Quadratus Ignatius flourished let the Dr. observe this as to Ignatius here Cited by him may be truely called with Varro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscure wherein nothing that is certain has come to our Hands concerning the Affairs of Christians except some very few things which the Enemies of GOD has catched up by the way such as Suetonius and Corn. Tacitus Which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew somethings without Discretion and choise out of the Hypotyposis or Examples of I know not what Clement for he is not that Learned Clement that wrote the Strommata and out of the Five Books of Hegesippus a Writer no better Let the Dr. observe this as to Hegesippus and Clement here Cited by him Yea and Hegisipus himself as he shews lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the Apostolick Age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam Doctrinam tradebant initium caepit Error began to Spring and advance The Learned Iunius controv 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Mentions and proves an equivocal acceptation of the Word Bishop in the Writings of the Ancients The Learned Whittaker also will Inform the Dr. De Pont. Quest. 2. Cap. 15. That Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. The Fathers when they call Iames Bishop or Peter take not the Name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those Churches wherein they stayed for a time He adds That it is absurd to say that the Apostles were Bishops since he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle the Bishop being set over one Church and the Apostles Founders and overseers of many Churches Yea he is so Bold as to add further without craving Pardon of such as are of our Drs. Judgment That non procul distat ab insania c. It differs little from madness to say That Peter or any other Apostles were Bishops And to this purpose he speaks at large Cap. 3. Sect. 9. making good his Assertion from the unfixed extraordinary Nature of their Office who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places wherever they were called The Dr. might have also learned from Fran. Iunius Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. 5 the cause of the Error and mistake of the Ancients in terming the Apostles or Evangelists Bishops and drawing from them Supposititious patcht Catalogues of Bishops which are found contradictory to one another Viz. That such Ministers as they found in the Church Records more famous such they cull'd out to make up their Catalogues even tho they were contemporary and those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times whereas saith he there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appointed by the Apostles in the Churches Hence has proceeded this Confusion in the Catalogues for instance they make Peter Bishop of Rome and having a Seat there a Fable contradicted by many of the Learned and proved by them to be such but whether Clement was First or Third and who or in what Order next after Succeeded them whether Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Arch-Bishop some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and Iohn are made by many Bishops in the same Post at the same time Some say Polycarpus was First Bishop of Smyrna some make him to Succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo First Some give Alexandria one Bishop some Two at once See Append. ad jus Divinum Minist Evang. Clearing this at large The Dr. also should have done well to have considered the important difficulty offered by Iosephus Scaliger about the Succession of the Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem related by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 123. wherein he proves Eusebius Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophesie anent the Destruction of Ierusalem and to Iosephus's History As likewise what this Learned Author hath observed and written to invalidat the Credit of Eusebius's History and the discovery he has made of his many gross Errors therein as well as in other Points So that our Dr. and his Fellow-pleaders might have observed this their grand Magazin to be but a corrupt Treasure and Poisoned Fountain How Fabulous is the Epistle of Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa related by him That which Philo the Iew wrote of the Esseans a Sect among the Iews Eusebius affirms that he Wrote it of Christian Monks which Scaliger in his Elencho tri Haeresii hath convict of falsehood out of Philo himself He proves Peters Crucifixion at Rome by a Tomb-proof In the Computation of Times Scaliger observes his gross Errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle Peter but another of the Number of the Seventy Disciples To which might be added many things in his personal Carriag and Qualities which doth weaken the Credit of his History as his presiding in the Council of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrian side Scaliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad P. 268 Sets down the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning his Errors and Arrianism wherein some affirm that he died When he Wrote the History he was in the Judgment of some an Arrian And even admitting the unexceptionableness of his History when first Written yet that it hath been corrupted by some ignorant Impostor is by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 111. Demonstrat from this that he makes mention of Sozomen who was born an Hundred Years after his time Had the Doctor also Perused the Learned Reynolds he might have found that in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls he proves at large from Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others both Ancient and Modern Authors that in Scripture Presbyter and Bishop are all one The Epistles of Clement of the first Century are very pregnant against the Divine Right of Prelacy particularly his Epistle to the Philippians wherein he makes but Two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons which he says the Apostles set up to propogat the Ordinances to Believers But I am too prolix in a Matter of it self clear and plain and which we may probably have occasion again to touch Only before I part with the Drs. First Instance I cannot but in this place observe and again leave it to the Readers consideration that the Dr. affirms this Apostleship which Iames did derive from the Twelve was only an Episcopal Inspection of the Church in Ierusalem A strang Apostleship indeed and so very far unlike and disproportioned to the Apostolick Office that he might as well affirm that any Curat of the Church of England when set over a Flock or Cure has an Episcopal Authority committed to him The Drs. Second Instance to prove the Apostles committing their Apostolick Authority to Successors is taken from Epaphroditus Philip. 2.25 Who is Styled the Apostle of the Philippians Citing Ierom on Gal. 1.19 Who shews that others were Ordained Apostles as Epaphroditus And
Augustin and Ambrose imputing also with Jerom the Episcopal Presidency which obtained in their time to the Churches Custom not to Divine Appointment do thus cast a contradicting blot upon his supposed Testimonies Ambrose acknouledging in special that non per omnia conveniunt Apostolorum scripta ordinationi quae nunc est in Eeclesia Comment in Cap. 4. ad Ephes. And tho it be controverted whether this was the true Ambrose yet we must tell him with the learned Professors of Saumur De Episcop Presb. Discrim P. mihi 300. Thes. 19. that he was Coetaneous with or rather more Ancient than Ambrose being Cited by Augustin who was Ambrose Disciple as an Holy Man lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4. which Epithet he would not have put upon a person of small account or one hetrodox 3 ly The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity of Bishops and Presbyters as his privat Judgment only but least he or any else suppose this he proves it by Divine Testimonies of the Apostles Writings yea and gives the same Sense of them which Presbyterian Writers do And therefore the Dr. must acknowledg him in so far acting a Divine Witness not giving a human Testimony only and that he more than â—utweighs his Human Testimonies else he is obliged to examin his Proâ—fs and Answer them and show if he can Ierom's Sense of these Scriptures to be disowned by any of his Authors which he doth not so much as attempt All who have seen Jerom's Testimony do know that he Reasons this Point of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter from Scripture least any should take this to be his private Opinion Putat aliquis saith he non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse the one Name importing the Age the other the Office of the Pastor Then he goes through these Scriptures Philip. 1.1 Act. 20.28 Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2.3 Drawing out upon the whole this Conclusion that the Bishops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters was rather by Custom than any true dispensation from the Lord. But of this again The Drs. Second Exception is That Jerom being a Presbyter himself speaks in his own Cause and in a warmth of Passion to curb the insolency of some pragmatick Deacons Ans. Jerom reasoning both in this place Cited and the Epistle to Evagrius this Point from Scripture and exhibiting the Divine Oracles the Apostles Doctrin and practice for what he holds speaks the mind of God and no Passion and untill the Dr. Answer his Scripture-reasonings in the Forecited Testimonies he is lyable to the Charge of imputing to the Scripture and to the Apostles Passion and Partiality As for his being a Presbyter himself what then can no Presbyter speak truely and impartially upon this head Besides he knows that several of his Witnesses for Episcopacy and whom he most Esteems are by him supposed Bishops of his high Hierarchical Mould and how shall we receive their Testimony in their own Cause And why may not we impute to them partiality and Passion and reject their Testimony unless their Episcopal Chair hath as that of the Pope a supposed infallibility anneâ—ed to it So that the Dr. is put to this Delemma either to quite his great Episcopal Testimonies as insufficient upon his own Ground or admit this of Jerom. It is the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens The Dr's Third Exception is That Jerom elsewhere owns the Bishop's Superiority whereof he exhibits First this Proof that in his Dialogue Advers Luciferians he gives this Reason why one not Baptized by the Bishop received not the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles Which the Dr. says makes it plain that he placed the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles A strange Proof indeed First we heard that Jerom Reasons the Point from Scripture that the Bishop and Presbyter are all one and therefore it is odd from Jerom's Naming a Bishop to understand him of his Hierarchical Bishop Again Jerom says quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbyter doth not A Clause and Passage we find the Dr. much harping upon but in his gloss upon this Testimony he doth in contradiction to himself and Jerom also appropriat to the Bishop the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism What if one Reason thus against the dispisers of this Ordinance Such a Person is not Sealed by the Spirit because not Baptized by a Pastor for the Holy Ghost Descended on the Apostles Will the Dr. disown this Reasoning Or will he own the Inference that therefore Pastors are equal to Apostles Or say it were such a Reasoning such a Person or Persons cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit not having heard the Converting Word Preached by a Pastor since the Apostles thus Converted and Ministred the Holy Ghost Will any but such as draw Reasons and Illustrations beyond the Moon as this Dr inferr that the Pastor is thus equal unto Apostles Will the Dr. in good earnest affirm that the Person who performs such Acts of the Power of Order as the Apostles did perform and with the saving Blessing of the Spirit is upon this Ground equalled in Office to the Apostles If so he must make all Faithful Pastors thus equal and overturn all his Reasoning from a supposed Succession of Bishops to the Apostolat The Dr's next Proof is drawn from Epist. 1. ad Heliod where he says the Bishops are in place of St. Paul and Peter And so say we are all Faithful Pastors whom Ierom makes one with Bishops according to the Scripture acceptation and at large makes it good in the place of Apostles as to the exercise of an ordinary Ministrie and the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Essential and necessar to the Church else our Lord had not promised His presence with His Apostles to the end of the World when He sent them out and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gospel and Disciple all Nations to Him Of the same Stamp is that which he Cits of Ierom on Psal. 45.16 That in stead of the Apostles gone from the World we have their Sons the Bishops the Fathers by whom they are Governed For I pray will this Dr. either assert 1. That Ierom held that the Power of Government and Authority Ecclesiastick died with the Apostles that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction was not to be preserved continued in the Church and Exercised by ordinary Church Officers and in this respect enjoined in the Fifth Comâ—and which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours and so are Ministers called in Scripture under the Character and Denomination of Fathers Or 2 ly Can he deny that Ierom holds that except Ordination or rather the Rituals of it at that time appropriat to the Bishop the Pastors and Presbyters performed all Acts of the Power of Order and Jurisdiction And that
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
which he says is as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastick History he therein crosses the Judgment of Learned Protestants who have made the contrary appear as is above evinced The Accounts of this supposed Succession being Contradictory one to another and sometimes Persons Contemporary made Succedaneous therein yea and the very Name and Office of Persons designed being of a various and different Nature and Signification some of these pretended succeeding Bishops being mere Presbyters But says the Doctor who will question an ancient Monarchy because of some Defect of the Historical Accounts of its Succession I answer The Original of the Monarchy being clear in History and also the Successors of the first in Point of an Historical Faith this will not be questioned And when the Dr. shal let us see the Bishops of his Mould set up by the Apostles and present to us the Scripture Escutchions of their Power together with clear Historical Accounts of their first Successors accordingly we shal admit his paralell Argument else it is a mere non sequitur The Dr. in the next place tells us That the Story of Jerom's Universal Decree being Unattested and Contradictory to all Antiquity it must needs be lookt upon as a mere Figment of his Fancy But from what is said its evident that the Dr. instead of Impugning the Decree which Jeroms Testimony speaks of has been in all that is premised but Fighting with his own Shadow and a Figment of his oâ—n Fancy and has never touched his Meaning and Scope nor has shown any much less all Antiquity against what Jerom asserts The Dr. demands an Instance of any Church of another Form of Government than Episcopacy Which Demand he might have found sufficiently answered by Presbyterian Writers who have made appear that the first Apostolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially The Authors of the Jus Divinum Regim Eccles. have long since exhibit clear Scripture Proofs of this which the Dr. should have Answered before he had made such a Challenge Besides the Multitud of Fathers who maintain the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters will go far in this Proof And if Blondels Demonstration from Antiquity Apol. Sect. 3. P. 308. c. that Bishops came not in till the year 140. hold good surely all the existent Churches in that Period of Time are so many Instances of such a Government And for this Church of Scotland we have its first Presbyterian Government attested by Iohan. Major de gest Scot. Lib 2 Fordons Scotochron Lib 3 cap 8 Blond Sect 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Governed by Presbyters without Bishops and that in that year the Bishop of Rome sent Palladius as our first Bishop So that we had our Union to the See of Rome together with Prelacy We come now to the Dr's last Exception to this Testimony of Ierom wherein he reposes great Confidence Ushering it in with an especially Considering Well what is that under his Consideration the Dr. will Amuse us with and Arrest our Thoughts upon This Conceit saith he reflects odiously upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters common Counsel which was the Occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions for Removal of which the Church found it needful to dissolve those Presbytries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room But the Doctor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long since removed and that his supposed Reflection depends not upon any Words of Ierom. Ierom says That Diaboli Instinctu by the Devils Instinct there fell Divisions and Factions one saying I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo and that thereupon this Remedy of setting up fixed Presidents was fallen upon Which the Learned Whittaker has told the Dr was a Remedy worse than the Disease And Ierom himself distinguishes this Humane Custom from the Divine Institution Now where is the Dr's Consequence Because Jerom says that for preventing Schisms at that time the Government was changed doth he therefore charge this upon the Apostles Government or Christs Institution He may as well say that a Mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will inferr his imputing them to the Ordinances Was there not Discord among the Apostles under Christs own immediat Government But did this Discord or the Record thereof in Scripture reflect on His Holy Government Paul and Barnabas divided and parted asunder but doth Luke in Recording this charge it upon the Apostolick Government To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference yet further to appear let these three things be considered 1. He confesses that Jerom asserts that the Apostolick Government of Presbyterian Parity was the Occasion only of these Schisms Therefore say I he makes it not the Cause If the Dr. assert this he will pitifully expose his Learning in not distinguishing these things which are so obviously distinguishable and reflect upon our Saviour in saying he came not to send Peace but a Sword and Division to kindle Fire upon the Earth to set a Man at Variance against his Father and to make those of a Man 's own House his Enemies as if His Holy Doctrin were the Cause of these Evils Paul tells us that his Corruption and Sin took Occasion from the Commandment and was irritat by the Law but prevents so gross a Mistake as to suppose any Imputation upon the Holy Law thereby Is the Law sin saith he God forbid He abhorrs the Consequence as absurd and blasphemous 2. The Dr. holds that Jerom asserts The Church found it necessary upon this Occasion to change the first Government by the Common Counsel of Presbyters and as he expresses it to Dissolve Presbytries and Introduce Episcopacy Wherein he abuses Ierom and pitifully Wire-draws his Words offering a mere Distortion of them For 1. Ierom speaks only as is above cleared of an Innovating Custom growing up by Degrees not of a Government introduced by the whole Church upon Ground of Necessity 2. He makes Ierom assert that upon the first Introduction of this Custom Presbytries were wholly dissolved which is most cross to Ieroms Meaning For even in his own time long after the first Origine of this Custom he says quid facit c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbytrie doth not So that in the first Introduction of this Episcopus Praeses Ierom could far less suppose a Dissolution of Presbytries or total Abolishing of their Authority as the Dr. foolishly suggests but only such a fixed President or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who as in that Capacity had a Deference and the Care committed to him but not so as wholly to exclud Presbyters Decisive Suffrage Again in the 3 d. place what ever may be said of this after-Practice and Frame of Government Ierom expresly denies a Divine Right or Ius to it and distinguishes it from the Truth of the Divine Appointment which first took place So that tho we should grant to the Dr that in Ierom's
Sense the whole Church by joynt Determination had simul semel made this Alteration it is evident that he charges the Error upon the Church as a Recess from the Divine Path but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it self which he diligently distinguishes from and sets in Opposition to this Custom and Practice of the Church So that the absurd Reflection upon the Apostles Government and the Wisdom of our Saviour the Dr. may see to be lodged nearer home viz. not only upon these who first brought in this Human Prostasie especially such as Scrued it up to an Hierarchical Primacy which is so cross to the Apostolick Parity but also and in a singular manner to be chargeable upon these who uphold it after its many Evils are discovered Ierom asserts only the Matter of Fact viz. That this Imparity was brought in for Remedy of Schism but leaves the chargâ— of Reflecting upon the Apostolick Government upon the Authors of this Innovation And upon the Promotters thereof it must still ly The Dr. alledges That Iorom approves of this as a Wise aâ—d Prudent Action An odd Approbation indeed To approvâ— a Custom or Action as Wise and Prudent which he holds to be opposit to the Divine Appointment For his proof viz. That Ierom asserts the Safety of the Church to depend upon the Authority of the High Priest or Bishop to whom if Supreme Authority be not given there would be as many Schisms as Priests As the Dr. has pointed us to none of Ieroms Writings for Proof of this so as we have cleared above Ierom and the Ancients in such Allusive Expressions intend nothing else but a Distinction of Offices in the Gospel Ministry and to assert the Authority thereof Blond Sect. 3. P. 135. shews out of diverse Councils their expressing the Gospel Ministry under the Character of Priests and Levites And I dare referr it to this Dr or any Man of Sense if a grosser Contradiction or Non-sense could ever fall into any Mans Thought than to hold the Necessity of an Hierarchical Bishop with Supreme Authority and yet the Necessity of a Divine Appointment to the contrary That which the Dr. calls the Unavoidable Consequence of Jerom 's Hypothesis viz. That the Church had gone to Ruine if a Wiser Form of Government than that of Apostles had not been taken up to supply its Defect We have made appear to be a very easily avoided Consequence and by no Twist of Reason to be deducible from Ierom's Hypothesis and that the Dr in drawing such a Consequence has in stead of Ierom involved himself in absurd Deductions He calls this Testimony of Jerom the only considerable Objection against the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Episcopal Government And therein discovers his small and slender Reading in this Controversie since he might have seen in Blondel Salmasius and many others many more considerable Objections And this one we have found so very considerable that it hath quit baffled and born down the Dr's mean and inconsiderable Answers But to proceed In the close of this Section P. 421. the Dr. flies high in these his supposed victorious Answers to Jerom's Testimony telling us that the Apostolick Superiority of Bishops being handed down by Testimonies from Age to Age it s as unreasonable to reject the same as the Canon of the Scriptures thence derived The Dr. here discovers what Spirit he is of I had alwise thought that the Divine Impression of the Scripture Canon the intrinsick infallible evidences of a Divine inspiration had been the great ground of the Churches reception not its being handed down to us from former generations or the First receivers And that our Divines had alwise distinguished the Church and former Generations Testimony and recommendation from the innate Essential evidences of its Divine Authority as to the Ground of our Faith and reception But however I shall tell him that he should have exhibited as full and Divine proof and unanimous recommendation of all the Churches for his hierarchical Prelacy as there is for the Scripture Canon before he had offered such an high flown notion Before I part with the Dr. upon this head I must needs tho I have a little before touched it take notice of two pieces of signal unsoundnness and unfair dealing in this Matter of Jerom's Testimony First That in all his Animadversions and muster of Episcopal strength against it he doth not in the least take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter in correspondence to our Sense and Pleading Upon Philip 1.1 He argues That many Bishops are saluted by Paul in that Church and that it could not have many of the Diocesian stamp That therefore the Apostle speaks indifferently of Bishops and Presbyters as one and the same That Act. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City as Bishops That in the Epistle to the Hebrews the care of the Churches is divided among many obey them that have the Rule over you for they watch for your Souls That Peter called so from the firmness of his Faith exhorts thus the Elders the Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and Witness of the sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is among you not by constraint but willingly c. These things I write saith Ierom to shew that among the Ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same and that by little and little the care was devolved upon one Now what says the Dr. to these his Arguings upon the Apostles Doctrin If they are not found why doth he not discover his mistake If they hold good the Dr's exceptions evanish unto Wind. As for instance That Ierom is too late a Witness that he is a Witness in his own Cause that he talks otherwise when not byassed with partiality c. For if these Reasonings be sound his Witness is both a most early and Divine Witness and in the cause of God and Truth And whatever other Testimony he may be supposed to give this Divine Testimony ought to be preferred wherein there can be no partiality unless the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles and the Decision of the Holy GOD of Truth in this Point This also answers the Drs quible about a Decree Apostolick as the Ground of the Change of Government and that Ierom could mean no such thing since none can be so brutish as to impute to the Apostles a contradictory Decree to their own Doctrin As also that other exception of his evanishes upon this Ground Viz. That no such Decree of the Church was Recorded And that therefore there was none such For say it was either a Decree or gradual Custom if cross to the Apostolick Doctrin it ought to be rejected Thus also appears the Folly of his last exception That he imputes to the Apostolick
Government that it occasioned Schisms For upon supposal of the soundness of Ierom's Scripture proofs the parity of Bishop and Presbyter being the mind of Christ and his Apostles this Government could never give ground to Schisms nor could the Church warrantably alter it upon any such pretence So that whensoever and by whomsoever the change was made it was made contrary to the revealed will of the great Law-giver The Second Point of unsoundness the Dr. is Chargable with is that in the beginning of his discourse upon Ierom's Testimony he professes that he will not disput with us the Sense of this Passage but allow it to bear our Sense Yet in several of his Answers he impugns our Sense Especially his 4.5 6. and not only our Sense but the Sense of sound Protestant Divines as is above evident His Conceit about Ierom's making the Decree or Custom he speaks of to be the Schism at Corinth which is his Fourth exception and his Supposition That Jerom by toto orbe decretum understands a formal joint Decree of the whole Church not a gradual Custom and that Jerom makes the Church to redress upon necessary grounds the Government appointed by Christ and his Apostles and thus to impeach his Divine Wisdom which are his other exceptions All these I say as they are Distortions of Jerom's sense so directly opposit to the Sense given by us and by all sound Divines yea and such as have been long since refuted by Protestant Writers in Answer to Popish glosses and exceptions with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join Issue So that we may judg of the affinity of both their Causes by the near cognation of their Pleadings CHAP. IV. The Dr 's Fourth Argument Examined taken from our Saviour's alledged allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches WE do now proceed to the Dr's last Argument to prove That the rightful Government of the Church is Episcopal taken from our Saviours Allowance and Approbation thereof in his Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia directed to the Seven Angels called Seven Stars in His Right Hand or the Seven Lights of the Seven Churches Rev. 1.20 and 2.1 And in every Epistle owned as his Angels and Messengers The Dr. tells us that if he can prove them to be Seven Bishops presiding over Clergy and Laity of these Churches at that time they are unanswerable instances of Christs Allowance and Approbation of the Episcopal Order This trite and often Baffled Argument taken from the supposed Episcopal Power of the Seven Asian Angels has been so frequently scanned and tossed by Writers on this Controversie that the Dr. since he makes here such a Parade should either have brought some new Strength upon the Field or offered an Answer to the many clear returns given to this Argument However to clear our way in examining what the Dr. says upon this head which is nothing else but some Old Musty stuff repeated I premise two things 1. That the Collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles 2. That allowing the Angels to be single Persons will nothing help the Drs. design and pleading For the First that the collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles appears thus 1. This suits best the Stile of this Book which is by mystick visional Representations to includ many individuals As one singular so all the individuals of the Church both Members and Officers are represented by One Candlestick And why not also all the Ministers by one Angel A term which of it self and in this place imports no Jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the Angelical frame and qualities of Ministers 2. This is also suitable to the style of this Book as it is Epistolare the Address may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest As an Address from the King to a Speaker in Parliament will give the Speaker no Jurisdiction and Authority over his Fellow-Members When our Lord said unto Peter only expresly not to the rest of his fellow-Disciples I will give unto thee the Keyes c. who but brutish and partially affected Papists will conclud that he was Prince or Primate over the Apostles And that they had not and even by this promise an equal Authority with him in the use of the Keys This the Dr. must acknowledg unless he will justify the Popes Pleading from this Text. 3. This is suitable to Scripture Prophetick Writings and to this Book as such to represent many Individuals by one singular The Four beasts the Twenty Four Elders do not signify so many individual persons The singular Names of Woman Beast Whore Dragon signify a collection of many individuals So the one Spirit of God is called the Seven Spirits with reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8.20 One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deut. 17.12 i. e. The Priests in the plural So the Priests Lips should keep knowledg and the Law sought at his Mouth Mal. 2.7 Here also the Priest for Priests in the Plural Blest is that Servant whom the Lord c. i. e. Those Servants Particularly as to the term Angel It is said Psal. 34. that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly i. e. many Angels since they are all Ministring Spirits to them 4. It is suitable to Scripture and this Book to represent an indefinit number by a definit Thus all Iudahs Adversaries are represented by the Four Horns Zech. 1.18 All the Godly and the Ungodly are represented by the Five Wise and by the Five Foolish Virgins The Seven Angels standing before God Represents all the Angels Ch. 8. of this Book for in Ch. 7. mention is made of all the Angels who do thus stand And with the same indefinitness we are to understand the Septenarie number frequently elsewhere as the Seven Pillars which Wisdom Hews out Prov. 9. The Seven Pastors or Shepherds Micah 5. The Seven Eyes Zech. 3. And in this very Book Ch. 4.5.15 The Seven Candlesticks Lamps Viols 5. As we find the Scripture and this same Apostle First Naming a Multitude and then contracting it into a Singular as 2 Ioh. 7. v. Many deceivers are entred into the World Then This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist And sometimes the Individual in one Sentence turned into a Multitude as 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved i. e. the Woman bearing Children if they continue in Faith and Charity i. e. such Women in general So this single Angel is turned into many and spoken to in the Plural in one and the same Epistle Thus Rev. 2.24 Unto you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.10 We find John changing the singular Angel into a Multitudâ— Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer Behold the Devil shall cast
cut off the Dr's third Argument which he prosecutes P. 424 425 c. that nothing needs be further added as there might be with Advantage if a particular Examen were made of his Citations The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair or Primacy over the Asian Churches The Sottishness of which Conceit and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office is evident to any of common Sense since the Apostles by vertue of their Office which extended to all Churches planted and to be planted were Ministers thereof in actu exercito and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops forsooth to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province The Citation speaks of a Province in general which the Dr. will needs have to be that of Ephesus and the seven Angels must be these seven Bishops by whom he governed that Province Again the Angel is called by Augustin the Praepositus or President therefore he was an Hierarchical President as the Dr. has shapen out What Consequence is this As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna from Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 15. and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus Lib. 5. Cap. 24. we have spoken to it already and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles as likeways to Eusebius's History Besides that in Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Irenaeus calls Anycetus Pius Heginus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt We also did shew that he thus expresses himself further Nec Polycarpus Anyceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandam esse diceret We have also already made appear that Polycarp his supposed Bishop disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr since Writing to the Philippians he ownes only Bishops and Deacons as the two Orders of Ministry and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ. To which we may add that Bishop Bilson himself acknowledges Perpet Gov. P. 158 159. that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches when Iohn wrote to them it is abundantly removed by what is said above in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop by Ancient Writers as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus which we shall take notice of he tells us that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas the Faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of Patmos immediatly before the Angel of that Church to whom Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clement succeeded to Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Paraeus says indeed that these of Pergamus had cruelly slain Antipas but adds quis fuerat ex Historia parum constat that there is no Light from History who he was He adds Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem c. that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church and under Domitian a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds that he to whom our Lord wrote might be tempted to lay aside his Office for fear of the like Punishment c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair and of his Name Paraeus says nothing neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office than that of Pastor seeming to take these Churches for Congregational And if the Office to which the Angel succeeded was that of a Pastor only where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair which he here assigns him Besides Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound touching the Office and Character of Antipas Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool do affirm That no Ecclesiastick History makes mention of Antipas and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note And that no History giving Account of him has inclined some to think this Epistle is wholly Prophetical and that Antipas signifies all such as oppose the Pope as if it were the same with Antipapa The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels is That it being apparent that there were Bishops presiding in each of these Churches when Iohn wrote consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches So that they being Bishops our Saviour in these Epithets allows and approves of the Episcopal Order But by what is above replyed it is evident that nothing which the Dr. has adduced amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops as he has shapen out in one or all of these Churches And therefore our Lords writing to these Angels gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order which he asserts And so to the Dr's Summ of all as he expresses it viz That the Episcopal form is of Divine Right upon Ground of our Saviours Institution Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles and conformity of the Primitive Churches and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone from what is above replyed that it is evident that the high-flown Hierarchy he pleads for has no Foundation either in our Lords Institution or the Practice of the Apostles is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church or our Saviours Approbation in his Epistles to the Asian Churches but as opposit to all these is by the Churches of Christ to be rejected and disowned CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government considered THE First Prerogative of the Bishop as contradistinct from a Presbyter is with the Dr. to make Laws and Canons which is the Essence of Government and supposes a Legislative Power else faith he Christs Wisdom is impeached if he left a Governed Society without a Legislative Power I need not stand to tell the Dr That by consent of Protestant Divines the Churches Power is not properly Nomothetick Architectonick Legislative but Ministerial and declarative of Christs Institution in reference to Ordinances the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government of his House The Dr. proves this Authority P. 433.434 from the Apostles Power Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision And says That in their Decree they exercise a Legislative Power laying upon the Churches to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity That as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the
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
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
