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
to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power or acknowledge this his Description naught which he so vainly offers in opposition to the Account of this Office offered by Protestant Divines 2. He sayes That this power was constant perpetual and to be transmitted to Successors Here I ask him whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President or to devolve their Collateral Universal Power over all Believers and all subordinat Officers to respective Successors coming after every one of them If the Dr. adhere to the first he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal And indeed his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy does much oblige him thereunto If he assert that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor then his Descripâ—â—on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor has transmited unto him A Perpetual Spiritual Constant Universal Inspection over all Churches both Ministers and Believers For this essential Authority of Apostles he affirms they were to transmitt to Successors and that according to the Command of our Saviour But to proceed Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication P. 97. The Apostles Permanent Successive Power was to Preach the Gospel Govern the Churches they Planted give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks Inflict Censures Communicat this Authority to others Hear Complaints Decide Controversies Settle Church Discipline Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Necessity of the Faithful requires He tells us He understands the Gifts that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things This being Essentially the Apostolick Office it remains for ever in the Church the ordinary Necessities thereof requiring it should continue till Christs coming Here First I would enquire again since the Power thus described is in the Dr's Sense Permanent and Successive and necessary to the Church whether is it so as devolved upon every Person Succeeding and in the same Extent and for the same Eâ—ds as the Apostles Exercised it If it be not then every Body of Common Sense knows that this Apostolick Power and Office cannot be called Permanent and Successive and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize will prove this and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office which he describes If this Apostolick Power and Office be devolved in its entire extent and to every Person Succeeding then every Person thus Succeeding has an Entire Unconfined Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches all Ecclesiasticks and Believers to use his own Terms and are obliged by their Office to Preach unto and Govern them all as the Apostles did to give Rules Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers If he say that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern I Answer even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches and their Relation in Actu Exercito as immediat Catholick Officers thereof And the Dr in saying That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers without Exception which very Power he affirms they were to Transmit to Successors confirms what I said and cuts him off from this Evasion To clear this further in the second place it may be asked whether these supposed Successors are Authorized to Plant Churches give Rules to them Decide Controversies Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did with Respect to the End Manner and Extent foresaid If not then sure this Power is Transient not Permanent and Successive as the Dr. calls it If they have this Power of Apostles as above exprest Then first there lyes upon every such Successor an Obligation to Plant Churches where they were not For he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant to Govern the Churches Planted and to give Rules and Directions thereanent The Absurdity of which Assertion is sufficiently apparent and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts no less evident But while we speak of Successors giving Rules the Dr. would do well to inform us what Rules he means whether the Apostles Rules or others If the same then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules this Work being already done If others then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules as no Church can now acclaim in the Sense of all Protestant Divines If he say he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules in particular Cases Then I Answer This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules as all Men know but is toto coelo different from it both in its Nature and Extent So that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars But in the next place the Dr. has told us of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors and in the Sequel of his Reasoning must atribute it to every one of them And here I would enquire of him how did the Apostles Decide Controversies The Dr. will not deny that any one of the Apostles by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility could decide Controversies infallibly as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ And what Bishop or Succeeding Church Officer I pray has this Power and Authority We know General Councils have erred in their Decisions But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop by this his New Notion Or if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision either as to Extent or Authority then he is still in the Briars and baffles his own definition and explication Further the Dr. has told us the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof by imposition of Hands and we have heard that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion he restricts it to such Gifts as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things Be it so but will he say that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost This he cannot assert Then I say 1. He must acknowledge that here is a defective maimed not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession rather than the rest Finally the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles Supreme and no doubt since it is with him one Criterion of the Apostolick Office and competent
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
Theodtret holding that he was Constitut their Bishop I answer 1. Tho his Episcopal Authority over this Church of Philippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and Assertion of devolving the Apostolick Office upon him but rather proves the contrary it being evident both from the Nature of the Thing it self and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines that these Two Offices are incompatible and inconsistent and it is a greater degrading of the Office of Apostolat as it stands delineat in Scripture to restrict it to any Particular Church than to make the Primat of England Curat of any Parish 2. The Dr. doth grosly mistake this Denomination of Epaphroditus while making it Import his being their Bishop as is obvious to any that Reads the Text and will view Commentators upon the place as might be easily and at large made appear if our intended brevity did permit The Belgick Divines upon the Passage tells us That the Word Apostle signifies one who was Called and sent forth by Christ himself to Preach the Gospel through the whole World meaning in its Strict and Proper acceptation for clearing which they Cite Gal. 1.1 Eph. 4.11 And here the Dr. may observe how they take the Nature and Extent of the Apostolick Office Then they add But here it is taken more largely in General for one who is sent forth by any one to act any Thing in his Name or for him He was by the Philippians sent unto Rome to Paul to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Maintinance Citing Chap. 4.18 Where the Apostle shews that he had Received what was sent by Epaphroditus Which discovers the Folly of the Drs. gloss They add That if it be rendered their Teacher the Word is sometimes taken so in a General Sense for any kind of Teacher Rom. 16.7 Where the Phrase of Note among the Apostles doth import among them who Preached the Gospel here and there paralelling this with that of 2 Cor. 8.23 Where the Phrase of Messengers or Apostles in the Churches is ascribed to other Brethren together with Titus and imports only Messengers and Teachers So That altho the Phrase of your Messenger or Apostle were in this place admitted to import a Pastoral Relation to Philippi it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the Drs. Gloss as East from West Grotius upon the place shews that Graece loquentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant qui sacras pecunias colligebant atque portabant at Diximus ad Math. 10.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dixit Ignatius That the Word Apostle is here taken late or largly and for Honours cause put upon this Person as a Minister only is Asserted by Erasm. Simplicius Vorstius That he is thus called quia missus fuit cum Eleemosyna and that this is Confirmed by the ensuing Clause of Ministring to the Apostles wants has a large Harmony of great Judgments Thus Zanch. Simp. Estius Beza Collating this with 2 Cor. 8.23 For what the Dr. adds ubi supra of Ierem and Theodoret It is easily answered that the Word Apostle ot Bishop is by them used in a General Acceptation as might be cleared from many Passages of the Fathers especially Ierom holding that through the Apostolick times communi Concilio Presbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Thus in his Comment upon Titus where he proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5. And if the Word Apostle in Scripture have this General Acceptation as we have heard why not also in the Writings of the Fathers The Drs Third Instance P. 398 is of Titus and some others whom the Apostle 2 Cor. 8.23 Calls Messengers or in the Greek Apostles of the Churches which the Dr. takes to hold out their Apostolick Authority over the same and will not have the Phrase to Import their Relation to these Churches whose liberality they carried Thereafter he Insists upon the Instance of Titus whose Episcopal Authority over Crete he