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
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-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
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
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
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
in the Church of Epesus And truely they are highly Censurable who will deny the Doctor so Just a Demand so necessarly following upon the preceeding Concession and the Scripture Records of the Exercise of his Power in that place And no doubt had the Dr. knit all his Consequences as well as this he had past for a fair and Triumphant Disputant and Acted as a Man worthy of his Cape and Orders Only we must be permitted together with this Concession to Whisper the Dr. in the Ear That he Exercised the same Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as in Ephesus yea and both before and after he was there and he knows the Consequence which these that have got the Scots Notion in their Head will draw upon him viz. That therefore Timothy had no Special Relation to that Church nor Ordinary Inspection therein What is his Third Desire of a Concession viz. That this Power was committed to him alone not to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity and Equality If he mean the Evangelistick Power or an Evangelistick Inspection supposing as is often told him the Existence of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Offices which we hold with all Sound Divines to be expired Supposing likewise the Foundation of the Churches to be a laying and which we may call the Scaffolding which the Dr. hath told us was to be removed when the Building is perfected And withal understanding the Term Alone as Exclusive of Pastors and other Inferior Ordinary Church Officers And so as not to Confine the Evangelistick Office to Timothies Person This Demand is easily granted But here we deny two Points 1. That this Inspection or Extraordinary Evangelistick Power was so committed to Timothy over this Church at this time as to Exclude or Inhaunce the Pastors Ordinary Power or to infer his Sole and consequently Episcopal Interest in Government 2. That the Ordinary Power of Government was not committed by Paul to a Colledge of Presbyters as the Dr. supposes or that the Non-committing of Timothies Formal Office and Power as an Evangelist to such a Colledge will infer such a Conclusion Since thus we would fasten a Contradiction upon Paul in Intrusting the whole Episcopal Power over the Church of Ephesus after this to a Colledge of Presbyters Acting in Parity The Fourth Undenyable Point the Dr. will have us to grant is That there is no mention of a Spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters to which Timothy was Accountable for his Administrations I Answer 1. There was no need because in that Infant-State of the Church when to use the Dr's Phrase the Churches Fabrick was but in an Imperfect Scaffolding Posture the Ordinary Church Officers and Judicatories were a Framing he was Accountable to the Infallibly Inspired Great Apostle of the Gentiles Paul who Enjoyned him to order Things in the Moulding of that Church as he had Commanded and Appointed him Besides that the Nature of Timothy's Work being a Temporary Transient Inspection to pass off with that Exigent to give Way to his other Imployments elsewhere there was no Access for such an Inspection in the Colledge of Presbyters Here I cannot but take notice that the Dr. still adding the Clause of Spiritual when speaking of Timothy's Power must be minded of the Bishops Temporal Civil Authority which they claim 2. We find mention made of a Presbytrie that Ordained him and whether if ever fixed in any particular Post or Charge after Pauls Death the mention of a Presbytrie that Ordained him will infer an Accountableness is left to the Dr's Consideration As also whether the mention of that General Rule 1 Cor. 14.32 That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets will infer an Accountableness of all who come under a Character of Prophets to their Collegiat Meetings The Dr's Fifth Concession he will have from us is That the great and most eminent Branches of Episcopal Power were lodged in his Person Viz. the Ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function the care of the Widows the censuring of Elders the Authoritative prevention of Heresies about which he tells us the Episcopal Authority was most conversant in the Primitive times I am glad that the Bishops high Office is become of so condescending and humble a nature and genius that the mean business of the care of poor Widows or Church Eleemoâ—ynaries is become one of the most eminent Branches of their Power I see these Branches runs far out and their Lordships must have long Aâ—ms But may I hope that the Dr. will take along in his next famous Work since he hath in this place forgot it the little mean and humble exercise of Preaching the Gospel constantly and assiduously since we find that Timothy was here enjoined it and that in Season and out of Season to which these Eminent Branches may stretch out if at least the Dr. can obtain a Licence for it of their Lordships with such restrictions and proviso's in respect of their State-Imployments as this unwarry Man Paul forgot to put in who lays this in an unlimited general Precept upon the Bishop Timothy and with the solemnity of an alarming Preface of Laying this Charge upon him before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the Dead at his appearing and his Kingdom 2. Timothy is found so far from having the Dr's Eminent Branches of Episcopal Power lodged in him that in the Scriptural Accounts he is found to have neither Root nor Branch of the same The Bishops Power is supposed Ordinary his was not the Bishops Power is pleaded for as necessary to the Churches