ut istic constitueret Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docet quales essent illi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5 7. where after the Apostle had said that he had left Titus in Crete to place Presbyters in every City he shews how these Elders must be Qualified A Bishop must be blameless Asserting Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians so Close and Throng as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience Presbyterian Scriptures Presbyterian Sense Presbyterian Arguments Canted over by Dull Novelists one after another and which is yet more by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion But this that follows will possibly please worse Maccovius Redivivus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificorum Socin c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii or the Popish Cause and Doctrin which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom the Dr's Reverence It is even thus Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris tum ordinis potestate tum jurisdictione That the Bishop by Divine Right is Superior to the Ministers of the Word both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher Bellarmin lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The â— â— he thus represents consuetudo Romanorum quae Distinguit inter versantem verbum Dei Episcopum The Romish Custom which distinguishes betwixt the Preacher of the Word and the Bishop As our Romish Dr. doth This is Rude but how is this Refelled by Maccovius Why It s even thus Refellitur primo Philip. 1.1 Ubi idem Presbyteri predicantes Episcopi dicuntur Secundo Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.1.2 Uâ—i idem docentur esse Presbyteri Praedicantes Episcopi His two Proofs are that in these premised Scriptures the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor and the Bishop are held out as one and the same Another Novelist asserting this New Coyned Doctrin and falling into the same error with the Scots Presbyterians is Antonius Walleus de funct Eccâ—es P. mihi 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminenâ—â—â— inter Pastores ut unus gradu altero sit superior jure Divino adeo ut uni Potestas in alterum concedatur potestas scilicet mittendi aut deponendi ministros potestas excommunicandi aut admittendi leges praescribendi regendi c. qualem sibi bodierni Episcopi ascribunt whether there be such an Eminency among Pastors so as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right and has Authority over another the Authority of the Mission or deposition of Ministers the Authority and Power of Excommunication or relaxation of prescribing Laws and of Governing c. such as the present Bishops arrogat and appropriat to themselves Then he shews that he speaks of Spiritual Authority And thus Answers hoc est quod nostri negant adversus episcopales This is that we deny against the Episcopalians Here is a bold Novelist He after shews that the Divines of that Church were of his mind and thus exhibits a Muster Roll of New Coyned Novelists But he presents his praecipua Argumenta Chief Arguments What are these 1 in tota scriptura ejusmodi eminentiae potestatis nulla fit mentio That in all the Scripture there is no mention of such Eminency and Power of a Bishop above Pastors 2 quia in illis Locis ubi ex professo de ministrorum novi Testamenti gradibus fit mentio unius generis Pastorum Scriptura tantum meminit ut 1 Cor. 12.28 constituit in Ecclesia primum Apostolos secundo Prophetas Tertio Doctores Et Eph. 4.11 ipse dedit alios quidem Apostolos alios vero Pastores Doctores c. sic Rom. 12.6 Act. 20.17.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. That in those places where there is express mention of purpose made of the Degrees of Ministers of the New Testament the Scripture owns only one kind of Pastors as 1 Cor. 12.28 He set in the Church first Apostles secondarly Prophets Thirdly Doctors or Teachers and Eph. 4.11 He gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers c. Thus Rom. 12.6 Acts 2â— 17.28 1 Pet. 5.1.2 The 3 d Reason or Argument is thus quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos Presbyteros fuisse plane eosdâ—m ita Act. 20.17 convocavit Presbyteros v. 28. Dicit Spiritum Sanctum eos constituisse Episcopos Ita Phil. 1.1 Paulus Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus Sanctis qui sunt Phillippicum Episcopis Diaconis Et ad Titum 1.5 ideo reliqui te in Creta ut oppidatim constituas Presbyteros Et v. 7. opportet enim E-Eiscopum unius esse uxoris virum c. That the sacred Scriptures shews the Bishop and Presbyter to have been one and the same Thus Act. 20.7 the Apostle called together the Elders and v. 28. he saith that the Spirit of God had made them Bishops Also Philip. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus Servants of Iesus Christ to all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons and Tit. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City and v. 6. For a Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife c. He adds that Ierom Comment in Tit. Eph. ad Evag. doth from these places collect as an old doting Novelist too that the Bishop and Presbyter is all one the one Name signifying the Age the other the Office he Cites also Ambrose in Eph. 4. as holding the same He adds sic Augustinus plurimi alii in hanc sententiam that Augustin and many others were of this Judgment to whom he also adds Bucer de gub P. 258. C. deinceps Thus Walleus holds that this forementioned Scots Presbyterian Sense of the Scriptures premised has for a considerable time been a working Notion for want no doubt of our Dr's clearer Instructions But this bigot Novelist goes on to add Denique ex nullo Scripturae loco prohibetur uni Presbytero aut Pastori ordinario ullam dari potestatem sive in verbi predicatione omnes enim sunt Doctores Pastores sive in Sacramentorum Administratione ut Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 11.23 sive in exercitio Disciplinae 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 sive in Ecclesiae rectione Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1.2 Heb. 13.17 obedite praepositis vestris qui non datur alteri That from no place of Scripture it can be made good that there is any Power given to an ordinary Pastor or singular Prerogative above another either in
the whole Gospel times last times and latter dayes And some will alledge there has been Separation and Singularity Old enough in years But if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick New Testament High Priest and Patriarch and the standing of the Old Testament Oeconomy as Exemplary to the New and who has for several Ages pretended to follow this Copie and who he is who has been for some Ages separat from tho once Universally wondered after and followed viz. The Good Old Gentleman with the Triple Crown I think Protestant Schismaticks as well as these their forementioned Opinions may be supposed to have been in this Assertion much in the Dr's View But that I be not tedious and may hasten to consider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Answer to the premised Scriptures and the New Protestant Glosses upon them which moves his Spleen to such declamatory anger against his Poor pur-blind Countreymen one thing I would suggest to him if I may do it without putting him into a Chaff which is this 'T is known that there is a certain English Dr. of as great Figure and Reputation almost in England as he is in Scotland and of a great Name to this day who having got this New Scots Notion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters into his unwarry head was bold to exhibit a great many Testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers for this New Opinion his Name is Doctor Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls the Dr. would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity and undeceive his Countriemen and others in the Point of this dangerous Error in examining his Citations It s long since the Epistle was Exhibit to publick view and is in many hands and upon a little enquiry the Dr. may easily have a view of this dangerous Piece For if these Citations hold the Opinion is not so New and Singular as the Dr. Suggests but it seems is an Old notion revived again As the Dr. knows the Waldenses revived Old Points before them and from them the Protestant Schismaticks have taken up the same and in special so Learned an Antiquary as the Dr. cannot be ignorant that this very Scots Dangerous New Notion against which his Pamphlet is levelled was condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff and the Waldenses as testifies Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap 5. But now that my hand is in before I come to examin the Dr's Answers to the premised Scriptures I must be bold to Exhibit to him some more of the Heretical assertors of Presbyters Power and interest in Government in correspondence to the New Scots Notion Festus Hommius Disput. Theol. Adversus Pontificios Disput. 25. De Minist Eccles Ordin Thes. 1. He calls the Office of Apostles and Evangelists Extraordinary and holds it to be expired Thes. 2. primus itaque ordo Ministrorum Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti ordinariorum est ordo Pastorum qui etiam Episcopi Presbyteri praesides laborantes Ministri Praedicantes servi dispensatcres praesides duces in Sacra Scriptura appellantur That the First order of the Ordinary Ministers of the New Testament is that of Pastors who in Scripture are called Bishops Presbyters Labouring Presidents Dispensing Servants Leaders Rulers c. Thes. 3. inter Episcopum Pastorem seuâ— Presbyterum in verbo laborantem Respectu Muneris seu ministerii nullum in sacra Scriptura verum essentiale discrimen reperitur haec enim vocibus hisce Promiscue utitur cum unum eundemque Ministrorum Novi Testamenti ordinem designat Quia in una Ecclesia Civitate plures tempore Apostolorum Episcopus fuisse diserte Scriptura Sacra Testatur That betwixt the Bisâ—op and Pastor or Presbyter labouring in the Word and Doctrin there is no essential or Official difference found in Scripture which uses these words promiscuously pointing out thereby the same Order of the New Testament Ministers Since it doth clearly Testify that in the times of the Apostles there were many Bishops in one City From whence he draws this Conclusion quare Epsicopi jure Divino Pastoribus neque gradu neque dignitate neque ordinis potestate neque Iurisdictione majores sunt That therefore Bishops by Divine Right are neither in Degree Dignity Power of Order nor Jurisdiction greater than Pastors Here is extensive Scots Bigotry I cannot but also observe how Crabbed and unlucky expressions he has Thes. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination of the Gospel Ministry by the term of Priesthood because Christs Priesthood is Eternal and admits of no Successors he doth upon this ground Reason thus quare Ministri Novi Testamenti nusquam in sacra Scriptura Sacerdotes proprie dicti appellantur That the Ministers of the New Testament are no where in Scripture called Priests Adding proinde pontificii Pastores cum nomen munus sacerdotis sibi arrogant non tantum palam judaizant sed etiam blaspheme sacrilege in Sanctissimum munus Domini in vâ—lant That therefore the Popish Ministers in arrogating to themselves the Name and Office of Priests do not only palpably Judaize but also make a Blasphemous and sacralegious Invasion upon the most Holy Office of Christ. Musculus loc Commun de Offic. Minist is Scots Presbyterian in grain in this Point P. mihi 360 361 362. after he has asserted from Scripture Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office and the identity of the Pastoral and Doctoral office with Ierom Because the Apostle Eph. 4. says not that our Lord gave some Pastors and some Doctors but Conjunctly Pastors and Doctors he adds eosdem esse Presbyteros Pastores ex eo patet quod 1 Pet. 5. Legimus Seniores ab Apostolis admoneri ut gregem Dei pascant That Elders and Ministers are by the Apostles admonished to feed the Lords Flock 3 tio saith he eosdem esse Presbyteros quoque Episcopas Pastores ex eo patet quod Act. 20. Legimus adhunc modum A Mileto autem missus Ephesum nuntius accersivit Presbyteros Ecclesiae qui cum venissent dixit iis vos scitis a primo die c. Et aliquanto post Attendite igitur vobis toto gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos ad pascendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei Quos Lucas vocat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae hos Paulus vocat Episcopos dixit eos ad hoc esse a Spiritu Sancto positos ut pascant Ecclesiam Dei sic palam videmus eosdem esse Presbyteros Episcopos Pastores He adds for his Third Reason that it appears from Act. 20. that Presbyters Bishops and Pastors are the same because Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church who being come to him he enjoins them to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to Feed i. e. to Rule and Govern as the Original Word
this Great Divine was as to the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter both the Name and Office and their Interest and Authority in Church Government yea and in Councils both de Facto and de Iure Franc. Gomarus Explic. Epist. ad Gal. Cap. 2. P. mihi 487. having asserted the extraordinary Ecclesiastick Function of Timothie and Titus and upon the common Ground of their various Travels with the Apostle Paul proved their Evangelistick Office to be inconsistent with the Function of a Bishop who is tyed to a certain Post He adds deinde illa Episcopi significatio quae post Apostolorum tempora introducta in Sacris literis omnino insolens est in quibus idem quod Presbyterum notat ut Paulus Tit. 1.6 ostendit quos enim v. 5. Presbyteros Ecclesiae eosdem v. 7. Episcopos vocat c. That the signification or designation of Bishop introduced after the Apostles times is unknown to the Scriptures wherein it signifies the same thing with the Presbyter and Pastor as the Apostle Tit. 1.6 shews for whom in the 5 v. he Calls the Presbyters of the Church the same he calls the Bishops in the 7. v. as also the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus so termed by Luke Act. 20.17 Paul calls the Bishops v. 28. and Philip. 1.1 he writes to the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons Where by Bishops he understands the Presbyters not the Prelats set over Presbyters otherwise which were absurd in one and the same Church of Ephesus and Philippi there had been a plurality of such ordinary Bishops of which every one had been set over many Pastors Finally where Paul recites the several kinds of the Gospel Ministers he acknowledges no such Bishops distinct from Presbyters and superior unto them as Eph. 4.11 To which purpose Ierom's Judgment is memorable which is extant Comment in Ep. to Tit. 1.1 where comparing the 5. and 7. v. he infers that the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same which Point he doth likewise in the same manner as we have done demonstrat from Philip 1.1 and Act. 20.28.29 and other Passages adjoined thereunto concluding all with this weighty assertion that with the Ancients the Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same untill by Degrees the care and inspection was put upon one and that the Bishops were set over Presbyters rather by Custom than by Truth of Divine appointment which Custom saith the Author did at last bring upon the Church the mischievous dominion of Bishops contrary to the Apostles Command 1 Pet. 5. Thereafter he reasons the Ruling Elders Office from these Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 5.17 Rom. 12.8 1 Thes. 5.12 P. 526. explic Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1. Consect 1. Cum Paulus hic alibi ut Act. 20. Uni Ecclesiae plures Episcopos tribuat nec ullum inter Episeopos ordinarios Pastores statuat discrimen sequitur adversus pontificios Episcopum non significare Pastorem praefectum Pastorum sed Ecclesiae Pastorem ut docet Hieron in Ep. ad Evag. Comment ad Titum probat v. 1. Since Paul both here and elsewhere as Act. 20. ascribes unto one Church a Plurality of Bishops neither places any difference betwixt the ordinary Bishops and the Pastors it follows against the Papists and thus against this Dr. in Gomarus Sense that the Word Bishop doth not signifie both the Pastor and Prelatical Inspector over Pastors or a Pastor of Pastors but a Pastor of the Church as Ierom learnedly proves in Epist ad Evag. P. 704. Explicat in 1 Pet. 5. Consect 8. Quandoquidem Presbyterorum officium hic statuitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quemadmodum Paulus Presbyteros Ephesinos dictos Act. 20.17 vocat deinde Episcopos v. 28. Philip. 1.1 Ecclesiae unius Urbis Philippensis tribuit Paulus Episcopos Diaconos Neque ullibi in Sacris Literis Episcopus Presbyteris praefertur Inde sequitur non ex Divina Institutione sed Humana Traditione cui deinde accessit superbia Episcopos a Presbyteris fuisse distinctos iisque Potestate Authoritate praelatis That is since the Office of Presbyters is here held out to be an Episcopal Inspection as Paul doth accordingly call the Pastors and Presbyters of Ephesus Bishops Act. 20.28 who are likewise termed Presbyters v. 17. and Philip. 1.1 mentions the Bishops and Deacons of that one City Philippi neither is there a Bishop found set over Presbyters in any place of Holy Writ It hence follows that the distinguishing of Bishops from Presbyters and setting them over Presbyters in a Potestative and Authoritative Prelacy had its Rise from no Divine Institution but from Humane Tradition which was the Foundation of Pride Well shall I weary our Profound Dr with another of the same Stamp with the Scots Presbyterians Antonius Sadael Operum Theol. Tom. 1. De Legitima Vocatione Pastorem Ecclesiae In the beginning of that Dispute he professes to deal with such as profest to owne the Reformed Doctrine but studied to evert the chief part of Discipline rejectis iis quibus ex officio incumbit ipsius Disciplinae Administratio rejecting such who by their Office have the Administration of Government committed to them P. mihi 65 66 67. He thus proceeds having Answered an Argument of one of the Sorbon Doctors he proposes his Second which is this objicit primos nostros Doctores fuisse quidem Presbyteros sed non Episcopos itaque non potuisse alios Ecclesiae Doctores constituere cum soli Episcopi Ius Ordinandi habeant That our first Doctors were Presbyters and not Bishops and thus could not Ordain other Ministers of the Church since only Bishops have a Right to Ordain Quae Sententia saith Sadael quam falsa sit jam videndum est The Falshood of which Opinion he undertakes to discover And thus he confutes it Patet ex Verbo Dei Episcopum Presbyterum qui quidem Ecclesiam docent reipsa atque munere eundem esse Atque ita variis nominibus rem eandem fuisse significatam sic enim Paulus ad Titum Cap. 1.5 hujus rei causa inquit reliqui te in Creta ut constituas oppidatim Presbyteros sicut tibi mandavi si quis est inculpatus opportet enim Episcopum inculpatum esse It is evident from the Word of God that the Bishop and Presbyter such as Teach the Church of God are upon the Matter and in Office one and the same and that by these Names one and the same thing is signified For thus the Apostle to Titus Cap. 1. v. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City If any be blameless For a Bishop must be blameless c. He adds idem Apostolus ad Presbyteros Ephesinos Act. 20. attendite vos ipsos totum gregem in quo Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos ad pascendam Ecclesiam Dei. Et in Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1 v. 1. Salutat Sanctos qui erant Philippis una cum
his Super-eminency above them is insinuat yea Asserted The Dr. is bold to assert that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Of this alwise we demand one instance the Dr's extensive Phraseologie boasts of a Plenty of Instances but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury especially when as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto But here as often elsewhere he plys us with generals alien from the purpose He tells us P. 26. Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy were called High Priests it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names to have inferred an Equality since their Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction Here again a Poor Repeated General Alien from the Point If this Dr. had intended to Dispute not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk he should instead of Begging Poorly the Question in Supposing it have made that good in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests were distinguished and what was appropriat to the one denyed to the other under that Dispensation so there is exhibit in the New Testament the same Discriminating Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians yet as an Officiperda so far mistaking his Mark and Measures that he never comes near the Point which they deny and he undertakes or stands obliged to prove He adds ibid. Bishops were called Presbyters who had Presbyters under them in the Days of the Apostles If he mean this of ordinary Officers distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters I deny it and that there were any such ordinary Officers with such Authority over Pastors under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter He tells us that the Presbyters signifie the Priests who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations A New Begging of the Question I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers and do consequently hold that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould The Dr. is bold to tell us That tho all Bishops are Presbyters yet not all Presbyters Bishops and therefore to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names is neither good Logick nor Good History But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers he shews himself no good Historian in Obtruding such Doctrine And since instead of proving he still beggs the Question and that doubly First In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names without respect to the Official Identity exhibit in the places which we plead Next In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter and grounding all his Answers thereupon without the least Offer of a Proof it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii P. 27. He will not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters from the High Priest among the Iews But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered what then would he prove Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order I have often told him that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not from his Fancied Dichâ—tomies but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power And where there is such a Dichotomie as he alledges as Philip. 1.1 our Argument proceeds not merely upon this but also upon this Ground and Topick that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context as necessarly infers this our Conclusion The Dr. tells us next That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this at least what the Series of his Reasoning concludes even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church And therefore needs Stumble no Protestants nor Amuse them tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet or upon his Breast as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church He adds That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat as is clear from Philo the Jew He told us the Scripture distinguishes them pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo since the Presbyterians are satisfied in the first and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self But to proceed P. 28. He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question telling us of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division as reckoned either among themselves or with relation to the People as the Priests were by a Tripartit while reckoned by their Distinctions That Community of Names was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be But still we are Wearyed Calling upon our Triffling Dr to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings to the Point which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy in the Old The Dr. affirms That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews above other Priests who yet was Ranked among them without a Nominal Distinction But as in the rest so here the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Prâ—estos or first Presbyter Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact or such a Proestos in that Age Will that merely prove the Ius If the Dr. say so and he does say it in his Way of Arguing then he Claps the Lawful Mitre or a Divine Warrand at least upon the Head of a Diotrephes and Stamps this Ius Divinum upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity and other Tares which the
evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters as the High Priest above other Priests is as Ignorant an Assertion and Arrant Untruth as the Dr. could readily have let fall Whereof I will 1. Convince him out of his own Mouth unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he still begg the Question 2. From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office First He does acknowledge that the High Priest was thus Termed upon the Ground of Special Ministries which were Essential and Peculiar to him Now I pray what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos and even in the Point of Order in the Apostles Days above his Fellows Next the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies with Blood and Incense and had this Prerogative above other Priests the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born Tyed to his Family c. And would not the Dr. Blush to Assert such like Prerogatives as Applicable to the Proestos or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days But he adds Salmasius grants That when the pretended Equality prevailed a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it But if Salmasius assert that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed it is undenyable that he denyes to this President or Chair-man such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for and allows him only the Chair of Presidency not Principality A Moderator's Chair and no more Again I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence Salmasius asserts that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors when there was a Proestos set up during Life Ergo he asserts that this Proestos was ab initio in the Apostolick Age or approved by the Apostles For what he adds P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age He should have Named them and where they assert this For as for what he adduces of Salmasius I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion And Beza I am sure whom no doubt the Dr. will owne as an Eminent Pleader for Parity condemns this Humane Prostasie as the Episcopus Humanus distinct from the Divine much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers the premised Account of them discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines No doubt if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters for this is the Parity which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General as he is for Imparity and the Prelatical Hierarchy their Stickling were not to be Valued But what are these palpable Evidences which convinces our greatest Sticklers Something saith the Dr that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction Some mighty Evidences then we must expect The first which he adduces is That of the Apocalyptick Angels among whom he tells us we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna But 1. How has he proved that these Angels were single Presidents and that the Term is not taken Collectively 2. How does he prove that such as acknowledge them single Persons do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore Beza I am sure acknowledges them only such Whom the Dr or any other do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church is not the Question but whom he can prove from Scripture to have been such and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture The Dr's next supposed evidence is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees To which I Answer in short First That the Dr. can neither prove 1. That the Apostles or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority to be continued in the Church Nor 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues such an Authority Since 1 They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority 2 Inconsistent and contradictory to one another 3 They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office admitted of no Succession and upon this very account can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends far less make the thing evident beyond contradiction What the Dr. adds further in this Page Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters and of the Ancients dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question with the former wherewith instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter he fills up idle Pages How often shall we tell him that the point in question is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings after the Apostolick Age What Comparisons Cyprian Clemens or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino And what proof from Scripture from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop under this Character above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter as he is bold to assert We often tell him that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies And tho that were made one Ground and say further he had disproved it in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed But proceed we P. 29.30 He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies Especially says he since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients and their words thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character from all subordinate Presbyters 2. The Dr. is obliged this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers and insinuat Argument to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office into higher and inferior Orders and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer as comes under the Character of Bishop from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors As for determination in Councils
Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite or Tripartite Division of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters in the Scriptures and inspired Writings of the Apostles And we do again as often before Challenge one Instance of this We have already told him and that not once That we hold that there is a Subordination of Officers and Courts of Judicature Represented in the New Testament yea and a tripartite Division of Officers viz. Pastors Ruling Elders and Deacons But that Officers Ordinary and Extraordinary Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. are of one Official Authority and equal in their own kind we maintain and are still challenging his contrary proof And to this Point it is palpably impertinent to tell us of Ecclesiastical Writers distinguishing Bishops Elders and Deacons Besides that the early Prostasie that obtained and the Bishops Nominal distinction thence ensuing might easily be productive of such a Division or Phraseology in some of the Ancients as he mentions who never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head and the Authority which Presbyters are clearly found to exercise in Judicatories after the Proestos came in together with the First Bishops acknowledgment of Presbyters collegiat Power with them as Cyprian particularly Besides the acknowledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter as having one and the same Ordination especially by Chrisostom and Ambrose doth evince this beyond contradiction I might add that the Office of the Presbyter or Senior who Rules only acknowledged by the Ancients as Presbyterians have made appear might easily in some Writers have produced this Tripartite Division of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon wouthout the least Shadow of advantage to his Cause The Dr. in the close of this Page soares aloft in a Triumphing Vein telling us That we may easily perceive that our Argument against Episcopacy founded upon Dichotomies is not only weak but foolish and extravagant But truely the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments against Episcopacy upon this head to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies and offering in Answer thereto such trivial babling Repetitions has discovered to all judicious Readers that weakness folly extravagancie which he imputes to us To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing person hereof let it be considered that he Cites Smectymnus Ius Divin Minist Ang. The unbishop of Tim. and Tit. Alt. Damasc. Mr. Dur. on Rev. He would be thought to answer these Authors and their great Argument he represents thus That it is taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter There is no doubt but that this is one great Topick and Argument and Mr. Durham makes use of that Term of Identity in the Title of his Digression upon this head But dare this Man say or tho he should have the Brow to say it will any who ever Read so much as one much less all of these Authors believe it that it is a mere Nominal Identity that they plead from and not an Official in all the parts and ingredients of the Office Or that the Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a confusione Nominum as he expresses it and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds which in the Texts mentioned by him and other Paralels do evince an Official Identity Why then bottoms he all his Answers and impertinent quiblings upon this palpably false Supposition To make what I assert evident to conviction one of the Authors he names viz Ius Div. Minist Ang. proposes the Question thus We undertake to prove that according to the Scripture Pattern which is a perfect Rule both for Doctrin and Government a Bishop and Presbyter are all one not only in Name but in Office and that there is no such Officer in the Church Ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters Then they propose no fewer than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments all running to this issue to prove an Official Identity The Topick of the Fourth whereof is thus proposed They who have the same Name the same qualifications for their Office and the same Ordination and the same work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer Then subsuming that thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bishop and Presbyter They subjoin Scripture-proofs to every one of these Clauses and Assertions and thereupon conclud that they are one and the same Officer Now upon this small view of but one of these Authors let the World Judge of this Mans Impudence in asserting that not only that Authors Arguments but all the Arguments of the Authors he mentions concluds only a confusione nominum as he expresses it in a distinct Character and whether his founding of all his supposed confutation of Presbyterian Arguments upon this supposition and quiblings about a Dichotomie be not extravagancy with a Witness Moreover let the Serious Impartial Judge since these Authors he mentions presents so considerable a Number of Scripture-Arguments For that which this Man calls a New Foolish Opinion in order to his design of making men believe he has fully Confuted them and convinced them of folly whether he was not in Conscience and Reason obliged fairly to present their Arguments to his Readers view and offer formal Replys to them I may further pose the Impartial Reader upon it whether this Man who has never encountered their Arguments nor tryed their Strength in a fair and formal Dispute and yet would fain Triumph in this boasting Pamphlet charging all their Arguments with weakness folly and evtravagancy has not Written himself a Fool of the first Magnitude and a personat Thraâ—o in Disput I must not forget that while I view that Fourth Argument of the Ius Div. Minist Ang. I find they have upon the Margin Ambrose's Testimony upon 1 Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi ordinationem subjicit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est After the Bishop the Apostle subjoins the Ordination of the Deacon and upon what other ground but this that the Bishop and the Presbyter have one and the same Ordination One would think that this is a little more than the assertion of a mere Confusio Nominum and that both from Scripture and Antiquity But to proceed our Dr. P. 35. Censures Blondel Salmasius Dallie as â—mploying their Learning to support their own Hypothesis with this Argument of the Confusion of Names And the Dr. regrats that Sir Tho. Craig a Man otherwise learned in Law was deceived with this fallacy We see that in the Dr's Sense learned Men have been imposed upon by this Scots Notion but when he has exhibit and answered their Pleadings whom he here mentions then and not till then his Censure is to be admitted But he tells us That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius Good Mr. Dr. ye know the Answer of Protestant Divines to the Papists Objection where was your Religion your Church and Doctrin before Luther viz. That it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirm of the
Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter And many Learned Protestant Divines think they have made it good whom the Dr. may please to advise if his leasure from Pamphleting work together with some piece of petty interest and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles will admit of the perusal If it be found in Scripture it was a pretty while it seems before Aerius But there is an English Divine of some considerable account good Old Whittaker if it were not that he had got the Scots new Notion in his Head who hath a Saying somewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum Aerio sâ—â—sit Hieronymus quo minus curandum est toties nobis objici Aerium ab insulsis hominibus Si fuit in hac re Haereticus Aerius socium haereseos habuit Hieâ—onymum nec illum modo sed alios etiam veteres patres Graecos pariter Latinos quemadmodum Medina confitetur Thus he Controv. â— 4ta quest 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Here we find he spares not to call these of the Dr's Judgment Blâ—ckish Men in objecting this anent Aerius affirming that not only Ierom but likewise both Greek and Latine Fathers were of Aerius Judgment in this point The Dr. might likewise have found that Michael Medina Lib. 1. de Sacr. Hominum Orig. continen Cap. 5. holds that not only Ierom but also Ambros. August Sedulius Primasius Chrysost. Theodoret OEcumen and Theophylact. were of the same mind with Aerius As also the Waldenses and Wickliff What more P. 35. Apostle Bishop and Presbyter are sometime remarked without a Distinction yet the Government of one among many is particularly demonstrated This is somewhat obscure No doubt Apostles Bishops and Presbyters have general and common Names For the Government of one among many in his Sense I do still call for the Dr's Proof but have no Return We are told next P. 35 36. That our Saviour is called an Apostle Heb. 3. That the Names seems restrained to the Twelve and yet Matthias is called an Apostle that the Name was bestowed on several others besides the Twelve as Paul Barnabas Adronicus Junius Epaphroditus That our Saviour is called a Bishop 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Government of the Apostles Episcopacy Act. 1.20 That Priests of the Apostolick Power and Iurisdiction are called Bishops That thus all the Fathers understand 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1.7 That the Bishops Philip. 1.1 are by Chrysost. OEcum Theoph. Theodo understood of Priests still Priests of the second Order For they conclude Epaphrod Bishop of Philippi from Philip. 2.25 The Dr. is never wearied of this Nominal Argument which seems one of Achillean Strength to him I am sorry he is put to so much Pains in Print to raise such Formidable Batteries against this New Notion and am afraid some Facetious Witts will alledge he is but getting himself a Heat in Cudgelling and Beating a Man of Straw of his own Upsetting But in short it passes much my Comprehension what he would make of all this if not to prove that palpably distinct Officers do sometimes come under general Names And who knows not that this Argument and Answer is still ex ignoratione Elenchi None of us doubts of this which he offers in Thesi But the Dr. will easily acknowledge that these Officers mentioned have in the Scripture Accounts their Marks of Distinction clearly set down which makes it evident that their Communicating in the same general Name will not conclude an Identity in the Office And thus the Dr. and we are easily agreed in the Application of the Answer when he has exhibit to us such Scripture Discriminations of the Office of the Bishop and Pastor or Preaching Presbyter such a clear Official Imparity and Difference as is betwixt the Office of an Apostle and Presbyter and betwixt our Saviours Apostolate and that of his Disciples and betwixt his Episcopacy or Overseeing Care and that of Apostles For the Denomination of Apostle I need not tell one who sets a D. D. to his Name in the Frontispiece of his Book how Protestant Divines understand the Name properly taken and do define the Office as distinct from all others That first Matthias and thereafter Paul were added to the Number of Apostles none doubts That the Name is sometimes taken improperly when attribute to certain Persons is as little doubted As for Adronicus Iunius who are said to be of Note among the Apostles the Phrase imports in the Sense of some that they were well known to the Apostles Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy Luk. 10. Others to be of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty mentioned Act. 1.15 Or of these Converted by Peter Act. 2.14 See Pool Annot. That 1 Tim. 3.1 and Tit. 1.7 are understood of Priests of the first Order with Apostolick Power by all the Fathers must pass current only with those who will take the Dr's ipse dixit for Proof But let them at their Leasure Pose him whether St. Chrysost. and Ierom upon these Passages were of that Judgement and whether he reckons them among the Fathers That the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip. 1.1 Understood it of the Priests of the second Order he should have proved from their Words and that they understood Epaphroditus to be Bishop of Philippi from Chap. 2.25 Our Translators renders it with the current of Protestant Divines as I have made good your Messenger which the Context convincingly discovers viz. The Messenger that ministred to Paul's wants But the Dr. has no shift but to censure them as following Beza A pityful shift indeed The Episcopal Translators who in their Translation so Zealously patronize that Cause that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the utmost endeavour translated to that Scope yet are so befooled in the Dr's Sense as to translate this passage so advantagious to Episcopacy contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Fathers yea and the Greek Fathers so well seen in that Language and all this to follow a Presbyterian Novelist But the Dr. preferrs Salmasius to his Episcopal Masters who thinks the word Apostle signifies Legatum Dei ad homines He is now become of sudden Fond of Salmasius But should have given us a better Account than a bare naming of Walo Messalinus putting us to search all the Book in order to an enquiry of what he here asserts I might tell him further that the Complex Phrase your Messenger and the Explication of ministring to Paul's wants sufficiently restricts the Term Apostle in this place tho it were granted that ordinarly it is thus taken But one Word more before I part with the Dr. on this Passage If in the Sense of these Fathers the Bishops mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle were Priests of the second Order only and Epaphroditus the Chief Priest or Bishop Then 1. It seems the Apostle Paul was somewhat rude in his Salutation to mention only these inferior underling Priests with the lowest petty Deacons passing quite over the High Priest without
