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
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
all the Power of Government in the person of the Bishop excluding wholly all Presbyters from any Interest therein So that the Dr. in this unwary Citation contradicts Ignatius and himself and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians wherein Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family to be his Steward He hath again Wounded himself For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry under the Authority of the Master and tyed up to his Orders is point blanck contrare unto and toto coelo different from that Principality of the highest Degree before ascribed to the Bishop and owned by the Dr. as his and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office Sure to be a Prince and a Steward in Government are distinct things and entirely and wholly opposit if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it who disowns a Dominion and in stead thereof and in opposition thereunto owns a Stewardship in God's Family and humble Sevice or Ministry 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations Whereof the first is That these Epistles were Written not above Eight or Nine years after the Decease of St. Iohn and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church who were not Subject to them That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches so that they were not within the Altar but without it who were not subject to them And therefore it may be concluded there were no Churches without them I Answer that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early no body will doubt but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries as are above rehearsed was written by Ignatius and was his Sense of Church Government no Man of Sense or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr will believe And we find the contrair is asserted and made good by several of the Godly Learned Not to stand upon a more critical Answer and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author tho admitted unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts the Judgment of the whole Church to be correspondent thereunto and that none who either wrot not or whose Writings may be lost were of contrary Judgment which he neither attempts to prove nor will ever be able The Drs. next Inference is That since there were Bishops so early in this Age presiding over the Churches they behoved to receive several of them at least their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles since Ignatius at the writing of these Epistles had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch an eminent Church planted immediatly by St. Peter It being the constant practice of the Apostles to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies that there were de facto and de jure such Prelats as he pleads for Nor can he from this Ground perswad any rational Man of this unless he could evince two Things which he will do ad Calendas Graecas 1. Not only that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius but likewise the Sense and Judgment as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer as the Bishop is correspondent to the Scripture Account and Sense of the Church Officers mentioned in the New Testament and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government and the Institution of the Officers thereof which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty Again his Reason here is very odd whereby he fortifies this Inference viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted For if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops as he needs must if he speak consequentially I would fain know First What shadow of Proof he can give for this and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such For if this be asserted then it follows that Bishops were set up when there were no Elders to presid over contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows except Dr. Hammond And next I would know how the Dr. upon this Supposition will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction and that both to himself and Ignatius Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders and himself holds that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem when the Apostle Paul went in to them were mere Presbyters or Pastors Again if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion who takes still the Elders for Prelats so he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church not to suppose it only else in his principles these Churches where mere Elders were placed were manck and wanted the power of Jurisdiction And since he has produced nothing from Scripture that proves such an institution of Bishops or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses his Dream of Ignatius is as easily rejected by us as affirmed by him We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas when sent out among the Gentiles and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat of the Drs. Mould in either of the Antiochs the Scripture is utterly silent And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion As for Chrysostom Tom. 5. edit Savil. p. 99. his admiring of Ignatius Dignity obtained by the Hands of Apostles laid upon him It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity which the Dr. alledges For doth not the Dr. think that the Office of the Scripture Bishop is a great Dignity And he should prove not suppose only that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense which as he offers not to do so if attempting it he could not chuse but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself who as is above cleared asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter The same I repone to what the Dr. alledgeth P. 410 of Polycarp his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna as also what is made good by many Protestant Divines viz. That the Fathers and Ancients used the Name of Bishops in a general Sense that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
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
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
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
the Method of procedure which our Lord Institute Matth. 18. he must by Parity of Reason allow the other part of the Institution touching the Juridical or Censuring Church to have its own place therein And that Consequently the Apostle was to take along the Authoritative concurrence of the Church Officers of Corinth in this procedure But the truth is he quite mistakes the Passage For in that Clause of Two or Three Witnesses the Apostle Intimats only the certainty of his coming the Third time He had taken up thoughts of and was preparing for his Journey and giving them previous warning of his coming he alludes to that of Deut. 19.15 to ascertain them thereof accordingly Thus Pool Annot. and Interpreters generally He had been at Corinth once Act. 18. Afterward he had twice purposed and promised to come once in the 1 Ep. Chap. 16.5 And now again here And then he adds in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses c. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat thus senses this Clause in the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses c. The meaning is saith he these Three warnings of my coming shal be as so many Witnesses by which if ye do not amend you shall be sufficiently convinced of incorrigible Rebellion to proceed to a sentence already penned 2 Cor. 10.6 cum jam bis terve id dixerim tandem ratum erit thus Grotius As for the Apostles threatning sharpness of Censure v. 10. And his Apostolical Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 It receives the same Answer by the forementioned distinction of the Apostles ordinary and Extraordinary Power and the cumulative and privative exercise thereof And if the Dr. will not take this from me may I hope he will from a far greater The Learned Iunius in Answer to Bellarmin pleading much to the Dr's Scope and Sense from this Passage of the Apostle Shall I come unto you with a Rod offers the same distinction De Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rod secundum illam c. According to the common ordinary Rod saith he Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. but according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira He adds in respect of this common Rod Paul saith 1 Cor. 5. You being gathered together and my Spirit in the Name of the Lord Iesus But as to this singular one he saith Shall I come unto you with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 This common Rod he denyes to have been in the Hand of any one Man whether Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular Prerogative in Churches constitute Grotius and others do here take in the same which Iunius mentions of the extraordinary stroke either the inflicting of Death as upon Ananias and Sapphira or Blindness as upon Elymas or Diseases The Belgick Divines joyn together the Exercise of punishment and Discipline in this Clause While I have been mentioning Iunius I must upon this occasion shew that in opposition to the Dr's Pleading in Relation to Successor Bishops to Apostles by Testimony of the Fathers Iunius will tell him De Clericis Cap. 14. Not. 15. that this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs Institution quia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in Ecclesia Succederetur Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles according to Degree And that the Fathers understood it of a Succession ex simili non ex pari of similitud not Parity And a similitud Secundum quid or imaginary according as Bishops were then Moulded The same Answer and distinction above Rehearsed serves for what he Adduces of Pauls delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 And that this is the Sense of Sound Divines appears in that this is made Paralel with 1 Cor. 5. wherein the Apostles Extraordinary Authority is by them distinguished from the Churches Ordinary Power As for his further Proof from the Apostles deriving this Spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus the pretended Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and their supposed singular Authority and Censures and Judicially Cognoscing upon Ecclesiastical Causes which he draws from these Passages 1 Tim. 5.19 20. Tit. 3.10 We have above spoken to it at length and provenfully that the Evangelistick Function of them both who were fixed to no particular Posts together with the clearly supposed Power of Church Judicatories when Established as is evident in several Paralells and of the supposed Concurrence consequently of ordinary Officers with them in the Nature and Scope of these very Instructions themselves doth clearly eveâ—t his Pleading For what he adds of the Censuring Power of the Angels of Ephesus and Thyatira Rev. 2. What we have made already good of the Collective Sense of the word Angel and the Insufficiency of admitting him to be a single person or President to bear the weight of his Conclusion discovers the Vanity of this his Repeated Notion in this place The Dr. adds that the Bishops of the Primitive Ages were the sole Administrators of Spiritual Iurisdiction This we have above convict of untruth And whereas he tells us further that they ordinarly admitted their Presbyters Concurrence for Advice we have made appear that their Concurrence after Bishops were set up yea and by Confession of Bishops themselves was Authoritative not for Advice only The Dr. will needs have Cyprian to challenge a singular Authority of Excommunication Ep. 38 39. But if he will not set him by the Ears with himself Ep. 6 18 28. where he professes he neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy and Ep. 78. where he shews that Presbyters had the Power of Imposing Hands and of Ordaining and unless also he can disprove what is made good anent their Ordaining alone especially in Aegypt in absence of the Bishop what we have touched anent the Chorepiscopi their Authority and Power herein which is at large made good by our Writers the Dr. must acknowledg that he misses his Mark in this Citation Cyprian also is so far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of sole Censuring as the Dr. wouâ—d make him that Epist. 33. he ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues even in the Point of Ordination and disownes any such usurped Authority In the Ordination of the Confessor Aurelius he thus expresses himself hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi a mâ— a Collegis qui presentes aderant ordinatum sciâ—tis Thus also Ep. 58. speaking of the Pastors he expresses himself Ego Collegae Fraternitas omnis And Ep. 6. shewing his earnest desire to meet with the Pastors while absent from them he gives this Reason ut ea quae circa Ecclesiae gubernacula utilitas communis exposcit tractare simul plurimorum examinata limare possemus And speaking there of the turbulency of some persons he says they were such as nec a Diaconis nec a Presbyteris regi posse c. Upon which Pamelius has this Note hinc non obscure colligitur
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