exedified State in all times and when Moulded in its Organick Being his was suted to the Moulding thereof when in fieri as to such a Being the Bishops Power is in Fixed Diocesses Timothies was not but a transient Ministry like that of the Apostles The Bishops hath sole absolute Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over all Pastors of the Diocess Timothy had no such Authority but only of an Inspector and Moderator for the time of his transient Mission The Bishops assume a negative voice in all Judicatories of the Diocess which the Dr. here owns for he will have them subject to no collegiat Meetings of Pastors had Timothy assumed this he had contradicted and baffled the Apostles Carriage Act. 15. where ordinary Pastors or Elders are found concurring Authoritatively with the Apostles in the whole procedure of that solemn Council both in the Disquisition the Sentence and the Epistle enjoyning the Churches obedience thereunto And I must presum to add with the Dr's good leave that this Council is of more venerable Authority and the Constitution thereof of a more Divinly-exemplifying influence than any he can appeal to as patronizing the Hierarchical Prelat for whom he pleads Again had Timothy ordained alone without Pastors where they were to be had he would have crossed the Rule of his own Ordination and Pauls
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
to Pastors This Objection is above fully removed And here again we repone 1. The Infant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an Evangelist and Directions from an infallible Apostle 2. Episcopalians must confess that in many Points wherein Timothy and Titus are immediatly addressed ordinary Pastors and Presbyters have a necessary and essential Interest and that therefore they must acknowledge this to be one end of these addressed Instructions that Pastors or Presbyters may have a clear Vidimus of their Ministerial Office and Duties And that by consequence the addressing of these Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude Pastors from the Jurisdictional Power And no more make this peculiar to these persons than the Injunctions respecting the Reading Preaching of the Word Convincing the Gain sayers and Rebuking the Scandalous solely applicable to a Prelat as his incommunicable Prerogatives The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song That its the greatest possible evidence that can be in such a Matter of Fact that immediatly after all the Apostles Death until the Council of Nice the Church had no other Government but that of Bishops Ans. This Assertion especially as respecting the Patriarchal Bishop of the late Edition viz with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction tyed to Preach to no flock and deriving all his Power from the Civil Magistrate is so grosly absurd so palpably false that the very Repetition is a Confutation the contrary having been demonstrated by several Learned Pens The best Antiquaries confess these first times dark as to Matters of Fact But the Surveyer quite mistakes this Question which is not anent a mere Matter of Fact or the Churches Practice simplely Considered but anent the Apostolick Instructions and Institutions in point of Church Government viz what Officers the Apostles set up and Instituted in what order and Cloathed with what Authority how qualified for their Office and instructed therein how they are found to have exercised this Power when thus Instituted and set up If this be clear in the Scripture Records then no defects or aberrations therefrom either in or after the Apostles times can direct or warrand our Imitation nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule unless we will extend this to Regulat us as to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out Both Scripture and Church History do give us an account of the early aberrations from the Divine Rule both in Point of Doctrin Worship and Government such as those anent the Resurrection Justification by good Works Worshipping of Angels the Error of the Nicolaitans and in Point of Government the Mysterie of Iniquity the Embryon of a Papal Primacy was working in Pauls time and early appeared in Diotrephes aspiring after a Primacy Not to stand upon the Millenary Error the Error anent the Vision of GOD and others early appearing thereafter The Surveyer will needs strengthen his Notion by the Maxim Lex currit cum praxi consuetudo est optimus interpres Legis What interpretation and Sense this is capable of in reference to Human Laws or of what use is left to the Consideration of the Gentlemen of the Long Robe But sure with respect to the Divine Law 't is dangerous and sadly lax Divinity Israels Consuetudo and early practice of Idolatrie and the Worshipping of Images as that of the Golden Calf with a pretended design to Worship the Lord Jehovah was a shrewd and gross interpretation of the Second Command The People who told Jeeremiah that they would pour out Drink Offerings to the Queen of Heaven because their Progenitors in a long tract of time had done so were much in this Surveyers Mind But the great Lawgiver who enjoyned his People not to walk after their Fathers Commandments nor Judgments though of never so Large an extent and long Continuance but after his Laws and Judgments is of another Mind Tertullians Rule and Prayer is good speaking of Custom in it self considered and simplely Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas interpretare quas consuetudo non novit nam si nosset non esset Did Custom know Scripture it would be ashamed of it self and cease to be any more Upon which ground he pleads that the Eternal Light himself might arise and expone his own Scriptures The Surveyer tells us That in these preceeding grounds he hath pleaded only for the Lawfulness of Prelacy though the necessity is not denied But sure if