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
Conference and as no members I would fain know if the Dr. will say that these Elders meeting with the Apostles Act. 15. which he will no doubt acknowledg was one of the best Moulded Councils yea and a Standart for after-Councils were no Members but called and meeting for conference only since in the Scripture account and three fold Partition of those that mett Viz Apostles Elders Brethren there is an intire joint concurrence with the whole procedure viz both in the Disquisition the Sentence the decretal Epistle and Appointment in reference to the Churches obedience It does also sute the Dr's consideration to shew how it can consist with reason and the Nature of a Church Judicatory that such persons as are no Members nor fit to be Members are in tuto to prepare Matter for Laws and take share in debates But the Dr's Forgery here is evident For 1. If Presbyters concurrence in Ordination was Authoritative not by consent only and they imposed hands as proper Ordainers even when Bishops had obtained Power in Judicatories by confession of Episcopalians themselves see Dr. Forbes Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. I would fain know why such Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers as had Authority to Ordain which is one of the greatest Acts of Ministerial Authority had no Authority in enacting Laws in Councils but sat as Cyphers 2 ly The Dr. will find Antiquity against this deputed kind of conferring or consulting Power which he allows to Presbyters in Councils without Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom hom 17. on Matth. calls Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs Vicars or Deputes And its strange that such to whom Christ entrusted this Vicarious Power had no interest and Authority in enacting Laws in his Church and in the Government thereof Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 8. shews that Dominus Sacerdotes in Ecclesia c the Lord condescended to elect to himself Priests or Ministers in the Church the Dr. will not say that he put this designation only upon Prelats And did he elect and constitute them for no interest in the Government thereof Nay on the contrary the Judgment of the Ancients is clear in this that the Power of external Jurisdiction and consequently the Authority of enacting Laws or Canons was common to Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians called the Presbytrie Senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat non consiliarios solum as our Dr. makes them sed assessores Episcopi not his Advisers only but his Authoritative fellow-Counsellors And I hope such he will grant as are in this Character have interest not only in preparing matter for Laws but an essential Official Right in the Authoritative enacting of them Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 44. calls them Principes Princes or Chief And if such in his Judgment the forementioned Authority is clearly by him attributed to them Augustin Serm. 6. calls the Brethren in Eremo Patronos Rectores Terrae And what pitiful Patrons or Rectors are they who have no Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom asserts expresly on 1 Tim. 1. hom 11 That they presided over the Churches as Bishops and received together with them the Office of Teaching and Governing the Church And if this with the preceeding Testimonies give not the Lie to the Dr's forementioned distinction anent Presbyters sole consulting interest in Councils and upon the Bishops Call allennarly without any Authority in enacting Laws let any Judg. Chrysostom moreover in the beginning of that Homily stating the Question wherefore the Apostle after he had spoken to the Office and Duty of Bishops passes over to Deacons omitting the order of Presbyters returns this Answer and Reason Because betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference and because that unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is committed And what he said concerning Bishops the same things also do agree to Presbyters And if with the Dr's good leave I might draw an inference from Chrysostom's assertion I would thus subsume But so it is that the Authority of Government and the enacting of Laws in Church Judicatories is by the Apostle ascribed to the Scripture Bishop whom he mentions Ergo the same Authority and Power is by the Apostle ascibed to Presbyters in Chrysostom's Sense Gratian in Decret Caus. 16. Quest. 1. Cap. shews that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum A Senat of Presbyters without whose Counsel the Bishop can do nothing They were not then called at the Bishops pleasure for debate only and preparing matters as the Dr. pretends but were the sine quibus non in the enacting of the Laws themselves The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decisive suffrage in Judicatories yet Cyprian Ep. 6. and 28. professes He neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy And the Fourth Council of Carthage condemns the Bishop's Decision unless Fortified by their Sentence So far was it that the Bishop's sole Suffrage gave the Strength and Formality to Laws that they were null without Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence This is clear by so full a consent of Antiquity that we will find That neither in Censuring of Presbyters Nor 2 ly In Judging the conversation or Crimes of Church Members Nor 3 ly In Excommunicating or Receiving of Penitents Bishops could do any thing without Presbyters Tertulian Apolog. Advers Gentes shews vs That the Churches Exhortations Castigations and Divine