Bishops therein and by clear Consequence the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines upon these Passages correspondent to our Sense and Pleading it were a large Work The Belgick Divines upon Act. 20.28 from that Clause the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers do plead as above For having told us that in the Greek it is Bishops and that from this the Word Bishop is derived they add That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church from whence it appears that in the Holy Scriptures there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops pointing to Philip. 1.1 upon which Passage they shew that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church referring again to Act. 20.17 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3 Where they shew That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus not as Bishop but as Evangelist for a time to Confirm the Church Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew That the Word Bishop is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference as appears in the following Description compared with other places citing Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 7. Diodat on Act. 20.17 shews That by the Elders we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse he shews That the Word signifies Overseer Guardian c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church without any absolute Dominion only for the Profit and Good of the Flock Philip. 1.1 he paralells with Act. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5.17 Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat 1 Tim. 3.1 he understands of the Bishop or Pastor who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church On Tit. 1.5 the Elders who are immediatly after called Bishops he understands of such Pastors and Conductors as were to be placed in Churches where was a Competent Number of Believers Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands Act. 20.17 as speaking of such Elders as are Governours and Pastors of the Church And shews that the Term and Title respects not their Age but their place And upon v. 28. they shew That the Overseers there mentioned are the same who are called Elders v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them Upon Philip. 1.1 By Bishops they understand Pastors and Teachers asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one in the Apostles days and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28 1 Cor. 4.1.2 1 Thes. 5.12.13 1. Tim. 3.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Tit. 1.5 Heb. 13.17 Iam. 5.14 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of shewing that this is the Sense both of Ancient and modern Interpreters Thereafter they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters who takes them for Diocesan Bishops Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 They shew That the Term Bishop is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment and Paralels this with the Title of Angel mentioned Rev. 2.1 Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach they shew That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem mentioned Chap. 11 30. Upon v. 28. they shew That the term Episcopus or Bishop is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church and Minister of the Word as elsewhere Also upon Philip. 1.1 on that Clause the Bishops and Deacons they shew That the Synod of Nice did forbid Two or more Bishops to have their Seats in one City And before that Cornelius Bishop of Rome upbraids Novatus with Ignorance as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes that he knew not there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church in which he could no be Ignorant there were Forty Six Presbyters And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi In one City it cannot be supposed say they there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense as the word was afterward taken Here therefore by Episcopi and Diaconi we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the Government of the Church was Committed And Deacons who not only had the Care of the Poor but also Assisted Ministers in their Ecclesiastical Function Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 they shew That the Term Bishop doth properly relate to the Flock referring to Philip. 1.1 And having shewed that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats and consequently as it relates to Pastors But that they Disowne this as not being the Scripture Acceptation is evident not only from that Reference to Philip. 1.1 but also from this that the Clause of Desiring a good Work they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13 where after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such as Laboured among them viz. In the Word and Doctrine he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake asserting thus the Bishops good Work to be one and the same with that of the Pastor and consequently the Office By the Elders mentioned Tit. 1.5 to be Ordained in every Church they understand the Pastors to be Ordained where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful And the Apostles Reason v. 7. For a Bishop must be Blameless c. they paralell with Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office from these places The Professors of Leyden Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and that the Pastors Dâ—ctors Elders and Deacons are the only standing ordinary Church Officers Thus Thes. 17.18 19 20. c. Ascribing to Pastors the Authority of Government as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament Thes. 25.26 Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28 they shew that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2 where they tell us the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Adding that in the Epistle to the Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops for whom the Apostle prays for Grace he understands such qui Philippi Verbo Gubernationi praeerant who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government distinguishing them from the Deacons who were set over the Churches Treasure Adding that Tit. 1.5 such whom the Apostle Named Presbyters v. 7. he calls Bishops non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios sibique Subordinatos Praesules sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae
mighty proof of Bishops their Precedencie and Official Dignitie above Presbyters and Answer to our Arguments to the contrary Marr not your Modesty in laughing at a Venerable Dr's Arguments and Answers while you read them The Dr. tells you he was contemporary with Clemens Romanus who was of the Apostolick Age. And he will probably be got perswaded that Clemens in this walkt up to the Sense of that Eminent and very Ancient Father the Apostle Iohn who reproved Diotrephes for his aspiring after this manner But least you abuse this Citation to infer the dangerous consequence and Heresie of the official parity of Bishop and Presbyter the warry prudent Dr. precludes your mistake by adding this Salvo If there was no such Precedencie then in the Church there was no Ground for his Reprehension Mighty Reason And well correspondent to his Reverend Father Bellarmin's Sense and Pleading against our Divines for the Papacie It should seem Men were never tempted to strive for a Dignity and Preferment in the Dr's Sense but what was Lawful And that this very seeking and enquiry proves the Lawfulness and supposes it It seems also that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diotrephes was seeking a Lawful Preheminence when he resisted the Apostle Iohn and the only fault was that the Man did not modestly stay till the place was for him and he for it And in correspondence to the Dr's Sense of this Reprehension when Petter exhorted not to be Lords over GOD's Heritage he rebuked only an ambitious seeking of a Lawful Lordship Our Saviour also in His great Command and Prohibition above mentioned relative to the Apostles seeking a Primacie and First Dignitie as the Dr. calls it supposed and established a Primacie in the Church otherwise ye will wrong and expose the Dr's Consequence if you admitt not this Reasoning For he will tell you That else there was no ground for such a Reprehension But now P. 33. The Dr. tells you he is come after this long Travel and Pains these Way-ward and Stubborn Presbyterians has put him to and arrived at the Summ of all that these Reasonings amounts unto We expect then the Distilled Spirits the Nerves of what goes before Epitomized if this be the Epilogue and Summ Total of what we have heard Well what is that Summ of all Why The Helenist Jews the Grecian Jews distinguished the High Priest from the Levites by the Name of Priest for which again Philo the Iew stands Voâ—cher yet none will conclude he had no Subordinat Priests as now adays Presbyterians argue upon the same Topick Sophistically for when the Priests were compared among themselves then their Dignities and Subordinations were mentioned when we compare the New Testament Priests and Deacons we say Priests and Deacons but when we compare them among themselves we acknowledge their Subordinations Really if this be the Comprehensive Account of all it is pity the Dr. has spent so much Discourse upon it and run himself out of Breath to catch a Nothing For I am of the mind that every Reader will judge that this his Summ might have very well served for all and saved him the Labour of the Tedious Discourse we have heard But to the point we often tell him I know not how often we must that our Argument from Philip. 1.1 which all this his Quible mainly aims at is not merely drawn from the Division and Dichotomie The Sense of the place already exhibit by our Divines evinces the contrary Nay further which discovers this Mans Vanity and Quibling Folly in this Matter we acknowledge that sometimes general Divisions of Church Officers in the New Testament admits of a Subdivision as particularly Rom. 12.6 7 8. is generally acknowledged As also in that of Philip. 1.1 But this we assert that these general Divisions and Subdivisions and the several Recitations of the New Testament Church Officers still supposes the Pastor-Bishop or Preaching Presbyter to be the highest ordinary Church Officer appointed of God and that the Pastor or Preaching Presbyters Office admits no Subdivision of Superior and Inferior Degrees no more than the Office of Apostles and Evangelists And we are still seeking from this Dr the proof of his supposed Affirmative that it doth I confess the Dr. Words it in so far well When we compare saith he Priests among themselves we must acknowledge their Subordinations We cannot help what the Dr. must but he must have better Prespectives to give us ere we can see his Subordination of Pastors in the New Testament And as for his New Testament Priests we owne them not We know there is an Holy Priesthood and Brotherhood whereby the Scripture points out Believers joynt Priviledges who are a Kingdom of Priests and that there is a Glorious High Priest of our Profession whose Priesthood is Unchangeable and passes not to others But for New Testament Priests thus Characterized as Church Officers we are yet to Learn their Warrand from our Dr among others his Mysterious Points I know the Prophecie of the Old Testament as to Ministers of the New runs thus I will take of them for Priests and Levites But if the Dr. Strain this Allusion to bear the Conclusion of a suteable Name of New Testament Officers he will also upon Malachie's Prophecy anent purifying the Sons of Levi in order to offering a pure offering in in every place draw the pretty Popish Conclusion with his Friend Bellarmin of a New Testament Sacrifice for his New Testament Priests And really when I consider his continued constant Designations of Ministers of the Gospel after this manner I do judge the Cardinal and he are much one in this Sense and Conclusion And that which follows confirms me For P. 33 34. the Dr. tells us That the Old Testament Priests were by their offering Sacrifices distinguished from the Levites and the New Testament Priests of the highest and subordinat Order are distinguished from the Deacons by their offering the Eucharistical Sacrifice Now we all know that Priests and Sacrifices are Correlates But the Dr. knows that his Novell Divines the Protestants tho they did pass with a Charitable Construction some of the Ancients Allusive Expressions this way yet do disowne the Name and Thing of a Sacrifice as appropriat to the Celebration of that Sacrament P. 34. The Dr. has not yet done with his Dichotomies And the Sum of this Page is The Iews used their Dichotomies of their Clergy in the Apostolick Age and the Bipartite or Tripartite Division upon this Ground was used by Jewish and Christian Writers yet these who Reckon the two Orders in other places reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons I have heard of a Beggar who pleased himself as possessing a great Sum by telling a piece of Money often over How often shall we have this more than recocted Crambe these often boyled Colworts repeated I am of the mind that Battologie was never better exemplified than in our Dr's Arguings We are still seeking from our nauseous
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
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