these grounds evince any thing they prove a Necessity as well as Lawfulness If the Apostles Directions and Practice in the Institution of Church Officers pursuant to their great Masters Commission together with his supposition of the Apostolical and Christian Churches Universal Reception and Practice will not evince and prove this I know nothing will Besides that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine Institution which will bear this Conclusion of Necessity not of Lawfulness only But in this proof of the Lawfulness of Prelacy the Surveyer tells us he intended to quiet the Minds of People anent the Covenant obligation against it A good Pillow of security no doubt this had been had he proved that Universally and absolutely no Oath can oblige against a thing in it self Lawful or retrench our Liberty thereanent and answered the Arguments urged by Casuists on the contrary But it is not our purpose to digress on this head He adds That if Lawful it is Juris Divini that we submit to a Lawful Human Ordinance and Command for the Lords sake Which Reason were valid had he made good that the Human Ordinance in this Circumstantiate Case had for its object a thing Lawful And that the Human ordinance is the First Rule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of a Practice hic nunc though in it self Lawful And further that the Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loose solemn Oaths and Vows upon the Lawgivers themselves and the Subjects against such a practice as is commanded CHAP. II. The Surveyers Exceptions and Answers which he offers to the Scriptures Pleaded by Presbyterians Examined Particularly To these Passages viz Matt. 20 25 26 with the Paralels Mark 10 42 Luke 22 25 To that passage Mat. 18 17 and Act 20 17 28 Tit 1 5 7 1 Pet 5 1.2 The Vnsoundness and Inconsistency of his Exceptions and Glosses made appear THE Surveyer having thus presented his Episcopal Strength and his great Grounds for proving Prelacy Lawful doth in the next place undertake to Answer the Scripture Arguments that are pleaded for Presbyterian Government which we shall now Consider and Examinâ— The First Scriptures he tells us P. 197. that are made use of for proving the Parity of Ministers in the Government of the Church and disproving Imparity or Superiority of any over others are Mark 10.42 Matth. 20 25 26. Luke 22.25 Where because our Lord is speaking of the Kings and Great Ones of the Earth their Exercising Dominion and Authority over their Subjects
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
be of the highest Office in the Church telling us That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office And he gives this Reason of his Judgment That since the Sacramental Actions are the highest of Sacred Performances he cannot but acknowledg that such as are impowered for them must be of the highest Office in the Church And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as a meer groundless Notion and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading Secondly Our Scots Episcopalians and many of the English plead for such an Episcopal Power as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors in Government as allows them a Share and Interest therein and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government Let any peruse Bp. Honyman part 2. Survey of Naph Bp. Burnet ubi supra Bp. Lightons Two Letters in reference to the Case of Accommodation yea Bp. Hall himself in the Defence of his Remonstrance presented to the Parliament of England against Smectymnuus printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident the Bishop in that Defence is so angry at the Word Sole in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists to keep their Sole for the use of their Shoes It is then clear that in the State of the Question or Ground of this Debate the Dr. is not one with his Fellows which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon The Divine Right of Episcopacy he endeavours First to prove by the Institution of our Saviour And his great Argument is That Christ in His Lifetime institut two Orders of Ministers viz. That of the Apostles and the Seventy Disciples whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles from this Ground That they are mentioned a part as Distinct and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue Eph 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 That the Scripture mentions the Twelve and the other Disciples distinctly and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples and by this Call and Ordination of Christ separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples that the Apostles immediate Successors were chosen out from the seventy Disciples for most part Thus sayes he Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem Philip Paul at Caesarea Clement Peter at Rome by the Testimony of Dorotheus Eusebius And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius together with Epiphanius and Ierem Matthias was one of the Seventy that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate Acts 1.16 And a Succession saith be in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person in whose place another succeeds and that the person succeeding had not that Power and Office before his Succession That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority he proves from Luk 10.16 compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face but shews that such as heard them did hear him c. As also from this That Ananias one of them Baptized Paul Acts 9.18 Philip another of them the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel Answer This Discours and Argument with reference to the Drs. Scope with a very ordinary Attention will appear to be but a beating of the Air and to consist of Magisterial Dictates instead of proof