endeavours to prove from the Epistle written to him To the Instance First in the General I Answer that the Drs. Sense of the Passage Cited is but his own Imagination without the least Shaddow of Ground in the Words or Context especially taking it to Import an Apostolick Authority in his Sense as might be cleared by multiplyed instances if needful We heard that the Pâ—lgick Divines take the Phrase to Import Teachers in a General Sense The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. Thus Sense the Passage Viz That the Apostle calls Titus his Fellow-helper in the Business of the Gospel for the others he tells them they were such as the Churches thought fit to make their Messengers and had the Credit of the Churches whose Messengers they were since the Churches would not have Instructed them if they had not Judged them Faithful Both which Senses stands clearly cross to that which the Dr. Grounds upon And to discover further the weakness of his Reasoning even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Episcopacy of Titus and these other Messengers over some Churches how doth it prove the Apostles devolving upon them the entire Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as it was committed to the Twelve by our Saviour The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Consequent by Scripture or Divine Reason And this being the Point he is all along undertaking to prove any may see how palpably he mistakes and misses his Mark in these Instances But now to examin the Drs. proof of Titus's Episcopacy these Things I do in general premise which do cut the Sinews of his or any others Arguings for the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy or Titus over these Churches 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely seated in them they were only to go before the Churches in wholesome Counsels in relation to the planting of Ministers not to do as they pleased excluding others as judicious Calvin expresses it Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. since Paul himself neither imposed Hands nor Excommunicat alone in Churches constitut And a whole Colledge of Apostles had the ordinary Elders going along with them in a Synodal Procedure Act. 15. far less could Timothy or Titus assum this Episcopal Preheminence who were inferior to Apostles 2. After the Church of Ephesus was Exedified and Compleated in its Organick Beeing and after Timothy had gotten his Charge as to Ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus in the first Epistle directed to him wherein the Dr. and his Fellows hold him to be instructed with Episcopal Authority Paul committed the whole Episcopal Power and Charge to the Elders before Timothy's Face in his last Farewel to that Church calling these Elders the Bishops and enjoyning them the Exercise of their Authority as appointed by the Holy Ghost and this without the least Hint of any Inspection or Authority that Timothy had over them hereanent or of any relation they had to him in this Matter thus Act. 20. And
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
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
shape Prelat's Diocesses by this Standart he will extend his Measures far beyond Ephesus What more is contained in those addressed Injunctions His relation to that Church saith the Dr. and the perpetuity of his Power But we have above made appear that these Injunctions can no more evince a peculiar Relation to that Church than to others where he exercised his Evangelistick Office as well as in that of Ephesus And for the perpetuity of the Power we have told him that the intimation of Timothie's transient Employment in that Church presented in the beginning of the Epistle the express Command of doing the work of an Evangelist therein an Office acknowledged by Protestant Divines to be expired the Apostles express recalling him from this transient Employment to the further prosecuting of his Office else where as likewise his ascribing the whole Episcopal Power after this to the Pastors of this Church of Ephesus in Timothie's presence without the least hint of his Interest therein convinceth this assertion of Falsehood But to prove that his Power was not transient but successive and perpetual the Dr. presents unto us the Apostolical Command put upon him to commit his Power to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others This proves indeed a Succession of a teaching Ministry and of the Scripture Bishops and Pastors who must be apt to teach and hold fast the faithful Word But that it imports a committing his Evangelistick Authority to Successors is the Dr's Anti-scriptural Dream Wherein he runs cross 1. To the Judgement of sound Interpreters as all know since they understand by that which was to be intrusted to these Faithful Men the Doctrine of the Gospel not the Authority of Timothy 2. He doth herein cross the Scope Context And that in three Points 1. In that there is here a Plurality of Successors supposed to whom this was to be committed And if Timothie's Authority was to be devolved upon a Plurality Dr. farewel the Derivation of an Episcopal Power to