come The 8 th Prerogative he represents thus Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extitâ—runt Their singular Authority which was of such a Nature that none of their Disciples or Successors in an ordinary Ministry could be compared with them nor can be For as Apostles they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church P. 538. He describes the Pastors to be such as are set over some particular Flock Citing Act. 20.28 Here I need not tell the Dr that this Man also is of the Novel Scots Opinion and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence a Socinian as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office giving the same Sense of its Ingredients as we do and holding that the Apostles neither were nor could be succeeded in their Office and consequently that their Formal Office as such ceased with themselves He asserts ibid. the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter And thereafter tells us that Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding Teaching the Church Citing Anaclet Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap Ecclesiae si in Apostolorum Loco sumus c. Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry And also Urbanus Secundus ex August Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office we may propose yea oppose to the Dr. viz the Famous and Learned Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit against whom he disputes proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests and all other Orders of the Ministry I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of universalis patrum consensus universal consent of the Fathers The great Answer is Apostolis Episcopos successisse That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles in their proper formal Office And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter viz Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles And remarkable it is that the Catholick Iesuit and he pleads upon the same very Grounds viz The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus yea and our Dr's Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot lib. de Baptismo Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet c. That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy may be kept intire Thereafter the Iesuit as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well some will alledge the Dr. in this point is pretty near the Sacred Order I cannot here transcribe all that this French or Scots Novelist Presbyterian Rivet returns in Answer to this point which I really judge had our Dr. impartially read and perused it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet He is first severe to the Iesuit and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos or Priest whereby they represent Pastors De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia saith he frustra disputatur cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo ut antea docuimus c. That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught so upon the preceeding Question Par. 4. He tells his Adversary the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest has no Successor Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers if you will accord with Rivet but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists Thereafter he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita and our Dr. Negamus saith he Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hà bere He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors Thereafter reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's quod Episcopi Apostolis Presbyteri Discipulis suecâ—sserantâ— That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles and Pastors the Seventy Disciples He answers thus hoc falsum est ac utrorumque Officio contrarium quod extraordinarium fuit nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolorâ—m in Doctrinae publicatione Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio successores dici possunt That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists which was extraordinary and none did succeed them in the same Order Office and Authority altho all true Pastors in respect of the publication of the Doctrin and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin may be called Successors of the Apostles Here the Scots Presbyterian Opinion pretty clear Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers to our Dr's and the Iesuits Arguments Subjoined His Answer to that of confusion of Names as not inferring the sameness of things is thus faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur vera est synonomia si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves yet when the same things are attribute to those to whom the same Names are given there is a true Synâ—nomie or sameness of both Name and thing the Name being common with the definition Here in this one Jâ—dicious Answer he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head Then for Confirmation of this Identity he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5.7 And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do that the Name Qualities and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same For Tertullians Testimony which the Dr. Iesuita and our Dr cites he tells him That Tertullian speaks de humano ordine suâ— tempore recepto of the human Order or custom received in his time which was that the probatus quisque Senior or
to all their Successors the Bishops in this Apostolick extent For he affirms that this Power of the Apostles is perpetual and necessary in the Church and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein And here the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould in Point of Power these Bishops are whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office For that de facto there is a great variety in the extent of their Power he will not deny Whether doth he hold that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor or the Arch Bishop or only Primats If every Bishop does thus succeed which the Series of his Arguing seems to import then I would know how a Bishop with a derived subaltern subordinat Power limit to a certain and may be not a very great Precinct or district can be said to succeed the Apostles in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks Let him make Sense of this if he can If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district Then 1. They no more succeed the Apostles in the Power by him described than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne 2. If he once break square thus and infringe his own Rule his measures and description he must consequently acknowledge that a Government in the smallest precinct yea even of a Pastor over his Flock is eaten us a Succesion to the Apostles If he say the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks and consequently no Apostolick Succession in his Sense I Answer neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession If he own that only Arch Bishops are such Successors Then 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops in universum as succeeding the Apostles in a Rectoral Power 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks Preach if their Lordships please give Rules of Disciplin hear complaints decide Controversies c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist how can he deny even to Diocesan Bishops this Succession 3. Suppose but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government there according to his Pattern and Principles But to proceed if the Dr. hold that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession I would know upon what ground he can defend this in his Principles I know none except that of the extent of their Power be alledged But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself For the Apostolick Power which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent extended to all Churches to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers And besides suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled the Dr. will not assert that he has an Authority paramount to it by his Office and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he existent whose Power may be paramount to his in the Council or otherwise Thus we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto has involved himself and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone which still returns upon him and renews his Labour But in the next place the Dr. P. 97.98 tells us That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Power of Miracles Languages other Spiritual Furniture were temporary extrinsick advantages necessary for first forming the Christian Church and when this Fabrick is erected Scaffoldings are removed But I should think if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts as necessary advantages and furniture for the same then they were intrinsick not extrinsick to the Office it self Which I will prove to the Dr by a paralel Argument the Topick whereof he must needs owne To be apt to Teach to have Spiritual knowledge and the Gift of utterance in a competent Measure prudence a competent knowledge of the Scriptures and Languages thereof he will acknowledg are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin Therefore say I they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office For 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts in order to admission to that Office And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office with the Gifts for it and the one in an ordinary way must be made Appear by the other I hope the Dr and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning Now let me subsum upon this Conclusion In like manner the Apostolick Office required these works or duties whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame 1. They were to teach all Nations this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues wherefore on the day of Penticost they were thus sealled Yea were Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal 2. Another piece of their work was to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles then new and unknown thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world as also to the Iews as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand This Work required the Gift of Miracles 3. They were to form the Christian Church and lay the ground plott of its Government and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship This required an infallible directive Power and Authority in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation in actu secundo to all Churches so that they were while alive solely such Officers thereof Hence their very Office being of this Nature and supposing the Christian Church a forming erecting it is certain that taken in a proper formal Sense with these its Ingredients iâ— is the Scaffolding which is removed when this Fabrick is erected since now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission Commission and Authority Further The Command Go teach all Nations he must hold still vigent as essentially included in the Apostolick Office for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power from their extraordinary expired Priviledges P. 96. so that he must needs acknowledge that this requiring the Gift of Tongues it was essential thereunto Again he holds there is a Supreme Power of Government constant and transmitted to the Church And this Supreme Power necessarly requires 1. Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government For that upon the ground of such a Supremacy the Apostles had an Infallibility in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government delivered to the Churches the Dr. will not deny 2. He cannot deny this necessary Consequence That therefore they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power And this in his Principles he must needs hold to be transmitted For if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two surely nothing will And the Dr. will not say that Supremacy over all Church
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
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
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
Pools Annot. with several others take to be only the Signification of his Judgement upon the Question in Correspondence to what Peter had before spoken As for Simeons Succession to Iames in Ierusalem and Hegesippus Account of the Succession of Bishops there It is spoken to above and what Credit is to be given to the supposed Catalogue of Bishops in Ierusalem and other pretended Diocesses For what he adds of Calvin's Judgement upon Gal. 2.9 As favouring his Opinion I Answer Calvin takes him indeed to be among Eminent Apostles viz. In Moral Respects prudentia aliis dotibus as he expones the word Pillar and attributs the same Eminency to Peter and Iohn And speaking of his presiding in the Council he doth not positively assert the Ground which the Dr. alledges but problematically with a fortassis id factum c. And even granting his Admission of a Presidency the Consequence of an Official Presidency and as importing a Majority of Power far less eo nomine as formally Bishop there is so very gross and obviously impertinent as any with half an Eye may discover it The Dr. tells us That his Scripture Instances do plainly demonstrat that the Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was conveyed to single persons in the first Plantations of Christianity What Demonstrations these are I refer to the Reader to Judge from what is above replyed such sure as are not adapted to any Rules that hitherto hath been heard of whereof this is a very clear Demonstration that the Dr. in this Peroration and refined Summ and Conclusion of his supposed mighty preceeding Demonstrations hath pronounced as great none-None-sense as ever was spoken or written Which I demonstrat thus from the Series of his Reasoning In his Sense the Apostolick and Episcopal Office is one and equal and Apostles as such were Superior to all Church Officers except Bishops their proper Successors in Official Authority Now here is a Successor Bishop preferred to all Apostles eo nomine as Successor-Bishop yet deriving in his Sense also an Apostolat only And which is yet odder succeeding to an Apostolick Office who was an Apostle before and by his Confession thus related unto and having an Official Authority respecting the Church Universal Yet when his Charge is Restricted to Jerusalem as his proper Post and Diocess he doth upon this Ground Transcend all the Apostles in Official Authority If any will sodder these Assertions together and reconcile them to sound Sense and Divinity he must be better skilled than all Vulcan's Gimmerers The Dr. will not insist upon the Presbyterians imaginary and superficial Exceptions which they have invented They must be such because he saith it and save him from a Concern in Scanning them No doubt if as Superficial and Imaginary as his Demonstrations their Inventions were very shallow The Dr. brings next P. 114. the Trite Argument taken from the seven Asiatick Angels And first tells us of Salmasius taking the Angels as denoting the Churches the Denomination being taken from the purer Part of these Cities to which Christ wrote To which he replyes from the distinction of the Churches from the Angels Rev. 1.20 And that the Sense would thus be to the Church of the Churches Not to detain him much here we only tell him that whatever Salmasius Sense or Escape might be in this he cannot deny that in the Sense and Judgement of the Body of all Presbyterians the Angels are distinguished from the Churches as the Church Representative is from the Church Collective Besides himself acknowledges P. 115. That the Heavenly Admonitions are first addressed to the Angels and by them were Communicated to the Churches As at the close of every Epistle all are called to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches And he will not doubt that Salmasius distinguisheth Ministers from Church Members in this Point and the Church Members concern in all that is written he can less doubt Besides that Salmasius words will hardly bear his critical and saucy Construction who calls them a silly subterfuge since he may be