For First it is evident That the generality of all Protestant Divines and Churches yea many Episcopalians themselves do hold that the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is expired and died with their Persons so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession And indeed the thing it self is evident and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission unconfined Inspection extraordinary Gifts c. And that the Evangelists Office did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate and did consist in a planetary Motion to Water where they Planted and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles and Commissions from the Apostles to the Churches as they make evident in the many Journies up and down of Timothy and Titus in order to this end So that upon this Supposition tho a Subordination were granted yet if both Offices are expired it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers or essentially distinct Orders in the Pastoral Office which is the Point he has to prove This will be convincingly clear upon Two Grounds 1. That the body of all Protestant Divines do hold That neither Apostle nor Evangelist had any fixed Posts or Charges and so consequently the one could not Succeed the other therein nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them in this their Function And 2. That the Office as well of the one as the other was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations as is above exprest And therefore that State and Exigence of the Church being gone off so are these Offices suted thereunto And among many other Proofs I would fain know what he or any of his Perswasion will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture viz. Their Gifts of Tongues Gifts of Healing raising the Dead striking with Death and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat as Peter Ananias and Saphira Paul Elimâ—s the Sorcerer c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office If sutabâ—e Gifts be the Badg of an Office as to be apt to Teach is of the Pastoral Office it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one to another and the Office has a relation to both then certainly Extraordinary Gifts Works must be the Badg of that Office which is Extraordinary So that the Drs. Proof of fixed standing distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers from this Instance is quite overturned if the Office either of the Apostles or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary Next the weakness of the Drs. Proof further appears in that instead of Proving he takes for Granted without Proof First That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission from that of the Seventy for nothing of his pretended Proofs give the least shadow of this The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach as the Apostles themselves were and for what appears from Scripture with the same Authoritative Mission since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve and superadded to them Luk. 9.1 2. c. and 10.1 2 3. c. And for the Point of Succession of which afterwards the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof of either of these Two 1. That there were Successors to the Apostles in their formal Office of Apostolate 2. That these his
proceed therefore The Dr. P. 19. is so taken with the Invincible Strength of this his Answer that he falls into a Compassionat Regrate for his Presbyterian Brethren telling his Reader That its very sad that any should be so infatuated with their new Schemes of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense degrades our blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples For what he Commanded to the Apostles he Practised among them himself If I were to give Way to such a Retaliating Regrate as this would tempt some unto I would Echo it back in telling him that its very sad that a Man who is bold to Chartell this whole Church and sets his Name with a D. D. to such a bold Pamphlet as this should in a pretended Pleading for Episcopacy and Answering a Presbyterian Argument against it in the premised Scriptures so betray his Cause and Proclaim his Folly as to Charge with infatuation the Body of Protestant Divines in their Pleadings against the Pope and Support his Mitre in pretending to plead for Episcopacy As to our Lords practising himself what was Commanded to them I have already demonstrat the futility of this Notion and what an Aegyptian Reed it is to support his Conclusion Our Saviour practised Humility and called the Apostles to such an exercise of it as did sute that Humble Ministry he enjoyned them and was opposit to that Proud Dominion and inequality they were affecting And this wise Critical Dr. with this his new Sword will needs cut the Gordian Knot of the Argument here made use of by our Lord when exciting to Humility and Parity such persons as are of unquestionable equality in point of Official Power denying the Strength of all such reasoning He tells us that what our Lord enjoyned was toto coelo different from Parity And thus must be antipode and in the highest Line of opposition thereunto and consequently a Primacy And this Confirms that which before I Charged upon him anent his owning a Primacy among the Apostles He says They were not to exercise their Iurisdiction as Lords of the Gentiles by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but in an ingaging behaviour of Charity and Humility Yet still the Dr. supposes their Jurisdiction included a Supremacy and Chiefness of Power one over another And so here is good sound Popish Pleading But Protestant Divines have long since Taught his Reverence that all Earthly Dominion it self and worldly Pomp is forbidden all Greatness and Grandure whether Civil or pretendedly Ecclesiastick and this as opposit to the Nature of their