Censures were put forth by the Probati quique Seniores who did preside the accused Person being brought into the Congregation And this Authoritative Sentence of Presbyters was more approved than when passed by one Man As when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same Case The Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius because he passed it sine alicujus Fratris Consilio without the consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the Sentence of Ambrose because saith he hoc judicium nostrum cum Fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerat This his Sentence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow Presbyters or Ministers Yea the very Admonition of Offenders were not given by the Bishops alone but by the Elders August De verb. Apost Serm. 19. Thus also Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. Excommunication it self Tertullian tells us was vibrated by those that laboured in the Word and Doctrin and the Presbytrie that delivered unto Satan as Jerom shews Epist. ad Heliod So Epist ad Demet. they also Received and Absolved the Penitents Cyprian Epist. 12 shews that this was the custom nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo clero manus illi fuerit imposita such as were Excommunicat returned not to Church Fellowship before hands were laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy And writing to his Charge anent lapsed Christians he tells them exomologesi facta manu iis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita After Confession and laying on of the Presbyters hands they might be commended to God And such as returned from
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the same Judgment by necessary consequence we must make of Titus since the Dr. and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both from these Epistles 3. In these Epistles themselves their Power stands so described and circumstantiat as to Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches as it clearly excluds an Episcopal Preheminence and Authority For First As Diocesan Bishops they ought to have been designedly set and fixed as Officers in these Churches but the contrary appears in the Text I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus saith Paul to Timothy And again to Titus I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting Which words point at an occasional transient Imployment there not a fixed Instalment Secondly In these Epistles they are both called back without the least intimation of their returning Thirdly If their Power was Episcopal and Ordinary then in the Apostles Prescriptions and Rules anent their Successors the Power and Authority of these Successors ought to have been described and Rules given touching the Gifts Call Ordination c. of the Diocesan Bishop especially since the Dr. holds that the Description of and Authorizing such a Bishop is the great scope of both these Epistles and he will not say that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus But so it is that the Apostle prescribs no Rules for any Church Officer higher than a Pastor and supposes still that he is the highest Ordinary Church Officer in all his Rules and Prescriptions in point of Church Government delivered either in these Epistles or any where else in Scripture Fourthly As Timothy is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and consequently Titus is supposed to hold the same Office so this Office in the Judgment of Protestant Divines is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary and Expired as that of the Apostles The Work and Exercise thereof consisting in a planetary Motion to Water where the Apostles Planted to bring Instructions from the Apostles to the Churches touching the Duties of both Pastors and People and Reports of the Churches State to the Apostles So their Office supposing the Churches in fieri as to their Organick Beeing in a great measure at least and also the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office they must needs be as the Apostles themselves Extraordinary Officers And in special Timothy and Titus accompanying Paul in his Travels and continual planetary Motion being so clearly held out in Scripture concluds the Impossibility of their being fixed to any Station and proves that Character given to them by Ambrose as Evangelists viz That they did Evangelizare sine Cathedra Their continual planetary Motion is by some largly described from the Apostolick Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles Thus first Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17.14 then at Athens v. 15. thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1 Thess. 3.1 2. Then having been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18.5 Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent to Macedonia Act. 19.22 whether Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas v. 5. and at Miletus v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of Ephesus their last Charge as the Bishops of that Church And after this he is found either in Journeys or absent from Ephesus For after he is found a Prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his Companion in these Epistles written while Paul was there as the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 1.1 Philem. v. 1. Col. 1.1 And he is never found again at Ephesus But towards the end of the Apostles Pilgrimage is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem before he came to Crete Gal. 2.1 thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 then to Corinth Then he is expected