supposed to compare only the Populi purior pars as he Terms it with the rest of the Inhabitants of these Towns so that the Address distininguisheth them from others And the Angel of the Church in his Sense will import only the Church in such a City not the Church of such a Church But the Dr. will not have the Angel a Multitude but one single Angel presiding over Presbyters and People We have already made appear that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suâ—eable to Scripture and the Scope of this Book But the Dr. will needs loose the Objection taken from the Plural Address of the Angel which he thus propones That some Instructions there are in these Epistles in which others beside the Angels are particularly admonished This is a piece of our Dr's petty Sophistry He must make the knot easie that he may know how to loose it The very proposing of this Objection is a yeelding of the Cause For if in this Plural Address these others addressed be not the Angel then there is no Plural Address of the Angel himself or Representation of the Term Angel in a Plural Mould But had the Dr. intended to Dispute not to triffle in proposing a simple Foppery in stead of a Presbyterian Objection he should have told his Reader that we hold and do exhibit Instances of it that the Angel himself is addressed Plurally and bespoken so in these Epistles as a plurality of Officers appear evidently to be pointed at by thâ— Term Angel As particularly when it is said To you and the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.24 Thus likewise v. 10. Fear none of these things which thou shall suffer Behold the Devil shalt cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation c. Be thou faithful unto death Well what saith he to this Objection Why The Epistle is no less addressed to the single Angel than that of the Philippians is to the whole Church at Philippi though Paul useth particular Compellations Chap. 4.2.3 I entreat thee also true Yoke-fellow help those Women c. But good Dr. here is both a particular special distinct Precept and under such a Compellation as is in tâ—rminis separat and distinguished from the Body of the Church and those general Precepts addressed thereunto So that there is no shadow of a Paralel when the Angel is plurally Addressed for the Precept and Injunction is the very same Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer There 's a relative pointing at the single Term Angel Then the Devil shall cast you that ye may be tryed Be thou faithful c. There the same persons are addressed and spoken to both singlely as one Angel and plurally as many that in reference to the same very individual Purpose and Duty the Speech running on both to the same Persons and the same Scope So that to use the Dr's
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
Flock ascribed unto them and that of such a Nature as imports a compleat Official Equality and Excludes Lordship over GODS Heritage Which doth clearly Justle out his Hierarchical Prelat as having no Interest in Church Government The Surveyer further tells us There is no ground to assert that the Presbyters Act. 20.17.28 were such only in the Modern Notion and none of them Bishops in the Modern Notion And to obviat an Objection from their Relation to Ephesus he adds That they were not only Elders of that Church but of the Churches of Asia about so far as in a transient Visit they might get Intelligence This often baffled Subterfuge Episcopalians have been told is contrary to the Sense of Ancient Fathers Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom contrary to several Councils contrary to the Syriack Translation which reads the Text thus be sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Dr. Lightfoot holds they were the Twelve upon whom the Apostle Paul imposed Hands and gave them the Spirit Act. 19.6 and such others if any such were whom Timothy had ordained See Lightfoot Harm Chron. N. Test. The Text says He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Sure of that Church to which he sent and there is no shadow of a hint of any other Elders there present Again he sent for the Elders of the Church in the Singular Number viz. that particular Church But the Surveyers Gloss will read the Elders of the Churches in the Plural viz. of Asia then mett at Ephesus The Scripture expresses Provincial Churches in the plural as the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 Churches of Iudea but otherwise of the Church of Ierusalem Corinth in the singular which were in Cities Neither will the old rotten Evasion help the Surveyer viz. that v. 18. it s said he Preached throughout all Asia and v. 25. speaking to these that were conveened he saith you all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God from which he pleads there were others present as well as the Elders of Ephesus who might be proper Bishops in their places Since it is evident that the Term All ye doth properly relate to the Elders of Ephesus then present and was immediatly spoken to them Such Universal Terms used in such a Sense and to such a Scope are very ordinary and caseable as if one should say to a certain Number of an Assembly ye are all now dissolved it would not imply the presence of all the Members Again the Apostle might speak many things which did import the Concern and Duty of all though the Speech were directed immediatly and personally to those only that were present When he said You all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God the Surveyer will not be bold to say this will infer that these all were present or that the Speech did import so much As for the Passages Cited viz. v. 18 25. It is Answered that the Apostle spent most of these Years in Ephesus only viz. two Years and three Months and the Superplus in the places adjacent So that these Elders could not be ignorant how the whole was spent Some have observed further that there is nothing of a peculiar Address here to a supposed Bishop of Ephesus and that all these Elders are Charged with the Oversight of that Flock But the Surveyer will not have the Presbyters here to be meaned in the restrained Signification or that this Term should restrain the Term of Bishop But we restrain none of them from their due and Native Signification as importing the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor As for his enlarged Signification stretching to an Hierarchical Prelat it is the Chimera of his own Fancy whereof he hath offered no Shadow of a Proof To that Text of Tit. 1.5 wherein the Bishop and Elder are found clearly Identified and a Plurality of them fixed in that one Church The Surveyer P. 211. repones again his Old Recocted Crambe of the Majores Minores Presbyteri as comprehended in these Terms and tells us of an Analogical Reasoning which the Apostle uses from the Qualifications and Duties of the Bishop properly so called to shew the necessity of the like in all Presbyters who are comprehended under their Order Ans. As his Supposition of the properly and improperly called Bishops is still begged by him without any ground as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him So his Gloss and Reason adduced is clearly cross to the Text Since the Apostle shewing Titus how the Elders to be ordained in every City were to be qualified adds this Reason of Advice for a Bishop must be blameless this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for is causal shewing the Identity of the Office as well as the Name else the Reasoning were false Should a Chancellor in one of the Universities saith Smectymnus who useth this illustrating Similitude give Order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the Degree of Batchelour of Arts but such as were able to Preach or keep a Divinity Act for Batchelours of Divinity must be so What Reason or Equity were in this And we may enquire here what Reason is this The improperly called Bishop must be so and so qualified because the Bishop of the higher Order and distinct Function must be so qualified Gerard. 〈◊〉 Minist Eccles. useth the same Reason to shew the Absurdity of such a Gloss. The Apostle in the Series of his Reasoning Identifies both the Work and Office of Bishop and Presbyter But this Surveyer will needs correct him and cast in his Limiting Cautions and instead of that identity that the Apostle asserts of the Offices make them only in some Sense the same not intirely He tells us That in Sacerdotal Acts they are the same But he cannot say that the Apostles Identity here asserted reaches and includes only the Acts of Order and is not to be extended to the Exercise of Jurisdiction As for the Acts of Order the Hierarchical Bishop is in their Principles the proper Primary Subject of the Sacerdotal Acts and Authority in the whole Diocess whereas that of the Pastor is Precarious and Subaltern to his and fixed to one Flock He calls P. 200. the Acts of Jurisdiction a Personal Application only of the Word or of the Power of Order yet he doth here Diversifie them so that though he assert the Pastor is the very same with the Prelat in the Sacerdotal Acts he is not so in those of Jurisdiction But we cannot stand to Trace all the Inconsistencies of the Surveyers Notions This distinction of Presbyters of the First and Second Order in a New Petitio principii serves his turn as an Answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5. And here we are again told That the Presbyterians allow two Ranks and Orders of Presbyters Where it would seem he Screws up his Hierarchical Prelat in this and the preceeding Answers to a Divine Right and thus quites and Justles with what he often pretends anent a
more to enlarge my Review of what he had thus presented After these Sheets had for some time lyen by me and a motion was made to make them publick having also seen the Second part of the Survey of Naphtali I resolved because of the Connection of Purposes and that this Author appears to have more closely argued this Point than several other Episcopalians to add to the other two a Consideration of his attempt upon Presbyterian Government which the haste of the Press together with other urgent duties obliged me to perform more briefly yet I hope with some Satisfaction to the Intelligent That these Authors are presented in such an Order viz. the Later before the more Ancient hath proceeded from the Connection of References from the one to the other and the Method wherein Providence directed the Writing of these Replys For the Point of Antiquity critically Scanned on both sides in this Debate I found no neeessity here to dip in it that being performed as to A. M. D. D. already and for the third Author he doth not medle with it and so much the better only I have touched it a little with Dr. Scott there being no particular Reply for what I know to his Writings on this Head though all that he hath Offered this way hath been upon the Matter fully Answered by Presbyterian Writers The Truth is I have always judged that this Debate might arrive at a more satisfying and speedy Issue iâ— upon clear stating of the Questions and Points Controverted the Dispute were managed by a clear formal Arguing upon Scripture Testimonies allennarly One thing I must not omit to advertise the Reader of I found after this was written reports passing of A. M. D. D. his Death which I understood to be afterwards called in Question but since it is now Confirmed the Reader will excuse those Passages that do more directly address him as alive as indeed he was in the time that this was Written and some thought I had that this might probably come to his hand I shall detain the Reader no longer from the perusal of these Sheets Adding only my serious Prayer that the GOD of Truth may by his Holy Spirit lead his People into all Truth advance and more and more revive His Work and by the light of his Glorious Gospel dispel Antichristian darkness refresh his suffering Churcheâ—â— abroad now in the Furnace excite his people to a due Sympathy with Sufferers and quicken their Zeal against the great Whore the Beast drunk with the Blood of Saints imprint upon his Churches in these Islands a due Sense of their Solemn Vows and Engagements for Reformation in Doctrin Worship Discipline and Government that being ashamed for all our backslidings and breaches and looking to Him whom we have peirced with a Mourning Eye we may see his Pattern of the House in all its Ordinances and his Tabernacle being reared up among us accordingly the Lord may be one and his Name one he may own the Lands and dwell in them as Married Lands his Sanctuary being in the midst of us for ever more A REVIEW OF D r. Scott's Pleadings For the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY In his Book intituled The Christian Life Part II. Vol. 2. Chap. 7. Sect. 10. from Page 388. CHAP. I. The Doctor 's stating of the Question Examined Together with his first Argument taken from the Institution of our Saviour BEING about to Examin the Pleadings of this Doctor for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it is necessary that we first view how he states the Question All do know that a right Understanding of the State and Terms of the Question is indispensibly needful for the Decision of any Controversy To give then the state of the Question in the Drs. terms which he represents in a distinct character page 388. He thus exhibits the Claim of both Parties having told us that the Presbyterial and Episcopal are the two main rival Forms of Church Government pretending to Divine Institution The Presbyterian saith he is that which is seated in an Equality or Parity of Church Officers The Episcopal is that which is placed in a superior Order of Church Officers called Bishops to whom the other Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject and subordinat The Latter of which he undertaks to prove to be the true form of Government institut by our Saviour And that 1. from our Saviours Institution 2. From the Practice of the Holy Apostles 3. From the punctual Conformity of the Primitive Church to both 4. From our Saviours declared Allowance and Approbation of the Primitive Practice in this Matter First As to the State of the Question I find the Dr. doth pitifully prevaricat and mistake his Measures 1. In representing Presbyterian Government as consisting in a parity of Church Officers whereas it is evident we own maintain a Beautiful Subordination both of Officers and Courts in Church Government that Parochial Sessions are subordinate to Presbytries Presbytries to Provincial Synods Synods in a National Church to National Assemblies Thus likewise we hold the Pastors Office to be above that of the Ruling Elder the Ruling Elders Office above that of the Deacon Tho upon most solid Grounds we maintain against Prelatists an Equality in the Pastoral Office And that among the New Testament Officers both Ordinary and Extraordinary there is a Partity in their own kind no Apostle above another no Evangelist above another both which Offices taken in a proper formal Sense we hold to be expired Thus as to Ordinary Officers no Pastor above another nor Elder c. 2. He represents Episcopal Government as feated in a Superior Order of Church Officers called Bishops to whom the Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject but doth not particularly condescend upon the Nature of that Superiority which in stating the question should have been premised and whether he understands it of a Superiority Specifical or Gradual and in Order or Jurisdiction or both However the Dr. in the strain of his Dispute gives us to understand that he takes the Superiority of the Bishop as importing such an Absolut and Essential Interest in Government as leaves the Pastor nothing but the Doctrinal Key wherein he disowns Two Points of a Concession owned by many if not most Episcopalians and in so far discovers the Singularity and Unsoundness of his Pleading First That the Bishop is no Officer properly or essentially distinct from the Presbyter but only an Officer made distinct for order of Government Thus K. Charles I. in his Conference with Mr. Henderson who certainly had the Sense and Judgment of all the English Episcopal Doctors at that time And the present Bishop of Salisbury in his last Dialogues authorized by our Episcopal Church and published in Defence thereof in K. Charles II. Reign 4 th Conference pag. 310 311. tells us That he is not clear anent the Notion as he calls it of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter and acknowledges the Presbyter to
