The Extent of the Christian beyond that of the Iewish Church 2. That the High Priest had no absolute Authority over that Church being subject to the Jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin Deut. 17.11 3. That what Authority he had was Typical of Christs the High Priest of the New Testament Wallaeus de Function Ecclesiast P. mihi 470. brings in this Objection against Parity of Pastors taken from the High Priest under the Old Testament and the twenty four Orders of Priests over whom there were Presidents And thus Answers That these things were partly Typical partly Political that there was a Priority of Order here not an Essential Difference of Power and Authority that they all Governed the Church by Common Counsel But for the Abrogation of this Ministry and that it was to be no Standart for the Gospel Church I will produce and offer again to the Dr's Consideration that one Text Heb. 7.12 The Priesthood being changed there is made of Necessity a Change of the Law viz. The Policy suted to the State of that Church must be changed also The Text asserts that the Priesthood or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed or abrogat there is therefore a Change or Abrogation of the Law i. e. the Legal Ordinances respecting both their Worship and Government Pool Part. 2. tells us That this Change referrs to the Expiration of the Aaronical Order to which the Hebrews were not bound for that a better Priesthood and Law were to fill up its Room That the Mutation of the Priesthood required a Change of the Law That God determined that both Priesthood and Law should expire together English Annot. on v. 11. assert the Abrogation of the Legal Priesthood together with the Covenant viz. the Legal and by clear Consequence that Policy The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That the Levitical Priesthood was many ways involved with the Legal Dispensation of the Covenant aâ—d therefore abolished with it Diodate shews That the Priesthood and all the Ceremonial Worship of the Tribe of Levi was to give place to Christs in whom was accomplished all the Reality and Truth and he is now both Priest and Law-Giver Bilson an English Bishop shews the Reason why that Policy cannot stand under the New
Episcopis Diaconis Ex quibus omnibus satis patere arbitror Paulum eundem fuisse Episcopum qui Presbyter esset ad docendam Ecclesiam institutus Deinde cum Apostolus agit de muneribus Ecclesiasticis in Epist. ad Eph. Pastores quidem recenset Doctores nullum autem superiorem gradum Episcoporum Assignat Imo ne meminit quidem illius nominis adeo ut necessessit eos nomine Pastorum comprehendi Quod quidem Presbyteris convenire patet ex Cap. 20. Actorum ex 1 Pet. 5. Ne alii loci mihi commemorandi sint That the same Apostle Paul Act. 20. Thus Enjoins the Presbyters of Ephesus Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed the Church of GOD. And Philip. 1.1 he Salutes the Saints which were at Philippi together with the Bishops and Deacons From all which it is evident that with the Apostle Paul the Bishop is the same with the Presbyter who is appointed to Teach the Church Moreover when the Apostle is Treating of Ecclesiastick Offices in the Epist. to Eph. he reckons up Pastors and Doctors but Assigns no Superior Degree of Bishops nay he doth not so much as mention such a Name so that of necessity he must needs Comprehend them under the Name of Pastors And that the Name and thing is Competent to Presbyters appears from Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. that I need not mention other places But now let us hear what the Sorbon and our Reverend Dr. his Associat in the Cause do Reply to what is premised Thus our Author proceeds Respondet Sorbonicus nominum quidem esse sed non munerum confusionem Verum enimvero quando Presbyteri vocantur Episcopi ibi agitur non de nominibus ac titulis sed de ipsa muneris functione cum enim Paulus hortatur Presbyteros Epheseos ad suum munus legittime obeundum hanc addit rationem quod illos Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos Non igitur ait eos vocari tantum sed esse constituos Episcopos ex quo efficitur tot revera tunc fuisse Episcopos Ephesi quot erant Presbyteri Pastores Ecclesiae adeo ut plane jaceat illa responsio de sola nominum confusione i. e. The Sorbon doth Reply that there is indeed in the premised places a confusion of Names but not of the thing it self or the Office But when Presbyters are called Bishops the Apostle is in such places treating not of the Names or Titles only but of the Office and Function it self For when the Apostle exhorts the Presbyters of Ephesus to the right Exercise oâ— their Office he adds this Reason that the Holy Ghost had constitute them Bishops and therefore he says not that they were only called so but that they were in very deed Constitut such Bishops From whence it evidently follows that there were then at Ephesus as many Bishops as there were Presbyters and Pastors of the Church So that this answer touching the Confusion of Names only in the premised places is quite overthrown Well thus he thinks he has laid all along and aboard the Topgallant of the Sorbon and consequently our Dr's great Answer The Author proceeds to a New Objection sed objicit quod ait Paulus ad Timotheum 1 Tim. 5.22 Manus inquit ne cui cito imponito additque mandatum illud Pauli ad Titum de constituendis in Creta Presbyteris Utrumque enim Episcopum fuisse atque eo ratione jus ordinandi habuisse contendit That Paul saith to Timothy 1. Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands suddenly on no Man And that he adds that Command of Paul to Titus anent the Ordaining Elders in Crete and thereupon contends that both the one and the other were Bishops and upon this account had the Right of Ordination Here no doubt the Sorbon presented much of the Strength of our Dr's Reasoning so that we see how much the Popish Agents are in Love with our Prelatical Arguments and that there is no new thing under the Sun But let us hear our Authors Answer respondeo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impositionis manuum tota significatur electio That the whole Election of Pastors is signified by this Phrase of the Imposition of Hands And after some what in Confirmation of this he adds electionum vero curam â—ni Timotheo incubuisse ne ipse Doctor Sorbonicus dixisset qui ex frequenti veterum Lectione Dedicerat olim antistites Ecclesiae non aliter fuisse electos quam judicio totius Cleri c. That the Sorbon Dr. himself will not be Bold to say that the whole care of Elections was incumbent upon and Committed to Timothy alone who from the frequent reading of the Ancients had Learned that Church Rulers were not of old chosen otherwise than by the Judgment of the whole Clergy c. He adds merito dicere possumus in unius Timothei persona praefectos omnes Ecclesiasticos esse sui officii commonâ— factos That all Church Rulers are in the person of Timothy admonished of their duty And hence he further Argues that this Reasoning and Conclusion of the Sorbon is most absurd Paulus Timotheo praecepit ne cito manus imponat Nemo igitur praeter Timotheum illic habuit jus ordinationis Paul enjoins Timothy not to lay on hands suddenly therefore none but Timothy had the Right of Ordination Which he confutes from this jubetur Timotheus fabulas rejicere attendere Lectioni exhortationi Doctrinae c. Num igitur illa omnia sibi uni Timotheus vendicavit nonne pertinebant ad Presbyteros quos Paulus ipse testatur laborasse in Sermone Doctrina That Timothy is enjoyned to reject Fables give Attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrine c. Did therefore Timothy arrogat all these things to himself alone Did they not belong to Presbyters who by Pauls Testimony Laboured in the Word and Doctrine He adds that Timothy's Episcopacy at Ephesus Nullo Scripturae Testimonio confirmari potest can be made good by no Testimony of Scripture which he proves from these Words Rogavi te ut maneres Ephesi cum profisiscerem in Macedoniam 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 Which shews says our Author he was left there for some time for this end Quemadmodum ipsa Historiae series evincit As the very Tract of the History makes evident And this he proves from Timothy's attending Paul when to go to Asia As also from this Ground that Paul was ordinarly attended by Timothy and Titus in this Exercise of his Apostolick Function Adding further that if we suppose him Bishop of the Churches to which he was sent we will make him Bishop of the Corinthians Philippians Thessalonians c. He after puts the Querie to the Episcopalians Who upon their Hypothesis Ordained at Ephesus when Timothy was gone thence And whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Ephesios inter mortua
jacebat the Ordaining Power at Ephesus lay dead in his Absence He shews that his Transient Unfixed Ministry could not Consist with a Fixed Episcopal Station And that this Razeth Câ—mmentum illud de Timothei Episcopatu that Fable concerning Timothy's Episcopacy He after improves the Argument from Paul's Farewel Sermon to the Elders and Church of Ephesus in Timothy's Presence and Committing the Episcopal Charge over that Church to them and not to him Ecquando potius elucere debuit saith he Splendor Episcopatus Ephesinae quam cum Paulus tam pie de Ecclesiae salute disserebat tam fancte Praefectos omnes cohortabatur ad intercludendum Lupis viam alioquin totum Gregem dissipaturis When was there a fitter Season for Illustrating the Splendor and Authority of the Episcopacy a Ephesus than when Paul was so Piously Discoursing of that Churches Safety and so Holily Exhorting all the Governours thereof to Stop the Way against the Wolves who were otherwise ready to Scatter that Flock He adds Huie Disputationi he means anent Timothy's Episcopacy Paulus ipse modum imponit cum expressis verbis Timotheum vocat Evangelistam 2 Tim. 4. qui gradus tantum ad aliquod tempus in Ecclesia locum habuit alios autem fuisse Evangelistas ab ordinariis Ecclesiae Pastoribus aperâ—e docâ—t Ap. in Epist. ad Eph. Cap. 4. That the Apostle Paul himself put an end to this Dispute in Calling Timothy expresly an Evangelist which Degree and Office was to continue for a time only in the Church The Apostle also shewing evidently Eph. 4. that Evangelists were distinct from the ordinary Pastors of the Church He adds thereafter that the Sorbon Dr. commits a