Power and vocation which is a Spiritual Laborious Service and Ministry for the Salvation of Souls And thus stands in contradiction to all sort of Domination and Lordship Moreover he apparently falls into a pityful inadvertancy in identifying Civil Dominion with a Spirit of Pride there being a Lawful Commanded Civil Dominion appointed of God And if he Object that the Princes of the Gentiles whom our Lord instanceth in thus exercised it As the Mould of his Phrase will not admit of that defence so our Saviours instancing such Gentile Princes as were called Benefactors or Gracious Lords and in Luke using the simple not the Compound verb which points at a Civil Rule and Dominion simplely considered intirely excludes this his subterfuge and shuts up this postern Whittaker hath long since told him De pontif quest 1. that the word which Luke makes use of is applyed to denote Lawful Rule and that all the Princes of the Gentiles were not such as did Tyranically Overrule or Reign unjustly and that the Clemency and Justice of many of them is Celebrat And both he and Iunius ubi sup does shew that it is the Dominion or Lordship it self not the unwarrantable Exercise or manner of attaining which our Lord here Condemns For that which the Dr. adds ibid. of Pauls answering his Episcopal Character when the Care of all the Churches was upon him in employing his Episcopal Power to Edification I have already told him of what Nature that Care was and how it differed from the pretended Inspection and Dominion of Prelats His care of the Churches was an Apostolick directive Inspection suted to his Extraordinary Office and Gifts which no ordinary Officer can pretend unto and in its exercise so far from Exemplifying a Prelatical Dominion that both in Doctrin and Practice he baffles it out of the World in enjoyning the highest Acts of Jurisdiction to Pastors or Presbyters as these of Corinth enjoyning the whole Episcopal Authority to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus in his last farewel to that Church ascribing the Power of Ordination to a Presbytrie though himself was present in the Action Identifying in his Epistles to the Philippians to Titus the Name Office and Qualifications of Bishop and Presbyter disowning all Dominion in the House of God Ascribing to himself a Ministry and Service only so far was he from Arrogating to himself a Spiritual Lordship in God's House or a Civil Peerage in the State such as the Prelats whom the Dr. Pleads for do usurp And if in all these he answered his Episcopal Character as who will doubt but he did and obeyed this injunction of our Saviour by consequence he condemned the Prelatical Character so many ways opposit thereto Besides he pronounced a woe upon himself if he Preached not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.16 and Preached it in Season and out of Season Thus enjoyning Timothy 2 Tim. 4.1.2 And therefore pronounced a woe upon non-Preaching Prelats who look upon this as no part of their work He preferred the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin to the Person who Ruled only 1 Tim. 1.17 And thus Preaching Pastors to non-Preaching Prelats who look upon their pretended spiritual and Civil Rule as the proper Characteristick of their Office and Preaching but a little piece of supererogatory Work but no exercise of their Prelatick Office and but obiter to the Actings of their supposed Grandure He enjoyned Christs Minister and Souldier to beware of ingadging in Worldy affairs if they would please Christ who has Chosen them to be his Souldiers 2 Tim. 2.4 And thus condemned Prelats holding Stat Offices as pleasers of men of Princes of themselves and not of Christ. He tells us next P. 20 That the Fathers of the Church advanced above their Brethren to Ecclesiastick Power had this Notion of their dignity that they were the Servants of others As for the advancement of Ancient Fathers we say that as the equality of Pastors is Christs Pattern upon the Mount and that as Ierom expresses it the Apostolick Churches were Governed communi Presbyterorum consilio so the First Fathers or Bishops were fixed Moderators only and had no Jurisdiction above their Brethren and even when this Usurping Jurisdiction above Pastors was Gradually Advancing some of the best Bishops as Cyprian particularly owned the Pastors as their Collegues in Government and were far from the fastuous
he did well to add to his bold Assertion his two Limitations of Matters of moment and Canonically which must be referred to his Explication But we have made appear from the Learned Iunius and others what was Presbyters interest in Councils and he must be posed who concurred and Acted Authoritatively in that Council Act. 15 As for the Comparison of the Old and New Testament Ministry used by some of the Ancients we have seen what a pitiful Argument it is in reference to his Conclusion and that the Comparison is only with reference to a similitude in point of of a Distinction and Subordination of Courts and Officers not a Parity or Identity of both OEconomies For this were to make an illustrating similitude or allusion to infer an Identity with absurdity if the Dr. should draw upon himself who will not hiss him I desiderat still and call for the Dr s. Scripture-proof of the Diocesan Bishops Superiority to the Pastor or Presbyter according to the true State of the Question and his undertaking and supposition in his Answers but there is no scent of it tho I am still in Quest of the same Pag. 30. He is still repeating again his Notion and Phantastical Conceit of Dichotomies Well what more to this scope Clemens Romanus saith the Dr. divides the Clergy into two Orders and so he doth the Jewish Ministry into Priests and Levites tho in either there is no equality But to this nauseous repeating Dr. I must Repeat again 1. Tho he should exhibit Clemens's Assertion