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
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
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
Ierom and approve his Testimony who affirms that upon occason of Divisions the Government was altered and immutata ratio as he speaks it is a pityful and palpably absurd inference to argue upon this that either Ierom or we do impute this providential issue and Mans sinful abuse and miscarriage to the Divine Institution it self And if the Dr. own such a consequence he will justify all such abuses and Ieroboams Plea for setting up his Calves at Dan and Bethel because he judged it could not consist with the safety of the Kingdom which God had given him over Israel that the Ten Tribes should go up to Ierusalem to worship after the Kingdoms were divided Secondly He says We hold that upon this occasion it was universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should preside over all the rest which was the beginning of Episcopacy And this appears as dark and confused an Account as the former For 1. As to the Office of a President or Moderator whose Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting to gather the Votes and moderat the Procedures we hold that the very nature of all Government essentially requires this and consequently Church Government and that this was alwise and necessarly practised as in all Church Government so since the beginning and is examplified in that first Christian Council Act. 15. wherein we judg it probable that the Person presiding was the Apostle Iames And therefore its gross Non-sense to say we hold this Presidency to have been first introduced upon occasion of Schism But next if the Dr. by by a President over the rest mean such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is either advitam or who has such a Presidency as encroaches upon or inhances the Decisive Votes of Pastors this indeed we acknowledg with Ierom came in Paulatim and by peice-meal tho at first he was but a mere President advitam and had some Honour and deference upon this account And this we hold was the rise of that Prelacie which in Process of time swallowed up all the decisive Power of Pastors and their exercise of Government But the Dr. badly represents the Matter P. 415. when he calls this a Chusing of one to preside over the rest which is applicable to any President of a Judicatory or mouth of a meeting or unto a speaker in Parliament Thirdly The Dr. says we hold that this remedy was Universally agreed upon If he means that upon occasion of Schisms we hold that this custom of the fixed President with Authority and deference as above exprest came in by degrees and became Universal in Process of time as additional corruptions ordinarly do this is easily accorded But if he mean that we hold there was a Formal General Council decreeing this as the Dr. with his Fellow-Pleaders fasten this gloss upon that Passage of Ierom prospiciente concilio toto orbe decretum he should know that we disown such an Opinion and have sufficiently made it appear that Ierom intended no such thing since in collating his two Testimonies viz his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus and his Epistle to Evagrius the contrary is evident For Ierom makes this a Consuetudo or Custom and says it came in Paulatim or by Degrees And no man of Sense can but distinguish betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice spreading it self and growing up to a custom and a practice taking its rise and Original from a formal joint Decree of a General Council The Dr. having set down some part of one of these Testimonies of Ierom alledges that we hold or guess as he expresses it that this Universal Decree was about the Year 140. We hold indeed with Blondel that about this time the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took place but that we hold or guess it was by an Universal Decree is the Drs. groundless imputation which he can Justify from none of our Writers Let any Peruse the Learned Iunius his account and explication of this Testimony de Clericis Cap. 15. Not. 16. together with the Authors of the Ius Divinum Minist Evang. Part. 2 d. P. 56.57 and the Appendix thereto P. 102. 103. and this will be convincingly apparent Well what says the Dr. to this Testimony Having given out our Sense of Ierom's words wherein he contradicts his former Gloss his First exception is That Ierom being Born but about the Year 330 is a Witness far short in Antiquity to these early Witnesses which he has adduced That he is a Hundred Years after Origen three Hundred after Clâ—ment and one Witness must not stand against so many early Harmonious Witnesses We have made it appear that none of the Drs. early Witnesses give a Relevant Testimony to the Point and These he undertakes to prove viz. the derivation of the Apostolick Office in its proper formal Sense to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to Pastors and inhancing their whole Authority in Government We have made appear that all that his Testimonies amounts to prove is only a General designation of Bishops made use of by the Ancients and at most a supposal of some deference and fixed Presidency which they had in Judicatories And who sees not that this is utterly short of proving what he intends So that his Witnesses are mute in our Cause and speaks not to the Question and Iâ—â—errogatur The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. asserts and endeavours to prove that the Bishop hath for his peculiar prerogative annexed to his person and Office as Bishop 1. The Legislative Power which he calls the Essence of Government in the very same manner as he supposes the Apostles possest and exercised it 2 dly The sole Authority to Consecrat and Ordain 3 ly The whole Authority of Spirituall Iurisdiction to Cite Examin Judg Censure and absolve Delinquents 4 ly To Confirm the Baptized From all which he as intirly excluds all Pastors in Meetings never so frequent and formal and allows them no more Interest in any of these than if they were no Church Officers at all So that their medling in the least with these his supposed sole prerogatives of the Bishop is in his Judgment as gross Antiscriptural encroachment and stepping beyond the Duties and limits of their Function and Office as if they should invade the Kings Authority and prerogative Now the Office of the Bishop being of this Nature and extent in the Dr's Judgment let any Person of Candor or Conscience give sentence upon it what the Witnesses before adduced by him do say to prove this and what strength there is in their Testimoneis to reach this conclusion Again 2 ly As the Drs. pretended early Witnesses are but general and ambiguous in their Testimonies and consequently can make no Faith in this Matter so they are so far from being unanimous as he calls them that upon the contrary several of them as is above cleared do give Witness against him Particularly Clemens and Ignatius two of his most Ancient Witnesses
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
Divines For further clearing this let us hear the Belgick Divines upon the Text To the Angel i. e. to the Overseer Inspector or Pastor of the Church This is set down here in the Singular Number either in regard of their whole Colledg as Mal. 2.7 Under the Name of Angel in the Singular the whole Colledg of Priests was to be understood or because that some one had the Presidency among them in Order by whom it was to be communicat to the rest as appears by Act. 20.17 28. That there were more Elders or Overseers in this Church of Ephesus whom Paul charges in his last Farewel to take heed to themselves and to the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers for to Feed the Flock So that it is groundless from hence to inferr an Episcopal Authority of one person above the rest For the verry matter it self written here to the Angel of the Church is Written for a warning to the whole Church as appears by v. 7. here and above Chap. 1.11 The English Divines the Authors of Part Second Annot. going under the Name of Pool thus sense that Passage Rev. 2.1 To the Angel it appears from Act. 20.17 That there were more Ministers there than one but they were all Angels and from the oneness of their business they are called one Angel And upon Chap. 1.20 they tell us That certain it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than is commmon to all Ministers viz. to be Gods Messengers and move upon his errands That we are to understand here the Doctors Pastors and Ministers of the Church is the sense and Judgment of Cluverus Dr. Lightfoot Cluverus takes notice that the Change of the Number v. 10.19 Argues that the Epistle is not directed to one Person And Dr. Lightfoot shews that this Tittle is with allusion to that of the Minister of the Synagogue whose Office was publickly to read and expound the Prophets unto the People as these Ministers were to Read these Epistles in the publick Congregation Thus also Piscator understands the whole Pastors of the Church From whence and from many others which might be added it is evident 1. That the collective Sense of the word Angel is Judged by them consonant to Scripture and to the Scope of the Epistles 2 ly That even supposing some speciality in the Address to one person this doth import a simple Presidency only especially in the sense of the Belgick Divines and that they do intirely join with us in the Grounds we have offered against the Dr's supposition of an Hierarchical Bishop and particularly from this that the Angel is sometimes addressed in the Plural That Ground which the Belgick Divines and others insist upon taken from the Matter of the Epistles is important and that our Lord addresses to all the Angels of the Church as concerning them Rev. 1.11 Write saith he to the Churches of Ephesus Smyrna c. And at the close of every Epistle Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches And therefore when it is said I know thy Works c. this thou hast c. We must understand the whole Company of Ministers and the whole Church because the punishment or reward is proposed to the whole And the Dr. will not say that for the sin of one Bishop the Gospel is to be removed when other Ministers and the Church it self is free from his evils The Dr. alledges That the Angel is alwise addrest in the singular number And to that which is adduced to prove his being addrest in the Plural he Answers That in these Passages he writes not only to the Bishops personally but to the People under their Government and inspection so he understands that of Chap. 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison paralelling it with v. 13. Antipas slain among you and v. 23. And all the Churches shall know c. But first not to stand upon the Drs. begging the Question in a supposition cross to his scope the paralells are not every way alike When the Lord says all the Churches and slain among you c. the Scope and Mould of these expressions makes it evident that both Ministers and People are spoken of But when immediatly after addressing the Angel in the Singular he adds the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison changing the Singular Angel into a Plural it appears that the Ministers are more directly included as the adduced paralel 1 Tim. 2.15 Discovers But not to insist upon this In the next place the folly and inconsistency of his gloss and discourse in this Answer is several ways apparent For First He will have these Passages I know thy works I have some what against thee c. addrest Singlely to the Angel From the singularity of which Adress he collects the Bishop's single and absolute Authority over these Churches But I pray what Sense will the Dr. make of this Will he say our Lord knew the Works only of one single Bishop of no Ministers else That one Bishop Laboured at Ephesus none else That one Bishop at Ephesus fell from his first Love no Church Officers else A pityful imputation the Dr. puts thus upon Timothy the supposed Bishop of Ephesus in staging him as the only Apostat of the Church The same may be applyed to his other Instances I have a few things against thee Viz one Bishop no Ministers else Remember whence thou art fallen viz. The Bishop fallen only none else Repent and do thy First Works this only addrest to the Bishop none else concerned in this Duty but his Lordship If he say that these things are spoken to the Bishop as chiefly concerned and interested Then besides his begging the Question he losses his Plea and quite ruins all his Pleading from a supposed singularity of the Address to conclud the singularity of the person Addressed And thus including Ministers as concerned and interested in the prescriptions in point of Government he cuts the Wind-Pipe of his grand Topick and notion here But Secondly we see when he is forc't to acknowledg from the Plural Mould of the Address that more than the Bishop are spoken to he gives us a fair acknowledgment in these terms That the Bishops are not only written to Personally but also the People under their Government and inspection But I pray why not also Ministers and Pastors also bespoken as well as the People The Dr. asserting That both Clergy and Laity are under the Bishop's inspection Aâ—d it being supposible that in these Churches especially at Ephesus there was at this time a Colledge of Pastors How come the Dr. when he supposes the Address to overstretch the person of the Bishop and to includ more to assert That it reaches the People only and not to the Pastors also This I must confess is odd Sense in Divinity in these great Evangelistick Precepts and Reprensions the Lord Addresses not solely the Bishop