a single Successor 2. The great Characteristick of these Faithful Men is as is said that they be apt to teach which is the very Character of the Pastor Chap. 3.2 3. The thing which is to be committed is That which Timothy had heard of Paul Sciz The true Doctrine of the Gospel and the Pastoral Charge thereanent which is likewise intrusted to all Ministers of the Word Act. 20. Tit. 1.9 But the Dr. will needs have that which is enjoyned in this Precept which is Faithfulness and Ability to teach others to be by Timothy committed to a single Successor as it was in solidum his sole Prerogative Really Dr. this is at least slender Dealing of Charity What! All Faithful Teaching monopolized in the person of the Bishop committed to him in solidum excluding Pastors Many will suppose that if this Work be enhanced in the Bishop the Diocess will be meanly fed especially since besides his personal incapacity to feed the whole Diocess his Sermons drops very rarely and many poor Sheep may starve in the interval But to proceed the Dr. ibid. will have his Adversaries to grant That Timothy 's power exercised over Ephesus was the very same which he pleads for as due to Bishops in their particular Sees That he had an Evangelistick Power we grant and that Bishops take or usurp an Authority and Inspection which with some Presbyterians is said to have an apparent Resemblance of that of Timothy is true But that the Function exercised by Prelats is one and the same with that of Timothy is denyed For 1. We have proved that neither Apostles nor Evangelists had a fixed or ordinary Authority over particular Churches or any such special Relation thereunto as Prelats do pretend 2. We made appear that the Authority which they exercised was not exclusive of or paramount unto the ordinary Authority and Decisive Power of Pastors in Government that in Churches constitute they had neither a sole Power nor sole Exercise of Ordination and Jurisdiction such as Prelats assume who according to the Nature of that Government are the proper sole Pastors of the Diocess and the whole power of Order and Jurisdiction is properly and originally seated in them no Pastor having any thing of this or the Exercise thereof but according as it is lett out or derived to them at the Bishops pleasure For they deny universally that the Pastoral Office hath in its Nature included any Interest in Government Now this Dominion over Church Judicatories thus exclusive of all Authority of Pastors in Government no Evangelist nay nor Apostle ever exercised it being such a Dominion in the House of GOD as is disowned and discharged by them 2 Cor. 1. ult 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Besides the Dr. knows that he pleads for a power in Civils and a Civil Peerage as due to Prelats which he dare not say that Apostles or Evangelists ever exercised nor can he or any of his Party make it appear that the Apostles gave the least shadow of a Warrand for it in their Doctrine But to proceed the Dr. adds ibid. That we pretend that Timothy exercised his power in the Church of Ephesus under the Notion of an Evangelist not as proper Bishop of Ephesus That he was enjoyned and accordingly exercised this Office and had a Command put upon him to perform the Work of an Evangelist there is that which under this prodigiously profound Dâ—'s Correction a Man tinctured with the New Scots Opinion viz The â—postle Paul pretends And this Office we hold to be distinct toto coelo â—â—om that of the Bishop The Dr. saith he will examine this afterward wherein I shall afterwards trace and search him But at present the Dr. will have some things to be granted which cannot be denyed If such indeed its pitty the Dr. were denyed so just a Demand What are these First That the power which Timothy exercised was Lawful in it self GOD forbid we should assert that Paul enjoyned or authorized an unlawful power But Lawful and Law being Correlats the good Dr. will allow us to Distinguish Lawful into that which is so upon ground of a Standing Law or Ordinance And that which is so upon a temporal and transitory Precept and authorized by an Extraordinary Authority for the time Which might be exemplified in a multiplicity of clear Scripture Instances if we were not discoursing with a venerable Dr. who can distinguish General and Special Ordinary and Extraordinary Precepts c. Lawful in their own time and Circumstances We know the Apostolick Universal Authority was Lawful writing authentick binding Epistles in the Execution of this Authority constituting Officers Church by Church modelling them in their Organick Being delivering to them the Ordinances their Disciplining all Nations laying on Hands in order to the Spirits Miraculous Gifts anoynting the Sick with Oyl in order to the healing of them c. What next The Doctor in the Second Place will have us grant That this power was practised by Timothy