that his Restricted Sense thereof above expressed is foolish and impertinent or prove the Exception thereof out of that Precept and the Service and Ministry therein enjoyned him by the Apostle when he is thus exhorted to do the Work of an Evangelist and make fall Proof of his Ministry But now the Dr. will Answer the Objection taken from this Precept enjoyning the Exercise of an Evangelistick Office And First He tells us There was Good Reason for it No doubt of that Good Reason a Church Officer be enjoyned Diligence in his Office But why Good Reason in the Dr's Sense Because saith he Many among the Ephesians were Infidels Here is a Reason of this Precept rare to be found elsewhere But even granting this to be one Partial Ground that this was the only or main Ground of the Precept and that his Work as an Evangelist was only of this Nature is among the rest of the Dr's Magisterial Dictats and gratis supposita He adds That it is no where insinuated that he was only invested with that Authority that agrees to the Notion of an Evangelist separated and distinguished from either Bishop or Presbyter Here the Dr. speaks of an Evangelists Office separated and distinguished from that of Bishop or Presbyter Whereof he hath given us no distinct Account As for that Sense in Reference to Preaching which he hints as that of Eusebius and his own we have made appear how cross it is to the Sense exhibit by Sound Divines and that Timothy had an Office distinct from Bishop or Presbyter which consequently this Precept enjoyns so that it is enough for us that he was invested and in that Precept is supposed invested with such an Evangelistick Office as is inconsistent with the Office of the Bishop whom he pleads for And to this purpose it is observable that the Term Evangelist being thrice only used in the New Testament viz. Act. 21.8 Eph. 4.11 and in this Precept Since in the other two Places it is taken for the Extraordinary Function above described why not also here Besides tho Extraordinary Functions communicat in General Names with Ordinary as when Apostles are called Presbyters or Elders yet he cannot shew that Extraordinary Names are mâ—de use of at least so Emphatically as in this Precept to point at Ordinary Functions If we Paralell this Complex Phrase or Phraseology as the Dr. speaks with the like in Scripture Language this may be convincingly made good as when we read of Signs of an Apostle 2 Cor 12.12 Commands of Apostles 2 Pet. 3.2 Foundation of Apostles Eph. 2.20 Where the Term designs a peculiar Office And thus it must be when the Work of an Evangelist is enjoyned to Timothy So that if the Office and Work of an Evangelist which is in the Sense of sound Divines extraordinary and expired be ascribed to both these persons and found incompatible with the Work and Office of a Prelat the Dr's Evasions are evidently found nought Suppose a person enjoyned to do the Work of a Parent a Magistrat or a Husband none will doubt that the peculiar Relations and Duties of Parents Magistrats and Husbands are here intimat As likewise if a Pastor be enjoyned to do that Work the same is held out The Dr. will have it no where insinuat That Timothy was invested with that Authority that agrees to the Notion of an Evangelist separated and distinguished from either Bishop or Presbyter If by Separated Distinguished he understand an higher formal Office than that of Bishop or Presbyter the Passage above mentioned clearly proves it admitting the Evangelists Office to be of that Nature State and Rank above exprest If by Separate he understand such as is formally distinct from the Office of Bishop or Presbyter and of another specifick Nature the Precept doth likewise clearly insinuat this If by Only Invested he mean such an Office as cannot exert the Acts or Duties competent to Scripture Bishop or Presbyter this is impertinent to the purpose and there is no need of such Insinuation The Apostles and Evangelists were invested properly and formally with their Apostolical Evangelistick Offices which Eminenter had included therein the Pastors Work and Duties This doth abundantly discover the Dr's empty Quiblings ensuing to be mere impertinent Shifts Such as that one may do the Evangelists Work who is higher Sed quid hoc ad Rhombum the Apostles performed the Duties and Work of Pastors But that therefore there is no peculiar Office of a Pastor distinct from that of Apostle is a palpably weak Consequence And will he say that when a Pastor is commanded and enjoyned his Work there is no peculiar Office and Duty supposed because his Office is Eminenter contained in that of Apostles and that they performed and were enjoyned the same Duties The Dr's next Instance is as foolish Daniel saith he did the Work of a King yet was no King Dan 8.7 He is indeed said to do the Kings Business in a passive Sense That is performed Service to the King as the meanest Servant does his greatest Masters Business in serving him But he that will hold that upon this account he may be said to do the Work of a King That is performed the Royal Acts of his Regal Office and such as are peculiar thereunto or that this phrase hath the same import as Timothy's being enjoyned to the Work of an Evangelist hath a Crack in his Intellectuals We are told next P. 111.112 That Philip was an Evangelist Act. 21.8 yet also one of the seven Deacons mentioned Act. 6. But had no power to confirm the Baptized nor to ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices by imposition of Hands as Timothy Ans. First That Philip continued in the Office of a Deacon when called an Evangelist is more than he offers to prove or will be ever able to do The Belgick Divines with Diodiate others take the Office of Evangelist here for the extraordinary expired Function above described And consequently to be the same with the Office of Timothy Thus also Pool 2 d. Part paralelling this Passage with 2 Tim. 4.5 and Eph. 4.11 And upon the last Clause wherein mention is made of his Diaconate they assert that having discharged the Office of Deacon well he did purchase to himself this Good Degree as 1 Tim. 3.13 Judicious Calvin upon the place offers the same Sense of the Evangelists Office Inter Apostolos Doctores medii erant c. That they had a midle Function betwixt Apostles and Doctors and an Office next to that of the Apostolat that they might every where preach the Gospel and were sett to no fixed Station or Post. Whence he concludes that his Diaconate at Ierusalem was only transient or for some time exercised by him and that thereafter he was assumed to be an Evangelist since otherwise it had not been warrantable to him to leave Ierusalem and reside at Cesarea He further adds That he is not here proposed as a voluntar Deserter of his Office
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
Presbyter or Elder even in Beza's Sense on 1 Pet. 5. comprehends in general all who have any Ecclesiastick Function the Officers here might be of a higher sort than single Presbyters even admitting the Term Presbytrie to import a Collegiat Meeting Ans. The Surveyer is still here repeating his groundless Conjectures and beggings of the Question for an Answer yea and confuting and baffling himself in these his fantastick Quiblings For besides that the existence of ordinary Officers Superior to Presbyters and cloathed with Episcopal Authority is still begged by him in several other Respects this his Conjecture is most unaccountable and repugnant to the Text For neither first can he make appear that such a Meeting of such Officers of a higher Order than single Presbyters comes under the Scripture Denomination of a Presbytrie in any Passages of Holy Write or that when Officers of a higher Order mett with Presbyters they had no distinct Specification by their Titles or Names As when the Apostles mett with the Elders Act. 15. and Prophets and Teachers mett together Act. 13. we find distinguishing Epithets and Names given to these Officers Next As this conjecturing Surveyer could give no account whether this Meeting was solely of extraordinary Officers or a Meeting mixed of Ordinary and Extraordinary whether of his supposed Bishops with these Extraordinary Officers or not So whatever Answer he might embrace he is still in the Briars and overthrows his own Scope For besides that he cannot give account why a Colledge of Prelats is called a Presbytrie or to what end such a mixed Meeting can be here supposed If his Conjecture be admitted they could be no Paroch Presbytrie And thus his second Answer is baffled which supposeth this Again if there were in this Meeting higher Officers than Presbyters he would needs grant that the ordaining Authority was not monopolized in one And thus 1. He affronts and excludes all his former Pleadings for the sole Authority of the Prelatical Bishop in Ordination 2. He asserts that all here imposing Hands did Authoritatively Concur and therefore none of them were mere Consenters as he alledges this Presbytrie was and this universally without Exception of any one of the Number And the Authority of the Action was not solely Pauls And thus again he hath given a deadly wound to his third Answer asserting so much In a word if all were Extraordinary Officers the sole Authority of the Prelat in Ordination a supposed ordinary Officer is no way concluded nor that of a Presbytrie impeached If they were all ordinary Officers this Ioynt Authoritative Concurrence cutts the throat of the Prelats arrogated sole Interest in Ordination If mixed Officers of a Superior and Inferior Order this Surveyer could give no shadow of a Reason wherefore the Pastors did not Authoritatively concurr I need not mention the common Maxim pleaded by some of his Party in a like Case Actiones sunt suppositorum the Authoritative Act is ascribed to the whole Collegiat Meeting or Presbytrie without the least shadow of a Distinction of the Interest and Authority of one Member from another and he hath before told us that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit The Surveyer adds If he was ordained a Bishop as some of the most Learned Commentators of the Ancients do think as Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and Oecumenius That Presbytrie might be a Meeting of Bishops concurring according to their Mind in that work with the Apostle Paul Ans. The Surveyer striving against the Light of this Scripture is still more and more involved in the Briars Before he would needs have Timothy to receive but the Office of a Presbyter in this Ordination and thus he expresly paraphraseth the Text Neglect not the Gift which is given thee by the laying on of Hands whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter This he seteth down in distinct Characters as the Genuin Sense of the Text Now here he quits this post and will admit that he was ordained a Bishop For he Ownes and Defends the Sense of the Authors cited to this Scope so that we know not where to find this Proteus in these his inconsistent Answers Again if Bishops here concurred in this Ordination of a Bishop he wil grant that they all Authoritatively concurred and were not mere Consenters in the Action And thus again farewel his third Answer which monopolized this Authority in the person of Paul or else he must say that all these Bishops were Apostles Again if not Apostles but ordinary Officers then sure Paul put forth no Extraordinary Authority in this Case but acted as an ordinary Bishop and then it would puzzle this Surveyer to shew wherefore the Apostle imputs this Ordination to the Laying on of his Hands solelie or why upon our true Supposition which he cannot disprove viz. That the persons concurring were Pastors or Presbyters the presence of Paul or the laying on of his Hands did swallow up or exclude their Authority rather than that of a supposed Bishops in this Matter As for the Authors mentioned it is above made appear that they spoke of Scripture Church Officers according to the Practice and Style of their own Times The Surveyer calls this a foul Imputation as if they did wrest the Scriptures to colour the Practice of their own times Ans. Here again the Surveyer is put upon this pitiful Dilemma viz. either he must disowne the Comment of these Ancients and yeeld to the Strength of this Objection which truely makes the best Apology for this Exposition or else he must acknowledge that his preceeding Answers puts him under this foul Imputation of palpable wresting the Holy Scriptures to patronize the Antiscriptural Hierarchical Prelat and imputs the same to these Fathers For it is evident to any that reads his Answers that these Fathers Sense of this Text and his foregoing Answers are Antipods yea and cross and destroy one another The Sense and Comments of these Fathers which he is so Zealous in defending makes Timothy to have received an Episcopacy in his Ordination His first Answer makes him to be ordained only a Presbyter His third Answer makes the Authority of Ordaining to be only the Apostle Pauls and the rest of the Meeting to be but Consenters The Comment of these Fathers makes them all to concurr with Official Authority For such certainly that of Diocesan Bishops is held to be The Comment of these Fathers makes the Members of the Meeting such Bishops as had every one of them Authority over a Diocess and consequently over many Congregations His first Answer makes them all Congregational Elders and crouds them within the small Circuits of one Paroch Now this Surveyer might or any of his way may still call in Vulcans Gymmerers to sodder these Assertions with themselves and with the Fathers Comments if they can That the Expressions of the Fathers touching Scripture Church Officers were of that Mould as is said hath been made good by several of the Learned and
is in this convincingly apparent in that they put the Names of Bishops and Arch-bishops or Metropolitans upon Timothy and Titus We need not here again remind what is above made good touching Ambrose Assertion upon Eph. 4. Non per omnia conveniunt c. That the Practice of the Church then he is speaking in point of Church Government did not sute in every thing the Writings of the Apostles And that of Chrysostom on 1 Tim. 3. Hom. 11. That betwixt the Office of Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference As for his Charge of our wresting the Scriptures to patronize Human Devices We let it pass among the rest of this Mans lying Imputations it being evident to the candid Searchers of the Word and into this Controversy whether this person and his Associats in their Pleadings or the Presbyterians be the Perverters and Wresters of the Scriptures The Surveyer P. 219. further adds That if the Ordination of Timothy to be an Evangelist be spoken of here under the Name of Presbytrie may well be comprehended a Meeâ—ing of Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical Men seeing the conjugated word Presbytrie may be of as great a Latitude and Signification as to a Meeting as Presbyter is to a Person Ans. Here is a new flight of our Surveyers fancy Timothy now stepping up to be an Evangelist and the Ordainers Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical-Men But sure if they be either of the first two as he supposeth Paul is put out of his Office of a Sole Ordainer here Yea and in his Sense if any of the three be admitted the Scripture Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he pleaded as importing Pauls single Authority in this Action is expunged that room may be made for other Apostles and Evangelists This Surveyer would be hard put to it to prove that the Ordination of an Evangelist necessarly required such a compacted Meeting But as in the rest of his Comments and Replyes so in this we must take his word for proof as if his new Prelatical Office if such it was indeed as some have supposed had derived an Infallibility into his Magisterial Dictats As for his Latitudinarian Extensions of the word Presbytrie besides that he hath exhibit no Scripture Instance to prove such an Extension or evince that the word is ever taken in such a Sense he still beggs the Question in its Application to this Passage Next We are still in the dark what he means by Apostolick Men If he intend his Hierarchical Prelat here is a new begging of the Question and though the word Presbytrie might reach the comprehending of the higher Officers to the Presbyter who have the Scripture Stamp and Signature it is a stretching of the Term upon Tenter Pins till it crack to make it reach to an Officer of a Human Invention or a half Human Mould as he makes the Bishops It would have also puzzled this Surveyer or these of his mind upon the supposition that Timothy was here ordained an Evangelist to reconcile this with what he and they do plead from Pauls Directions in the first Epistle to him for his Instalment in his Episcopal Function over the Church of Ephesus wherein he is commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist For they must either here degrade him from this Function upon their Supposition of his Episcopal Instalment or if they make his Instalment here Evangelistick they make him to have been twice instaled in that Function CHAP. IV. Wherein is considered the Surveyers Answer to the Presbyterian Charge against the Diocesan Prelat as a new Officer different from those instituted by our Lord and standing in opposition to the Scripture Accounts of the New Testament Church-Government And this upon the Ground of the Perfection of the Scripture Records hereanent and our Lords Faithfulness in the full Institution of the Officers and Government of his Church THE Surveyer now P. 219. tells his Reader He hath presented the Summ of the Presbyterian Strength in these Passages and given fair and just Interpretations of these Scriptures which they plead Whereas he hath presented rather a Farrago of his own fantastick Quiblings and contradictory Notions and Conceits instead of true Interpretations of these places And it is apparent that after all this Mans faint Essays the Presbyterian Bow abids in its Strength Yet after all is done the Surveyer will needs attempt the removal of some more Impediments in his way The one is That the Presbyterians disown Episcopacy as a Human invention as a new Office never appointed by Christ and consequently to be expelled his House In Answer to this the Surveyer having acknowledged that there are Human inventions which proceed from Mens pleasures as Matth. 15.9 adds that there are results of sanctified Reason subservient to the orderly performance of the Worship of God and to the Ruling of his House with respect to the general Rules of the Word Wherein as before he still beggs the Question in supposing Prelacy to be one of these variable Circumstances determinable by Human Prudence and subservient to the Churches good according to the General Rules of the Word which is proved to be Diametrally opposit to Christs Institutions in point of Government and stands in opposition to the great ends of the Churches Edificâ—tion and the true Government thereof Thereafter he runs out into an impertinent discourse anent Ministers use of invention in Preaching the singing of Psalms with Poetical invention of the Composer in Metre who had no infallible inspiration And asks if we account the Confession of Faith Catechism and the Holy Covenant Human Inventions as to their outward frame And enquires further what we will answer to one that should plead thus was not Christ and his Apostles wise enough and could have set down such forms if they had juâ—ged them necessary c. and not left them to Mans inventions Ans. The impertinency of all this evidently appears when we consider that our Question with them is anent an Office and Officer not appointed by the Lord and cross to his Institutions in Point of Government whether Men may set him up in the House of God yea or not His Instances speak only of the Lawfulness of our Reason and Christian Prudence in a clear subserviency to the obedience of Commanded Ordinances for such is Preaching and Ministerial instruction Catechising and Singing of Psalms So that these being Commanded Ordinances and Institutions the proper subservient means thereof do in a Remote Sense fall within the compass of the Divine Commands enjoining the same such are these he mentions viz. a methodical form of Sound words digested into Catechisms for the Peoples instruction and growth of Knowledge the framing of Psalms commended for the use of Singing a Commanded Duty into such a Metrical Composure as is suitable hereunto I mean keeping still close to the Sacred Text and not varying from the true and genuine Sense of the words the Minister making use of Sanctified
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
or where or by whom another Iames than either of the two mentioned by the Evangelist was Constitut a Thirteenth Apostle is a Point I am sure far surcharging the Drs Ability to prove and his proofs here adduced are such as the simplest may Laugh at Whereof this is one That the Scripture makes it evident that this Iames had the great Preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem And next That in the Council Act. 15. he gave the Decisive Sentence calling it his Sentence v. 19. and determined the Controversie after that Peter Paul and Barnabas had declared their Judgment Which Argues saith the Dr. that he had great Authority and Preheminence in that place An odd proof I must confess Behold the Visag of this Argument The Apostle Iames spoke last in the Council of Ierusalem he called the Judgment he delivered upon the Question his Sentence after others had spoken the Controversie came then to an Issue Ergo he was of Special and Eminent Authority in Ierusalem beyond any of the Apostles And this as a supernumerary Thirteenth Apostle Constitut by the rest to succeed in that Office and derive the Office of Apostolat to after Generations It is indeed a Question to me whether this Assertion and Conclusion it self or the Dr's Method of deducing it be more absurd But sure I am both are and that in an eminent degree The Dr. has so wonderful a value for Prelacy that he will needs have this new supposed Bishop of Ierusalem preferred upon that account by all the Apostles to themselves and set up in the Chair to presid in the Council as the Worthiest yea and that his very Judgement upon the account of his high Prelatick Office outweighed all the Apostles Sentiments and ended the Controversie as he expresses it Such a conceit this is and Phantastick account of that Scripture as I dare challenge the Dr. to show if it ever came in the mind of any Protestant Writers It would have suted the Drs. serious Thoughts to ponder whether that which was delivered by others in this meeting and in special by the Apostle Peter was not their Sentence as well as that delivered by James and whether both these Sentences of Peter and James were not the same and delivered upon the same Scripture Grounds and whether the delivering of a Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory which the Meeting finds equitable and do accord to upon Grounds offered by him and some others speaking before him can conclud an Episcopal Authority over the Meeting But to proceed the Dr. ibid Argues further from the Apostle Paul his going in to James mentioned Gal. 2.9 Upon the account of his supposed Episcopacy at Jerusalem altho none of the Twelve that he is upon this account preferred to Peter John had the Priority of them both in the Church of Jerusalem A conceit sufficiently refuted by a recitation What! The Apostle Paul become so high a Prelatist that a New Constitut Bishop at Jerusalem is by him preferred to Pillar-Apostles as having a Priority above them in that Church I had thought that our Blessed Lord recommended and Authorized his Apostles as the Universal Doctors of the whole Church before this time as the Foundation and Pillars thereof So they are called by the Apostle Paul Eph. 2.20 And that the Lord in Sealing them solemnly by the Spirit the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem from whence the Law was to go forth had recommended them as his highest Doctors and Apostles both to Jerusalem and to all the Churches and that Peter and John's Ministry had the First and Eminent Seals there yea and that the Apostleship of the Circumcision was especially committed to Peter and consequently his Apostolical Authority at Jerusalem singularly conspicuous weighty and acknowledged where his Ministry was chiefly exercised and this by the Apostle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 And that he paid so great deference to this Apostle that he went up to Jerusalem to see and visit him Gal. 1.18 Besides that the Dr. supposing this James not to be one of the Twelve is cross to the current of Protestant Writers and Commentators as we have said As for Paul's going into James with the Elders Act. 21.18 Which the Dr. saith will prove that James was of greatest note and Figure in that Church If the Dr. mean his exercising his Ministry there at that time and that he was of eminent Note among the Elders or ordinary Ministers As who can doubt of this in respect of his Apostolick Office This is easily accorded But the Drs. Inference from this that he was of greatest Note and Figure among the Apostles yea and eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem and moreover as in the Capacity of a Supernumerary Apostle and Bishop added to the Twelve he will as soon squeeze Water from a Flint as draw it from this Scripture The Dr. tells us P. 395.396 That as what he has said renders it highly probable that Iames was Apostle at Ierusalem peculiarly and had the Priority of Peter and Iohn therein so the Testimmonyes of early Antiquity advances this probability to a Demonstration Whereupon he Cites Hegesip and Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. Clement Lib. 2. Cap. 1. and some others That Iames whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apostle till constitut Apostle and Bishop of Ierusalem appears to the Dr. upon the pretended premised Scripture Grounds upon this account preferred to both Peter and Iohn tho Pillars hath so exposed his Understanding of the Scriptures as doth much save the Labour of an Adversaries discovering his Nakedness in this Point Besides it seems with the Dr. that Human Testimonies of Antiquity and of Human Writers puts the Cape-stone upon and compleats Scripture-proof So that what was upon the Scripture proof but probable upon the high accession of Human Testimonies is with him advanced to a Demonstration But the Dr must be minded that if his pretended Divine Proof which must be both of the Factum and the Ius as to Iames's Episcopacy obliges him to draw his Demonstration of both from Scripture and if by his acknouledgment all his Scripture Proof amounts but to a probability his pretended Demonstration made up by the patchment of Human Testimony added to the Divine as giving the Demonstrative evidence and Strength thereunto is a Demonstration like to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron which could never make one intire piece and cleave together Next For his Testimonies the Dr. cannot but know that in the Judgment of Famous Protestant Divines this Proof from the Testimonies of Fathers and the Denomination of Bishops by them put upon Eminent Ministers and even some in the Apostolick times is a very slippery and uncertain Proof The learned Scaliger will tell him Prolegom in Chro. Euseb. That â—tervallum illud ab ultimo capite Actorum c. The Interval from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the Reign of Trajan in which Tract
any Officer of an higher order Moreover will the Dr. be bold to affirmâ— that what was prescribed to Timothy in Point of Order and Jurisdiction was confined within the Church of Ephesus and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches as the Apostle enjoined him And if this last must needs be asserted upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches as is above from Scrpture evinced and delineat it follows by inevitable consequence that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him while at Ephesus can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as there especially since the Apostle here enjoins him to do the Work of an Evangelist i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister as is above described not the work of a Prelat over this Church If the Dr. deny this he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches or else must quite his plea. But finally to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches before Timothy had these Prescriptions in point of Government Adddressed unto him therein From whence the Dr. concludes that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person presiding over Clergy and Laity Besides the exceptions above touched to which this is lvable I would First know of him whether this Pâ—esbytrie or Presbytries so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order as himself acknowledges competent to them such as Teaching and the like And if so as himself doth hold and suppose notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him Especially since it s known the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties exprest in the Precepts abovementioned And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy in the Power of Order and such Ministerial Duties as are contained in the forementioned Precepts nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein why I pray shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction What will the Dr. Answer if one should improve his own Argument thus Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie to use his own term and that there were many Pastors gifted to Preach and admonish yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy gave this Commandment to him not to them Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only And sure I am whatever Answer he can give to this which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture will loose and Answer his own Argument against us In a word its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time and shew that when pertinently improven it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows Which retortion I thus offer After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus with reference to the Clergy and Laity as he speaks the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus as to both Order and Jurisdiction without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them herein or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers upon him in the exercise of this their Power notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them when the Apostle gave this Charge and that it was his last farewell-Charge when never to see their Faces more Now if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before and Constitut him their Bishop what a pityful inconsistency retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice in the Instalment of Timothy to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule Surely if the Argument from Priority of time be valid it must be signally so in this Case wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text and to use the Drs. expression and Address him in his own words ibid. this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches and to be sure the Government now at last Established at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers since the Apostles ordained other Apostles and Bishops to presid over the Churches But sure looking to his Scope and Pleading nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould For he cannot but acknowledg That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat viz. To found and plant Churches through the World to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them and this with extraordinary Gifts and infallible directive Authority as Christs immediatly sent and first Ambassadors Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches with an ordinary and limited Power for I hope he will not make them all universal Patriarchs Now how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles any may judg yet he will have them not only Bishops but Apostles properly so called such as were the first Apostles and as succeeding them in their formal Office Besides in speaking of this Divine Right he tells us His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers Which is a General easily accorded by us as is said and no way will come home to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge The Dr. tells us ibid That if the ordaining of Presbyters be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office as we hold why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops as good an Argument for the perpetuity of that Office I answer when the Dr. shall make it good that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church as we can prove and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders or make it appear that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus any Rules for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop or for his Qualifications as in that Capacity as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor in both these Epistles then and not till then the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted But till then we must
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
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
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
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
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
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
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
he adds in the other Branch in expressing what is enjoyned being examples to the Flock enjoining thus to Feed by Example and an Humble Ministry And this is opposit to all Dominion whatsoever and doth not discriminat one Dominion from another as is also evident in the positive part of the Paralel Precepts abovementioned We have also told him that the instance and Illustration drawn from such Princes of the Gentiles as were accounted Gracious Lords and the simple word of Rule used by Luke in the paralel confutes this Gloss and doth demonstrat that it is not proud insolent Dominion or a Dominion secundum quid and thus qualified which is only here forbidden but Lordship and Dominion simpliciter the desire whereof did notwithstanding proceed in the Apostles from some remainders of Pride and in their Case could not be exercised or assumed without a fastuous insolency it being Diametrically opposit to the Nature of their Holy Office and Function So then I argue against the Dr. from his own Principle and Gloss If Peter thus understood our Lords Precept Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. in this Sense that Pride was the Principle of their desire and of that greatness they sought and that the exercise of this greatness was prohibit as the very emanation of insolent Pride and if with all he coppied out this his Precept to Ministers from that great Command of his Lord and took his Measures therefrom he could not but look upon Pastors Lording over the Flâ—cks as proceeding from Pride and the very practice and exercise of a Domineering Tyranny yea he could not but put under this Character whatever exercise of pretended Ministerial Authority goes beyond the Limits of that humble exemplary Ministry that Ministerial diligence and service of the Lords Flocks which is enjoyned in the positive part of his Masters Command exactly coppied out in this his Apostolick Precept I further remark that the Dr. holding out the Sense of the Apostle as terminating only in this General discharging Pride and Insolency in Government without condescending upon the extent of the Negative and positive explication of the Precept and the Nature of that Power here specified and Discharged as Flowing from this Pride and Insolent Disposition and but only shewing that it is a Pride unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat and the setting up of such a Dominion in the Church as may be supposed in an abstracted Sense and in its general Nature Lawful and thus still saves the Popes Mitre from the Touch of this prohibition The Dr. holds That our exposition of those Texts was never heard of till these latter days Thus with him the Papists only have hit upon the true Ancient Exposition and Protestants have missed it Amongst many other confuting Instances he might have minded the abovementioned Passages of Bernard to Eugenius lib. 2. Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus Ergo tu tibi usurpare aude ut Dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus Dominatum CHAP. II. A Confutation of what the Dr. offers in Answer to the Presbyterians Argument for Parity of Pastors taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in the Scripture Account of the Pastoral Office THe Dr. by this time has finisht his first easie Task of Discussing our Argument from Christs Institution He will next fall upon our Argument from Scripture Consequences And that his Work here may be as easie as the first and least he should break his Word to his Friend in giving him a large History of our Arguments on this Head Of them all he is pleased to Single out one taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter which he says fills all our Books Citing Smectym Ius Divin Minist Ang. Unbishopping Tim. and Tit. Altare Damasc. Durh. Dissert But surely any who have Seriously and Impartially perused these Authors and compares what they have written with that which this Man pretends to Answer may Laugh at his Prodigious Folly in Boasting of an Answer to Books which he appears never to have read or understood It were good for him that the Authors he paints his Margine with were out of the World that the Ignorant or such as never saw them might believe that this Personat Champion had made a mighty Baffling Assault upon them But all such as are acquaint with their Writings will easily discover that he is here Acting a Pedantick Nomenclator of these Authors and no more The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter I mean an Official Identity I acknowledge is improven by these Authors and other Presbyterian Writers and am content to try Issue with him upon this Head but the Dr I find is so Loose and Perverse a Disputer that he doth not so much as offer to propose one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope He alledges We Argue from the Homonomy of Names of Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament to prove the Sameness of the Office and that the Clergy of the New Testament are Dichotomised into Bishops and Deacons only in some Texts And thus in some Ancient Writers That we thus exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter tho the Offices themselves be as much distinguished in several Texts of the New Testament as is possible He holds P. 22 23. That we found the Solidity of our Demonstration of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter merely upon the Confusio Nominum which he represents in a distinct Character as our only Topick To which purpose he tells us we cite Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.6 7. and several other places There needs no more than the Reciting of this to discover this Mans Precarious Vanity and Ignorance of this Controversie since all that are acquaint with it do know that it is not the Sameness ef Names simplely and in its self considered which the Presbyterians ground upon tho this have its own Secondary Weight but the Sameness and Identity of the Qualifications Ordination Work Duties and every other Essential of the Office Which is an Argument with more Demonstrative Nerves than that of the Sameness of Names Presbyters being in Scripture called and owned as Rulers Governors Overseers Bishops And both Ordination and Iurisdiction appropriat to them without the least Hint of Imparity among them in the Exercise thereof Tit. 1.5 Act. 20.17 28. 1 Pet. 5.2.2 1 Thess. 5.12 14. Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Cor. 5.12 1 Tim. 4.14 Now if it be thus sure the Conclusion of the Identity of the Office clearly follows And had this Man perused these Authors he might have discovered that their Arguments run to this Issue and are not merely Bottomed upon so slight a Ground as he would make such believe whose Knowledge is of a like Size and Measure with his own Yet so weak is his Cause that his Answer cannot stand before this very Argument as he propounds it at least with a due Respect to the Scope of the Places Cited which will