at Troas 2 Cor. 2.12 13. and meets with Paul at Macedonia 2 Cor. 7.6 whence he is again sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6 And after this near the time of Paul's Death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that whether we consider 1. The various Journies 2. The order of them 3. The time spent in them 4. The nature of their Imployment which was as the Apostles Co-adjutors to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches where they travelled and especially the Scripture-silence of their being Bishops of any one Church their supposed Episcopal Authority in these Churches of Ephesus and Crete doth palpably appear to be an Anti-scriptural groundless Fiction This Conclusion upon the premised accurat Search and Scripture account of Timothy and Titus is thus inferred by the reverend and learned Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight The Authors of Ius divinum minist Evangel In whose Words I have represented this Account both because of the judicious Concisness thereof and also because these Peices are but in few Hands These things thus premised its easie to discover the Absurdity of the Drs reasoning from his Third Instance to prove an Apostolical Authority Devolved upon Titus His Proof is from Chap. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee From whence the Dr. First Argues That Paul gave him the Supream Judgment in things that were wanting with an absolut Power to Reform and Correct them It is Answered 1 mo Tho an Episcopal inspection over this Church were granted the Dr. is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devolving upon Titus an Apostolical Authority in the Scripture Sense and Extent as we have often told him 2 do Upon supposition of that which we have before made good Viz That both Paul as an Apostle and Titus as an Evangelist had extraordinary Offices and suted to such a Case and exigence of the Christian Church as is now gone off this direction and Command proper and peculiar to the one and the other as Apostle and Evangelist and supposing this Exigence of the Church can lay no Foundation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers 3 tiâ— By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection from these prescriptions to Titus unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned or any interest therein in Churches Constitut For as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches in fieri is not to the purpose I mean in respect of the Organick being especially since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination and the Authority thereof is in Scripture held out to be competent to a Presbytrie which they exercised upon Timothy himself one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 So that it is evident that neither Timothy nor Titus were instructed with any singular
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Preaching the Word for all are Pastors and Teachers or in thâ— administration of the Sacraments Matth. 28.19 1. Cor. 11.23 or in the exercise of Disciplin 1. Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 Or in the Governing the Church Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Heb. 13.17 Obey those that are set over you He adds quare Apostoli in Epistolarum suarum inscriptionibus seribunt Sanctis item Ministris Nunquam soli alicui Episcopo Regulas Prescribunt 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.5.7 1 Pet. 5.2 Omnibus Pastoribus communes nullas singulares Episcoporum That upon this Ground the Apostles in the Inscriptions of their Epistles do write unto the Saints and also to Ministers but never to any one Bishop 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6 1 Pet. 5.2 Do prescrbe such Rules as are common to all Pastors but none that are peculiar to Bishops Here is a bold new Novelist with a whole Congeries of New Notions upon Texts pleaded by the Scots Presbyterians suting no doubt the Consideration of our Profound Antiquary I am verily of Opinion that this grave Inquirer into the new dangerous Notions of the Scots Presbyterians should either have perused the premised grounds of their New Opinion or Written to his Friend at Edinburgh to make inquiry in his behalf for some more of these dangerous Books that they might be sent up to him in order to his Doctorships perusal and confutation For it seems he has never seen them I need not mention Chamier and other conceited Novelists who has fallen into the same dottage De aecumenico Pont. lib. 10. Cap. 3. Arnoldus in his Lux in tenebris on Act. 20.17 he called the Elders presents the Orthodox opinion thus That Bishops and Presbyters are not Names of diverse Gifts in the Church but of one and the same Office because those who are called Presbyters v. 17. are called Bishops v. 28. This Man it seems had got the new Notion in his Head too He adds The Papists Object had he enjoyed the time and opportunity of seeing our Antique Drs Enquiry into the New dangerous Notions of Scots Presbyterians he had not been so ill manner'd as to term the Reasons of our Venerable Dr. an Objection of Papists Well what do they Object ' That in these times the Names were Common but yet the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters diverse Now let us hear Arnoldus answers to our profound Enquirers great argument wherewith he has filled up so great a part of his Pamphlet 1. This is saith he to affirm not to prove 2. When Offices are distinct there also the Names are diverse 3. There was one Office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the Office of Teaching 4. Saith he upon the Papists