Jerusalem having a fixed Relation thereto as his proper peculiar Diocess and Exercising an ordinary Episcopal Iurisdiction over that Church The first Proof is That Peter pays a Deference to him in enjoyning notice to be given him and the Brethren of his Escape from Prison Act. 12.17 Here is an Account given of an Important Mercy to a Fellow-Apostle and other Ministers at Ierusalem but a Deference to him asi Bishop of Ierusalem in the Sense above exhibit even granting the ordnary Exercise of his Apostleship there is such a Consequence as no Rational Man can admit For 1. Were not all whether we may suppose them Apostles or Brethren present concerned in this and capable of the Deference of this Information Yea are they not thus Represented 2. Suppose Apostles present without any such Residence or supposed Episcopal Relation will the mere Deference of such an Information prove this Yea say this supposed his special Residence there and consequently his and the other Brethrens Concern in the Information can any Rational Man imagine that this Deference thus expressed will suppose any more than such a Residence for the time Besides that the more Severe Critick would Interrogat him how this Information simplely considered comes under the Character of such a Special Deference and Honour as the Dr. makes it Will the Report of an Important Mercy prove this since another End is evident viz. The Instruction and Comfort of the Person Informed simplely considered The Critick would also Pose the Dr. upon this What Deference was paid in Peters first Personal Visit to the House of Mary and the other Praying Persons with her I think if mention had been of Iohn Mark his Personal Presence this Deference by the help of the Dr's Logick and Quickned a litle by his Zeal for Prelacy would have put fair to set him up as Bishop of Ierusalem at this time But the Dr. tells us this Deference is taken notice of elsewhere as Gal. 1.19 Gal. 2.1 9. For the first Passage the Apostle tells v. 18. that he went up to Ierusalem to see Peter Here is some Deference He adds that he saw none of the Apostles save Iames. What Deference is here insinuat and in special eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem will require a new Essay of the Dr. to draw it from the Text. Pool takes the Naming of these here to import That the other Apostles being scattered and gone off to prosecute their Work these two Apostles were only at this time resident there Thus it seems the Dr's great Topick from a Residence at Ierusalem as peculiar to Iames is much Weakned by this Testimony And his Reverence did not well to raise this Ghost As for Pauls second Journey to Ierusalem Recorded in the other Passage and the mention of Iames with Peter and Iohn as Pillars I know not what Shadow of Argument can be drawn therefrom for his pretended Episcopacy at Ierusalem more than of Cephas and Iohn Whatever Eminency in Moral Respects is here insinuat sure it is Shared among all the three without any Shadow of a Preference of Iames to the rest and far less eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem unless the Dr. draw the Strength of his Argument from his being first Named and thus Patronize the Popish Argument from the first Nomination of Peter to prove his Primacy Which is long since Baffled and Disowned by all Protestant Divines The Dr. alledges that Presbyterians would needs Impose upon Mens Senses and Belief their own Dreams as if some Phantastick Person should pretend he sees Visions of Armies and Battallions in the Skies and Challenge and Threaten others to see what they see not If his Consequences in this and many other places of his Pamphlet be not of this Nature surely never any were But the great Demonstration of the highest Class follows which the Dr. Prefaceth with a most of all What is that Why Act. 15.19 He pronunces the Sentence of the Council by his Episcopal Authority Here is an Airy Vision indeed a Demonstration the Rules whereof are existent only in the Dr's Brain The Sentence and Decision of this Apostolick Council upon Conference and Debate was pronunced by Iames Ergo as a Deference exhibit to him by all the Apostles above themselves yea and eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem What a Rope of Sand is this I know it s ordinarly supposed he presided in the Council but that this doth import any Official Deference or Supereminency over his Fellow-Apostles and far less as Bishop of Jerusalem is a Consequence as far remote from this Concession and Supposition as East from West The Dr. saith he pronunced the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority Thus it seems his Episcopal Authority was a higher Sphere of Authority than ever he had by his Apostolat And if so the Dr. hath Razed all his former Pleadings for a Succession of Episcopacy to an Apostolat and must devise a higher Function than even that of Apostolat to found Episcopal Authority But the Dr. will not be thought now that he is in a Calmer Humor to plead that James alone Decided by his sole Power without Concurrence of oâ—her Apostles but as Bishop of Jerusalem he presided in the Council But here it might be asked what sort of Presidency it is that the Dr. here ascribes to James in this Council Whether the mere Presidency of a Moderator or that which is properly Episcopal having the sole Rectoral Power included therein The asserting of the first