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-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-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
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
Authority appropriat to them and that with Relation thereto the Bishop and the Presbyter are in Scripture made one and the same 2. When he says they are made of the same Order with respect to the Priesthood common to either He speaks Confusedly and Ignorantly For will he say that the attributing to Two Church Officers who are different the same Geneal or to speak to the Dr's Scope the same Generical Priesthood or Ministry will inferr that they are of the same order therein or specifical Office If so then Apostles who are called Presbyters or Elders he must say are of the same Order with them yea with Deacons also since sometimes their Office and Ministry is represented by such a term as Represents a Deaconate or common service Further I must here warn the Doctor to take up his Shield and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow Was our Lord of the same Order with the Prophets or Servants of God because in the capacity of Mediator and with Respect to a general Ministry or Service of the Father he gets the Designation name and thing of Prophet Messenger and Servant of God Will the Dr. thus Blasphemously degrade him into the same Order with mere Creatures who are Prophets and Servants In a word let us hold the Dr to his affirmative and challenge his proof of this Point viz. That in Scripture there is an ordinary standing Church Officer exhibit under the Character and designation of a Bishop who is alwise Reckoned above a Presbyter or Pastor when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named And according to the scope measures and extent of this Assertion let his ensuing Discourse Answers and proofs be examined wherein I am sure he has fair dealing according to all acknowledged Laws of Disputation Well proceed we then to his Proofs of this Assertion and the ground of his ensuing Answer to this Argument taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter He tells us that the inspired Writers as the Iews Dichotomotized or made a bipartit Division Reader be not so ignorant as to start at this term as a Goblin the Dr. as an English Orator may cast his Greek into an English Mould And you must know he is against new stanâ—â—t Opinions not Phrases Well what did they Dichotomtoize The Clergy saith the Dr. into Two Orders here he has soundly exponed his term like that of Priests and Levits tho as among the Jews So among Christians this admitted of a Sub-division and subordination of Church Officers among themselves as were the Priests of the Old Testament This he says was suitable to the Language of the Helenistical or Graecian Tribes high Oratory of the Apostolick Age the Name of Priest and High-Priest being Confounded Levit. 1.7 The Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put Fire c. v. 8. the Priests Aarons Sons shall lay the parts c. Now saith the Dr. if Priests and High-Priests got the same Name without any distinction of Order notwithstanding the High-Priests extraordinary priviledges the Name of High-Priest likewise being never affixt to Aaron or Eleazar and the term but Twice or Thrice mentioned in the Books of Moses while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not against the Subordination of Priests Could it be thought strange that Apostles or Apostolical Men in mentioning Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the current Phraseology of their Countreymen in speaking of Priests and Levites Dividing them into two Orders as if there were no more Tho the meanest Jew knew the high Priest was very Honourable and by all marks of eminency and Authority Disstinguished from ordinary Priests Thus he Pag. 23.24.25 I Answer Quod haec ad rhombum What says this to the Point Or how lyes this Discourse level to his scope either to prove the Bishops Jurisdictional Authority above a Presbyter or Pastor as Bishop in the Scripture Sense or to prove that we Argue sophistically when alledging that the Scripture makes the Bishop and Presbyter one in Name and thing and that therefore the discriminating of both by Episcopalians is antiscriptural How I say this lyes level to the Dr's Conclusion or can in solid Reason reach the same I must Confess passes my Comprehension For 1. Tho all the Dr. says be granted it is palpably evident that this pleading if it prove any thing levels merely against such as would draw the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter only from this that there is an homonymie of these two Names whereas it is the Identity of the Qualifications Gifts Duties and every essential of the Office which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from not merely the confusion of Names 2. The Dr. himsef acknowledges that notwithstanding of this supposed confusion of Names oâ— Dichotomotizing the Old Testament Church Officers yet the High-Priest was distinguished from the other Priests by marks of Eminency and Authority for instance that he is called High-Priest And therefore before his Discourse can have any shadow of Answer he is bound to Exhibit in a just Paralel the same Scripture marks of Eminency and Authority of the Diocesan Bishop above the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop as the Scripture Exhibits in reference to the High-Priests above the ordinary Priests or the Priests in reference to the Levites else this Answer by his own Confession and in the Sense of all men of Sense is but a pitiful Begging of the Question For upon this Ground he might alledge a Distinction betwixt the Pastor and Preaching Presbyter He alledges P. 25. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High-Priest is frequently distinguished by his proper and special Character Well then he is obliged to let us see in Scripture such a frequent distinction of the Prelatical or Diocesan Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter by such a Character as the Dr. makes special and Peculiar to him and exhibit his special Official difference therein and super eminent Authority over Pastors else he never touches the Point We hold that the Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture alwise one Name and thing The Dr. grants that the High Priest and other Priests are not so but distinguished and therefore he brings an impertinent Paralel and exception anent the sometimes Community of Names of Priests and High-Priests unless he can otherwise than thus disprove and answer our Assertion Besides the Critical Disputant will here put him to prove that the inspired Writers of the New Testament followed the Phraseologie of the Iews in speaking of the New Testament-Church Officers especially since we find frequent recitations of them in a far other strain and Phrase and that in their several Classes and Degrees both ordinary and extraordinary as 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. Eph. 4.11 Moreover when in that place Levit 1. Aaron is called not merely the Priest but emphatice Aaron the Priest whose eminent immediat Call to the Priesthood is so clear and distinguished from his Sons the Priests mentioned in the plural in that very Passage
he did well to add to his bold Assertion his two Limitations of Matters of moment and Canonically which must be referred to his Explication But we have made appear from the Learned Iunius and others what was Presbyters interest in Councils and he must be posed who concurred and Acted Authoritatively in that Council Act. 15 As for the Comparison of the Old and New Testament Ministry used by some of the Ancients we have seen what a pitiful Argument it is in reference to his Conclusion and that the Comparison is only with reference to a similitude in point of of a Distinction and Subordination of Courts and Officers not a Parity or Identity of both OEconomies For this were to make an illustrating similitude or allusion to infer an Identity with absurdity if the Dr. should draw upon himself who will not hiss him I desiderat still and call for the Dr s. Scripture-proof of the Diocesan Bishops Superiority to the Pastor or Presbyter according to the true State of the Question and his undertaking and supposition in his Answers but there is no scent of it tho I am still in Quest of the same Pag. 30. He is still repeating again his Notion and Phantastical Conceit of Dichotomies Well what more to this scope Clemens Romanus saith the Dr. divides the Clergy into two Orders and so he doth the Jewish Ministry into Priests and Levites tho in either there is no equality But to this nauseous repeating Dr. I must Repeat again 1. Tho he should exhibit Clemens's Assertion of his Hierarchical Bishop it touches not the Point in Question which is anent a Scripture Assertion of such an Officer not what any Human Writers have Asserted 2. He has not made appear Clemens's subdivision of the Pastoral Office into his fancied Orders nor the Assertions of any Writers else to this purpose For Tertullians Testimony if it prove any thing it proves too much and beyond his Assertion Viz. The Deacons Power to Baptize which the Dr. cannot own without disowning the Scripture-accounts of this Office and the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines But to proceed with the Dr. P. 31. In stead of a solid Answer to our Scripture Arguments for the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter or our demanded Scripture-proof of his supposed Imparity I find the Dr. is still casting up his pityful recocted Crambe of Dichotomies and telling us trifflling quibles of Tertullian's sense of the Seniores mentioned in his VVritings he tells us he is not at a Point in it whether by Seniores Tertullian understood all Presbyters or those only advanced to the Episcopal Dignity And what this signifies to the point in question often mentioned the Appeal is made to all considering persons to Judge And whether in such pretended Answers to our Scripture Arguments for Presbyterian Government long since offered to the view of the Learned World and to our demand of a Scripture proof of his supposed Impariity this Man be not a poor Beggarly Trifler and a Skirmisher with his own Shadow Besides Tertullian asserts that praesident probati quique Seniores if the Dr. is not sure but that such in Tertullian's sense might be Pastors he must acknowledge that according to Tertullian such presided or had the Authority of a Proestos in Church Judicatories as were not of his Hierarchical Order So that he did not well to raise this frighting Ghost What more to our Question We are told next That Clem. Alexan. Stromat Lib. 6. reckons up Three Orders of the Clergy What then We reckon up Pastors Ruling Elders Deacons The question is what Degrees he assigns of the Pastoral Office And further upon what Scripture VVarrand How long will scorners delight in scorning and fools hate Knowledge VVhat more Are we yet arrived at the Dr's Answer to Presbyterian Scripture Arguments or his own Scripture Proofs of what he here beggs No. We hear next that Cyprian asserts the Episcopal Jurisdiction But all who have read Cyprian can tell him that he also ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues without whom he could do nothing And therefore that he owned no sole Episcopal Iurisdiction VVhat more Polycarp troubles the Dr. who divids the Clergie into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians VVhat will remedy this VVhy He recommends Ignatius his Epistles where the Apostolick Hierarchie is often mentioned But what assurance gives the Dr. that these were his genuine Epistles which now go under his Name there being Passages in these Epistles which the Dr. himself cannot but be ashamed of But Polycarp in the Dr's Opinion was a very modest humble Man whose useual Stile was Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Which the Dr. will needs have to express his Episcopal Distinction from them A proof which if you be a Friend you may take off his Hand when the poor empty Man has no better I see it is now dangerous for any Minister to say or write I and the Pastors that are with me least the Dr. fasten an Episcopal Gloss upon it The Dr. profoundly supposes that nothing but an Episcopal Jurisdiction and Priority could warrand this Phrase and order of his Words The contrary whereof can be cleared by so many Instances as renders this Reason obviously ridiculous What more we are told P. 32. That there can be nothing more extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because the Ancients used the Jewish Phraseology since they frequentlie assert the Iurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters But what can be more extravagant than this Dr's Trifling in this Debate and telling over and over ad nauseam usque this pityful quible not to the purpose and the point in question and in stead of an Answer to our Nervous Scripture-Arguments for the Official Parity of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino presenting idle repeated Stories of the Ancients Phraseologie anent the New Testament Church Officers which all Men of Sense cannot but see to be as far from the purpose as East is from West While pretending to run the Carrier of a fierce Assault upon Presbyterians he doth nothing but chase empty insignificant quibles with his back to his Adversaries and to the point and in such a faint declining of a closs and true Scripture-Dispute upon this Question according to its genuine Nature and Terms as all Judicious Persons who read his Pamphlet may see that the Presbyterians have this pityful cowardly Braggard in Chase who dare not encounter them and fairly deal Stroaks upon the point The Scripture Assertion of the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop under that Character over the Pastor or Presbyter as an ordinary New Testament Officer is that which we are still seeking from this Dr. not the Assertion of Humane Writers Ancient or Modern which last notwithstanding so weak is his Cause he has not produced What more Answers P. 32.33 Hermes contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproved their ambition who in his time strove for Dignitie and Preferment Reader here is a
with relation to ordinary Pastors or Ministers when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased But if I might be bold with a Person of the Dr's Reverence I would ask him this Question He holds Timothy was Consecrat a Bishop here we find a Presbytrie Laying Hands upon him with Paul whom the Dr. holds to be here Acting the Bishop How comes he then to say It is uncertain whether they were Presbyters or Priests of the first or second Rank Really if he be uncertain in this he holds by clear Consequence that mere Presbyters might have laid on Hands upon a Bishop at his Consecration yea and this by Apostolical Warrand tho Bishops superior to them were present at this great Work And what Consequence in Doctrine and Practice this will further amount to I leave to the Dr's Melancholick Reflection But further in mentioning this last Text the Dr. says He is put in mind to stir up the Gift which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands He has also told us and positively asserted that this Senat was composed of Apostles in the plural How many there were I think the Dr. found it hard to determin but in this he is clear and positive that there were other Apostles with Paul and consequently of equal official Authority with him in this Action Now upon this I would desire his grave Judgment how comes this Apostle to mention the laying on of his own hands solely and of no Apostles else We find him so humble an Apostle and Biishop that in the inscription of several Epistles he takes in the Inferior Clergy and Presbyters with himself whence then comes this singularity of expression herein attributing to himself solely what was equally applicable to other Apostles concurring with him What he adds further of the Work and Ministry of Apostles and Pastors sometimes exprest by the General term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already made appear how insignificant it is to his scope so that it is here Idlely repeated We are next told P. 38. That if any infer the Community of Offices from the Community of Names he confounds the highest and lowest Rank of Officers The Presbyeerians are of his mind when the inference is from a mere Community of Names while the Offices are otherwise distinguished in Scripture but when both Name and Office in all essentials thereof are identified they think the Argument from hence for an Official Parity concludes well and they pity this Dr's continued Repetition of his mistake in stead of an Answer to their Argument He tells us next That it is certain the Offices were carefully distinguished and separated in those days This is true when understood of Church Officers in general and hence we conclude that the Spirit of God has left us clear distinguishing marks of the Superiority and distinction of such Officers as do communicat in General Names with the inferior and this to prevent the mistake which he instances And therefore unless the Dr. will fasten a blasphemous Reflection upon the Spirit who dictat the Scriptures he is obliged to let us see therein the distinguishing marks and Characters fixt to the Bishop and Pastors Office to shew the Official difference of the one from the other And this he cannot but acknowledge necessary to prevent the bad consequence of an Official Identity drawn from the Community of Names And no doubt had he as sincerely designed to give and receive light in this Point as to present a vain prattling Pamphlet he would have examined the Presbyterians Arguments for the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and endeavoured to produce the Scripture distinguishing differences discriminating the one from the other What more We are told ibid. That the Humility of Superior Officers hindered them not to distinguish themselves from their subordinat Brethren Right Paul no doubt owns and strenuously pleads for the Authority of his Apostolick Office notwithstanding of his often instanced Humble Respect to Officers of inferior Rank What then Why Bishops in the second Century transcribed this tho they preserved the distinction betwixt Priests still Priests of the first and second Order But we are wearied seeking from this Dr. the Scripture Distinction of Pastors and Presbyters into a first and second Order Besides it is odd that no Bishops were so modest and humble in this point and prudent withal but those of the second Century We must know the Dr. prefaced thus that he might tell us That they studied humble modest Expressions and of Condiscension which he instances in the Inscription of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians But since this modest Condescension the Dr. will acknowledge did not prejudge his care to distinguish the Offices of Bishops and Priests of Priests of the first and second Rank he must either exhibit this in the place cited or he puts this Reflection upon Polycarp He may also remember how that afterward p. 84. he makes Augustine to pass from his Episcopal Authority in a Complement to Ierom in his foolish gloss on that passage of Ep. 19. Episcopus Presbytero major secundum honoris vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit That he was distinguished from Ierom by a customary Title only of a Bishop As for the Elegy of Apostolick Martyr which he bestows upon Polycarp we let it pass as capable of a sound Sense But for that of Prince of the Asiatick Church I remit him to 1 Cor. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2.3 2 Cor. 1.24 to be censured for his vain precipitancy The Dr. P. 38. drawing to an end of these impregnable reasonings must needs give us a touch of his pulse and humour in concluding with high Rantings This Argument he tells us he has considered the more carefully in that he Finds it over and over again in all the Writings of the Ecclesiastick Levellers as their first and last refuge Truely if these Disputers he calls so had as inspidily proposed it far less repeated it so often as he has Parat-like câ—nted over and over in so many Pages his babling repetitions of an impertinent quible instead of an Answer they had as much exposed their Judgment and ingenuity in this Controversy as I am sure his now is in the Sense of all men that understand it and have Read the Authors mentioned by him whereof this petulent Scorner discovers he knows no more but the Names As for the Character of Ecclesiastick Levellers which he bestows upon the Presbyterians I think indeed his experience together with that of his Fellow has taught him that in this respect they deserve it Viz. That their nervous Scripture Reasonings which he dare not encounter has so levelled and laid along and aboard the high Top-gallant of the Hierarchical Prelat he so zealously fences for as all his Wit and Learning will never erect it again which in this place is convincingly apparent since among the many Argumnts used by them he has upon this head insisted so long upon if not solely singled out this
one anent the Community of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which is none of the most considerable and after he has disguised it and spent Eight or Nine Pages in exhibiting the outmost of his wit to answer the same the expense of all his endeavours has only amounted to such pityful impertinent Repetitions Battologies and beggings of the Question that it is evident this one Argument has Mastered him and with its Weight born down his poor strength to the ground The Dr. adds P. 38.39 That nothing is more frivolous and triffling than this Argument that the Names of the lowest Officers of the Christian Church were frequently assumed by the highest and distinction of Offices is rather to be inferred from peculiar Ministries and Acts of Iurisdiction than any Names we can fix on But what can be more triffling and frivolous than this Dr's endless canting over and over this Quible and begged Supposition without giving us any shadow of the peculiar Ministries and Iurisdiction distinguishing in Scripture the Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter The Dr. having P. 39. discussed all our Scripture Arguments for Parity as he invidiously calls it from the Command of Christ and the Consequences of Scriptures drawn a confusione nominum tells his Reader That if we cannot establish our new Doctrine thus we endeavour to support it by some Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers I am satisfied that his Reputation stand or fall upon this Tryal Whether he has so much as proposed far less answered the Scripture-pleadings of the Authors whom he cites for the Parity of Bishop Presbyter As for his alledging that we endeavour to support the Government we plead for by Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers He has in this as in many other things exposed himself and is blotted as a gross Calumniator For it 's the Scriptures of Truth only and no Humane Testimonies upon which we found the Ius the Divine Right of the Government we owne and contend for As for Humane Testimonies of the Ancients we look upon them as confirming Appendices of Matters of Fact only as Testes facti in some Respect but not as Iudices veri it being the Divine Scripture's Barr and Tribunal only to which we bring our Cause to be decided And to discover to all Men this Dr's impudence in this point one of the Authors he cites viz. Ius Divin Minist Ang. in their learned Appendix in the point of Antiquity consisting of eight Propositions and nine in the Matter of Ordination in special not one of which this Man has dared to medle with The very first is That whatever may be said for Prelacy out of Antiquity yet as they have proved it hath no foundation in the Scriptures That as in the Matter of Divorce Christ brought the Iews to the first institution of Marriage so we must in point of Episcopacy say as Christ from the Beginning it was not so Thereafter they cite several of the Ancients in proof of this that it is not the Custom or Practice of the Church but the Divine Scriptures which must herein determin us and that all Human Writings must be examined by the Canonical and Customs never so ancient the Scriptures being perfect as to all Credenda Petenda Facienda In the second Proposition so far are they from making the most ancient Testimonies or Practice of the Church the Foundation of our Government that they affirm and prove by clear Testimonies and Instances that many Corruptions crept into the Church in the Infancy of it and were generally received as Apostolical Traditions which yet Episcopal Men themselves confess to be Errors instancing the Millenary Error with diverse others Whence they conclude That there are Doctrines and Practices pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical Institution which are rather to be accounted as Apocryphal But to proceed upon this false Foundation ibid. the Dr being about to blot some useless Sheet with his Trifling Quiblings upon several passages of Blondel and Salmasius must needs e're he fall to work disgorge some more of his Venom and Gall against the Presbyterians his Countrey-Men as well as Blondel For Blondel he would needs make us believe That in Complyance with Cromvel his Enthusiasticks he imployed his Skill to make the Ancients contradict themselves and all Contemporary Records A bad design no doubt and so bad as well as irrational that its hard to believe the Dr For Blondel his Writings as well as those of Salmasius has obtained the Testimony of Men of the best note in Protestant Churches as the Learned Professors of Saumer and many others So that his barkings will never touch or stain the same But for his Countrey-men Presbyterians he is bold to tell his Reader That they Concluded Blondels Book to be pure and undenyable demonstration before ever they Read it If I should return him the Words of the Psalmist What shall be given thee thou false Tongue I think I should merit no severe Censure What a fore head must this Man have who durst suffer his Mouth to utter much less dare to Print and exhibit to the World such an impudent Calumny yea so Vilely to asperse his Native Countrey Two things do sufficiently discover what sentiments upon this Assertion the World may have of this Person 1. His Conscience can tell him yea it s known to all Men who know Scotland that since our Reformation there hath been and are Hundreds therein not only of Ministers but others of the most Considerable Note and Character Men of Conscience and Learning who adhere to the Presbyterian Government as having a Divine Warrand and who have concerned themselves in a Search of this Controversie in the Writings upon both Sides And if the Dr. know not this he is a pitiful Peregrinus Domi. 2. That to conclude any Mans Writings and Book to be pure and undenyable Demonstration before a Person has Read the same is such a Sottish Brutish Practice such an Irrational Conclusion as cannot befal any Perâ—oâ— that has the most Common Exercise of Reason So that he might with the same Veracity have told the World in his Pamphlet that his Countrey Men Presbyterians are Idiots Dunces or Brutes and in Point of Judgment and Integrity much of a Size with the Popish Vulgar who Hang upon an Implicit Belief and have but a Plagiary Faith depending upon Mens Dictats and Hear-say yea and that they are all such none excepted But that the Dr. may not since he is in his Ranting Calumniating Vein and Humor be satisfied with one single Lie but make a Lusty Complicated One and let flee a whole Vollee of this Hell-Shot at his Countrey Men he adds That his Countrey Men think they need no other Answer to any thing written against them than to say that Episcopacy and all its Defences is quite Ruined by Blondel and Salmasius Poor pitiable Soul Had he gone to Iamaica or to some places where neither the Persons nor Matter he speaks of was ever heard or known he
might hope to get this believed Some of the Books he mentions P. 22. his Conscience could tell him are Written by Scotsmen viz. Didoclav and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day unto either of them It should then seem that his Countreymen should rather alledge these Doth he think indeed we esteem that we need no other Answer than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings Tho there are saith the Dr ibid. few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath Colour of Argument has been frequently exposed yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries Here 's a Deep Charge 1. His Countreymen Presbyterians becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's that few of them read these Books 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof so that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them if this Man may be believed But I will be bold to ask him what are these Evidences I mean Scripture-Evidences produced by him or any of his Party which we have not considered Dare he say that all in Scotland Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion do thus shut their Eyes And may we not easily Retort his Charge and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav Mr. Durh. and others whom he mentions And besides these many not Named by him to whom neither he nor any of his Gang have offered an Answer to this Day Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them Presbyterians no doubt need no other Evidence than this Pamphlet to convince the World that the Power of Prejudice has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light He pretends therein by his mighty Arguments to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work some considerable Authors whose Writings and Arguments he tells the World they ground their Perswasion upon yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them when fairly presented in their genuin strength And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality this savours of And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto he cannot but know that our Judgment in this Point is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines And are they also thus Hardned But more yet ibid. the Dr. tells us further That it is enough for us that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages and this in our Iudgment may barr all Dispute Indeed Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them than in your 339 Pages Stuffed with Blustering Talk and Empty Quiblings the Defence were no Defence We are again told That when we are bidden Name the Place which proves the New Doctrine we refuse any such closs Engagement Really the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well Decline a closs Engagement Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names judge what closs Engagement this Man has made with them and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter the Learned have sufficiently discovered But saith he Salmasius and Blondel have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons But now our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity Some no doubt not all and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments i. e. so as to convince all Readers that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings instead of Answer But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings that I interrupt not the Series thereof I must here pass over to his Second Chapter CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function in Opposition to Protestant Divines is exposed Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles in a proper Formal Sense His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities IN this Chapter the Dr. having told us That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity And what Scripture Arguments he has Examined let any judge gives us Encouragement by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie I am sorry he has not done it sooner No doubt all will acknowledge this to be what he stands obliged to But to Trace his Steps and Examine him clossly 1. I am agreed with him in this That the Government of the Christian Church has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles to continue to the end and who oppose this Institution are Schismaticks 2. For what he adds P. 95. That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests I must tell him that we do hold with all our Divines that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it And moreover we hold that both the one and the other was Typical and also such as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin or invade their Decisive Suffrage as Iunius particularly observes Our Dr's Inference That Subordination of one Priest to another is not simplely unlawful if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general is admitted If of one Pastor to another in Point of Official Authority it is a bad Inference and a Begging of the Question which is not about what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution in the New Testament OEconomy and Government The Dr's Distinction ibid. of the Apostles Ordinary Permanent Essential Power and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges suteable to the first Plantation of Churches is in general accorded But his Application and Explication subjoyned viz. That by the first they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers in the Christian Church is that which I deny And that upon this ground That Power which was Ordinary Permanent and Essential behoved to be so eminenter in the Apostles as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary Essential Permanent Power else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation when the Apostles at first Cloathed with it were gone off And therefore to be Transmitted to successive Officers consequently these ordinary succeeding Officers were in this equal to them when cloathed with this Power and invested therein And by further necessary Consequence the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers it being such as the Churches
Gifts of the Spirit by the laying on of their Hands they add quae omnia fuerant c. All which were necessary in the Apostolick Office for laying the first Foundation of the Christian Church through the World Here again the Apostles Extraordinary Office is asserted by the Saumer University and that with the same Ingredients upon the like grounds as we do hold So here are more of the Socinian Principles if we may believe this Dr. and this University as well as that of Leyden found ignorant of and going cross to all Antiquity in this Matter The ordinary succeeding Officers and of the highest Function in that capacity they hold to be the Pastors and Doctors whom they assert to derive down what was ordinary in the Apostolick Office to whom the Authority Consequently and Power of Teaching and Governing the Church is committed citing Act. 13. where mention is made of this Authority in the Pastors and Teachers of Antioch and their joint collegiat Power in Imposition of Hands also 1 Cor. 14.29 30 31 32. where the Prophets Authoritative judging of every Member of the Colledge and Society and the due Subjection of every Prophet to their decision is asserted joining therewith Chap. 12.29 Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers c. Well shall we offer to the Dr yet more Scots Presbyterian Novelists and of the Socinian Stamp in this Matter Piscat de Minist Eccles. Aphorism 9 Apostoli immediate a Christo vocati fuerunt c. The Apostles were immediatly called by Christ and sent through the whole World to esâ—ablish every where the Kingdom of God by the Preaching of the Gospel In his Explication he shews that in this Aphorism the Ministry of the Apostles is explained in four Heads 1. Ex causa sine qua non c. From the Cause and Ground without which they could not discharge their Apostolical Office and this was their immediat Vocation and Calling 2. e subjectis Locis c. From the Places where they Exercised their Apostolick Function viz. the various Kingdoms of the World 3. Ex Fine ad quem c. From the Scope and End to which they were to Direct their Ministry and Labours viz. the Planting and Founding Churches c. 4. Ex Causa Instrumentali c. From the Instrumental Cause they were to make use of viz. their Unfixt Preaching of the Gospel Here I Appeal to all Men of Judgment whether this Account of the Apostolick Office is not the same with that which this Man rejects as Socinian Aphorism 12. Sequuntur Pastores c. He proceeds to Describe Pastors and Doctors whom the Church can never want in the Explication he tells us that a praecedentibus differunt Duratione They differ from Apostles Prophets and Evangelists in Continuance as being of constant Necessity to the Church Thus Denying in Contradiction to our Dr the Permanency of the Apostolick Office Afterwards he adds Officia Pastorum indicantur c. That there are four Branches of the Pastors work and Office The Interpretation of Scripture the Ordering of Government and Discipline the Administration of the Sacraments together with Authoritative Admonitions and Exhortations Shewing thereafter that the Pastors do Succeed to what is Ordinary in the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office And their Episcopal Pastoral Authority he proves from these notable known Passages improven by the Presbyterians Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5 7. Now I dare refer it to all Men of Sense whether this Man is not in this Point of the New Opinion of Scots Presbyterians and stands Antipode to our Dr's Uniform Testimony of all Antiquity Shall we Consult yet another Turret Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 17. Thes. 3. Reasoning against Bellarmin in Point of Peters pretended Primacy he draws his Argument a Natura Apostolici Muneris and tells the Iesuited Cardinal and our Dr. with him that the Apostles had an immediat Power and Jurisdiction which they received from Christ immediatly And Thes. 4. in Answer to Bellarmin holding much to our Reverend Dr's Sense and Pleading that Peter had the Pontificat as an ordinary Pastor to be therein succeeded He Answers that gratis supponitur c. it is without Ground presumed that Peter was an ordinary Pastor to whom any could succeed Adding in the end denique cum Apostolatus c. since the Apostolat as such was an Extraordinary Temporal Transient Function which was to expire and cease in the Church it could have no Successors Herein flatly giving the Lie to our Dr's Grand Topick and Principle anent the permanent Function of Apostolat as necessary in the Church till the End of Time As for his Judgment of the Pastoral Office as the Highest Ordinary Function of the Church and the same with that of the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter and by Consequence the Succession thereof to what was Ordinary in the Apostolick Office we have already made it appear Musculus if I may Name him again without Angring our Dr. is full and clear to this Purpose de Offic. Minist P. 358 359. Apostolus est qui c. That the Apostles were not set over any one particular Church but the Lords Command to them was that they should Preach the Gospel through the World and the Command Go Teach all Nations was peculiar to them And P. 360. he shews that Pastors were the same with Bishops and were in this distinguished from Apostles that they were sent to Teach and Feed particular Churches and fixed to them Amand. Polan Syntag. Theol. Lib. 7. Cap. 11. de Minist Ecclesiae describes thus the Apostolick Office Apostoli Christi fuerunt Christi Discipuli immediate ab ipso edocti c. That the Apostles were the Disciples of Christ immediatly Instructed by him sent to Preach the Exhibiting of the Messiah before his Ascension and thereafter to Preach to the whole World and thus to Found the Gospel Church having this Testimony from God that they could not err in Doctrine c. Afterward he tells us what were the Privilegia Apostolorum and the Prerogative Praeordinariâ—s Novi-Testamenti Ministris their Prerogatives above the ordinary Ministers of the New Testament Instancing 1. Their immediat Institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat Mission by him to Teach 3. Their General Legation to the whole World with Authority of Founding Churches every where not in one place only Citing 2 Cor. 11.28 where Paul shews that the Care of all the Churches was upon him 4. The Visible Symbol and Badge of this Legation viz. the conferring of the Visible Gifts of the Spirit by Imposition of Hands 5. Their Immunity from all Error after their Receiving the Holy Spirit in the Day of Pentecost 6. Their Extraordinary Authority against the Rebellious Citing 2 Cor. 10.6 8. where Paul mentions his Readiness to Revenge all Disobedience and the Authority hereanent for the Edification of the Church whereof he might Boast 7. Their Prophetical Gift in shewing things to