but the People under him yet not one word to Pastors I had thought that the Clergy and Laity being distinguished by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other in his Sense under the Bishops Government and inspection when he makes the Plural Address to go beyond the Bishop he would have cast an Eye upon the under-Clergy or Ministry before the People as concerned before them in these important duties or supposed Transgressions But we may easily discover the knack of the Dr's policy in this For Pleading in his Second Argument That an Authority in reference to Church Government is clearly imported in several of these directions or reprehensions particularly those addressed to the Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira in reference to Juridical Tryal conviction and Censures He was afraid least by this means he should have opened a door for Ministers claim to the Bishop's incommunicable prerogatives had he extended the plural Address to them as well as to the People Thirdly The Dr. having told us That in such plural Addresses the people under the Bishop's Government are included gives for instance that Passage Rev. 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison I should verrily think he was here concerned to specifie the Clergy and Laity and include both For it seems in his Sense all the Pastors were safe from the Thunder-clap of this warning I know not by what shield except that of the Drs. fancy and there were no prisons there for Pastors this being only spoke to the People This charge of gross folly upon his Mould of Reasoning and it is gross enough at all will is the more evident in that Answer to the Objection taken from that phrase Chap. 2.25 unto you and unto the rest in Thyatira from which passage we plead for a plural diversifying Ministers and people under distinct Comma's The Dr. will admit it by no means to to be meant of any but the People making the term you and the rest in Thyatria one and the same as distinguishing only the sound from the unsound part in that Church So that it is evident the D appropriats the Plural Phrases to the People only and consequently is exposed to the forementioned absurdities in his way and method of pleading That that Passage Chap. 2.10 doth reach the Pastors is upon several important grounds made good by Mr. Durham upon the place as 1. from the remarkable change of the singular number to the Plural 2 ly That his was a searching tryal to the Church whereof it was her concern to be warned 3 ly That the preservation of Some was as signal a consolation in such a Tryal as Isai. 30.20.21 See others cited by Pool Critic upon the place The Dr. enquires If Angels had not been single Persons why are they not mentioned Plurally as well as the People This Querie confirms what is now imputed to him That they are mentioned Plurally we have already made good in the premised Instances Yea the Dr. himself answers himself acknowledging that there is a Plurality bespoken in the Person of the Angels so that he is not only Personally Addressed But the Dr's strange Fetch is that he will allow a Plurality of the People to be Addrest and spoken to in one singular Bishop or Angel but none of the Pastors at all For which Notion I had almost said Non-sense no imaginable ground can be given but the Dr's good Will to his Hierarchical Bishop whom he would fain shape out of this Scripture which we see so rejects and baffles his Endeavours that instead of any evident ground of Answer from the Text he must needs embrace an Airy Notion of his own Brain Thus to that pregnant Passage Chap. 2.24 which we adduce to prove the Angel to be Addrest Plurally viz. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Where there is a clear Distinction made betwixt the Plural you viz. the Pastors and the rest in Thyatira viz. the People The Dr. has no other Shift but that pitiful one viz. That the Ancient Greek Manuscripts leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Read it To you the rest in Thyatira distinguishing the Seduced from the not Seduced And therefore cannot be meant of the Angel who is always Addrest in the Singular Number But 1. This Shift baffles most of all the old Greek Copies the Reading he embraces being supposed Mantytecla's Manuscript baffles all the Episcopal English Clergy concerned in our last Translation who notwithstanding all their Zeal for Episcopacy as appears in their various and unsound Translation of the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet durst not make this Adventure with the Dr but with the Current of Ancient Copies Read the Text with the Conjunction Notwithstanding that in their Preface to the Reader they assert their Diligence in Searching the Original Text. I need not stand here to recount the large Testimony and Cloud of Witnesses the Body of Protestant Divines Translators and Interpreters all concurring in this our Sense and Reading in Contradiction to the Dr's Conceit and Exception See Paraeus Arethas Ribera Dr. More who expresly taketh the you to import the Pastors Beza c. But 2 ly This Conjecture and Answer is clearly Cross to the Text For 1. The Adversative but in the beginning of v. 24. clearly limits the you here and distinguishes it from the you meant of the People in the close of v. 23. 2. The Conclusion of this verse clears this to Conviction I will put upon you none other burden hold fast Pray by what Logick will the Dr. exclud Ministers and includ the People only in this Plural Phrase Were no Ministers kept unpolluted Or were there some other burdens to be put upon them than what they had already And are they excluded from holding fast ' till Christ come what is received from him and only the People concerned herein as contradistinct from the Bishop Sure I am such absurd Consequeuces might cover with Blushes the Asserters of this Opinion I might add that even granting the Dr the Advantage of this Gloss and leaving out the Conjunction and admitting with Grotius that thus the Sound are distinguished from the Unsound in this Church the Dr. would be pitifully puzzl'd to prove that none of the Clergy as he calls them is in both these Classes and consequently that the Plural Phrase doth not stand for us even in this Discriminating Sense But this we insist not upon To proceed to the Dr's second Proof p. 423. of our Lords Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles viz. That they were Persons of great Authority This he proves from the Title of Angel shewing them to be Persons of Office and Eminency Christ also Directing to them the Epistles to be communicat to their Churches To which he adds another Proof taken from the Authority which is supposed to be exercised by some of these Angels and competent to others He gives Instance of
the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man For if I must believe no otherwise anent the Office of these Angels and the Scriptures pointing out the same than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops their pretended Successors then the custom and practice of fallible Men becomes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio and demonstration a priori the great and chief ground why I believe Scriptures to have such a Sense and no other And thus we will give Men a Dominion over our Faith which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men A Principle which no sound Protestant will own Besides that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument and to instruct this Matter of Fact and that all Primitive Antiquity as he calls it doth testify for the Bishop which he has shapen out would inextricably baffle his indeavours as is above cleared It being evident that as the Writings of many of the First Writers are lost and not a fâ—w corrupted So many Eminent for Piety and Learning have written nothing in the First Ages which are therefore generally acknowledged to be very dark in the Matter of Fact The Affirmative proof lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear that neither the one nor the other has contradicted his supposed Testimonies else he but beats the Air and has said nothing to the purpose Thirdly The Scripture as hath been proved ascribing to Pastors the Power of Order and Jurisdiction and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus the Angel whereof is First here addrest Act. 20.28 Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14 1. Pet. 5.2.3 1 Cor. 5.4.5 When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors which surely is Antiquity prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity and of far greater veneration stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops Power and both are laid in even Ballances together which of the two will preponderat The Dr. for shame will not say the Second Hence I inferr that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture or quite this Plea And next he must acknowledg that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office and our Arguments drawn therefrom before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice Again Fourthly We may here ply â—he Dr with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould The Dr. thinks it strange how we can suppose the Church to have so suddenly altered the Government from Presbytrie to Episcopacy if Presbytrie was her first Government But I would ask the Dr since its evident in Scripture that Pastors and Presbyters have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them yea and in the premised Scriptures several such paralells its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in and competent to them And in special since the Elders and Pastors of the Church of Ephesus are enjoyned by Paul in his last Farewel to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time that all this Episcopal Authority competent before to Pastors of Churches and particularly of Ephesus is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop How came all the Churches of Asia to be so suddenly cast in this Mould And to press the Querie a little further if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity as the Dr. pretends yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself as well as by Augustin and Ambrose how comes Ierom to say that even in his time the Elders were subject to the Bishop by Custom not Divine Dispensation Comment on Tit. and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time Caetus Presbyterorum a Meeting or Court of Presbyters which he calls an Apostolick Senat How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra Canon 18 How comes Ambrose or a Father Coetaneous to him upon Eph. 4. to assert that after the Church was enlarged caepit alio modo gubernari it began to be Governed after another manner than at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. the Government of the Church in his time was not every way suteable and square to the Apostolick Appointment How comes Augustin Epist. 10. to assert with Ierom that by Custom of the Church Episcopatus was major Presbyterio How comes Firmiliâ—nus apud Cyprian Epist. 78. to assert that the Pastors or Presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem possesses the Power of Ordination And these Presbyters he calls Praepositi Presidents or Rulers using that very Term from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts that inter Presbyterum Episcopum inter est ferme nihil there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter and that which is spoken by Paul to the one agrees also to the other Now if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients in point of the Bishops Power as the Dr. pretends I would fain know what means this immusical Jarring and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion and even by these very Fathers whom he brings for his Vouchers Hence Fifthly it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies and his pretended Argument from all Primitive Antiquity is pitifully Lame and short of his Design upon two important Grounds 1. That his Witnesses are not Harmonious several of them giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops and that absolute Inhanced Power which he alledges For no Man of Sense can draw this Consequence from the general Name of Bishops used by him or from a simple calling of them Presidents will conclud them to be such as he pretends yea and not such de Facto far less Iure Divino since in other places they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion And therefore unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers whom he mentions as the most Arrant Self-contradicting Non-sensical Fools that ever Spoke or Wrote he must needs acknowledg with us that they use the Term Bishop in a general Sense and as common both to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidents as had then obtained and to other Pastors So that in such Characters appropriat to such Persons they could neither understand an Episcopal Presidency founded upon a Divine Right and Apostolical Institution as the Dr. pretends nor such an absolute Power as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government which he also asserts This considered with what is above offered doth so fully