Twofold Error in Arguing from Timothy's Imposing Hands to an Episcopal Prerogative in this Matter First In that this is Sophistically made Exclusive of Presbyters Interest which can no more be said than this can be inferred from the Command of Exhorting Reading delivered to him which he Confirms by the Scripture Instances of a Plurality of Church Officers Imposing Hands As upon the Deacons by all the Apostles upon Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch upon Timothy by the Presbytrie Secondly In that tho it were granted that he Imposed Hands solely he did this as an Evangelist in Paul's Absence not as a Bishop But saith he Si absque contentionis studiorem ipsam intueamur facile videbimus in unius Timothei persona omnes Ecclesiae Praefectos sui officii admoneri That to such as are not Contentious but considers the thing it self all Church Rulers in the Person of Timothy are Admonished of their Duty He after Cites several of the Ancients to Confirm this his Sense and Exposition such as Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 43. where he sheweth that Presbyters have the Successio Episcopatus Succession of Episcopacy So ibid. Cap. 44. Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in justitia That the Church has such Presbyters of whom the Prophet said I will give you Rulers and Bishops in Peace and Righteousness Ecce saith our Author eosdem vocat Episcopos quos antea Presbyteros appellavit Presbyteris tribuit Episcopatum That he calls the same Persons Bishops whom before he Named Presbyters and Ascribes to Presbyters an Episcopacy Afterwards he Cites Ambrose on Eph. 4. shewing that the Pâ—esbyters were called Bishops and in Egypt Ordained if the Bishop were not present So Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. shewing that the same Persons were called Bishops and Presbyters that the one is the Name of Dignity the other of Age. And Epist. ad Oceanum where he asserts that Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos So Epist. ad Evagrium Likewise his Famous Testimony upon Tit. 1. Presbyter idem est qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Instinctu c. So also Augustin Ep. 19. Quanuqam secundum Honorum Vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit c. Where Augustin asserts that his Episcopal Distinction from Ierom and of a Bishop from a Presbyter was only in some Titles of Respect which the Churches use had obtained Likewise that Passage in Alexandria per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter That in Alexandria and through all Egypt Presbyters did Ordain in Absence of the Bishop These he tells his Popish Adversary he Cites quia pluris faciunt Autoritatem Veterum quam ipsos plane Scripturae Locos Because they esteem more the Authority of the Ancients than plain Places of Scripture I cannot but add what he has further If saith he we all allow to Presbyters the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of Baptism the Celebration of the Lords Supper and if by their Judgment Ecclesiastical Elections are to be made Ecquid erit Causae quam ob rem non possunt Electum Sanctis Praecibus Manuum Impositione Deo Consecrare Upon what imaginable Ground can we suppose they cannot Consecrat and set apart to God the Person thus Elected by Prayer and Imposition of Hands when the other parts of this Work are brought tanquam ad Fastigium to the Accomplishment or Copestone as it were Wherefore are they ut Indigni Inutiles as Useless and Unworthy Forbidden Manum Operi Imponere to set the last Hand to this Work in its Accomplishment He adds that we oft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching of the Gospel which is the Pastor or Presbyters Function Magnifying his own Authority therein Cur non ille potius summum hoc Ius Ordinationis in medium proponit Wherefore presents he not rather his chief Interest in Ordination He afterwards Cites Ieroms Notable Saying Ad quorum Preces Corpus Sanguis Christi conficitur atque interim Ius Ordinandi ipsis Presbyteris denegant That Presbyters are absurdly denyed the Right of Ordination by whose Prayers notwithstanding the Sacramental Elements are Consecrat to Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. The Author adds Obsecro utrum majus est Manus Imponere an Christi Corpus Sanguinem Precibus conficere Itaque qui Presbyteros a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excludunt ipsi profecto Vim ac Naturam ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod sit ipsum Presbyterii Munus penitus ignorant Whether is greater I pray to Impose Hands in Ordination or in Prayer to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore such as exclude Presbyters from this Imposition of Hands do shew themselves to be grosly ignorant both of the Nature of Ordination and the Pastoral Office And thus we dismiss Sadael whom we have found sufficiently to Combat and Worst our Dr. But to proceed Dr. Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle after Citing several Fathers for this Identity of Bishop and Presbyter such as Ierom Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact Occumenius 1 Tim. 3. Yea Gregory Pellic. Lib. 2. Tit. 19 39. Grat. Cap. Legimus Dist. 39.