to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power or acknowledge this his Description naught which he so vainly offers in opposition to the Account of this Office offered by Protestant Divines 2. He sayes That this power was constant perpetual and to be transmitted to Successors Here I ask him whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President or to devolve their Collateral Universal Power over all Believers and all subordinat Officers to respective Successors coming after every one of them If the Dr. adhere to the first he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal And indeed his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy does much oblige him thereunto If he assert that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor then his Descripâ—â—on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor has transmited unto him A Perpetual Spiritual Constant Universal Inspection over all Churches both Ministers and Believers For this essential Authority of Apostles he affirms they were to transmitt to Successors and that according to the Command of our Saviour But to proceed Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication P. 97. The Apostles Permanent Successive Power was to Preach the Gospel Govern the Churches they Planted give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks Inflict Censures Communicat this Authority to others Hear Complaints Decide Controversies Settle Church Discipline Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Necessity of the Faithful requires He tells us He understands the Gifts that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things This being Essentially the Apostolick Office it remains for ever in the Church the ordinary Necessities thereof requiring it should continue till Christs coming Here First I would enquire again since the Power thus described is in the Dr's Sense Permanent and Successive and necessary to the Church whether is it so as devolved upon every Person Succeeding and in the same Extent and for the same Eâ—ds as the Apostles Exercised it If it be not then every Body of Common Sense knows that this Apostolick Power and Office cannot be called Permanent and Successive and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize will prove this and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office which he describes If this Apostolick Power and Office be devolved in its entire extent and to every Person Succeeding then every Person thus Succeeding has an Entire Unconfined Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches all Ecclesiasticks and Believers to use his own Terms and are obliged by their Office to Preach unto and Govern them all as the Apostles did to give Rules Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers If he say that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern I Answer even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches and their Relation in Actu Exercito as immediat Catholick Officers thereof And the Dr in saying That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers without Exception which very Power he affirms they were to Transmit to Successors confirms what I said and cuts him off from this Evasion To clear this further in the second place it may be asked whether these supposed Successors are Authorized to Plant Churches give Rules to them Decide Controversies Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did with Respect to the End Manner and Extent foresaid If not then sure this Power is Transient not Permanent and Successive as the Dr. calls it If they have this Power of Apostles as above exprest Then first there lyes upon every such Successor an Obligation to Plant Churches where they were not For he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant to Govern the Churches Planted and to give Rules and Directions thereanent The Absurdity of which Assertion is sufficiently apparent and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts no less evident But while we speak of Successors giving Rules the Dr. would do well to inform us what Rules he means whether the Apostles Rules or others If the same then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules this Work being already done If others then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules as no Church can now acclaim in the Sense of all Protestant Divines If he say he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules in particular Cases Then I Answer This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules as all Men know but is toto coelo different from it both in its Nature and Extent So that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars But in the next place the Dr. has told us of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors and in the Sequel of his Reasoning must atribute it to every one of them And here I would enquire of him how did the Apostles Decide Controversies The Dr. will not deny that any one of the Apostles by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility could decide Controversies infallibly as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ And what Bishop or Succeeding Church Officer I pray has this Power and Authority We know General Councils have erred in their Decisions But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop by this his New Notion Or if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision either as to Extent or Authority then he is still in the Briars and baffles his own definition and explication Further the Dr. has told us the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof by imposition of Hands and we have heard that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion he restricts it to such Gifts as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things Be it so but will he say that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost This he cannot assert Then I say 1. He must acknowledge that here is a defective maimed not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession rather than the rest Finally the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles Supreme and no doubt since it is with him one Criterion of the Apostolick Office and competent
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
his Methods in Pleading and he will not doubt of their diligent Searching the Original Text and that they knew of these Manuscripts as well as Dr. Hammond and he yet do render the Text with the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Current of all the Greek Copies It s strange that the Dr. hath the Confidence upon the Supposition of one Copy or of two at most reading the Text without the Conjunction to assert that the most Ancient Manuscripts do thus read it as if these two deserved that Character and might stand good against the whole Body of all the Greek Copies wherein this Particle is found yea the whole Body of all Translators as hath been Instanced unto him by Presbyterian Writers We have above made appear that the Text cannot be consonantly read Read to the scope or contexture without the Conjunction since after that our Lord in vers 23. gives this general warning I will give unto every one of you according to yâ—ur Works c. He adds but unto you and unto the rest in Thyatira viz you Ministers and the People in that Church contradistinct from others c. The Dr will needs have the words we insist on applicable to those mentioned in the latter end of the 23 verse and not properly to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira And this is his Answer even upon the supposition of our Reading with the conjunction which he is forced to acknowledge is the common Reading and thus discovers his folly in opposing two suppâ—sed Copies to it His Reason is that they are the other Churches of Asia which because mentioned in the Speech directed to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira the immediat transition from him to them is natural and easie and all the Churches shall know viz the Churches of Asia shall know that I am He which searcheth the Reins and hearts v. 24. But unto you i. e. saith the Dr. the Churches of Asia c. Thus he scor's out and expungeth the adversative particle But in 24 verse clearly limiting the you here and distinguishing it from the more extensive you in verse 23. I hope the Dr saw no Copies reading the Text without the adversative particle But The Dr. says because the Particle they in v. 23 is understood of all the Churches of Asia in the Speech directed to Thyatira the Transition from him to them is easie and natural all the Churches of Asia shall know c. But unto you i. e. the Churches of Asia c. If this be not an offering violence to the Text nothing ever was For after that our Lord hath added a general appendant motive v. 23. that by this stroak on Iezebel all the Churches shall know viz the Asian Churches that he is a searcher of the Reins and Hearts c. He returns to an express Application and Address of the Speech to Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First in general by the discriminating But or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly in an express mention of Thyatira And that we may not mistake it for a general partition of the Churches of Asia unto those of Thyatira and others as the Dr. dreams he expresly in terminis thus restricts the phrase and address to that particular Church to you and the rest in Thyatira not to you in all Asia The Dr will not deny that in this clause the you and the rest are distinguished and within distinct Limits and Marches but so cannot those of Thyatira be distinguished from the Churches of Asia whereof they are a part For what he adds of Beza's Acknowledgment of the Angel to be a Praeses we have already made appear how insignificant this is to bear the weight of his conclusion of a Prelatical Presidency here supposed since he owns him only as a Moderator or Praeses of the Meeting by the Dr's acknowledgement But the Dr. tells us he makes him in a ridiculous manner a Weekly or Monthly Modâ—rator This Charge of the Dr's is ridiculous Beza only pleading against the fixed Moderator which with him is the Episcopus humanus without mentioning any such Limits of time as the Dr. Imputes unto him The Dr. will needs remove the Objection taken from the Angels not being called Bishops to which he returns That neither Baptism nor the Sacrament of the Lords Supper are called Sacraments though we express the Scripture Sense of these Institutions when so terming them But by his favour this Objection is not so inconsiderable as he imagins nor his Answer so considerable for if the Apostles Scope was to point out the Nature and Office of the Diocesan Bishop whom the Dr. distinguishes from inferior Officers and owns him as distinguished by this term Bishop which he knows to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in terminis a Scripture term and epithet such as is not the word Sacrament it should seem this discriminating term should here have been made use of rather than a more general Term aplicable to all Pastors And in a word when he shall make the Divine institution of the Diocesan Bishop appear in Scripture then his Paralel answer with reference to Terms of Trinity and Sacraments expressing what is revealed in Scripture though not in Scripture Terms shall be admitted as valid But till then must make up the Number of the rest of the Dr's gratis supposita and beggings of the Question The Dr. will needs have the whole Question to be determined by the Ancients affirmation of a Prelatical Succession to Apostles And next by their insisting on this Succession in their Disputes with Hereticks And in the Third place by the resolution of this doubt whether we may safely Lean on their Authority and Tradition in an affair of this Consequence What Credit is to be given to the Ancients in this Poinâ— and what strength is in the Argument drawn from their supposed Testimony in reference to our perswasion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is above fully cleared And our scope being to trace only the Dr. in his pretended Scripiure-proofs we leave him sufficiently exposed in this Point of Antiquity by those who have fully examined him and traced his human Proofs on these heads Wishing him a Sounder heart and more sincere diligence in this Controversy FINIS A REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF THE Scripture-Grounds UPON WHICH The AUTHOR of the Survey of Naphtali Supposed to be Mr. Andrew Honyman Bishop of Orkney Pleads for the LAWFULNESS of the Episcopal Office Where the Arguments of the IV. Chap. of his II. PART are Discussed CHAP I A Consideration of the Scripture Grounds upon which the Surveyer pleads for the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office TO Examin with as Succinct Perspicuity as we can the Surveyers Scripture Pleadings for Episcopacy in this 4 th Chap. It is in the first place to be noticed how that he was afraid to set his Foot upon such Slippery Ground as to plead directly for the Necessity of Prelacy upon a Divine or
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
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
why then did he in Contradiction to himself call for another Rule But the Surveyer P. 216.217 presents yet another evasion That this Church might have had a Bishop Eminenter so called though not present at Philippi That we cannot otherwise account of Epaphroditus who is called their Apostle Philip. 2.25 or Messenger as the Angels Rev. 2. and 3. are called the Angels of the Churches and not for any Temporal Imployment of being sent with their Alms it being too high a Stile to give Men upon so low an Account Thus 2 Cor. 8.23 We read of the Messengers of the Churches and the Glory of Christ. Ans. We have above removed the Foundation of this exception both in Reference to Epaphroditus and the Asian Angels That Epaphroditus gets the Name of their Apostle and Messenger Catachrestice and improperly and consequently that he was no such Bishop as the Surveyer pretends is most evident in the Sacred Text since he is thus termed with respect to that special Employment of carrying the Churches Benevolence to Paul For the Apostle after he hath called him their Messenger doth expresly adjoyn this ground of the Epithet and Denomination viz. He that Ministred to my Wants which doth clearly restrict and explain the Term Messenger in this Context Besides that v. 30. he is said to come to supply their Lack of Service towards the Apostle and the Apostle mentioning him again Ch. 4.18 tells this Church That he received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent by them As for the Surveyers Exception That this was too high a Stile to be given upon so low an Account comparing this with 2 Cor. 8.23 I have above told such Pleaders that the Service of the Churches and the Interest of Christ in them is such a Honourable Employment as the most eminent need not be ashamed of since he who is Lord of all came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister and the Holy Angels literally so called think it no Disparagement to their High Estate and Dignity to be sent forth as Messengers to Minister and do Service to the meanest who are Heirs of Salvation For that Passage 2 Cor. 8. we have made appear that it rather Confirms than Impugns our Answer and Exposition of this Scripture anent Epaphroditus The Apostles Scope in that place being evidently to stir up the Church to a large Expression of their Charity and Bounty upon the Account of the Fidelity and Worth of the Messengers sent to them for that end Next I might tell this Surveyer that Epaphroditus and these other Messengers being restrictedly called Messengers of the Churches and with a special respect to the Employment specified in the Text are thus distinguished from the Apostles who properly are Christs Messengers to the Churches And therefore Persons under this Character of Messengers from Churches to Churches have not that special proper Signature which the Surveyer pleads for upon the account of the general Name Messenger applyed to them In a word in this Conjecture as the Surveyer presents but a new Petitio Principii and groundless Fancy without the least shadow of Proof so it s baffled by his own Principle who thinks it below his supposed great Men to be sent upon a Temporary Employment Now it is certain that Epaphroditus was sent with this Churches Benevolence to Paul and it would have puzzled this Surveyer to Ansâ—er the Querie Why none else but the sole and eminent Bishop was sent with this Benevolence As likeways to Answer further these Queries First Why the Apostle Paul put the proper Name and Characteristick of this sole and eminent Bishop upon all the Pastors of the Church of Philippi Which upon his Principles did draw with it great Inconveniences as tending 1. To cast a Cloud of Ignorance upon these Pastors in reference to a Person to whom they did owe important Duties 2. This might tend to involve them in the Temptation of a Sinful Emulous Disposition and Breach among themselves And no body will judge that the Apostle was not careful to prevent this Besides this could not consist with that high Esteem of Epaphroditus which the Apostle here expresses thus to deal with him and in special to make him the Messenger of such Derogatory Expressions in this Epistle wherein he is so much commended Thus we have seen that the Evidence of this Scripture as likewise of the preceeding doth quite dispel the Mist of the Surveyers fond Exceptions The Surveyer tells us He finds one Scripture more wherein because Presbytrie is Named we account we have great Advantage for our Way The Passage is 1 Tim. 4.14 Whereas he may more justly triumph in the word Bishop so often mentioned in Scripture He professeth his Resolution pressely to consider this place And his Replyes shall be pressely considered His first Reply is That we cannot prove that by Presbytrie here is meant a Colledge of single Presbyters in the Modern Notion and not rather the Dignity and Office of a Presbyter as Calvin Institut Lib. 4. Cap. 3. Jerom and others also do judge Ans. 1. Not to stand upon the Surveyers cutting off by this Gloss Presbyters from so much as a consent to Timothies Ordination which in contradiction to himself here he doth in his other Replyes to this Text allow them It is in this place very considerable that this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytrie being used only thrice in the New Testament viz. Luk. 22.66 and Act. 22.5 and in this Passage under Debate Since in the two first places it must necessarly be taken for a Concessus Presbyter orum a Colledge of Elders or Presbyters this Surveyer could offer no shadow of Reason or Evidence for the altering the Signification in this Passage Since 1. The Scope and Circumstances do clearly lead to this its ordinary Acceptation And 2. There can no such Exposition be offered here without a very gross Imputation upon the Language and Sense of the Holy Ghost It differing little from Non-sense if at all reconcilable to Sense thus to read the Text Neglect not the Gift given thee c. by the laying on of the Hands of the Office For what Hands hath an Office to lay on Not only Reason but the very Ear disrelishes such a Sense Especally if the Matter of Fact be admitted in opposition to which the Surveyer could give no Evidence that as there was Ruling Officers or Presbyters then existent so they did de facto lay Hands upon Timothy For Calvins Judgement we find that in his Commentary upon the place he asserts that such as understand the Word Presbytrie here in a collective Sense and to import the Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters do in his Iudgement put a right Sense upon the Words So that he cannot be reckoned as holding the Surveyers Gloss And however we do not judge that most worthy Person as neither Ierom in this point Inferior to Greek Fathers infallible or our selves obliged jurare in ejus verba As for the
two things First What the faithfulness of Moses under the Legal dispensation did reach unto which our Blessed Lords Soveraign Faithfulnesss doth exceed 1. Moses appointed the Officers of the House of God their several Orders and Degrees their Work and Duties in so far that his Institutions did amount to determin a species of Government 2. All his Appointments hereanent were fixed and unalterable so as none might add to or detract therefrom 3. They were hence not Committed to the disposal of the Civil Magistrate to mould them after the Rules of worldly Policy 4. These Officers were not to denude themselves of any part of the Authority and Function committed to them or of the exercise thereof Hence it inevitably follows that the Government and Officers of the Church of the New Testament is in all these Points of the like Nature the Species is determined the Offices and Officers are unalterable are not to be Fashioned by Mens Laws at their arbitriment are to continue in this Fixed Mould of his Institution and Method of its Official Exercise till his Returning again Secondly The Scriptures Perfection clears this abundantly all things to be believed and practised in order to Salvation are perfectly contained therein and there being so much delivered in Scriptures touching the Government Laws and Offices of the House of GOD and in order to the Instruction both of Church Rulers and Church Members in their Respective Duties if these Directions Laws and Institutions be not compleatly correspondent to these ends the Scriptures perfection is palpably impeached and the infinit Wisdom of the Lawgiver blasphemed To this Argument the Surveyer Answers That in order to the great end of our Lords Prophetical and Kingly Offices He hath given particular Commands concerning the Essentials of the Government of His House and general Commands to direct the Prudence of His Church to order what is Left to Christian Liberty for the best Ends And that it is preposterous to fancy a thing necessary and then alledge Christ hath instituted the same because Faithful but rather upon this ground we must reason the necessity of the thing from his Appointment Ans. This is removed in a word by this one Position That if we acknowledge these Essentials do include all necessary Offices and Officers of the Church and do draw the Limits and Measures of their Actings Qualifications and the Nature of their Power with such Exactness as none may justle with or encroach upon their Priviledges therein We can offer such Scripture Discoveries in this Point as do sufficiently lay aside the Diocesan Prelat and prove him such an Heteroclite as his Office cannot be brought up to the Scripture Rules Thus we are so far from such Reasoning as this fancycal Surveyer imputs to us that on the contrary we do suppose and prove the Scripture Institutions in this Point and upon the Scripture Discoveries thereof we reason the Necessity from our Lords Faithfulness But if the Surveyer did hold that the Offices and Officers of the House of GOD their Duties and Qualification are such things as falls within the compass of the Churches Liberty to dispose as she thinks fit 1. It might be enquired what he or those of his Mind will owne as Essentials Next To what end are all the Scripuâ—e Directions and Institutions in this Point delivered unto the Church of GOD And why upon this Ground the most extended Hierarchy may not be pleaded for 3. How this can consist with that express Design of the Scriptures Perfection viz. To make not only the ordinary Christian but also the Man of God the Minister of God perfect and thorowly furnished to every good Work or every piece of his Office and Duty and with this further Expression of this Design of Ministerial Instructions proposed by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3.15 viz. To instruct the Man of God how to behave in the House of God which is His Church In Answer to this the Surveyer acknowledges the Scriptures Perfection to make the Man of GOD wise to Salvation and furnish him for every good Work either by the general or particular Precepts thereof but that it belongs not to the Perfection of the Scripture to contain the particular Rules for all the Circumstantials of Church Government more than it doth for all the particular Practices of our common Life Ans. Behold the Hierarchy in this our Surveyers great Essay turned into the Dwarf of a mere Circumstance Behold also his Zeal for right ordering of the House of GOD what Officers must Rule therein what the Nature of their Work and Power is what Duties are committed to them what the Nature and Species of the Government must be whether it must run to the Extrems of Monarchy or the Anâ—baptistical Morellian way of Anarchy or the midle Forms All or either of these is but a mere Circumstance with our Surveyer Let any Judge if he gave not here manus victas to the Presbyterians and yeelded up his Cause to them For no Man of Sense will call the Matters instanced mere Circumstances And if they be not the Scriptures Perfection for the ends mentioned must clearly reach the Determination thereof The Surveyer told us That the work of the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Doth import the Work and Office of the Hierarchical Prelat And he has acknowledged here the Scriptures Perfection to furnish the Minister of Christ for every good Work yea he hath asserted P. 194.195 That the plentitude of the Apostolick Power committed by our Lord to the Apostles for the great End of the Churches Edification and Union was by them committed to the Bishops as their proper Successors Now how these Assertions can consist with his Describing and Owning here the Work and Office of the Bishop as a mere Circumstance wherein the Scriptures gives no certain distinct Sound must be put among the rest of his mysterious Inventions Two or three things further I add and I have done with this Surveyer First It is generally acknowledged by all Sound Divines That there is no Lawful Church Office or Officer of the House of GOD but what must have our LORD' 's positive Grant or Institution And this is fortified by several Grounds 1. Whatever is not of Faith is sin in general and whoever pretends to Officiat in Christs House and Kingdom as an Officer therein acts sine titulo and his Actings are void And therefore he cannot act in Faith if there be not a Divine Warrand for the Office he sustains and the Official Exercise and Actings thereof 2. If we acknowledge Christs Kingly Power and Headship over the Church as a political Body whereof he is the political Head giving her her Laws and Officers Isa. 9.6 Matth. 28.18 Ioh. 5.22 As in all Kingdoms no person can claim an Office of State or Magistracy without the Warrand of the Laws and the Kings Authority thereto Interposed so all Church Power and Authority must be conveyed to Church Officers by this Glorious KING 's Authentick
be of the highest Office in the Church telling us That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office And he gives this Reason of his Judgment That since the Sacramental Actions are the highest of Sacred Performances he cannot but acknowledg that such as are impowered for them must be of the highest Office in the Church And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as a meer groundless Notion and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading Secondly Our Scots Episcopalians and many of the English plead for such an Episcopal Power as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors in Government as allows them a Share and Interest therein and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government Let any peruse Bp. Honyman part 2. Survey of Naph Bp. Burnet ubi supra Bp. Lightons Two Letters in reference to the Case of Accommodation yea Bp. Hall himself in the Defence of his Remonstrance presented to the Parliament of England against Smectymnuus printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident the Bishop in that Defence is so angry at the Word Sole in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists to keep their Sole for the use of their Shoes It is then clear that in the State of the Question or Ground of this Debate the Dr. is not one with his Fellows which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon The Divine Right of Episcopacy he endeavours First to prove by the Institution of our Saviour And his great Argument is That Christ in His Lifetime institut two Orders of Ministers viz. That of the Apostles and the Seventy Disciples whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles from this Ground That they are mentioned a part as Distinct and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue Eph 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 That the Scripture mentions the Twelve and the other Disciples distinctly and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples and by this Call and Ordination of Christ separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples that the Apostles immediate Successors were chosen out from the seventy Disciples for most part Thus sayes he Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem Philip Paul at Caesarea Clement Peter at Rome by the Testimony of Dorotheus Eusebius And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius together with Epiphanius and Ierem Matthias was one of the Seventy that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate Acts 1.16 And a Succession saith be in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person in whose place another succeeds and that the person succeeding had not that Power and Office before his Succession That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority he proves from Luk 10.16 compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face but shews that such as heard them did hear him c. As also from this That Ananias one of them Baptized Paul Acts 9.18 Philip another of them the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel Answer This Discours and Argument with reference to the Drs. Scope with a very ordinary Attention will appear to be but a beating of the Air and to consist of Magisterial Dictates instead of proof For First it is evident That the generality of all Protestant Divines and Churches yea many Episcopalians themselves do hold that the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is expired and died with their Persons so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession And indeed the thing it self is evident and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission unconfined Inspection extraordinary Gifts c. And that the Evangelists Office did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate and did consist in a planetary Motion to Water where they Planted and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles and Commissions from the Apostles to the Churches as they make evident in the many Journies up and down of Timothy and Titus in order to this end So that upon this Supposition tho a Subordination were granted yet if both Offices are expired it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers or essentially distinct Orders in the Pastoral Office which is the Point he has to prove This will be convincingly clear upon Two Grounds 1. That the body of all Protestant Divines do hold That neither Apostle nor Evangelist had any fixed Posts or Charges and so consequently the one could not Succeed the other therein nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them in this their Function And 2. That the Office as well of the one as the other was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations as is above exprest And therefore that State and Exigence of the Church being gone off so are these Offices suted thereunto And among many other Proofs I would fain know what he or any of his Perswasion will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture viz. Their Gifts of Tongues Gifts of Healing raising the Dead striking with Death and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat as Peter Ananias and Saphira Paul Elimâ—s the Sorcerer c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office If sutabâ—e Gifts be the Badg of an Office as to be apt to Teach is of the Pastoral Office it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one to another and the Office has a relation to both then certainly Extraordinary Gifts Works must be the Badg of that Office which is Extraordinary So that the Drs. Proof of fixed standing distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers from this Instance is quite overturned if the Office either of the Apostles or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary Next the weakness of the Drs. Proof further appears in that instead of Proving he takes for Granted without Proof First That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission from that of the Seventy for nothing of his pretended Proofs give the least shadow of this The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach as the Apostles themselves were and for what appears from Scripture with the same Authoritative Mission since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve and superadded to them Luk. 9.1 2. c. and 10.1 2 3. c. And for the Point of Succession of which afterwards the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof of either of these Two 1. That there were Successors to the Apostles in their formal Office of Apostolate 2. That these his
supposed Successors were of the number of the Seventy Disciples for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof or he says nothing Again in the 3d. place Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading that even upon this Supposition it is utterly lost and ruined unless he can make it appear that these Seventy had in their Commission the Doctrinal Key only but no interest in the Government which is his Supposition all along as to the Pastoral Office Now it is evident beyond contradiction that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government had both the Keys committed unto them only and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers as are called Bishops in a superior order to Pastors as specifically distinct from them intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First as well as the Power of Order and nothing at all thereof to the Second but the Doctrinal Key only Before I proceed let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office His Answer is That this is a begging of the question since we allow that Christ institut the Office but gave no signification that it was but for a Season But First How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question in supposing that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification He should know that we own and can make good the contrary And the current of all Protestant Divines owning the Apostolick Office to be extraordinary and expired must and do by necessary consequence hold That the Temporary Nature of the Office hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation that the Office was not to Continue but to Expire with the Persons who carried it The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession which is not ours but by him falsly imputed to us Next the Office it self in its Nature and End being as is said Temporary and owned so by the Body of all our Divines It necessarly follows that our Lords Institution terminat upon and relative to the Office was likewise thus Temporary and determined to a certain Season As under the Law Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances being to represent Christs Death the very Nature of the Institution did determin the Continuance till Christs coming and offering Himself and no longer As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited did expire at his Death Nay our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations to every Creature and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church in actu exercito both planted and to be planted to which they had an immediat Relation and instructing them with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues of Miracles c. did thus ex natura rei and from the Nature of the Institution it self discover His design as to the transient Office thus institut and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church it was to pass off with the same Sure should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl or for the continuance of such Gifts as the Dr. will acknowledg expired because of our Lords Institution and giving the Gifts and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office he would answer That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self now comprobat by the Event discovers the temporary Design thereof and that it was not to Continue and that therefore there was no need that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator in the Institution or Collation of the Gift Which Answer he may bestow for us upon himself as to the Point in hand Again to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles If he mean a Succession to their Office in its Nature and Extent as delineat in Scripture then he runs himself into gross Absurdities For 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut and that de facto there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs with an universal unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church to be continued therein with a Collateral and Equal Power 2. If he say this as he needs must if he speak to the Point and consequentialy he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors from among the 70 Disciples viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem Philip St. Paul at Cesarea Clement St. Peter at Rome For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World where Churches were planted or to be planted how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If their Ministry was confined to these Posts how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts succeeds the Apostolick Office which was of this universal Extent makes as good Sense and Harmony as to say that the Person who is installed Dean of Canterburry succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat and his Primacy over England 3. I would know whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas with these other Instances of Simeon Philip and Clement at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If he do not then his paralel Argument as to the Point of Succession is by his own Confession like the Legs of the Lame not equal it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances while the Persons instanced as succeeding are not of the same and equal Power and Authority If he say That he understands Successors in the same Apostolick Power then I would fain know how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon with a fixed Post at Ierusalem Philip at Cesarea Clement at Rome with the Succession of Matthias in the Apostolick Office by the Divine Appointment without the least hint of any fixed Station but with an universal Inspection as the other Apostles had But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma If he mean by Successors to the Apostles a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters in a certain Precinct not unto their Office and Authority every way or with reference either to their