of his Hierarchical Bishop it touches not the Point in Question which is anent a Scripture Assertion of such an Officer not what any Human Writers have Asserted 2. He has not made appear Clemens's subdivision of the Pastoral Office into his fancied Orders nor the Assertions of any Writers else to this purpose For Tertullians Testimony if it prove any thing it proves too much and beyond his Assertion Viz. The Deacons Power to Baptize which the Dr. cannot own without disowning the Scripture-accounts of this Office and the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines But to proceed with the Dr. P. 31. In stead of a solid Answer to our Scripture Arguments for the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter or our demanded Scripture-proof of his supposed Imparity I find the Dr. is still casting up his pityful recocted Crambe of Dichotomies and telling us trifflling quibles of Tertullian's sense of the Seniores mentioned in his VVritings he tells us he is not at a Point in it whether by Seniores Tertullian understood all Presbyters or those only advanced to the Episcopal Dignity And what this signifies to the point in question often mentioned the Appeal is made to all considering persons to Judge And whether in such pretended Answers to our Scripture Arguments for Presbyterian Government long since offered to the view of the Learned World and to our demand of a Scripture proof of his supposed Impariity this Man be not a poor Beggarly Trifler and a Skirmisher with his own Shadow Besides Tertullian asserts that praesident probati quique Seniores if the Dr. is not sure but that such in Tertullian's sense might be Pastors he must acknowledge that according to Tertullian such presided or had the Authority of a Proestos in Church Judicatories as were not of his Hierarchical Order So that he did not well to raise this frighting Ghost What more to our Question We are told next That Clem. Alexan. Stromat Lib. 6. reckons up Three Orders of the Clergy What then We reckon up Pastors Ruling Elders Deacons The question is what Degrees he assigns of the Pastoral Office And further upon what Scripture VVarrand How long will scorners delight in scorning and fools hate Knowledge VVhat more Are we yet arrived at the Dr's Answer to Presbyterian Scripture Arguments or his own Scripture Proofs of what he here beggs No. We hear next that Cyprian asserts the Episcopal Jurisdiction But all who have read Cyprian can tell him that he also ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues without whom he could do nothing And therefore that he owned no sole Episcopal Iurisdiction VVhat more Polycarp troubles the Dr. who divids the Clergie into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians VVhat will remedy this VVhy He recommends Ignatius his Epistles where the Apostolick Hierarchie is often mentioned But what assurance gives the Dr. that these were his genuine Epistles which now go under his Name there being Passages in these Epistles which the Dr. himself cannot but be ashamed of But Polycarp in the Dr's Opinion was a very modest humble Man whose useual Stile was Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Which the Dr. will needs have to express his Episcopal Distinction from them A proof which if you be a Friend you may take off his Hand when the poor empty Man has no better I see it is now dangerous for any Minister to say or write I and the Pastors that are with me least the Dr. fasten an Episcopal Gloss upon it The Dr. profoundly supposes that nothing but an Episcopal Jurisdiction and Priority could warrand this Phrase and order of his Words The contrary whereof can be cleared by so many Instances as renders this Reason obviously ridiculous What more we are told P. 32. That there can be nothing more extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because the Ancients used the Jewish Phraseology since they frequentlie assert the Iurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters But what can be more extravagant than this Dr's Trifling in this Debate and telling over and over ad nauseam usque this pityful quible not to the purpose and the point in question and in stead of an Answer to our Nervous Scripture-Arguments for the Official Parity of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino presenting idle repeated Stories of the Ancients Phraseologie anent the New Testament Church Officers which all Men of Sense cannot but see to be as far from the purpose as East is from West While pretending to run the Carrier of a fierce Assault upon Presbyterians he doth nothing but chase empty insignificant quibles with his back to his Adversaries and to the point and in such a faint declining of a closs and true Scripture-Dispute upon this Question according to its genuine Nature and Terms as all Judicious Persons who read his Pamphlet may see that the Presbyterians have this pityful cowardly Braggard in Chase who dare not encounter them and fairly deal Stroaks upon the point The Scripture Assertion of the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop under that Character over the Pastor or Presbyter as an ordinary New Testament Officer is that which we are still seeking from this Dr. not the Assertion of Humane Writers Ancient or Modern which last notwithstanding so weak is his Cause he has not produced What more Answers P. 32.33 Hermes contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproved their ambition who in his time strove for Dignitie and Preferment Reader here is a