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
this Rite of Imposing of Hands concludes upon solid Grounds Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination So that comparing our Dr's Concession with Dr. Forbes his Sense in Point of Ordination and with what we have evinced of Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Government in the Sense of the Primitive Church the Dr's Pleadings for the Prelates sole Interest therein is sufficiently overturned yea and the Inconsistency thereof with it self discovered For what he adds of Cyprian his Asserting that a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church might pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae autoritate have Chastised a Deacon without Appealing to the Synod The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of Cyprian where this is found And upon Supposition of what is clearly supposible in Cyprians time anent the Presbytrie their Deference and Entrusting the Execution of some Censures to the President-Bishop who had then obtained such a Minut-Matter as the Chastising of a Deacon might well fall within the Compass of the then Bishops Deputed Authority which will abundantly Salve this Expression from Wounding Pastors or Presbyters Essential Interest in Censures and Government Besides that Cyprian owning so clearly Presbyters Essential Interest both in Ordination and Censures in the above-mentioned Epistles viz. 33.58.75 compared with 12. and 46. doth clearly evince he owned no such sole Authority of the Prelat as the Dr. alledges Which is correspondent to the Testimony cited of Tert. Apol. advers Gentes cap. 39. Ambrose Epistola ad Siagrium Considering further the Smallness of the Charge of Prelats in the first Rise of the Episcopus Praeses who had their Charge confined oft to little Dorps or Villages and that the Pronunciation or Execution of Censures or Sentences was in a Deference to the then Bishops appropriat unto them by the Presbytrie who still retained an Essential Interest in Cognoscing upon the Cause The forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice which mentions the Separation from Communion by Bishops of the Province and by the Bishop from the Congregation and the Convention of Bishops of the Province for Cognoscing upon the Cause if Dubious doth no Whit favour the Dr's Conclusion of a Spiritual Iurisdiction wholly Seated in the Bishops the Radical Authority being still in the Presbyters or Consistorial Meetings of Pastors The fourth Peculiar of the Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter the Dr. tells us is To Confirm the Baptized which after their Instruction in Christian Faith was always performed by Prayer and Laying on of Hands upon which the Party Confirmed received the Gift of the Holy Ghost Tho upon the first Institution of this Imposition extraordinary Gifts followed as of Tongues c. Yet saith he it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Ministry to cease with those extraordinary Gifts no more than Preaching attended with those extraordinary Miraculous Operations The Function it self cannot cease no more than that of Preaching Because the extraordinary Gifts and Effects are gone and Christ promising a continual Communication of the Spirit to his Church he must be supposed to continue it by this Ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands and the ordinary Operations the same way that extraordinary were Hence the Apostle puts the Laying on of Hands in the same Class with Baptism Heb. 6.1 2. and makes it one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Therefore it must be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church Ans. I shall easily grant to the Dr that in the beginning of the Gospel and in the first Apostolical Times of the Christian Church there were sometimes extraordinary Effects and Efficacy of Gifts attending the standing Offices and Functions which are to be continued in the Church and the Duties of Prayer and Preaching As also that we have in Scripture Exemplified the Gifts of the Spirit attending the Imposition of Hands As likewise that there is an ordinary Communication of the Spirits Gifts and Graces in and by Christs Instituted Ordinances But all this is far remote from the Point in Question and reaching the Dr's Assertion and Conclusion viz. That Christ hath Institute Confirmation of the Baptized after Instruction by Imposition of the Hands of a Bishop as his sole Prerogative and in the Capacity of an Officer superior to a Pastor in Order to the Persons further Confirmation in the Faith Any with half an Eye may discover that this has no imaginable Connection with what the Dr. here offers As for that Text Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Proof of what he brings it for It s true there has been several Comments given of that Clause of Imposition of Hands but none of them favours the Dr's Fancy and imagined Sense Some have taken it to be meant of a Ceremony adjoyned to Baptism it self for a Sign of Blessing and Consecration to God Some have taken it saith Diodat for Laying Hands on such Catechumeni as had been Baptized for Confirmation of their Faith or as a Badge of Renewing their Covenant in Order to Partaking of the Lords Supper See Pool 2. Vol. on the place Certain it is the Laying on of Hands was either for Healing Diseases Mark 6.5 Luke 4.4 Act. 28.8 Or Communication of Blessings Matth. 19.13 15. Or Communication of the Gifts of the Spirit to such as were separat to Gods Service in the Church Act. 6.6 and 17.6 and 13.3 So 19.5 6. Hence some under this Expression take in all the Spirits Gifts whereby we are Renewed Increased Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal See Pool Annot. The Belgick Divines understand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Primitive Church imparted to Believers in general Act. 8.16 17. And especially in the Institution of Ministers in the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 Where this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Presbytrie Dr. Owen takes this Clause of Imposing Hands to import a Description of Persons to be instructed in the other Fundamental Principles but to be no Principle it self He also holds that in those days it did commonly accompany or immediatly follow Baptism Act. 8.14 15 16. and 19.6 Withal he shews that when Baptized Children gave an Account of their Faith and Repentance which others had done before they were Baptized they were admitted to the Communion of the Church the Elders thereof Laying their Hands on them in Token of their Acceptation and Praying for their Confirmation in the Faith An Account of this Matter given also by many of the Learned He distinguishes a fourfold Imposition of Hands The 1. Peculiar to our Lord in Way of Authoritative Benediction as when he owned little Children to belong to his Covenant he laid his Hands on them Mark 10.16 The 2 d. In Healing of Diseases Miraculously Luke 4.4 Mark 16.18 The 3 d. In Setting apart to the Work and Office of the Ministry 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 The 4 th In Collation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost Act. 8.17 and 19.6 Now that none of all these comes home to
Testament Perpet Gov. Chap. 2. viz. That the Tribe of Levi was not subject to another and had its special Governours That the Books â—f Moses containing their Mould of Civil Government the Levites were on the Benches with the Judges That the Offices of the Sanctuary and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof were various That all except the Levites being restrained therefrom this required several Degrees â—f Administrators in this Diversity of Offices and Services But the Word and Sacraments Concredited to all Ministers without Distinction are of one kind and admitteth no Difference of Administration And therefore no different Degrees of Ministers Thus we have seen what good Harmony our Dr. keeps in this his Notion of the Iewish Poâ—icy with the Sense and Judgment of Protestant Divines And how this Famous English Bishop has Checkt him for the same But now to come more closely to his Argument If that Policy had beeâ— pulled down our Lord would in Commending Parity to Presbyters have stated the Opposition betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy and that of the New Testament Church not betwixt his Disciples and that of the Gentile Princes Ans. 1. That this Oeconomy was to end as Typical with other Typical Ordinances is made good And if the Dr. admit that it was to be removed in any Measure and as Typical he stands in so far upon the same Grounds with us and is obliged to Answer this Notion or acknowledge it nought 2. The Dr. himself in his Way of Arguing Answers himself He says That our Saviour designed to discharge and prohibit a Violent Secular Way of Aspiring to Greatness such as is Fashionable in Secular Courts and that the Disciples were prohibited to Exercise their Power by a Spirit of Pride and Domination And the Dr. will not say that this was the Method of Attaining Offices in the Iewish Policy or their allowed Practice God having subjected the same to his own Holy Rules and Measures And that consequently what our Lord prohibited and even according to the Dr's Sense and Expressions was only and fitly represented by the Dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles which he holds to be of this Nature and thus Exercised and who did not understand Gods Law or Measures either as to the Attaining or Exercise of Government But 3. I must tell him that in Commanding Parity among Ministers for otherwise we owne an Imparity and Subordination among Church Officers in general our Lord could not state an Opposition betwixt them and the Priests of the Iewish Oeconomy there being no such Dominion among them as he here discharged As we heard Wallaeus assert None of them had an Episcopal Dominion or a sole Decisive Suffrage in Ecclesiastick Courts or such a Negative Voice therein as the Gentile Princes Dominion did import and Prelats assume and Exercise The Learned Iunius de Cler. Cap. 24. Not. 13. makes evident and will inform the Dr That par Consortium fuit Honoris Potestatis inter Sacerdotes sed Ordine impari qua Familiarum qua Temporis suspectu penes concessum Sacerdotem ex Lege fuit ordinaria Iurisdictio Ecclesiastica That there was a like Share of Honour and Power among Priests though in a different Order partly in respect of Families partly in respect of Times The ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction belonged to the Assembly of the Priests according to the Law Hence we may by clear Consequence inferr that it belonged not in the Sense of Iunius to the High Priest nor to any of them solely Now where there was such a well ordered Parity of Power and Government among these several Orders of Divine Appointment it was very unsuteable to Exemplifie such an Arbitrary Dominion thereby as the Dr. here supposeth and such a Civil Greatness and Supremacy as the Apostles affected Besides the Dr. and we doth both hold a Subordination of Courts and Officers under the New Testament wherein both Oeconomies were alike and there being under the Old Testament Oeconomy no such Headship and Soveraignity as is said the stated Opposition betwixt the two Governments could not so well correspond to our Lords Scope in this Precept and Prohibition But finally the Dr. cannot but acknowledge that the Distemper the Apostles now Laboured under was their Fancy of a Temporal and Earthly Kingdom of our Lord admitting of Worldly Dignities and Degrees of State and Honour as the Kingdoms of the World which is the Notion that the Iews to this day entertain of the Messias Kingdom understanding in a Literal Sense the Magnificent discriptions thereof exhibit by the Prophets Hence the People came to make our Saviour a King and were mainly Stumbled at his Humble and low Estate and which is to this purpose very considerable we find the Disciples themselves propose that Question to him after his Resurrection wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel So that its clear that the Ambitious affectation of Earthly Grandure Pomp and the greatness of this Worlds Potentats was the distempering Principle leavening the two Brethren and which prompted them to propose to our Saviour the Sute which excited their Fellow-Disciples emulation against them and gave occasion to the Precept under debate And hence the opposition was most fitly stated betwixt the Honour and Offices of Christs Kingdom and that of the Kingdoms of the World and Earthly Potentats and it was needful that our Saviour should thus shew the Disciples the Distinction betwixt his Kingdom and the Kingdoms of this World as himself asserted to Pilate Ioh. 18. Besides the Pomp and Corruptions of the Kingdoms of the World being to continue in after-Generations and consequently the tentation thereof endangering the inflaming of this Ambition in Church Officers But not the Iewish Oeconomy now to be abolished the opposition which our Lord stated was most fit and sutable to his Scope Upon what is here offered we may see the inconsequence and insufficiency of what the Dr further adds in Confirmation of this his Notion P. 21. viz That our Lord did state the opposition betwixt the current Doctrin and his own when he would direct in better Morals And therefore if he had forbidden Subordination and Degrees of Priests and Established Equality he would have Stated the opposition betwixt the Model of the Temple and that of the Christian Church This is no Reason For 1. We deny that our Lord enjoyned an absolute Parity of Church officers but among those only of the same kind he did not forbid all Imparity and Jurisdiction among Church Officers 2 The opposition betwixt the Tmple-Model and that of the New Testament could neither so well sute the Apostles distemper and tentation nor our Lords design in this prohibition and Precept There was 1 A Subordination and jurisdiction required therein so in the New-Testament dispensation 2 Ministers therein were to attend their Charges diligently so also in the New Testament Church 3 None of them had an Imperious arbitrary or Civil Rule over their fellow-Priests and thus it is