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
Theodtret holding that he was Constitut their Bishop I answer 1. Tho his Episcopal Authority over this Church of Philippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and Assertion of devolving the Apostolick Office upon him but rather proves the contrary it being evident both from the Nature of the Thing it self and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines that these Two Offices are incompatible and inconsistent and it is a greater degrading of the Office of Apostolat as it stands delineat in Scripture to restrict it to any Particular Church than to make the Primat of England Curat of any Parish 2. The Dr. doth grosly mistake this Denomination of Epaphroditus while making it Import his being their Bishop as is obvious to any that Reads the Text and will view Commentators upon the place as might be easily and at large made appear if our intended brevity did permit The Belgick Divines upon the Passage tells us That the Word Apostle signifies one who was Called and sent forth by Christ himself to Preach the Gospel through the whole World meaning in its Strict and Proper acceptation for clearing which they Cite Gal. 1.1 Eph. 4.11 And here the Dr. may observe how they take the Nature and Extent of the Apostolick Office Then they add But here it is taken more largely in General for one who is sent forth by any one to act any Thing in his Name or for him He was by the Philippians sent unto Rome to Paul to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Maintinance Citing Chap. 4.18 Where the Apostle shews that he had Received what was sent by Epaphroditus Which discovers the Folly of the Drs. gloss They add That if it be rendered their Teacher the Word is sometimes taken so in a General Sense for any kind of Teacher Rom. 16.7 Where the Phrase of Note among the Apostles doth import among them who Preached the Gospel here and there paralelling this with that of 2 Cor. 8.23 Where the Phrase of Messengers or Apostles in the Churches is ascribed to other Brethren together with Titus and imports only Messengers and Teachers So That altho the Phrase of your Messenger or Apostle were in this place admitted to import a Pastoral Relation to Philippi it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the Drs. Gloss as East from West Grotius upon the place shews that Graece loquentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant qui sacras pecunias colligebant atque portabant at Diximus ad Math. 10.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dixit Ignatius That the Word Apostle is here taken late or largly and for Honours cause put upon this Person as a Minister only is Asserted by Erasm. Simplicius Vorstius That he is thus called quia missus fuit cum Eleemosyna and that this is Confirmed by the ensuing Clause of Ministring to the Apostles wants has a large Harmony of great Judgments Thus Zanch. Simp. Estius Beza Collating this with 2 Cor. 8.23 For what the Dr. adds ubi supra of Ierem and Theodoret It is easily answered that the Word Apostle ot Bishop is by them used in a General Acceptation as might be cleared from many Passages of the Fathers especially Ierom holding that through the Apostolick times communi Concilio Presbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Thus in his Comment upon Titus where he proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5. And if the Word Apostle in Scripture have this General Acceptation as we have heard why not also in the Writings of the Fathers The Drs Third Instance P. 398 is of Titus and some others whom the Apostle 2 Cor. 8.23 Calls Messengers or in the Greek Apostles of the Churches which the Dr. takes to hold out their Apostolick Authority over the same and will not have the Phrase to Import their Relation to these Churches whose liberality they carried Thereafter he Insists upon the Instance of Titus whose Episcopal Authority over Crete he endeavours to prove from the Epistle written to him To the Instance First in the General I Answer that the Drs. Sense of the Passage Cited is but his own Imagination without the least Shaddow of Ground in the Words or Context especially taking it to Import an Apostolick Authority in his Sense as might be cleared by multiplyed instances if needful We heard that the Pâ—lgick Divines take the Phrase to Import Teachers in a General Sense The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. Thus Sense the Passage Viz That the Apostle calls Titus his Fellow-helper in the Business of the Gospel for the others he tells them they were such as the Churches thought fit to make their Messengers and had the Credit of the Churches whose Messengers they were since the Churches would not have Instructed them if they had not Judged them Faithful Both which Senses stands clearly cross to that which the Dr. Grounds upon And to discover further the weakness of his Reasoning even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Episcopacy of Titus and these other Messengers over some Churches how doth it prove the Apostles devolving upon them the entire Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as it was committed to the Twelve by our Saviour The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Consequent by Scripture or Divine Reason And this being the Point he is all along undertaking to prove any may see how palpably he mistakes and misses his Mark in these Instances But now to examin the Drs. proof of Titus's Episcopacy these Things I do in general premise which do cut the Sinews of his or any others Arguings for the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy or Titus over these Churches 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely seated in them they were only to go before the Churches in wholesome Counsels in relation to the planting of Ministers not to do as they pleased excluding others as judicious Calvin expresses it Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. since Paul himself neither imposed Hands nor Excommunicat alone in Churches constitut And a whole Colledge of Apostles had the ordinary Elders going along with them in a Synodal Procedure Act. 15. far less could Timothy or Titus assum this Episcopal Preheminence who were inferior to Apostles 2. After the Church of Ephesus was Exedified and Compleated in its Organick Beeing and after Timothy had gotten his Charge as to Ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus in the first Epistle directed to him wherein the Dr. and his Fellows hold him to be instructed with Episcopal Authority Paul committed the whole Episcopal Power and Charge to the Elders before Timothy's Face in his last Farewel to that Church calling these Elders the Bishops and enjoyning them the Exercise of their Authority as appointed by the Holy Ghost and this without the least Hint of any Inspection or Authority that Timothy had over them hereanent or of any relation they had to him in this Matter thus Act. 20. And
the same Judgment by necessary consequence we must make of Titus since the Dr. and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both from these Epistles 3. In these Epistles themselves their Power stands so described and circumstantiat as to Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches as it clearly excluds an Episcopal Preheminence and Authority For First As Diocesan Bishops they ought to have been designedly set and fixed as Officers in these Churches but the contrary appears in the Text I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus saith Paul to Timothy And again to Titus I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting Which words point at an occasional transient Imployment there not a fixed Instalment Secondly In these Epistles they are both called back without the least intimation of their returning Thirdly If their Power was Episcopal and Ordinary then in the Apostles Prescriptions and Rules anent their Successors the Power and Authority of these Successors ought to have been described and Rules given touching the Gifts Call Ordination c. of the Diocesan Bishop especially since the Dr. holds that the Description of and Authorizing such a Bishop is the great scope of both these Epistles and he will not say that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus But so it is that the Apostle prescribs no Rules for any Church Officer higher than a Pastor and supposes still that he is the highest Ordinary Church Officer in all his Rules and Prescriptions in point of Church Government delivered either in these Epistles or any where else in Scripture Fourthly As Timothy is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and consequently Titus is supposed to hold the same Office so this Office in the Judgment of Protestant Divines is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary and Expired as that of the Apostles The Work and Exercise thereof consisting in a planetary Motion to Water where the Apostles Planted to bring Instructions from the Apostles to the Churches touching the Duties of both Pastors and People and Reports of the Churches State to the Apostles So their Office supposing the Churches in fieri as to their Organick Beeing in a great measure at least and also the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office they must needs be as the Apostles themselves Extraordinary Officers And in special Timothy and Titus accompanying Paul in his Travels and continual planetary Motion being so clearly held out in Scripture concluds the Impossibility of their being fixed to any Station and proves that Character given to them by Ambrose as Evangelists viz That they did Evangelizare sine Cathedra Their continual planetary Motion is by some largly described from the Apostolick Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles Thus first Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17.14 then at Athens v. 15. thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1 Thess. 3.1 2. Then having been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18.5 Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent to Macedonia Act. 19.22 whether Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas v. 5. and at Miletus v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of Ephesus their last Charge as the Bishops of that Church And after this he is found either in Journeys or absent from Ephesus For after he is found a Prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his Companion in these Epistles written while Paul was there as the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 1.1 Philem. v. 1. Col. 1.1 And he is never found again at Ephesus But towards the end of the Apostles Pilgrimage is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem before he came to Crete Gal. 2.1 thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 then to Corinth Then he is expected at Troas 2 Cor. 2.12 13. and meets with Paul at Macedonia 2 Cor. 7.6 whence he is again sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6 And after this near the time of Paul's Death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that whether we consider 1. The various Journies 2. The order of them 3. The time spent in them 4. The nature of their Imployment which was as the Apostles Co-adjutors to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches where they travelled and especially the Scripture-silence of their being Bishops of any one Church their supposed Episcopal Authority in these Churches of Ephesus and Crete doth palpably appear to be an Anti-scriptural groundless Fiction This Conclusion upon the premised accurat Search and Scripture account of Timothy and Titus is thus inferred by the reverend and learned Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight The Authors of Ius divinum minist Evangel In whose Words I have represented this Account both because of the judicious Concisness thereof and also because these Peices are but in few Hands These things thus premised its easie to discover the Absurdity of the Drs reasoning from his Third Instance to prove an Apostolical Authority Devolved upon Titus His Proof is from Chap. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee From whence the Dr. First Argues That Paul gave him the Supream Judgment in things that were wanting with an absolut Power to Reform and Correct them It is Answered 1 mo Tho an Episcopal inspection over this Church were granted the Dr. is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devolving upon Titus an Apostolical Authority in the Scripture Sense and Extent as we have often told him 2 do Upon supposition of that which we have before made good Viz That both Paul as an Apostle and Titus as an Evangelist had extraordinary Offices and suted to such a Case and exigence of the Christian Church as is now gone off this direction and Command proper and peculiar to the one and the other as Apostle and Evangelist and supposing this Exigence of the Church can lay no Foundation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers 3 tiâ— By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection from these prescriptions to Titus unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned or any interest therein in Churches Constitut For as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches in fieri is not to the purpose I mean in respect of the Organick being especially since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination and the Authority thereof is in Scripture held out to be competent to a Presbytrie which they exercised upon Timothy himself one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 So that it is evident that neither Timothy nor Titus were instructed with any singular
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
according to Truth he doth consequently assert the Drs pleading for the Bishops as succeedanous Apostles and as holding and having derived unto them their entire Office to be not according to Truth So that he did not well to raise this Ghost As for the Storie or Fable of the Prince of Edessa which the Dr. next presents out of Eusebius to whom he tells us that Thaddeus was sent by St. Thomas and called an Apostle by Eusebius His Denomination as it is of it self of no weight to prove the Drs assertion as is clear in the like instances So this is so generally acknowledged to be a Fable and Eusebius thereupon so Censured by Judicious Divines that the Doctor hath been far to seek for his proofs when catching up so pityful stuff as this And thus we proceed to the Drs next Proofs CHAP. III. The Dr's Third Argument considered taken from an alledged punctual conformity of the Primitive Church to Christs Institution and the Apostolick Practice in Point of Episcopacy THE Dr's Third great Proof for the Divine Right of Episcopacy isâ—drawn from the punctual and universal Conformity as he calls it of the Primitive Church to this supposed Institution of our Saviour and the Practice of the Holy Apostles in this Matter But if the Dr's Proof of a Conformity be no better than his Proof of this supposed Institution and Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles and amount to no more than what he has made appear upon these Points we need not fear his Proof However before I engage the Dr. upon this head and examin his Proofs there are two things I would premise as that which the Dr. is obliged to prove 1. That the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as Institut by our Saviour and for its proper ends exprest in Scripture was transmitted by the Apostles unto the Church as a standing Office to continue till the end of Time And 2 That the Primitive Church and in an Universal consent and Practice did homologat this Institution and Embrace the same And when the Dr. hath proved both these erit mihi magnus Apollo and will far outstrip his Fellows whoever have pleaded in this Cause And if he fall short of his proof of either or both he losses his labour Before the Dr. come directly to his Proof he moves an Objection That our Saviour did Institut the Superior Order of Twelve Apostles to preside over the rest of the Church Officers yet with an extraordinary Commission which he did not intend they should derive down to the Church as a Perpetual Model of Government but was limited to the persons of the Apostles and to expire with them That the formal Office of Apostolat in its Nature and ends as delineat in Scripture did expire with the Apostles themselves is the consentient judgment of Protestant Divines The Dr. says this is an Objection of Adversaries and indeed if he account such his Adversaries as assert this he has entered the Lists with a strong party who probably will prove too hard for him Well What is his Answer to this Objection He Tells us That this Office was not Limited to the Persons of Apostles since he has proved that they derived it to others which had it been appropriat to their Persons they could not have done without violating their Trust and exceeding the bounds of their Commission How the Dr. hath proved the derivation of the Apostolat by the Persons of the Apostles to other Succeeding Apostles we have seen above and do refer the Reader to the premised discoveries of the utter insufficiency of his Proof this way And indeed the derivation of the Apostolat to Successors could not have been done without violating their Trust and exceeding the limits of their Commission Their Commission being to Disciple and Teach all Nations to found the Gospel Church and Plant the Gospel Ordinances therein and that with an infallible directive Power as living Oracles and immediat Ambassadors of the King of Saints So that the attempting to Substitut Successors in this work and Office had been both an unfaithful over-stretch of their Commission as contrar to its Nature and end and an endeavouring of that which was impossible unless he will say that the Work of laying the Churches Foundation and delivering our Lords mind as to the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government thereof is a work that could be twice done Which as it repugns to the common sense of all men so to the many Precepts delivered to the Churches anent holding fast the received Ordinances and contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints and building upon that Holy Faith and Foundation laid by the Apostles Nay further it doth evidently appear that the Apostles exercising themselves and deriving to others such an Episcopal Primacy as the Dr pleads for had been a gross impeachment of their Faithfulness in the Execution of their Trust. 1. In their exercising and transmitting a Power in its very Nature distinct from what our Lord allowed and enjoyned them Viz. A Lordly Dominion not a Ministerial Service and Stewardship only which as we have heard the Apostle Paul disown the one and assert the other so we find the express and personal Prescription of our Blessed Lord in point of this Nature of their Power The Dr. will not disown that the Prelats he pleads for and as he pretends exemplified in the Apostolick Office have both the Name and thing of a Lordly Dominion yea and that not in Spirituals only in which respect they own the Designation and Character of Spiritual Lords but likewise a Lordship and Peerage in Civil Government and such a Dominion as Princes of the Gentiles exercise And that our Blessed Lord did expresly Discharg this to his Apostles As also that the Apostle Peter in his Masters Name discharges a Lording over Gods Heritage or Church or the Clâ—rgey as the Greek word with some will sound I suppose the Dr. will not deny or if he do the Proof is very easie and evident 2. Had the Apostles exercised or derived to Successors such an Episcopacy as the Dr. pleads for they should have unfaithfully in their own persons straitned the Apostolick inspection and carryed an Office incompatible with it unless the Dr. will undertake to reconcile contradictions he cannot deny this For as Apostles their Ministry was of an unfixed indefinit Universal Nature As Prelats they behoved to be fixed to such and such Posts so that thus they should have unfaithfully torn out a part of their Commission in exercising an ordinary Ministry in particular Diocesses whereas their Commission was to exercise an extraordinary unfixed Ministry towards all the Churches planted and to be planted Again in transmitting such a Prelacy to others their practice should have contradicted their Prescriptions in Point of Church Government and the Offices and Officers thereof wherein there is not the least Intimation of such an Officer nor any Rules given for either the Qualifications or
their own times in which there was a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyters And therefore do call such as were before them Bishops whereas they were not so properly And the after Bishops succeeded these supposed First no otherways than Cesar did the Roman Consuls 4 ly The Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists do appear absurd viz That of Rome into Peter that of Alexandria into Mark that of Ephesus into Timothy that of Crete into Titus since neither Apostles nor Evangelists were Bishops in a formal Sense and having an Universal Commission and extraordinary Office could be Succeeded in neither the one nor the other tho in some part of their work they might by ordinary Officers as by Men of another Order but not as one Brother Succeeds another in the Inheritance And this doth fully remove what the Dr alledges out of Clem. Alexand. Strom. 6. And the Passage Cited by Eusebius out of him and from his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touching a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters and anent Presbyters not having the First Seat or Class in Ecclesiastick orders and that the Apostle Iohn returning from Patmos to Ephesus Visited the Province partly to Ordain Bishops and partly to set a part such for the Clergy as were pointed out by the Spirit For granting some distinction to to have crept in while these things were Written and as Augustin expresses it secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter Episcopus Presbytero Major yet this will never prove either 1. That this distinction was from the beginning which we find Augustin in this way of expressing himself contradicts Or 2 ly That there were Bishops of the Drs. Mould in a continued Line from the beginning and far less that the Apostle Iohn set up such Prelats since the Ancients as we have heard the Learned Iunius observe spoke of the Apostolick times in the Mould and after the manner of their own And surely if we acknowledg the late distinction of Clergy and Laity as we needs must to be far remote from Iohn's time we must consequently acknowledg that this Author spoke his own Sense and the Language of his time rather than the Sense or practice of the Apostle Iohn The Dr. next Generally Cites Tertullian Origen Cyprian for this continuance as he calls it of Apostolick Superiority from the Apostles themselves whose words he tells us he needs not Recit since Presbyterians acknowledg Episcopacy received about the year 140. Ans. As for the continuance and derivation of the Apostolick Office in a Succedaneous Episcopacy which the Dr. has been fencing for we deny it and have found his proofs utterly insufficient and that nothing he has adduced from the Fathers or Scripture can give the least shaddow of a sound Proof of this Point As for our acknowledgment of the Episcopacy introduced about the middle of the Second Century the Dr. should know that we acknowledg that Beza's Episcopus humanus or Episcopus praeces was about this time set up and obtained in the Churches and that as we have heard the First ordained Minister in a sort of Prostasie or fixed Moderatorship had some deference eo nomine and the next in order was set up to moderat in the Meetings when he was removed by Death or otherwise and had the Tittle of Bishop given to him and this was as Ambrose Phrases it multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum or by the Judgment and appointment of the Presbytrie Presbytri saith he unum ex se electum in excelsiore gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant So that in Ambrose's Sense he had this fixed Prostasie or new Name as their Mouth and Moderator for Orders sake and this by the free choice of the Presbytrie which shews the folly of the Dr's inference of a supposed existent Hierarchy of his mould from the nominal distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages of Clemens and Eusebius and others generally mentioned or from these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being set in a higher Seat than Presbyterâ—s For upon the Constitution above rehearsed and confirmed by Ambrose both these might be Yet without any Impeachment of Pastors or Presbyters decisive Authority in Judicatories unless the Dr. will say that because the Moderator of an Assembly hath a peculiar Name and seat and a deference upon that Account He has therefore an Office and Authority paramount to that of the Assembly and such as inhances their decisive suffrage Besides the Dr. odly inferrs from our acknowledgment of this first human Prostasie our granting a derivation or continuance or even introductiion at that time of his pretended Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in the Nature and extent he pleads for who sees not that these are toto Caelo different Tho in the next Passage the Dr. seems to retract this telling his Reader That tho we acknowledg an Apostolick Superiority yet we deny that they left any to Succeed them in that Power But since he gives this our acknowledgment of the First Episcopacy as the reason why he needs not Cite his Authors Particularly to prove the derivation and continuance of Apostolick Superiority at that time he clearly supposes this and therefore speaks confusedly and inconsistently in the premised account of our Judgment and concession Well what further aocount gives the Dr. of Presbyterians Judgment in this Matter He adds We hold that the Church was every where governed by the common Council of Presbyters but this form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and divisions it was at last Universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to presid over all the rest and that this was the beginning of Episcopacy for which he says we Cite the famous Testimony of Ierom antequam Diaboli instinctu c. Where I find the Dr. either willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting our Cause and Principles First in alledging that we hold that this Form of Government by common Council of Pastors or Presbyters was found inconvenient or not suited to the ends of Government because it gave occasion for Schisms and Divisions A gross and lying imputation For all do know that we hold this Form of Government to be of Divine appointment and the Government established by the Apostles And it were a strange inconsistency and contradiction to the Scriptures of Truth to hold that this Divine Government appointed by God in the Scriptures of the New Testament and enjoined unto the Gospel Church was not suited to all the times thereof and to the great ends of Government and could of it self give a rise to Schisms and divisions What a gross imputation were this upon the Divine Institutions and opening a Door to lay them all aside upon pretence of eventual inconveniencies I dare challeng this Dr. or any of his mind to instance any Presbyterian Writer who ever asserted this For if he say we homologat
Cor. 3. Whittaker also will tell the Dr. that this was a Remedy worse than the disease The Dr. adds to confirm his Sense of Jerom's Words that Jerom in his Book De Eccles. Script shews that after the Lord's Ascension James was Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Jerusalem Timothy by Paul Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Polycarp of Smyrna So that he must either mean an Apostolick Decree or else he must contradict himself Ans. Not to detain the Dr. to prove this Book to be Jerom's which some hold to be spurious this is easily removed by what we have above offered and even from Whittaker of the Fathers general improper ambiguous Speech of Bishops and their various use of this epithet terming such Persons who did for some time Officiat in a place whether extraordinary Officers or ordinary the Bishops thereof after the Denomination and custom which had then obtained whereof instances have been above exhibited Jerom speaking of the Alexandrian Succession says the Presbyters chused out one to preside a Marco Evangelista and terming Mark thus not meerly upon the account of his being a Writer of the Gospel which is the strictest acceptation but in the Judgment of those best acquaint with his Writings an Evangelist as a transient unfixed Preacher of the Gospel he must needs account Timothy and Titus of the same Office And therefore not Bishops in a formal Sense nor set up in such a manner and for such an end which were Cross to their Office as I have above made good Besides that it seems odd and inconsistent with common Sense that immediatly after the Lords Ascension such Persons were set up in the Office and Character specified and cross to this whole Testimony of Jerom For thus there could be no time for Presbyters governing by common counsel nor the Schism to grow up thereupon both which Jerom's Testimonies does suppose in distinct Periods of time as we heard Iunius observe So that the Dr. speaks very bluntly and inconsideratly when he tells us That either Ierom must mean a Decree Apostolick immediatly after our Lord's Ascension or else expresly contradict himself This Alternative of the Dr's I say is pityful inadvertency For should Ierom speak of such an Apostolick Decree as he imputes to him he must needs directly contradict himself in Asserting the Churches Government to have been for a time communi consilio Presbyterorum And a Schism growing thereupon For in the Dr's Sense there was never such a Government or an occasion of Schism existent Besides That this Gloss of the Dr's makes Ierom say that the Apostles changed the Divine appointment to make way for an human form For Jerom holds the Government by common Council of Presbyters to be founded upon Divine Institution and that which Succeeded upon human Custom only The Dr. therefore and all else who would accord Jerom's Testimony with what he here Cites must understand his words in the sense I have offered which as is said is the Sense and Judgment of famous Protestant Divines The Dr's Fifth exception is That had this change of the Government from Presbyterian to Episcopal been in very deed it must either have been made by the Apostles or thereafter If we say by the Apostles its strange there is no mention of it in Scripture But to this the Answer is easie and ready that we own no such Sense of Jerom's words nor can they admit the same as I have already made good Well but the Dr. pushes us with the other horn of his Dilemma viz. That if we say it was made after the Apostles or about the year 140 how comes it that such a Decree relative to an Universal Change of the Government from one kind to another is not mentioned in Ecclesiastick Antiquity There being no such Decree heard of and Clemens Ignatius Hegesippus Irenaeus Dionysius of Corinth who lived in that Period are so far from taking notice of this that they maintain the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles I answer this other push and Horn of the Dr's Dilemma is as far from harming us as the other For it is grounded upon the Dr's own groundless fancie and distorted Sense of Jerom's words as if by toto orbe decretum he had meant a formal general Decree of a Council Which phantastick conceit several Learned Divines have refuted from the Tenor and Scope of Jerom's words Jerom says prospiciente Concilio toto orbe decretum not in any formed Council either in the Apostles time or afterward but he means when through the World it was said among the People I am of Paul c. postquam alii Corinthiorum more Dementati in partes discerptae sunt as Blondel expresses and expounds it it was Decreed among the People or in and among particular Churches through the whole World Decreed through the whole World is all one with by the whole World which is distributively to be taken Jerom's words evince this For the Council's Decree representing the whole World would have been all at once but Jerom says this change came not in simul semel but paulatim by degrees and that the after Prostasie came in Consuetudine or by custom which points at a gradual comming in Thus we have seen the Dr's fancied absurdity evanish I might add that the Churches speedy defection from the Apostolick Purity and Institutions in point of Government will not appear strange to any who considers Scripture Instances of as great and more speedy Defections Witness that of Israel's worshiping the Golden Calf so shortly after the Promulgation of the Law And the early workings of the Mysterie of iniquity in the New Testament Church and affectation of Episcopal Primacy in the Apostle John's time c. Of which already For what he adds of the Testimonies of Authors as to the Succession of Bishops from Apostles at Rome Jerusalem c. we have already discovered fully what a mean and chattered proof this is and that the pretended Succession is lyable to unanswerable exceptions and terminating in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office is extraordinary and expired the fabulous vanity thereof is in this convincingly apparent The Dr. tells us That Irenaeus while at Rome might as well know Peters Successors there as we may know who succeeded Bishop Whitgift in the Chair of Canterbury he being no further distant from the one than we from the other But truly were there no greater Certainty of the one than of the other I should confidently Challenge that Matter of Fact as Fabulous And had that Chair had no other Successors of Whitgift than the first Pastors or Bishops of Rome it had been an empty Chair And were there as great Uncertainty of an Arch-Bishop Whitgift at Canterbury and as many famous Contradictors of this Matter of Fact and of his Successors as in this case of Rome the Succession would merit no Mans Belief For the Dr's Assertion of the Clearness of Ierusalem and Romes Successions
thus called he was called in a special manner to the Apostleship of the Gentiles I have appeared unto thee saith our Lord to make thee a Minister and a Witness delivering thee from the People and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to open their Eyes c. Upon which the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them Act. 26.17 18 19. The Apostle also tells us Gal. 1.15 16 17. that when it pleased God who separated me from my Mothers Womb and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach among the Heathen or Gentiles immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me Compare this with Ephes. 3.8 Hence its odd to suppose that either he or Barnabas were at this time ordained Apostles For Barnabas that he was an Apostle looking strictly to the Description of Apostles some may doubt but supposing him such he being joyned with Paul under that Character Act. 14.14 we read of his Officiating and for what can be understood from Scripture in the same manner and by virtue of the same Office as the Apostle Paul to the Gentiles before this time For Act. 11.22 he is sent to Antioch by the Church at Ierusalem for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there And v. 25 26. he goes to Tarsus to seek Paul and brings him to Antioch and Taught there a year with Paul where the Christian Name first took place Next the Dr. finding himself puzzled with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to their Apostolick Office by mere Prophets and Teachers has no Shift but to alledge they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria since they could not else have derived the Office of Apostolat A pretty Evasion indeed from a Phantastick Objection First these Prophets and Teachers are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers who had also the Gift of Prophecy Vigent at that time So Pool 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat upon the place says they were such as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29 32. who the Dr. will not doubt are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established And with these spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 He adds that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office and singular for these times yet inferior to that of Apostles and in many accompanied with Divine Predictions The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That some take the two Words Prophets and Teachers for one and the same thing Others distinguish them thus that Prophets were those who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost had extraordinary Gifts to foretell things to come and to expound the Holy Scriptures But Teachers were such who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts to Instruct and Govern the Church in the Worship of God And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost mentioned Act. 13.2 viz. Separat me Barnabas and Saul they Paraphrase thus That they were separat from the Service of this Church where there were other Teachers enough to send them to the Gentiles whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning citing Act. 26.16 And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them they Paraphrase thus Not thereby to chuse them to be Apostles whereunto they were before chosen v. 1. and Act. 9.15 but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus So Cornel. a Lapide to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such as by the Influence of the Spirit foretold things to come So Menochius That they were Expounders of the Scripture by the Spirits Revelation So Lorinus A Lapide Piscator The last of whom takes them to be the same with Teachers All which how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers and the Persons upon whom Hands were Imposed together with the end of this Action is obvious to the meanest Reflection In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat and the Belgick Divines we may further notice this particular Account of Pool Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already the Laying on of Hands did signify 1. Their being set apart to this particular Imploymentt hey were now sent about 2 ly The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had 3 ly Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them and Success upon the Work they went for But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles and that as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria is a Dream much if not only beholden to the Dr. himself Again the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer For if these his supposed Bishops of Syria were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size how could they derive an Apostolat of the Primary and first Order as he calls it unless the Dr. make them intirely one which he sometimes tho in this inconsistent with himself disownes as we heard above when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power to make general Canons to the whole Church to the Bishops only to their particular Diocesses But the Dr. finds another Objection viz. That those Officers who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas are called Prophets not Apostles or Bishops He Answers That so was Iudas and Silas Act. 15.32 and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren as he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found appropriat to any Church Officer straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head But this Term being appropriat to such Persons and in such Circumstances as will not admit this Office and Character but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him His Friends the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible smell'd out no Prelacy nor Ruling in this Term but Translat the Word Chief Men Primarios Praecipuos Estimatos Honoratos thus Erasmus Vatablus Beza Piscator Camerarius Drusius Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes so Beza Chief Men then may be understood thus that they were persons as in Ecclesiastick Offices so of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office and that such discriminating terms of one from another will infer no distinction therein Besides some might alledg that if he will allow Members of the Church visible the Scripture epithet of Brethren and of the Brotherhood which Denomination we find applyed unto them 1 Pet.