supposition beware of the Venerable Dr. again what could this Blind Novelist see none who maintained this Ancient Doctrin but Papists there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one City but so it is that there were here many Therefore Bishops signify Presbyters After the premised account of these doting Presbyterians who notwithstanding are judged by many to be men of very Venerable Name may I presume to trouble our profound enquiring Dr in giving him a view of some bigot Confessions of the Reformed Protestant Churches who its like have asserted this New Notion and Opinion of Scots Presbyterians The Confession of the French Church upon this head runs thus credimus veram Ecclesiam c. We believe that the true Church ought to be Governed by that Policy which Christ hath ordained Mr. Dr. will no doubt acknowledge this is sound Well what next They add That there be Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons This is fair But is there no distinction of Bishops and Pastors in their Sense The enquiring Dr. will tell them that the two Classes of Elders and Deacons admits of a subdivision But the unmannerly froward Confession is bold to contradict his Reverence proceeding thus And again we believe that all true Pastors wherever they be are indued with equal and the same Power under one Head and Bishop Christ Jesus Here is the Scots Presbyterians New Notion in grain Shall we try the Dr's Patience with another such Instance The Belgick Confession is no better natur'd to our Dr. but are as bold to contradict him in this point and it seems do hold the same New Scots Notion For thus they assert Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the Word of God have the same and equal Power and Authority as being all Ministers of that only Universal Head and Bishop Christ. In the Point of Ordination which the Dr. appropriats to the Bishop the latter Confession of Helvetia Harm Confes. Chap. 11. P. 232. do assert ' That the Holy Function of the Ministry is given by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters No word of Prelats Hands So Chap 18. P. 236. they are to be Ordained by publick Prayer and laying on of Hands Which Power they say is the same and alike in all Citing that Passage Luke 22. He that will be great among you let him be your Servant Thus crossing the Dr's Sense of this and other paralel Passages They also Cite Act. 15. And Ierom on Tit. 1. Concluding thus Therefore let no Man forbid that we return to the old Appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of Ordination and rather receive it than the custom devised by Men so they call the Episcopal Method Thus the Confession of Boheme Cha. 9. Harm Confes. Sect. 11. P. 246.247 after setting down the qualifications of Ministers as to Ordination they say that after Prayer and Fasting they are to be Confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying one of their Hands So The Confession of Saxony Chap. 12. Harm Confes. Part. 2. affirms That it belongs to the Ministers of the Word to Ordain Ministers Lawfully Elected and Called Where we have asserted at once both the Presbyters Power in Ordination and the Peoples Interest in the Call of Pastors in opposition to Prelacy But as to this Point of the Equality of Pastors and their joint Interest in Ordination it is long since Dr. Reynolds hath told the Dr. and his Fellows that this is the Common Judgment of the Reformed Churches Viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Polland the Low Countries Citing the Harmony of Confessions Well Whoever own these Opinions of the Parity of Pastors and their joynt Interest in Government The Dr. tells his Friend he Charges them with Error and Novelty tho a Current Opinion among his Country-Men whom the enquiring Dr. Labours to undeceive and he assures his Friend a sure Demonstration no doubt if it admit no other Measures but his Assertion That they are altogether New and were never propagat in any part of the Christian Church till these last days of Separation and Singularity I could wish he had Condescended upon the measures of these last days wherein this Separation Reigns as also of these New Opinions We know the Scripture calls
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
98. This Surveyer did but ridicule the Scriptures or rather expose himself while pretending to impugn the Presbyterians and answer their Scripture Reasonings for he comes on with his may be this and may be the other Sense the one sense may be striking out and Contradicting the other whereas in the Judgement of all who own the Truth and the Authority of the Scriptures the true sense is but one since otherwise there can be no Truth where there are different and various Senses In his first Answer he will needs have High Officers of the Church as he calls them to concur with the Apostle Paul in Imposing Hands upon Timothy these High Officers he no doubt advances far above the Sphere of Presbyters and Pastors and puts them in the Character of his Magnates or Hierarchical Bishops yet in this second Answer he will needs in a palpable Contradiction to the First croud in all these High Officers into one Congregation yea and positively asserts that there is no evidence in the Text to prove that this Presbytrie was any other than a Paroch-Presbytrie and that it will trouble the Presbyterians to prove the contrary But would it not much more have troubled this Fantastical Dictator with his Linsey-Woolsey party coloured Senses and Comments to prove that these High Officers near to the Apostolick Character were all related to one Congregation and but a Meeting of a