might hope to get this believed Some of the Books he mentions P. 22. his Conscience could tell him are Written by Scotsmen viz. Didoclav and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day unto either of them It should then seem that his Countreymen should rather alledge these Doth he think indeed we esteem that we need no other Answer than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings Tho there are saith the Dr ibid. few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath Colour of Argument has been frequently exposed yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries Here 's a Deep Charge 1. His Countreymen Presbyterians becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's that few of them read these Books 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof so that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them if this Man may be believed But I will be bold to ask him what are these Evidences I mean Scripture-Evidences produced by him or any of his Party which we have not considered Dare he say that all in Scotland Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion do thus shut their Eyes And may we not easily Retort his Charge and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav Mr. Durh. and others whom he mentions And besides these many not Named by him to whom neither he nor any of his Gang have offered an Answer to this Day Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them Presbyterians no doubt need no other Evidence than this Pamphlet to convince the World that the Power of Prejudice has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light He pretends therein by his mighty Arguments to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work some considerable Authors whose Writings and Arguments he tells the World they ground their Perswasion upon yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them when fairly presented in their genuin strength And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality this savours of And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto he cannot but know that our Judgment in this Point is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines And are they also thus Hardned But more yet ibid. the Dr. tells us further That it is enough for us that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages and this in our Iudgment may barr all Dispute Indeed Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them than in your 339 Pages Stuffed with Blustering Talk and Empty Quiblings the Defence were no Defence We are again told That when we are bidden Name the Place which proves the New Doctrine we refuse any such closs Engagement Really the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well Decline a closs Engagement Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names judge what closs Engagement this Man has made with them and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter the Learned have sufficiently discovered But saith he Salmasius and Blondel have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons But now our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity Some no doubt not all and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments i. e. so as to convince all Readers that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings instead of Answer But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings that I interrupt not the Series thereof I must here pass over to his Second Chapter CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function in Opposition to Protestant Divines is exposed Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles in a proper Formal Sense His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities IN this Chapter the Dr. having told us That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity And what Scripture Arguments he has Examined let any judge gives us Encouragement by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie I am sorry he has not done it sooner No doubt all will acknowledge this to be what he stands obliged to But to Trace his Steps and Examine him clossly 1. I am agreed with him in this That the Government of the Christian Church has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles to continue to the end and who oppose this Institution are Schismaticks 2. For what he adds P. 95. That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests I must tell him that we do hold with all our Divines that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it And moreover we hold that both the one and the other was Typical and also such as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin or invade their Decisive Suffrage as Iunius particularly observes Our Dr's Inference That Subordination of one Priest to another is not simplely unlawful if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general is admitted If of one Pastor to another in Point of Official Authority it is a bad Inference and a Begging of the Question which is not about what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution in the New Testament OEconomy and Government The Dr's Distinction ibid. of the Apostles Ordinary Permanent Essential Power and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges suteable to the first Plantation of Churches is in general accorded But his Application and Explication subjoyned viz. That by the first they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers in the Christian Church is that which I deny And that upon this ground That Power which was Ordinary Permanent and Essential behoved to be so eminenter in the Apostles as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary Essential Permanent Power else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation when the Apostles at first Cloathed with it were gone off And therefore to be Transmitted to successive Officers consequently these ordinary succeeding Officers were in this equal to them when cloathed with this Power and invested therein And by further necessary Consequence the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers it being such as the Churches