19.5 After Paul laid his Hands upon them And of the Samaritans Act. 8. who altho Preacht unto and Baptized by Philip and Converted by his Ministry yet St. Peter and St. Iohn were sent to lay Hands on them upon which they received the Holy Ghost v. 17. From whence he inferrs that therefore this Ministry of Confirmation appertained to Apostles since Philip a Preacher a worker of Miracles a prime Deacon and if we may believe Cyprian an Evangelist and one of the Seventy Two would not presume to assume it but left it to the Apostles I Answer in general these Texts are by the current of all Protestant Divines and Interpreters understood of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and the apparent extraordinary signs thereof attending the imposing of the Apostles Hands which in that time and Case of the Church was a proper Badge of the Apostolick Office and therefore can have no force to prove an ordinary standing Ordinance appropriat to ordinary Pastors Since in this Case the proper sole end of this Action was the forementioned special effect which is not now to be expected and also the persons acting did therein exercise an extraordinary function and Authority as Apostles Hence this singular Gift at this time exercised can no more be pleaded as laying a ground for the standing duty of ordinary Officers than Anointing with Oil by the Apostles which had the Miraculous effect of healing at that time Upon the First Text mentioned by him the Belgick Divines do shew that the comming of the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands is to be understood of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost presently after exprest And their Prophecying is by Diodat exponed accordingly of a supernatural evident Divine inspiration To the same Scope it is exponed by the English Annotators And indeed the Text it self makes it so evident that none can call it into question and considerable it is that they all paralel this place with that Act. 8. Grotius upon the place tells us that Baptizati erant ab alio Christiano sed Deus ad commendandum munus Apostolicum non ante iis Spiritus sui dona communicare voluit quam Apostolica manus eos tetigisset Thus also Simplicius Camero and Piscator Epones this effect of the Imposing of the Apostles Hands with reference to the extraordinary influences of the Spirit Again in the fourfold premised Division of the laying on of Hands mentioned in the New Testiment we find only that the Imposition of Hands in the Ordination of Pastors is that which hath a clear standing Warrand and design the other three mentioned having an extraordinary end not to be now expected But further to urge this the Dr. says That tho the extraordinary effects are ceased yet the ordinary institut means of the Spirits influences remain Now as to this Point of the Apostles imposing Hands upon the Samaritans the Passage which the Dr. mainly insists upon and improves I would fain know if he will deny that these Samaritans Baptized by Philip upon their professed Faith and Conversion which in many of them no doubt was real had not received the Spirit in his ordinary gracious influences If they had then the the Apostles imposing Hands thereafter he must grant was either with a special respect to the forementioned Miraculous evidences of the Spirits Seal or it was useless and to no purpose at all The Belgick Divines upon v. 14. of this Chap. Do shew That the Apostles were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church and strengthen them And therefore not merely for the end of Imposing Hands as the Dr. alledges and upon v. 15. mentioning the Apostles praying that they might receive the Holy Ghost they do thus Paraphrase it namely in a visible and Miraculous manner as often happened in this Church Act. 10.45 and 19.6 1 Cor. 14.27 for otherwise they had already received the Holy Ghost seeing no man can believe without the Holy Ghost Rom. 8.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Diodat to the same Sense understands the Holy Ghost here of the external and Miraculous evidences of his Grace Pool Annot. vol. 2. thus Paraphrases v. 14. as pointing out the Apostles Confirming the Doctrin and constituting a Church in Samaria by Apostolical Authority And the Clause of receiving the Holy Ghost v. 15. they expound of these extraordinary Gifts of Tongues Prophecie working of Miracles as Chap. 10.45 And upon that Clause v. 16. for as yet he was fallen upon none of them They shew that it is plain the Holy Ghost is not here meant as the Author of saving Graces For so he was fallen upon all that did believe Faith being the Gift of God but he was not yet bestowed as the Author of these extraordinary Gifts mentioned Chap. 2.38 Piscator upon this 15. v. Shews That the Spirit given here does not denote Sanctification or Confirmation in Grace but the extraordinary Gifts of Tongues and Prophesie c. as appears from the use of this Phrase Act. 10.45 and 19.6 As also from this that these Gifts were conspicuous to Simon The Imposing Hands mentioned v. 17. Dr. Lightfoot understands in the same Sense non Denatat saith he dona interna Gratiae Sanctificantis atque confirmantis omnibus piis collata sed dona extraordinaria aliquibus duntaxat exhibita And v. 18. which mentions Simons seeing this conferring the Holy Ghost is Interpreted of his seeing by this visible sign of the Gift of Tongues pointing out the Spirits inward Operation So Chrysostom and out of him Corn. a Lapide From all which it is evident in opposition to the Dr's Pleading 1. That this Imposition of Hands was not the sole end for which the Apostles were sent to Samaria 2 ly that there was no need of it in order to common Gifts of the Spirit or an ordinary Confirmation in the Faith thereby 3 ly That this Action of Imposing Hands was a special Badg of the Apostolick Office and that therein was put forth an extraordinary Apostolick Official Power competent to no Ordinary Officer 4 ly That it was put forth and exerced at this time in order to such a transient extraordinary effect as is not now to be expected since in that Infant state of the Church it did respect the Confirmation of the Doctrin of the Gospel the Confirmation of Believers and was to be a Divine attestation of the Apostles Mission and Authority in this extraordinary manner All which cuts off the Dr's design and Pleadings from this Scripture And whereas he alledges that an Extraordinary effect at that time will not prove the Ordinance it self to be ceased no more than Preaching sometimes attended with such effects I Answer when the Ordinance or mean is in Scripture held out with respect to ordinary standing Effects as Preaching has for its great end the Faith Conversion and Edification of Hearers till all the Elect are brought in this is true But when the mean or Action is in its Circumstances
found to be solely with respect to an extraordinary end not to be now expected and to be performed by persons in an extraordinary Office as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Badg thereof this doth cast the scales and shews the Action not to be imitable nor to found warrand or exemplifie an ordinary standing Duty And whereas the Dr. adds That tho Philip was a Worker of Miracles yet this Action of Imposing Hands upon these Believers was not performed by him It is Answered Suppose he did Work Miracles yet in this Case and Time for the greater Honour of the Apostolick Office and the Glorious Confirmation of the Gospel Testimony by them who were Honoured to be its first Heraulds and eminently Sealed with the Spirit for this great End God would upon these grounds have this reserved to them who as we have heard above were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church further to strengthen Believers and to give this Church its fit Organick Frame according to the Gospel Rules I shall not stand to improve an Argument some would be apt to bring against the Dr's Pleading viz. That this Ceremony as described by him seems to encroach upon the Rights and Nature of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism Only it is worthy of our Observation which Cartwright brings against the Rhemists upon Act. 8.17 Pleading for the Sacrament of Confirmation he tells them That they are justly Charged with Incroaching upon the Possession of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism which Sealing up unto us not only the Forgiveness of Sins but also both the Burial and Mortification of the Old Man and the Resurrection and Quickning again of the New Man And in a Word the whole Putting on of Christ It is manifest that this Sacrament of Confirmation which Vaunts it self of Strength and Courage given thereby to the Vanquishing of the Devil makes Forcible Entry upon the Due and Right of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism He adds That our Lord in his Care to bring the Gospel Sacraments to as small a number as might be must be supposed rather to Seal many Promises with one Seal than one Promise with many Seals or one and the same Promise with two Seals How far this Pleading of Judicious Cartwright strikes at the Sinews of the Dr's Argument upon this Head is obvious enough To this I shall add a Testimony or two which fully confirms our Pleadings in Opposition to the Dr. on this Head The one is of the Professors of Saumer De 5. Fals. Dict. Sacrat Thes. 7. P. mihi 242. Si impositio manuum in eum finem instituta fuit ut Donorum miraculosorum collationem comitaretur cessantibus illis Donis cessa re ipsa debuit Et si soli Apostoli ea virtute praediti fuerunt ut Spiritum illum miraculosorum Donorum autorem fidelibus communicarent debuit in eorum personis subsistere manuum imponendarum potestas Thus they in Impugning the Sacrament of Confirmation Adding That as the Apostles had no Command in this Point as is most probable so if they had the Scripture is purposely silent of it For which they give this Reason ne ritum istum cum Sacramentis quorum institutionem nobis disertissime tradidit perperam confunderemus The next Testimony is of Turretin part 3. quaest 31. De 5. fals Sacram. P. mihi 615. Par. 5.6 When he is offering Reasons against this Bastard Sacrament his First touches the Action or Ceremony it self thus primo saith he quia non habet institutionem Divinam ne quidem ut sit nedum ut Sacramentum dici possit that there is no Divine warrand for the Action and Ceremony it self Viz of Imposing Hands upon the Baptized by a Bishop as he has formerly discribed it far less that it ought to be esteemed a Sacrament His Fifth Reason is thus Derogat Baptismo quia juxta Doctrinam Pontificiorum sequitur Baptismum non efficere nos plane Christianos cum tamen jam ante Baptizati in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti in communionem ejus admissi simus per Baptismum Christo inseramur sequitur in baptismo non dari Spiritum Sanctum ad robur augumentum gratiae quasi baptismo non obsignetur nobis gratia Spiritus Sancti corroborans aeque ac sanctificans Which is in Summ that Justifying Sanctifying corroborating Grace being Sealed up in Baptism this Ceremony encroaches upon its Nature when obtruded as a Sacrament And thereafter Par. 6. Asserting that the very Rite it self cannot be shown from Scripture he thus Answers the Objections taken from Act. 8.15 and 19.6 which are our Dr's grand proofs Apostoli quidem adhibuerunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu manuum impositionem Act. 8.15 19.6 Sed cum id factum constet invisibili dispensatione Spiritus Sancti pro Ecclesiae nascentis conditione quidem ex promisso Speciali clarum est ritum extraordinarium eoque temporarium solum fuisse cujus usus una cum aliis miraculis desiit Adding upon the Text further in Confirmation of this 1. That the Spirit in this extraordinary manner to those already Baptized consequently such as were made partakers of his common operations Act. 8.16 2 ly That the Spirit is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illabi irruere v. 9. Which is proper to the Spirit of Prophesie not of Sanctification as also Act. 10.44.46 He is said to fall upon them so that they spoke with Tongues Adding that it is not unusual in Scripture to represent extraordinar and invisible Gifts by the name of the Spirit simplely as Act. 19. doth prove against Bellarmin Spalatensis de Repub. Lib 5. bap 5. Num. 10. proves from a multiplicity of the Ancient Fathers that for several Ages the Ceremony of Confirming was a Ceremonial Rite of Baptism it self not distinct from it Remarkable is that of Ierom adversus Luciferianus That Confirmation by the Hands of the Bishop is a Ceremony belonging to Baptism Ita tamen saith he ut ne que necessaria sit neque quicquam illa per se spiritualiter efficiat sed quod ei a quibusdam tribui solet ut det Spiritum Sanctum id totum perfectissime haberi in solo Baptismo lege tamen Ecclesiastica eam adhibére propter solum honorem quendam externum Episcopalis Dignitatis So that in stead of any Spiritual use Ierom makes it an empty Badg of Episcopal vanity The Learned Bucer in his Censure of the Book of the English Liturgy doth at Large shew the unsuitableness of this Ceremony to the ends for which it is pretended or the supposed Primitive Patterns And we find it largely paralelled by Didoclavius with the Popish Confirmation both in respect of the supposed Grace which it gives the Sign and the Words adhibit therein the Administrator thereof c. P. mihi 358.359.360.361 c. who also gives proofs from Antiquity that this was not alwise reserved to the Bishop even when this Ceremony had obtained in
Pastors labouring in the Word and Doctrin to whom as the Apostles committed what was in their Office ordinary and necessary to be continued in the Church So upon such Principles and grounds in such a manner and for such an end in their Doctrin delivered to the Churches as does quite overthrow the Hierarchical Prelat he Pleads for as no Plant of the Lords Plantation FINIS A Full REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR MONRO's Scripture-Pleadings Upon the Point of EPISCOPACY In his late Book intituled An Inquiry into the New Opinions chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland CHAP. I. The Dr's Vnsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers as to their Iudgment in point of Church-Government Exposed Together with his Vnsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy taken from Mat. 20.25 And with the paralell Texts TO Examin in the better Method what this Dr. produceth against us it is fit that we First view what he represents as our Assertion and which he boldly Charges with Error and Novelty and as one of those Opinions never heard of for 1400 Years after our Saviours Incarnation It is thus That we affirm our Saviour hath appointed his Church under the New Testament whether Provincial National or Oecumenick to be Governed by the several Classes of Presbyters acting in a perfect Parity and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ecâ—lesiastick Senate above a Presbyter in the modern and current Notion of the Word That which I mainly desiderat here is 1. The term of several Classes appears obscure not pointing at the Beautyful Order and Subordination of Judicatories which we maintain according to the Nature of all Government consequently of Church Government The Classes and excerpted Classes is an invidious independent term We own the Congregational Church represented by the Pastors one or more with the Congregational Eldership The Presbytrie a Judicatory Superior to this made up the Pastors of the Congregations together with Ruling Elders The Provincial Synod superior thereunto consisting of the Ministers of the Several Presbytries with Ruling Elders in the Precincts of the Province to which the proportioned number of Presbytries are subordinat and wherein they are represented The National Church made up of a convenient number of Ministers and Elders from every Presbytrie therein to which the Provincial Synods are subordinat Which Model of Government has been so fully Cleared from Scripture by many Learned Pens that he cannot stand before the evidence of Divine Authority and Reason offered for the same And which any who have Read may see the vanity of his empty Pamphlet 2 When he tells us of Presbyters Acting in a perfect parity he insinuats as if We held no other Presbyter than the Pastor and that all who come under this general Name or Character have by our Principles the same interest in Church Government which if he mean of Government in its whole Extent viz that Power which is called the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick it s a gross Falsehood For we distinguish an interest in the last which is proper to Pastors from that interest in the first two which we allow to Ruling Elders 3. When he tells us We own no higher Officer in the Ecclesiastick Senate above a Presbyter in the modern Current Notion of the Word he speaks in the Clouds and confusedly not specifying what is that Notion of the Word which he calls Modern and current and which we own as of the Divine Appointment and Signature We hold that the Pastor labouring in the Word and Doctrin and to whom is Committed the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key is termed also in Scripture the Elder or Presbyter and that he is the highest ordinary Church Officer of Divine Appointment and this with the Body of Protestant Churches and Divines We also hold that the Scripture points out an Elder or Presbyter that Rules only and is inferior to the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin as having no interest therein and this Notion of the Word we hold and can make good to be the Scripture as well as Modern Notion If this Dr. in calling it the Current Notion of the Word intend that which is the general Sense of Divines he seems here to Charge them all with Novelty and Singularity since all who hold this Notion of the Word and understand the Presbyter in the Sense above exprest must needs own him to have such interest in Government and the same Authority which we Assert And therefore Cross to the Dr's Notion which he is not pleased directly to specifie The Dr. without distinction or setting up his discriminating March-stones as to the extension of time calls the days wherein this Notion of the Presbyter is become current dayes of Separation and Singularity differing in this from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity And the Critick has here much to say in proof of his Charging with Singularity and Separation and a dangerous Separation from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines since in their Confessions and the Current usage of their Writers they thus understand and make use of the term Presbyter As also that upon other grounds he Charges them with Singularity and Separation since he calls these dayes such absolutely abstracting from this particular Cause And what dangerous Consequence this Doctrin is of and how highly reflecting upon the Churches will sute his serious second and more sedat Thoughts when in a better frame and humour The Dr. adds That in this we differ from the first Presbyterians among our selves who Declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is Variable so far were they from Asserting an Indispensible and Unalterable Right of Parity But in this he has Abused his Reader and any that but reads that Confession may easily discover his Impudent Forgery and Imposings For First In the ninteenth Article of that Confession Assigning the Notes of the True Church they present these three 1. The true Preaching of the Word of God as he has revealed himself in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles 2. The right Administration of the Sacraments annexed to the Word and Promise to confirm it to our Hearts 3. Ecclesiastical Discipline uprightly Ministred as Gods Word prescribes whereby Vice is repressed and Vertue nourished And giving Instance of this in particular Gospel Churches they add Such were in Corinthus Galatia Ephesus and other places wherein the Ministry was planted by Paul and were of himself named the Churches of God citing on the Margine 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Gal. 1.2 Ephes. 1.1 where Paul ownes them and names them as Churches and to prove they had a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Discipline planted therein they further cite Act. 16.9 10. and 20.17 c. pointing us to Pauls last and farewel Charge to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus wherein he entrusted the Government thereof to them as the only Bishops thereof set up and Authorized by the
Holy Ghost And such a Church they profess the Protestant Church in this Realm to be From this Account of the Confession it is evident 1. That in the Sense of our first Reformers Church Government and Disciplin rightly Administred is an Essential Mark of the Church 2. That it must not be according to Mens Invention or Rules of Worldly Policy but according to the Prescription of the Word of God Thus clearly asserting that the Word of God prescribes the Rules and Measures of it and consequently determines what Government and Disciplin it is else there could be no Appeal to that Rule And look as they make the Word of God the Standart and Rule of the true Doctrine in the first Note so of Discipline and Government in this third Hence as none can without extremest Impudence assert that the Word leaves us to Waver and at an Uncertainty as to the true or false Doctrine or that it is not perfectly contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles Appealed to in that first Note so without the same Impudence neither can this be alledged of the Discipline or Government anent the Rectitude whereof and its Divine Measures the same Appeal is made 3. When exhibiting Scripture Instances they mention a Ministry established by Paul in the Churches and in special such a Ministry or Eldership as had the Government established and lodged with them in a Parity of Pastors as the Church of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge to Feed and Govern joyntly as the Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost they clearly assert the Divine Warrands of Presbyterian Parity Next for that Passage which the Dr. takes hold of in Art 21. which he durst not point his Reader to as knowing that the very Reading would discover his Forgery that which they affirm is thus expressed Not that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places c. It s evident that it utterly rejects his absurd gloss and impertinent groundless inference For 1. They are not speaking of the Species and form of Government but of these things which Councils has a Power to determin in yea peremptorly affirm that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word or the true interpretation thereof which was not so before by his Holy Will and by clear Consequence that no Councils can alter or change that Ministry and Government which in Art 19. They affirm the Apostles established 2. Having mentioned the Confutation of Heresies and giving a publick Confession of Faith according to the Word as one great design of General Councils they assign the Second which is to Constitut good Order and Policy to be observed in the Kirk that all things be done decently and in Order citing 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order Wherein Paul prescribs this general Rule to be applyed to the particular circumstances of that Church Then they add Not that we think any Policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages Times and places Adding That when Ceremonies foster Superstition they ought to be removed Wherein it is evident as the Meridian Light that that Policy which they hold alterable is not the Government of the Church appointed by the Apostles in the Word or that Ecclesiastick Disciplin therein prescribed For this they make a Note of the true Church and to call this alterable according to the difference of Times and Places were so gross a contradiction as no Men of Sense could fall into much less the Godly and Learned Compilers of that Confession But by this alterable Policy they mean such as Relâ—tes to the variable Circumstances of particular Churches and such appointments thereanent as God has left to the Regulation of the Christian Prudence of Church Governours according to the general Rules of the Word of which Rules that instance they exhibit 1 Cor. 14.40 hath the prime place So that the Dr's Inference that therefore the Authors of the Confession held not an indispensible Divine Right of Parity of Pastors or Presbyters has no dependence upon that Passage which he Cites nor has any Subsistence but in his own imagination The Dr. adds P. 13 That the First Presbyterians pleaded only that their New Form was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament Church and Primitive Institution that it came nearer to the Original Model of Churches But never affirmed that the Christian Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters and that no Officer in the Church higher than a Presbyter could pretend to any share in Ecclesiastick Government I Answer the Dr. hath not exhibit to us these Presbyterians whom he calls First and who thus pleaded We heard that our very First Reformers Pleads for that Government they were settling as a Divine Ministry and Government according to the Word and deriving its Original Pattern from the Apostles Plantation of Churches such as Ephesus had when Paul gave his last directions to that Church To which Original Pattern they hold that all Churches ought to be squared and Subordinat And if we advance a step further to our Books of Disciplin we will find the Divine Right of our Government Asserted in most Material Points thereof The Peoples interest in the Election of Pastors in their Call and in their Admission is Asserted in the First Book of Disciplin Head 1. with the Explication In the 7 Head of Ecclesiastick Disciplin the highest Censure of Excommunication is attributed to the Ministry as their Duty and Priviledge not to the Prelat and all Preachers without exception are declared Subject to Disciplin and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets in their Doctrin is Asserted in the 9. Head of Church Policy upon that special Point of Propesying and interpreting the Scriptures All which cutts the Sinnews of the Prelats Exercising Power over Pastors Establishing their Essential Divine Right of Government In 2 Book of Discipl Chap. 1. The Divine Right of Church Government and Policy is Asserted and its distinction from the Civil The unlawfulness of Ministers assuming Name or Thing of Lordship Again The extraordinary expired Function of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists is Asserted The identity of the Pastor and Bishops Office as the highest ordinary Function together with the Relation thereof to a particular Flock is Asserted Chap. 2. Moreover Ch. 7. initio the Ruling Elders Office and Congregational Eldership are Asserted Ibid. Our Church Judicatories Congregational Provincial and National are Asserted Chap. 11. The Unwarrantableness of the Office of Bishops Assuming Authority over Pastors and a Lordship over them and over Christs Inheritance is Asserted And such Bishops as refuse Subjection to the Established Disciplin and Government of Pastors are appointed to be deposed from all Function in this Kirk Likewise Patronages as crossing the Peoples Right in Election of Pastors are condemned
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.
any Hint or Note of Distinction 2. It seems that either Ambrose or some of his late Episcopal Pleaders are pityfully bemisted who do cite Ambrose as holding that the Bishops saluted by Paul were not Bishops of that Church but extraneous Bishops accidentally present Thus the Author of the three Dialogues P. 9. But Theodoret saith the Dr. did judge that when in the Apostolick Age Bishops were named as contradistinct from Priests they were called Apostles Behold our critical Dr. censuring again the Apostle Paul in his Salutation It seems also there were none of the Apostles of the Dr's Mould when this Apostle gave his last Farewel to the Elders of Ephesus nor in the Church which Peter wrote to For Ministers there are called to act the Bishops and nothing is heard of an Apostle-bishop And really I think this inadvertant Man Paul is further to be blamed in that describing of set purpose 1 Tim. and in the Epistle to Titus which are in the Dr's Judgement the great Charter of the Episcopal Authority the Qualifications and Duties of Church Officers he was so leavened with his Notion of Dichotomies that he passes quite over in silence the High Priest Apostle-Bishops whose Office was chiefly under this Name and Character to have been discribed that the Churches then and in after ages together with all inferior Priests might understand their Duty towards them But since in all their Descriptions Recitals and Accounts of Church Officers he and other Apostles were so foregetful as to pass over in silence the absolute High-priest of the Christian Church the Pope's Holiness notwithstanding that the Iewish OEconomy of Church Government was never repealed but still standing as a Patern to the New Testament Church it is no wonder that they fell into this Mistake also P. 37. He tells us That he only mentions this transiently not insisting upon it What this extends to is somewhat dubious many it is like will be of Opinion of whom I am one that what ever he has offered hitherto is a Digression and but obiter to the point But his business he tells us at present is to prove that community of Names will not prove community of Offices Truely if this be all his business he is a mere Officiperda and has foregot his Episcopal Errand in this eloborat Pamphlet For no Presbyterian ever concluded this from the mere community of Names simplely and abstracted from other Grounds drawen from the Scope and Circumstances of such places as we do plead from Scripture upon this Point and from many other clear Scripture Arguments long since exhibite to him in the Books which he mentions and there needs no more than the reading to convince any person that he is acting the Thraso in this his pretended Confutation of the same which doth rather confirm than weaken the perswasion of any Man of Sense who have perused these Authors The Dr. tells us ibid. That Peter calls himself a Presbyter Well if this Apostle writing to Presbyters and dehorting them from acting the Bishops and Lording over the Flock put himself as to an ordinary Office and Ministry Pastoral among the number making this one of his Arguments It is evident that he thus asserts their proper Succession to him tho not to his Apostolat yet to his Pastoral Office of feeding by the Word and Discipline For his Command imports both But why did he not address the Chief Bishop or High-priest under the Apostolick Designation after this manner The Apostle and inferior Presbyters among you I exhort who am also an Apostle or thus The Super-eminent Bishop and Presbyters I exhort who also am a Bishop But the Dr's correcting information is come far too late to him I might further tell him that when he shall exhibite as clear a distinction betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter as there is betwixt the Office of Apostles and Presbyter then and not till then his paralel Argument will appear of some force which he draws from Peter and Iohns designing themselves Elders and shall be acknowledged conclusive to his Scope The Dr. will next preoccuppy our Argument from 1 Tim. 4.14 And tells us That the Presbytrie mentioned in that place was a Senat composed of Apostles and other Priests but whether of the first or second Rank he is not certain And really the Dr in my poor Judgment might have added whether there were any other Apostles in that Senat than the Apostle Paul is equally uncertain And let me humbly intreat his Reverence by his next to give us an Account of the Scripture Grounds of his Certainty of the one rather than of the other That the Apostle Paul was present and concurred in this Presbytrie I know is pleaded by his Episcopal Brethren tho Collating the two places 1 Tim. 4.14 and 2 Tim. 1.6 the different Phraâ—eology in both being pondered they will find the Work pretty hard to make it good against a Critical Disputant and the admitting of this rather Confirms than Weakens our Pleadings from that place as Presbyterian Writers have made appear Some have alledged that by the Presbytrie we are to understand the Office Which Pleaders have been long since told that the Office has no Hands to lay on But that other Apostles were there than Paul is a Notion I am sure much if not only beholden to the Dr's Fertile that I say not Fond Invention It were needless and but to burden Paper unnecessarly to recite Interpreters in Opposition to this his Gloss This is known to all that are acquaint with them But let us hear the Dr's Argument upon these Passages He tells us It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that Paul was of the Number and that in the other place 1 Tim. 4.14 he is exhâ—rted not to neglect the Gift given him with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie In the last he is put in mind to stir up the Gift which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands There is none doubts that these Passages thus stands in the New Testament but had he instead of this Dark Insinuating Hint drawn out a Formal Argument lying level to his Scope and Conclusion it would have deserved our Consideration However to prevent his Mistake Presbyterians have long since told him 1. That the different Phrase in both places viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second makes Paul's presence at least Debateable but clearly proves that the Laying on of the Presbytries Hands is evidently Diversified in a distinct Comma as a distinct Priviledge in its self considered from the Gifts given by Prophesie and ascribed to the Laying on of Pauls Hands And 2. That tho Paul's presence in this Action were admitted it clearly proves that even an Apostles Laying on of Hands upon an Evangelist did not exclude the Presbytries Authoritative Imposition And that therefore by a clear Consequence from the Greater to the Less that Priviledge much more belongs to them now
Officers and Members are temporary expired Priviledges For this he clearly distinguishes from them And it being thus the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this Whether to some of them who are of Special Character or to all If to all then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another as being all Infallible and Supreme in the Exercise of their Government If to some only under what Character are they Primats Arch-bishops or Patriarchs And whether are they subject to one Head If to one Head then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist Yet it will be hard to say that they were not subject to a General Council as to their Doctrine and Administration And sure I am the Dr. will assert that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory and this their Supreme Authority he asserts to be Constant and Permanent still necessary for the Church and died not with their Persons So that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies But further to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him two things are again considerable First He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat but to be still vigent as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest who was an OEcumenick President over that Church over all inferior Priests and all their Courts For he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge Hence iâ— inevitably follows that this Supremacy is in his Sense applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President that the Christian Church may come up to its Pattern And it being thus let us in the next place see how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points 1. In making this Constant Supreme Spiritual Power over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles and by them derived to their respective Successors 2. In holding in discriminatim and without any note of distinction of one from another that the Bishops yea all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles he means in a proper formal Sense For this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as is said Further I would gladly know whether our Dr. ownes any Church-Power to have been transmitted to Presbyters or Pastors and to be asserted Act. 20 28. 1 Pet 5.2 Heb. 13.7.17 and many such places pleaded by the Presbyterians It is probable he will acknowledge this so that it be within their Precincts insubordination to the Bishops Now I pray why will he deny them the Priviledge of Succession to Apostles in point of Church Power He hath no Shadow of Ground unless upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bishop So that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power as he defines that of the Bishops as succeeding Apostles therein And I beseech him why are not the Bishops upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior Bishops equally cut off from this Priviledge If he say the Bishops Power reaches to Church Officers under them not that of Presbyters I have already told him what an Insignificant Evasion this is and that he cuts himself off from this Answer in that he makes this Apostolick Power which is Transmitted to Successors to be a Jurisdiction and Authority over all Subordinat Officers all Ecclesiasticks and all others Believing in Christ. And he tells us That the Apostles were to give Directions to their Suceessors in the same Office So that if it be not thus understood who can reconcile his Words to Sense For he distinguishes the Successors to their Office from such as he calls Subordinat Ecclesiasticks who have no such Authority And to say the Office is perpetual and permanent that the Office imports Essentially a Supreme Power over all Church Officers and Members and is thus distinguished from all Inferior Offices that this very Office is derived to Successors as being Essential and necessary to the Church Government in all Ages and yet that these Successors one or more have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of Ground or District is such a palpable Contradiction and Non-Sense as none can be more evident We are told P. 98. That the Essence of the Apostolick Office consisted not in the forementioned extraordinary Priviledges but in the Rectoral Power Transmitted to their Successors in all Ages I have told him and made it appear that their Rectoral-Power necessarly included these Priviledges and since he acknowledges that the Essence of their Office consisted in their Rectoral Power it does necessarly follow that these being of the Essence of that Power they were Essential to the Office We acknowledge with him that they were by their Office distinguished from Subordinat Officers The Dr. infers That therefore this Distinction must consist in something so peculiar to them as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this Character Before I come to a direct Answer I will here cleave all his Reasoning asunder with a Wedge of his own Setting The Apostles Universal Unconfined Inspection over all Churches Planted and to be Planted and as Catholick Universal Ministers thereof in Actu Exercito is that whereby they are distinguished from other Officers who are not of that Character And being thus distinguished this must of necessity be the Essence of their Office for it is the Essence from which Essential Distinctions flows Yet we will find the Dr. Disowning and Denying this P. 96. Next from hence its easie to infer that to give Successors the true Apostolick Character and Power it must be of this Nature and Extent else its Hetrogeneous unto and comes short of its Pattern Will any Rational Man deny that the Rectoral Power derived to Apostles by our Saviour wherein he says the Essence of their Office did consist was of this Nature and Extent Now let him produce if he can any one Officer or Successor with this Character Again that whereby they were distinguished or what was peculiar to them may be understood two ways 1. Materially or Simplely 2. Formally or as making up their Complex Office with its other Ingredients and as properly subservient to the proper formal immediat Ends thereof In the first Sense there were several things whereby they were not properly distinguished from other Officers at that time considering them materially and remotely such as Gifts of Tongues Miracles c. which others had in their own Sphere and Degree But formally they were proper to Apostles considering their Degree Circumstances and proper immediat End Others had Gifts of Tongues and of Miracles but these Gifts were distinguished from those of Apostles upon the Ground above exprest I would make it evident by a Scripture Instance Our Saviour shews what Miraculous Signs shall follow