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
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
or well known with the Apostles Diodat and the English Annot. take it to import Excellent Evangelists or Preachers or such as were well known to the Apostles But now our Dr. P. 101.102 〈◊〉 obviat one main Objection taken from the narrow Limits of the secondarie Apostles as he calls them This saith he alters not the Nature of their Apostolical Power within their Bounds no more than Kings of Judah can be denyed the Honour of sitting upon the Throne of David in full Power and Royality after the Apostacy they were as truâ—ly Kings as any of their Predicessors as Solomon tho the number of Subjects was not equal Ans. I pray was not in his Sense the Rectoral Spiritual Power which our LORD conferred upon his Disciples and Apostles of the Nature and Extent above exprest and such as he calls Supremâ— over all Church Officers and all other Believers And sayes he not expresly that this very Power thus described by him is Essential to the Apostolick Office and Permanent and that the Apostolick Office being no other than this remains for ever in the Church How then is it possible that such Officers as derive down this extensive Apostolick Power should crumble into a petty Diocess How are such petty confined Successors Supreme and over all Church Officers 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Reason cutts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument It is true Kings â—â— Iudah sat upon Davids Throne in full Power over Iudah But I pray did they succeed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity as they left it I trow not Now he has told us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles in that same Supreme Authority over Church Officers and all Believers which Christ committed unto them Should England be divided into two Kingdoms or into an Heptarchy will any say that the Man who succeeds to one of these petty Dominions succeeds to the Crown of England or unto the Kings thereof because they possess a part of his Throne and Dominion Surely not And so the Case is here In a word since in the Dr's Sense the narrowing the Limits of the Authority impeaches not the Episcopal Power and since he will no doubt owne the Maxime Majâ—s minus non variant speciem Nazianzen and such Bishops as aâ—e said to have had but little Dorps for their Diocesses had this Apostolick Power What consequence this will bear in reference to Pastors some whereof have a larger District I have already told him P. 102. The Apostles Bounds and Provinces of their Inspection was not as equal as their Power it self wherewith they were vested Who doubts of this Whatever was their Condescension this way and adjusted Measures of Travels for the more commodious spreading of the Gospel yet by vertue of their Commission their Authority reached the whole World and all Churches planted and to be planted and this conjunctly and severally As when the twelve Spies were sent to Canaan whatever wayes they might have separatly gone in a voluntary Condescension yet their Authority and Commission joyntly and a part immediatly and formally reached to a search of the whole Land But I need not labour in proving this For the Dr. is â—o ingenuous as to confess it telling us That the different extent of places to which they went did not alter or change that Rectoral Power and Iurisdiction wherewith they were endued But thus he inferrs ibid. no more did the Apostolick Authority transmitted to Successors differ from that which was lodged in the first Apostles tho confined in its exercise to narrower Limits But good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pittyfully Lame the Original Authority lodged in the Apostles by our LORDs Commission is by your Confession and Description immediatly relative to all Churches and all Believers in them So that this immediat Relation and a Right to Officiat upon Occasion accordingly was still Vigent and Existent with any one of the Apostles tho ordinarly exercising their Ministry in never so narrow a Circle every one of them being Universal Doctors Bishops and Inspectors of the whole Catholick Church planted and to be planted and that ex natura officii as Apostles But I hope ye will not say this of the Bishop he being properly and immediatly related only to his Diocess It had been a gross absurdity to say Paul or Iames are only Apostles of such or such a Province and have a Relation Apostolical to no other Church as it is proper to say this Man as Bishop of such a Diocess has an immediat Relation to it and to no Diocess else How often shall we tell the Dr. whose nauseous Repetitions forces us to repeat that the Apostles were capable of no particular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocess being as Apostles vi natura officii Catholick Doctors of the Church Catholick and constant infallible Inspectors and Directors of its Government and all the Ordinances and Officers thereof And consequently that this their proper formal Office of Apostolat went off and expired with that infant State and Exigence of the Church and could never be succeeded unto by any Church Officer P. 103. We are told That the Apostles by lot divided the places of their Travels and went about what fell to their share None doubts of this in general tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots and who were to go to Asia who to Scythia c. is a piece of Discovery on the back of the Bible which we let pass among the rest of the Dr's profound Notions He adds It s plain that when Matthias was chosen it was to take the lot of his Ministry and Apostleship Who doubts of this either And that every Apostle had a share of this Ministry of Apostolat because all of the same Office But this will noways infer except by the Dr's Logick which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet that they were capable of a fixt Relation to any one Post or Watch Tower of the Church That they Governed the Churches where they resided as the Dr. next tells us we doubt not Tho I add if the Churches were constitute in their Organick Beeing according to Gospel Rules their Apostolick Inspection was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers Constitute therein He adds ibid. They committed their Apostolical Episcopal Inspection to particular Persons who succeeded them even in their Apostolick Authority This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question which the Dr. still Cants over without Proof We have often told him that their Apostolick Rectoral Power as he calls it related immediatly to the Catholick Church And to say that this they committed to particular Persons related to one fixed Post and by Consequence solely Pastors or Bishops thereof in an immediat proper Sense and subject to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judicatories which he must needs hold unless he embrace the Independent Principles and he cannot deny that de Facto the Bishops he pleads for were and
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
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
Unto the Churches of Galatia The Surveyer inverts the Order and would make the Words run thus Paul an Apostle c. unto the Churches of Galatia and all the Brethren c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. should thus run and be Sensed Paul an Apostle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Sosthenes our Brother point blank cross to the Scope and Order of the Text. Thus also 2 Cor. 1.1 Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ c. unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Timothy our Brother Thus the Sense of this place Philip. 1.1 is with the Surveyer Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Iesus Christ to the Saints in Christ Iesus at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons with Paul What Sense or rather Non-sense is this He could assign no Instance of such a Trajection of the copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he here admitts nor any Reason why Timothy is not ranked with these Bishops The Surveyer P. 215. to strengthen one absurd Notion with another doth in the second place alledge That there was here a casual Muster of other Bishops of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof to consult the good of the Churches And tells us That the Apostle speaks generally as to the Saints at Philippi Ch. 4.21 And not only of that Church so of these Bishops and Deacons taken universally as mett there though not of that particular Church But this fantastical Muster-master of these Extraneous Officers as he can give no shadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact which is the Substratum of his Reason Answer So he doth in asserting Philippi to be the Metropolis of Macedonia either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick Sense contradict the Judgement of several of the Learned And as he still beggs the Question in supposing the Existence of his Diocesan Prelat so there is nothing in this Epistle that might be supposed to have the least respect to the Ends of such a Meeting or can give Ground to extend the Bishops Deacons or Saints beyond the Limits of that Church unless such an Extension be applyed to other Churches in the like case of Epistles addressed to them as Ephesus Rome c. Nay where there is in the Inscription of Epistles such an express Extension in reference to the persons addressed we find it in a distinct Clause Thus 1 Cor. 1.2 after this general Inscription and Designation viz. Unto the Church of GOD which is at Corinth there follows this Extension with all that in every place call upon the Name of Iesus Christ. Thus 2 Cor. 1.1 After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Corinth follows this express Extension with all the Saints that are in all Achaia The Surveyer in his third Answer will admit the Bishops and Deacons to be related to that particular Church But tells us This will not prove they were all Bishops of an equal Degree It is good that the Surveyer will at last admit these Bishops to be the settled Bishops here and will take them off and likewise the Deacons whose work is only to serve Tables from his alledged great and general Consults anent the Case of the Churches of Macedonia But for what is here forged and pretended we have told him that the Scripture Bishops or Pastors are of equal Official Authority and that he would here mind and take home his own Reason viz. that there is no such Notes of Distinction or Discriminating Characters as he stands so much upon in the Apostles Salutation The Surveyer tells us The general Name might be common to the Bishops strictly so called and the Inferior Bishops As in a Letter directed to the Magistrats of a City and terming them Magistrats in general though one only is supposed a Provost and others Bailiffs Thus Saluting the Bishops in cumulo he denyeth not their different Degrees Ans. Besides that the Surveyer is still renewing his Petitio Principii and supposing the Existence of his Hierarchical Prelat he should have pondered the Rule Similitudo ad Pompam c. A Similitude may illustrat a thing proposed or supposed but cannot prove a thing in Question Next this Similitude overthrows his Scope For 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cumulo but under distinct Epithets of Bishops and Deacons diversifying as he acknowledged Church Officers of a distinct Character and Office 2. He makes the Term Bishop to be the Name distinguishing the Diocesan as under that Character from Presbyters and who is supposed to be but one in one Church Thus looking to his Similitude he makes the Apostle speak as improperly as if a Plurality of Provosts or Provosts in the pâ—ural were saluted in a Letter to one City But the Surveyer P. 216. urges That since we own two sorts of Elders the Preaching and Ruling Elder and comprehend them under the Name Bishop we must owne it that there are diverse Ranks of Officers saluted under that Name Or if disowning this it follows that the Apostle did not intend to write to such tho supposed Church Officers Ans. This Dilemma is crocked and pushes us not If we say such Officers were not as yet existent in this Church it only follows that it was not yet fully constitute in all its Officers Or if in the next place we admit them existent the Surveyer hath no Advantage For 1. We admit this Divinely instituted Officer as eminenter included in the Office of the Bishop or Pastor both having the general Notion of Inspection applicable unto them But the Hierarchical Bishop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer by his Confession 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder impeaches not the equal Power of Pastors here saluted in the Plural but the admitting of the Hierarchical Prelat overthrows this and consequently the Apostles Scope But the Surveyer tells us he may upon our ground bring in the Superior and Inferior Degrees of Bishops and Presbyters under this general Name of Bishops Ans. We can comprehend none under this Designation who have not our Lords Institution as all Inspectors and Governours of his House must else they run unsent and cannot be called his Stewards not having a Commission from him We include the Elder as a Divinely instituted Officer whose Divine Institution we make good but do reject the Hierarchical Prelat as an Officer of Mans devising And the Surveyer might under Pretence of this general Name and upon such a Topick advance Cardinals Primats or whom he pleased The Surveyer in the fourth place will needs loose the Objection that the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior To which he gives this Return That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Inferior in respect of some common Dignity Qualifications or Accidents competent to both as the Name of Presbyter both via ascensus and descensus is given to Superior and Inferior Officers as Beza confesses on 1 Pet. 5. Ans. The Surveyer here hath disguised the Strength
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
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
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