Paroch Presbytrie as he speaks His Third answer is taken from collating this Passage with 2 Tim. 1.6 where Paul enjoins Timothy to stir up the Gift that is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the putting on of my Hands as here 1 Tim. 4.14 He saith Grace was given thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie The former place importing his Authority in the Action and the latter the concern and consent of the Meeting of Presbyters with him So that granting a Presbytrie present there is no ordaining power can be hence inferred Ans. We have already made appear that these places Collated do clearly evince a Presbyterial Authority in the Point of Ordination and that since the imposing of Pauls hands in order to the Gifts is clearly distinguished from the imposing of the Hands of the Presbytrie which must needs respect his Ordination and consequently their Authoritative influence thereupon these Texts collated do confirm this Point and further do thus give light unto it that supposing that the Imposition of Pauls hands and the Hands of the Presbytrie were contemporary the Presbyterian Cause is the more strengthened in that the imposing of an Apostles Hands did not swallow up nor exclude the Presbytries Authoritative imposition So that this Authority may be much more now supposed competent to them when the Office of Apostle is gone I must here again Reflect upon it that this our vertumnous Expositor who will needs have in his First Answer several High Officers to concurr with Paul in this Imposition of Hands makes Timothy thereby to receive a Presbyterate only And I pray what needs such High Officers to concur with Paul in order to this end But in this Answer we find ordinary Pastors concurring in the Ordination of this his supposed Presbyter for the Surveyer in collating these Texts insinuats no Officers of a higher Order to have been present except the Apostle Paul And indeed the Passages themselves do only point at the Presbytrie and the Apostle Paul Here also Presbyters are found laying hands upon our Surveyer and his Fellows supposed Hierarchical Prelat set over the Church of Ephesus Next he acknowledges that the mention of imposing of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 with the emphatick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by respects the Gift of GOD in him wherein he seems to distinguish the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Authority and the Gift yet expones this precisely of Pauls Authority in his Ordination exclusive of that of the Presbytrie But so it is that the imposing of Hands in order to Gifts of the Spirit he must needs acknowledge to be of it self distinct from such an Imposition of Hands as is in order to Ordination Yea even some of his own party acknowledge that Hands were twice laid upon Timothy and once by the Presbytrie alone Besides that Passage 1 Tim. 4.14 we find him very confusedly and inconsideratly exponing thus Viz. The Grace given him with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytrie Whereas the Text runs thus neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesie with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie where it is evident the Gift given and the Prophesie are in two distinct Clauses and the laying on of Hands of the Presbytrie is in the third and last and diversified by a distinct Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both from the Gift and from the Prophesie So that it is apparent that this Grace or Gift hath a special Respect to the Prophesie but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie is here set down in a distinct Clause as a distinct Priviledge from the other two and therefore must either import their Authoritative action or doth here signifie nothing especially since as is said the variation of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with doth here import so much and diversifie the one from the other Which baffles his Sense and Exposition that makes the imposing of the Presbytries hands to import no more but a Consent or Concurrence The folly of which Exposition is further evidenced in that 1. This solemn Action of Imposing Hands being in the Scripture Accounts and Sense a badge of Authoritative Blessing must neeeds import much more than a bare Consent or Concurrence for he will not dare to say that all those whose Hearts do concur in praying for the Blessing had right to impose hands upon the Ordained 2. He tells us in the beginning of his Answer that the Presbytrie imposed not hands alone without a Higher Officer joyned with them in the Act. Now I pray what was this Act if not of Ordination Now if the Presbytrie had an Authoritative Concurrence in the Act or rather an influence thereupon as their Act how can he say they did only consent to the thing For upon this ground of a naked consent he could not say that Paul was joined with him in the Act which imports their joint Authoritative Concurrence if this phrase have any Sense and yet notwithstanding of this according to his exposition in the latter part of his Answer the Action was Pauls alone and not theirs and he Confines the Authority of the Action within the compass of the Apostles Imposition solely I only add if the Actions were supposed diverse as severals do hold the Surveyer hath no Shield nor Buckler against such a Weapon which notwithstanding quite baffles this his Answer if admitted His fourth Answer is That since the Name of
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
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
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