is changed unto a Limited and Confined Inspection of Bishops Tho the Contexture of his Reasoning renders him in this inconsistent with himself Christs Care and Promise are abundantly verified in the Establishment of such a Government and Officers in His Church as are suted to her Edification and Preservation in all times and places I cannot but further remark the Dr's changing the Term of Apostolick Office which he holds to be transmitted to Successors into that of Episcopal Power as if these were all one But this is such a confusion of Names and Things as cannot be admitted But proceed we The Question the Dr. will needs have to be a Matter of Fact to be decided by Testimony Whom the Apostles appointed Successors is Matter of Fact simplely considered But this Matter of Fact must have a Divine Testimony to clear it it being a Divine Fact to call it so of Christs Infallible Divinely Inspired Apostles in the management of the Trust committed to them in founding and modelling the Gospel Churches And consequently in enquiring into this Point we must take our Measures both from their Doctrine and Practice if we acknowledge the Apostles had no Soveraign independent but Subordinat Subaltern Power Authorized and prescribed by their great Master whose Doctrine and Measures prescribed in his Holy Testament we must therefore look unto So that when the Dr. asserts There can be no decisive proof of this but by Testimonie He should have called it Divine Testimonie for an Human Testimony can here have no place when the Question is anent the Apostles Doctrine and Practice in point of Church Government And therefore what the Dr. adds viz That the Testimony alledged by him and the Episcopalians is so much the stronger upon the Ground of the Reception thereof Discovers his bad Design of leaving out the Qualification of Divine in the Testimony to which he appeals And likewayes his absurd alledging that a Divine Testimony is strengthened by an Human as influencing a stronger Prâ—of in eodem genere Causae That the Church knew no other Government than Prelacy for fourteen hundred Years as the Doctor is bold to assert shall be admitted when he shall exhibit the full Accounts and Records of these 1400 Years asserting so much To proceed To prove that the Apostles Rectoral Power was by them transmitted immediatly to single Successors the Dr. tells us ibid. that he will first view the Holy Scriptures then Ecclesiastical Records First view I say only and properly view in order to this proof For 1. our Faith of this is a Divine Faith which therefore cannot be founded upon an human Testimony else it were but an human Credulity 2. Ecclesiastick Records cannot be an infallible Comment upon the Sense of these Scriptures wherein this Testimony is contained And this upon several weighty Grounds which I have elsewhere exhibit Since this were 1. To set up an higher Tribunal than the Scriptures 2. Ye exclud an examination of the Human Testimony by the Scriptures 3. To make the Churches practice the infallible Rule to direct our perswasion and practice in reference to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out Besides that neither this Dr nor any for him will ever exhibit Authentick Records of the Churches Universal Practice since the Apostles many of the Ancients having written nothing at all many of their Writings also being lost many going under their Name being Counterfeit and supposititious And that none of these did in this Matter contradict thâ— Writers whom the Dr. alledges in this Point but did accord in judgment and practice with what he supposes them to hold in Point of Episcopacy is a proof which lyes upon the Doctor as the affirmer before his Argument can be admitted as valid and his Testimonies be supposed harmonious and this he will no doubt perform ad calendas Graecas Who knows not that the prime Historian Eusebius with many others do acknowledge that the shattered and maimed Records of the First Ages after the Apostles which are in this Point most considerable are most uncertain and dark as to Matter of Fact And do therefore exhibit but a Lame and imperfect Testimony in this Matter My work and scope then is to examin the Dr's Pleadings from a Divine Testimony which I shall fully perform CHAP IV The Dr's Proof of the Divine Right of the Hierarchical Bishop drawn from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus and the Seven Asian Angels Examined HEre we find the Doctor Tracing the Steps of his Fellows but giving their Notions and Arguments pitifully Insipide and nothing Recocted In the first place saith he P. 106 107. we find Timothy set over Ephesus by Paul when he went unto Macedonia Which place he compares with Act. 20.3 4. 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia that thou mightest charge some that they Teach no other Doctrine That Timothy thereafter waited upon Paul to yield Assistance in the Service of Religion he tells us cannot infer he was disingaged upon Occasional Iourneys from that Episcopal Inspection particularly committed to him in the Church of Ephesus by Paul Here is such a Proof as he might have seen long since Baffled and Disproved 1. All that hold Timothies Office as Evangelist to be extraordinary and to have expired with that of Apostles and this do the Body of Protestant Divines hold as is above evinced will consequently deny his Episcopal Instalment over Ephesus And put the Dr. to prove that his Evangelistick Office here expresly enjoyned him was First an ordinary Office to be continued Secondly Formally and properly Episcopal or such as did import a sole and singular Authority Paramount to all the ordinary Officers Authority in that Church and Exclusive thereof And what Answer to these Demands and Proof of these Suppositions is in the premised Argument let all Men judge 2. Had the Dr. been serious in this Debate he might have found that Presbyterians have exhibite from Scripture Timothieâ— continual transient Imployments through the Churches both before and after this supposed Instalmentâ— Ius Divinum Minist Angli Smect with diverse others have made this evident 3. The Dr. did well to exhibit the supposed Scripture Charter of Timothies pretended Instalment I besought thee to abide at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia that thou mightest Charge some that they Teach no other Doctrine c. Which the Presbyterians have long since told him is a clear Proof of the contrary since there was no need of such Importunity if Paul had Committed the Episcopal Charge over Ephesus to him For thus he might have laid as Dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterward to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1.2 They have told him that the Words specifie an Occasional Imployment and are not Words of Instalment to any â—ixt Office or Bishoprick over that Church and do clearly insinuat and point at an Intendment to Call him away again As accordingly both he
but as one who had a more excellent Office entrusted unto him so that he held not both Offices joyntly Secondly For the point of Ordination I Answer First It is more than he hath proved or can that Timothy had a sole Interest therein in Churches constitute And what he might do in Churches not constitute is not to the purpose For 1. Ordination is found in Scripture to be the Judicial Act of a Presbytrie which was exercised even upon Timothy himself 2. Paul would not ordain alone tho the great Apostle of the Gentiles but took along the Presbytries Authoritative Concurrence where a Presbytrie was constitute as is evident in the Scripture Accounts of this Evangelists Ordination wherein the Presbytrie Authoritatively laid on Hands together with the Apostle Hence it is evident that far less could Timothy assume a sole Interest in Ordinarion exclusive of that of the Presbytrie when constitute since his Office was inferior to that of Apostolat Next Supposing Philip an Evangelist in the proper Scripture Acceptation above described he was no doubt capable of the same Employment and Exercise thereof when the Churches Case required it as Timothy else the Dr. will say that Evangelists had not all the same Office and Authority For what he adds of Confirming the Baptized we have above spoken to it a large And when he hath described this Confirmation and exhibite the Divine Warrands thereof and proved from Scripture Timothie's Interest therein I doubt not to bring up Philip to the same Priviledge We are told next That to be an Evangelist is very agreeable to all Subordinations of the Christian Hierarchy Thus it seems with him That the Term imports no peculiar Office And thus if he owns Eusebius Notion of Evangelist which is to Preach the Gospel to such as had not heard it or resisted it and were not Converted He appears inconsistent with himself in making it applicable to all Church Officers and consequently appropriating to them the Function of Converting Infidels by Preaching the Gospel as in these first times of Christianity And what Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Divines in Reference both to the Pastoral and Evangelistick Office is obviously evident Not to scann the foulsom Popish Savour of his expression of Christian Hierarchy and the necessary consequence of his absurd ascribing the Office of preaching the Gospel consequently the administration of the Seals of the Covenant to the meanest and lowest of Church Officers He adds That the primitive Bishops were Evangelists and that any Bishop or Presbyter that Converts Infidels are as properly Evangelists as these so called in the Primitive Church He must say as this person of whom our debate is who is by the Apostle Paul called to do the work of an Evangelist This is such a gross absurd Assertion that to recite it is to refute it Will any Man of common Sense imagine that when Timothy is thus enjoyned he is put upon no other work or to exercise no other Function than what the meanest Deacon was capable of Or that the Sense of this Precept do the Work of an Evangelist is only amounting to this Convert Infidels I think indeed the Man who believes this is an Infidel to this Scripture Light The Dr. is now advancing to a Scripture proof from Iames and tells us He will not debate with us whether James was one of the Twelve or not Nor shall I detain him upon this it being spoken to above and shall aknowledge he had the Name and Authority of an Apostle ascribed unto him Gal. 2.9 and 1.19 That he was Bishop of Ierusalem the Dr. tell us is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus What Strength is in this Argument from Human Testimony and what Credit Hegesippus deserves is above touched But we must tell him that he must be set to his task It is Divine Testimony and Scripture proof and Witnesses we are seeking according to his undertaking not that of Clemens or Hegesippus But he tells us he needs not fill Text or Margin with Gitations since all his Adversaries and particularly Salmasius acknowledge that he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem But truely he hath instead of Scripture proof filled his Pamphlet with such stuff that he had done well long since thus to resolve Here is a bold and broad amplifying Assertion which some will be bold to call one of the Dr's broad and splendid Lies What! All his Adversaries acknowledge Iames first Bishop of Ierusalem I know not one nor can he Assign one of this All that acknowledge him Bishop in the Prelatical Sense His Instance of Salmasius which is the only one to evince this All the Dr. Produceth is such a pitiful faint Witness that his adducing of him serves only to render the Dr. the Object of their Laughter who are less Serious For all that he can say is That James continued at Jerusalem when other Apostles withdrew But that he was therefore in his Sense Bishop of Ierusalem is a Consequence which will require other Rules of Logick to make it good than have been heard of Suppose Salmasius acknowledge that the Ancients called him so all do know that he asserts only their expressing the Offices of Apostles and other extraordinary Officers after the Mode of their Times and Denominations which had then obtained as Iunius Whittaker and many other Learned Protestant Divines have observed And the Matter it self is evident to all Unprejudicat Minds So that we need not insist upon this Only we must again enjoyn him his Task of proving a Twofold Consequence and help his Memory in order to his next Undertaking against the Presbyterians 1. Iames stayed at Ierusalem when other Apostles withdrew Ergo he was properly and formally Bishop thereof 2. Salmasius acknowledges that de facto the Ancients call him Bishop and that he abode at Ierusalem Ergo he acknowledges him Bishop of Ierusalem and a Bishop of the Dr's Mould as succeeding the Apostolat therein now it seems laid aside Again the Ancients acknowledge that de facto he was Bishop of Ierusalem and Salmasius relates this Ergo he ownes the Ius of the Hierarchical Bishop When the Dr. hath managed this Task he shall be an Apollo for his Skill But now P. 113. the Dr. tells us That the Account the Scriptures gives us of him is very agreeable to the Testimony of the Ancients I am verrily of the Opinion that the Dr's Veneration for Antiquity is too Venerable I should think that the Dr. should have spoken better Sense and Divinity if expressing it in this Order that the Testimony of the Ancients is agreeable to the Account of the Scripture and to have made the Scripture Account the Leading Testimony Well let us hear this Account of Scripture Only before we hear it let us remember what the Point is which this Account and Testimony must have Reference to viz. That the Apostle James was properly and formally Bishop of
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
to Pastors This Objection is above fully removed And here again we repone 1. The Infant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an Evangelist and Directions from an infallible Apostle 2. Episcopalians must confess that in many Points wherein Timothy and Titus are immediatly addressed ordinary Pastors and Presbyters have a necessary and essential Interest and that therefore they must acknowledge this to be one end of these addressed Instructions that Pastors or Presbyters may have a clear Vidimus of their Ministerial Office and Duties And that by consequence the addressing of these Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude Pastors from the Jurisdictional Power And no more make this peculiar to these persons than the Injunctions respecting the Reading Preaching of the Word Convincing the Gain sayers and Rebuking the Scandalous solely applicable to a Prelat as his incommunicable Prerogatives The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song That its the greatest possible evidence that can be in such a Matter of Fact that immediatly after all the Apostles Death until the Council of Nice the Church had no other Government but that of Bishops Ans. This Assertion especially as respecting the Patriarchal Bishop of the late Edition viz with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction tyed to Preach to no flock and deriving all his Power from the Civil Magistrate is so grosly absurd so palpably false that the very Repetition is a Confutation the contrary having been demonstrated by several Learned Pens The best Antiquaries confess these first times dark as to Matters of Fact But the Surveyer quite mistakes this Question which is not anent a mere Matter of Fact or the Churches Practice simplely Considered but anent the Apostolick Instructions and Institutions in point of Church Government viz what Officers the Apostles set up and Instituted in what order and Cloathed with what Authority how qualified for their Office and instructed therein how they are found to have exercised this Power when thus Instituted and set up If this be clear in the Scripture Records then no defects or aberrations therefrom either in or after the Apostles times can direct or warrand our Imitation nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule unless we will extend this to Regulat us as to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out Both Scripture and Church History do give us an account of the early aberrations from the Divine Rule both in Point of Doctrin Worship and Government such as those anent the Resurrection Justification by good Works Worshipping of Angels the Error of the Nicolaitans and in Point of Government the Mysterie of Iniquity the Embryon of a Papal Primacy was working in Pauls time and early appeared in Diotrephes aspiring after a Primacy Not to stand upon the Millenary Error the Error anent the Vision of GOD and others early appearing thereafter The Surveyer will needs strengthen his Notion by the Maxim Lex currit cum praxi consuetudo est optimus interpres Legis What interpretation and Sense this is capable of in reference to Human Laws or of what use is left to the Consideration of the Gentlemen of the Long Robe But sure with respect to the Divine Law 't is dangerous and sadly lax Divinity Israels Consuetudo and early practice of Idolatrie and the Worshipping of Images as that of the Golden Calf with a pretended design to Worship the Lord Jehovah was a shrewd and gross interpretation of the Second Command The People who told Jeeremiah that they would pour out Drink Offerings to the Queen of Heaven because their Progenitors in a long tract of time had done so were much in this Surveyers Mind But the great Lawgiver who enjoyned his People not to walk after their Fathers Commandments nor Judgments though of never so Large an extent and long Continuance but after his Laws and Judgments is of another Mind Tertullians Rule and Prayer is good speaking of Custom in it self considered and simplely Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas interpretare quas consuetudo non novit nam si nosset non esset Did Custom know Scripture it would be ashamed of it self and cease to be any more Upon which ground he pleads that the Eternal Light himself might arise and expone his own Scriptures The Surveyer tells us That in these preceeding grounds he hath pleaded only for the Lawfulness of Prelacy though the necessity is not denied But sure if these grounds evince any thing they prove a Necessity as well as Lawfulness If the Apostles Directions and Practice in the Institution of Church Officers pursuant to their great Masters Commission together with his supposition of the Apostolical and Christian Churches Universal Reception and Practice will not evince and prove this I know nothing will Besides that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine Institution which will bear this Conclusion of Necessity not of Lawfulness only But in this proof of the Lawfulness of Prelacy the Surveyer tells us he intended to quiet the Minds of People anent the Covenant obligation against it A good Pillow of security no doubt this had been had he proved that Universally and absolutely no Oath can oblige against a thing in it self Lawful or retrench our Liberty thereanent and answered the Arguments urged by Casuists on the contrary But it is not our purpose to digress on this head He adds That if Lawful it is Juris Divini that we submit to a Lawful Human Ordinance and Command for the Lords sake Which Reason were valid had he made good that the Human Ordinance in this Circumstantiate Case had for its object a thing Lawful And that the Human ordinance is the First Rule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of a Practice hic nunc though in it self Lawful And further that the Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loose solemn Oaths and Vows upon the Lawgivers themselves and the Subjects against such a practice as is commanded CHAP. II. The Surveyers Exceptions and Answers which he offers to the Scriptures Pleaded by Presbyterians Examined Particularly To these Passages viz Matt. 20 25 26 with the Paralels Mark 10 42 Luke 22 25 To that passage Mat. 18 17 and Act 20 17 28 Tit 1 5 7 1 Pet 5 1.2 The Vnsoundness and Inconsistency of his Exceptions and Glosses made appear THE Surveyer having thus presented his Episcopal Strength and his great Grounds for proving Prelacy Lawful doth in the next place undertake to Answer the Scripture Arguments that are pleaded for Presbyterian Government which we shall now Consider and Examinâ— The First Scriptures he tells us P. 197. that are made use of for proving the Parity of Ministers in the Government of the Church and disproving Imparity or Superiority of any over others are Mark 10.42 Matth. 20 25 26. Luke 22.25 Where because our Lord is speaking of the Kings and Great Ones of the Earth their Exercising Dominion and Authority over their Subjects
Dominion of Earthly Kings The Reasons of his rejecting this Gloss he subjoyns Quia Apostoli non contendebant inter se de modo Primatus sed de Primatu ipso c. That the Apostles were not contending about the manner of a Primacy but the Primacy it self and therefore that our Lords Answer may be apposit to their Question it must needs absolutely forbid all Dominion 2. If our Lord had intended to forbid only some special kind of Dominion certum Dominationis modum he had not removed their Ambition which he is here endeavouring signally to remove since other Primacies also do Feed Ambition 3. Saith he this Phrase Not so viz. shall it be among you according to the Use of the Scripture doth import a simple and absolute Negation as Psal. 1.4.147.20 Adding that in the paralells Mat. 20. and Mark 10. it is expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non it a sit inter vos It shall not be so among you He adds that if Christ had allowed a Dominion to Peter the Apostles had been admonished thereanent and that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Service or Ministry ascribed unto them is inconsistent therewith He afterward in the next Paragraph Answers the Objection taken from the Signification of the Compound Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as importing a violent Domination shewing that the Words of themselves will not necessarly import such a thing which he proves from some paralel Texts and that they signifie a simple Dominion only which he further proves from Lukes making use of the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adding in the third place that there was no need that our Lord should speak of a Dominion of this Nature because the Apostles Debate was not about a violent Domination He adds further Nec valet quod subjicitur c. It is of no weight which the Popish Adversary pleads against the Discharge of all Primacy because our Lord subjoyns He that is greatest among you since our Lord speaks not of a true Greatness in respect of the thing it self but of an Imaginary in respect of Affectation and Desire Which Matthew and Mark do expone and clear by these Words Whosoever will be great amongst you In the rest of his Reasons he hath several things to this purpose as if he had been expresly Disputing against this Surveyer as indeed upon the Matter he doth and Listeth him among the Popish Adversaries in this Point For that Point of the Persons spoken to the Surveyer tells us The Apostles were sometimes spoken to as representing all Christians Mark 13.37 In which Sense this Prohibition was not given to them which would strike at the Authority allowed among Christians Sometimes what is spoken to them concerns themselves alone in their Apostolick Capacity as Matth. 19.28 In which Sense we cannot understand this Prohibition since it would exclude all Ministers afterward Some things likewise were spoken to them as representing only Ministers as when Power of remitting and retaining Sins is given them Joh. 20. In which Sense we cannot apply this unto them since this will impeach the Superior Authority of any of them above others and their Authority over Inferior Ministers evidenced in Pauls Excommunicating Hymeneus and Alexander making Decrees for the Church of Corinth c. Ans. Whatever may be said to this Partition in it self it is certain the Enumeration is not so adequat as not to admit of a Super-numerary Some things might be spoken to Apostles which did most nearly concern them as Apostles as being immediatly directed to them and yet may have an useful reference in a Subaltern and Subordinat Sense to all the Ministers of Christ. As when our LORD said to His Apostles Ye are the Light of the World the Salt of the Earth This in some respect had a peculiar Application to them as Apostles and our LORDs Infallibly Inspired Ambassadors authorized to lay the Foundation of the Gospel Church prescribe her Ordinances and institute her Officers and several of them appointed to be the Holy Ghosts Pen-Men in writing the Scriptures in which respect the Church is said to be Built upon their Foundation But though no Ministers else could acclaim to be in this respect the Light of the World and Salt of the Earth or challenge a Right to the peculiar Priviledges of Apostles included therein it is notwithstanding certain that there is a Subordinat Application hereof unto ordinary Ministers that they are in their Capacity and Sphere the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth and have the Honour and Duties of their Ministerial Office therein enjoyned and included as well as the Apostles had theirs 2. Since he grants the Apostles were pari honoris potestatis consortio praediti and cannot deny that our LORD bespoke them upon that Ground of an equal Official Power and as in that Capacity it follows that he bespoke Pastors whom he appointed to be in the same order of an equal Official Power and to succeed to the Apostles in their ordinary Authority The Surveyer can give no Reason wherefore our LORD discharged the impeaching this instituted Equal Power of Apostles by an Unlawful Dominion and not to have given the same Prohibition to Pastors Why a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chief or Primat is discharged among Apostles and not also among Pastors The Surveyers Contrary Instances as he calls them of the Apostolick Authority over Ministers in the Church are palpably Impertinent and do miss the Mark. For 1. Their Authority in the first plantation of Churches can no wayes conclude what is the ordinary Authority of Pastors in the Churches ordinary and settled Government 2. Our Argument runs thus That the Apostles being placed in an equal Sphere of a Ministry were equal among themselves as Apostles formally and equal among themselves as Gospel Ministers upon this Ground But that therefore they could have no Authority Apostolical as Apostles over Inferior Officers doth nowayes follow this Supposition nor will it follow that because the Apostles were Ministers and had Authority over other Ministers that therefore there is a Lawful Official Authority of one Pastor over another because the Apostles were more than Ministers viz. Apostles and in that Capacity had that Superiority but not as Ministers simplely So that such an Argument would run cross to the common Rules It is certain whatever Authority they put furth in the Churches in fieri and in directing them in the Exercise of their ordinary Power yet in settled Judicatories they are found acting as Elders and Ministers and not as Apostles This hath been made Good in Pauls assuming the Presbytrie in the Ordination of Timothy The ordinary Elders or Ministers concurring with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Both in the Disquisition in the Sentence and enjoyning the Decree But sayes the Surveyer We must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not If notwithstanding this
calling into Question the Uniformity of the Apostolick Church Government The Surveyer next assaults our Argument from the not mentioning of the Bishop in the Catalogue of Church Officers but palpably disguises it as if we argued merely from the non-nomination of the Bishop in Eph 4.11 among the Officers there mentioned as Gifted to the Church The Argument is this That there being several Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Institution as in that Passage Eph. 4. and likewise 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6.7 The Diocesan Hierarchical Bishop is found in none of them and we may add and likewise in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Officers exhibit in Scripture and therefore is no Officer appâ—inted of GOD. He tells us That though not mentioned under that Name they are mentioned under the Name of Pastors and Teachers But as he unjustly supposes that our Argument Concludes from that one place so he deals as unjustly or unskilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers who so little concern themselves in that work and marrs his design in making them Succeed to the Apostles in the plenitude of their ordinary Power as he doth P. 194 195. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apostles or else he must bring up Pastors and Teachers to the same Succession The Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apostolick or Evangelistick Office why then did he assign different Degrees of the Pastoral Office This Consequence the Surveyer calls weak because a Governing Superiority among Apostles and Evangelists was partly impracticable partly unnecessary they seldom living in ordinary Societies because of their Dispersion for speedy spreading of the Gospel and having infallible direction in their Ministry Whereas Pastors living in Society and fixed-upon their Charges their Associations have need of some Governing Superiority among them to be a Nerve and Sinnew of their Union and that the Prudence of some may repress the Levity of others Ans. This Reason is but the ignis fatuus of our Surveyers fancy First as touching Apostles we find them notwithstanding of the infallible conduct of the Spirit joyning Counsel together yea and with concurrence of ordinary Officers as Act. 15. and a Moderator of the Meeting presiding whom his Party will needs make us believe did preside as Bishop of Jerusalem so that this very Colledge of Apostles had the Superintendency of this Episcopal Nerve in their Sense And none can deny that persons managing one work if far dispersed have the greater need of a Corresponding headâ— Next as for Pastors we find their social Government by common Counsel exhibit in Scripture and that their Union was a Presbyterial Classical Union and did not Coalesce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat Besides the Surveyer is a niggardly Dispenser of Governing Prudence when Monopolizing it in one Prelat and denying it to the rest of the Members of the Society of Pastors Or if he allow it to more than one Person he plucks the Hierarchical Bishop from his Seat and disownes the Concentring of this Authority in his Person For what he adds of the Early Reception of this supposed Headship of the Hierarchical Prelat by the whole Church His Confident Assertion is easily Answered by a well grounded Denyal He is bold to say there is nothing in Scripture against this Officer But his palpable Perversion of the Scriptures pleaded against him discovers there is more said against him than he was able to Answer and these Texts pleaded appears the more forcible after all his faint Essays this way He offers in the next place P. 214. a Reply to our Argument from Philip. 1.1 From which we argue That there being here a Plurality in one and the same Church who must need be Pastors and Officers therein Therefore the Scripture Bishop is not the Hierarchical Bishop since the Apostle salutes these Pastors joyntly as Officers of the Highest Rank under this Notion of being Bishops thereof and without the least hint of a respect to any Superior Officer set over them Besides that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior In Answer to this the Surveyer first takes notice that in this Epistle only the Direction is by Paul to the Officers as contradistinct from the Church whereas in the rest of the Epistles he includes them in the Organick Church without express mentioning of them Ans. Not to stand upon this Variety in the Inscription of Epistles wherein sometimes the Apostle Stile himself by his Authority sometimes not sometimes associats with himself Officers of an Inferior Order sometimes not It is noticeable here how this Man in a palpable Contradiction to himself doth quite baffle and run down his first large Answer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5. which concludes the People only to be bespoken because Officers are not Named Whereas here he acknowledges that except in this one Epistle in the rest the Church Officers are included in the Organick Church without the express mentioning of them But to proceed the Surveyer will needs with Ambrose have the Reason of the Difference to be that they were not Bishops and Deacons of that Church but present with Paul and Timothy at Writing of the Epistle and assumed as Consenters with him and this he makes paralel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me He tells us the Apostle calls them not Bishops and Deacons of Philippi but absolutely Bishops and Deacons and the Copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to Paul and Timothy the Writers as well as to the Saints at Philippi Ans. The Surveyer in approving this palpably absurd Gloss discovers how miserably he is put to it to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument For â—not to speak of Ambrose Sentiments wherein the Surveyer cannot make it appear he is followed by any Interpreters it is evident beyond all Contradiction that the Apostles usual Method in the Inscription of all the Epistles is First To describe himself either by his Office of Apostle or otherwayes as the Pen-man of the Epistle together with Others if any such be whom he is pleased to Associat with him in the Inscription And then in a Distinct Clause and Branch to Describe these whether persons or Churches to whom the Epistle is Addresed And we dare confidently Challenge such as embrace this Sense to exhibit a contrary Instance in any of the Epistles or to shew where the persons supposed present with the Apostle are in their Description cast behind his Character of himself and the Description of the Persons to whom he writes Nay this so evident that the Surveyers own Instance Gal. 1. baffles his Answer For after Pauls Description of himself as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man calling himself an Apostle not of Men neither by Man c. He doth in the 2 v. add and all that are with me And next describes those to whom the Epistle is directed viz.
and Nerves of this Objection We know that Superior and Inferior Officers do come under general Names and Designations But our Assertion is this That no Name of the Superior Officer which is the proper Characteristick of his Office and whereby he is distinguished from the Inferior is attributed to such Inferior Officers since this would Brangle the Scriptures Distinction thereof and remove the March-Stones which God hath set So that his Instance of the common Name to Superior and Inferior Officers upon the ground of common Qualifications is impertinent to the Point For no Names of this Nature and Import can be the proper distinguishing Names of the Superior from the Inferior since this would infallibly infer a Confusion in the Holy Ghosts Language such as cannot without Blasphemy be imputed to him Thus the Name Apostle in its proper Sense or Evangeâ—ist is ascribed to no Inferior Officer To apply this the Name of Bishop is in the Surveyers Principâ—es a distinguishing Character of an Officer superior to a Pastor or Presbyter and therefore the Absurdity of his Inference or paralel Reason is palpably evident this Name being by his own Confession ascribed to ordinary Pastors The Surveyer in the Fifth place repeats again to us for Answer this poor hungry shift which we have before refuted viz That granting there were none but mere Presbyters at that time in that Church of Philippi who are called Bishops yet upon what grounds shall the Constitution thereof be the Measure of all Churches unless a Divine Rule for Managing the Government in that uniform manner could be produced Ans. The Surveyer in Repeating this Subterfuge which he made use of to eschew our Argument drawn from the State of the Church of Corinth told us that that Church which is but one ought not to be a Rule to others and that one instance cannot make a Rule Here it seems he he hath found another Instance to make the Number two yet this will not please him unless a Divine Rule be produced for managing the Government in that manner It is certain that the Apostles practice in the constitution of Churches in their Officers and Ordinances pursuant to their great Masters Commission hereanent and upon the necessary supposition of their Infallibility and Faithfulness in managing this Trust is a sufficient Rule and Divine Warrand to found our Perswasion and Faith in this Matter This is so clear that the Episcopalians must either acknowledge it or baffle and overthrow their own Principles and Arguings for Prelacy For I pray how will they make their supposed Constitution of the Churches of Ephesus Crete under the pretended Episcopal Inspection of Timothy and Titus a Standart and Measure for all Christian Churches if this Apostolick Constitution therereof be not admitted as an infallible ground of this Argument And if Presbyterians shall repone to their Episcopal Pleadings that the Constitution of these Churches cannot be a Standart for ever unless a Divine Rule be produced for managing the Government in that uniform manner they are destitute of an Answer So that it appears the Surveyer behoved either in granting the Churches of Corinth and of Philippi to be thus governed to yield the Cause to the Presbyterians in acknowledging a Divine Presbyterial Constitution of these Churches or stoâ—d obliged to retract and disown all his Episcopal Pleadings in the Instances exhibit The Episcopalians might have found that these Instances are exhibited by us as proofs and Demonstrations of the common Universal Rule The Constitution of the other Apostolick Churches after this manner hath been exhibit and evinced as by several others so in special by the Judicious Authors of the Ius Divin Minist Eccles. who have at large made appear and proven a Presbyterial Classical Unity and equal Official Authority of Pastors in Government 1. In the Church of Ierusalem 2. In the Church of Antioch 3. In the Church of Ephesus 4. In the Church of Corinth And that in all these Instances there is in the Word a Pattern 〈◊〉 Presbyterian Government in common over diverse single Congregations in one Church See Ius Divin Minis Eccles. from P. 292. c. And in special the Surveyer and his Fellows might have found this made good which he here pretended to seek a Proof of Viz That the Pattern of the said Presbytrie and Presbyterian Government is for a Rule to the Churches of Christ in all after Ages Which is made good First From this that the First Churches were immediatly Planted and Governed by Christs own Apostles and Disciples The strength of this Reason is illustrated from several Grounds As that 1. The Apostles immediatly received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ himself Matth. 16.19 Ioh. 20.21.23 2. Had immediatly the promise of his perpetual presence in their Ministry Matth. 28.18.19.20 The plentiful donation of the Spirit to lead into all Truth Ioh. 14.16 Act. 15. Ioh. 16.14 15. 3. They received immediatly Commands from Christ after his Resurrection and were instructed Forty days in the Nature of his Kingdom That they were first and immediatly Baptized of the Holy Ghost extraordinarly Act. 2.1 to 5. So that whether we consider the Spirits infallible influence upon the Apostles in this great work of ordering and Governing the Primitive Churches or their performing Christs Commandments in this work which he did impose upon them touching his Kingdom and consequently their infallibly Right use of the Keys of his Kingdom which he Committed to them it is evident beyond all contradiction that the Pattern of their Practices herein must be a Rule for all the succeeding Churches Secondly This is made good from the end proposed by the Holy Ghost in the careful Records of the Apostolical Churches State and Government which must needs be in order to succeeding Churches imitation since this Record as the other Scriptures must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our Learning or Instruction which Instruction must Relate not merely to the Factum but mainly to the Ius viz the Reasons and grounds of this Apostolical Government this being the most proper and profitable Instruction Thirdly That if in the Point of Government such Apostolick Patterns will not amount to an obligatory Rule we will impeach the Authority of other Acts of Religion received from them and bottomed only and Chiefly upon the Foundation of the Practice of Christs Apostles and Apostolical Churches such as the Reciving of the Lords Supper on the Lords days c. See Ius Divin Minis Eccles. P. 213 214. Nay this is so evident that the Surveyer without contradicting himself cannot but admit this Rule For P. 195 he will needs have the determination of this Question to depend upon the Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles contained in Scripture and the surest Light History can afford in the Churches most Virgin times Now here is exhibit Historical Accounts and Narrations of the Churches pure and Primitive pure Constitution in its first and most Virgin times
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
the Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make