only seems not Consonant to the Dr's Scope which is to prove an Episcopal Authority in Judicatories as here Exemplified If he assert the second then in Contradiction to himself he robs the rest of the Apostles of this Rectoral Power Monopolizing it in the Person of James Or if he should ascribe this Episcopal Power to him with respect to the Inferior Clergy there present he cannot deny that his Fellow-Apostles Shared with him herein And so there is nothing of sole Episcopal Power Exemplified in this Instance or any thing else except a mere Presidency which might be allowed upon the Account of his ordinary Residence at Jerusalem by his Fellow-Apostles not unlike unto a Moderators Office allowed by a Synod to the Minister of a City wherein it is assembled which doth nothing impeach the same Rectoral Power competent to every Pastor of the Judicatory But as to the Episcopal Rectoral Power the Dr. cannot be ignorant that his Fellow-Pleader Bishop Downam in his Defence with whom the Dr. will not desire to Justle and Deal Stroaks is clear and positive in this Assertion of the Bishops sole Authority in Government That James presided in the Council I have told the Dr is supposed though I conceive it a pretty hard task to offer a demonstrative Argument from the Text to make it good But that it was as Bishop of Ierusalem is a phantastick Dream which hath no shadow of Ground That Passage My Sentence is the Authors of the 2 d. Part of
Right he calls partly Ecclesiastick Again the Text ascribs an Episcopal Authority and oversight to these Elders and Bishops which as is said in former Cases and Instances overthrows the Hierarchical Prelats sole arrogated Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction It hath further this unlucky aspect upon my Lord Bishop that the Bishops or Elders here are enjoined an immediat Ministerial Inspection over the Flocks and diligently to Feed the same by sound Doctrin are forbidden to be Lords over GODs Heretage much more to be Peers in Parliament which pitifully plucks the Plums of their Lordships Grandure and marrs their Figure in Herauldry They are bidden beware of the Filthy Lucre which will much straiten their Revenues which doth so far overstretch the allowed Maintainance of a Laborious Pastor But of this enough CHAP. III. Some more Exceptions and Answers of the Surveyer examined Viz To that Passage 1 Cor. 5 To that of Eph. 4 11. To which the Paralels 1 Cor 12.28 Rom 12 6 7 8 are to be joyned To that Passage Philip 1 1. And to 1 Tim 4 14 His unsoundness and inconsistency therein further made appear PRoceed we to that considerable Text 1 Cor. 5. the energy and force whereof in order to the evincing a Presbyterial Authoririty of Pastors in that Church is above spoken to He tells us It is alledged that the Church of Corinth not having a Bishop â—is acknowledged by the Apostle to have the Power of Ecclesiastiâ—k censures even of Excommunication and is reproved for not executing these Censures and exhorted speedily to execute the same that hence it is concluded seeing this Apostolick Church was so Constitut with such a Power of Excommunication by its own Officers and Presbyters without a Bishop that therefore all other Churches should have the same Power according to the Word of GOD. In Answer to this the Surveyer not unlike a Fugitive Criminal who will flee to a place of the greatest hazard otherways so he may escape the Pursuer Fleeth to the exploded Notion of the Independents a Party standing in most opposit Terms to the Episcopalians telling us that this Power of Iurisdiction and Censure is not found here in the Eldership or in them alone since the whole Church is spoken to in this Matter There is Fornication among you ye are puffed up c. and all the Saints Are concerned of whom he saith they Judge them that are within That it were strange that Elders who are not named should be concerned and not the People who are expresly named that there is no more mention of the Governing Presbytrie there than of the Governing Bishop Ans. The Surveyer here is so unhappy as to Raze the Foundation of all his pleading which if it have any foundation at all must needs be grounded upon and suppose a Distinction of the Church Representative and Collective Church Officers and Church Members Nay he Cuts the Throat of his Assertion P. 203. That there is an Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Censure and Disciplin Established in the Church for keeping Gods Ordinances in Purity which no person of common Sense or Reason can but ascribe to a distinct Select Society from the whole Community For if all were Correctors and Rulers there is no Correlate of this Relative Power or persons to be Ruled If he understand the Passage Do not ye Iudge them that are within of a Jurisdictional Power and Authority it must needs have some Object and consequently must have for its Subject some Select Order of Men distinct from the Collective Body Next who knows not that the Directions Generally addressed in the Epistles to the whole Incorporation or Body of the Church are to be understood and applyed pro unius cujusque Modulo according to Persons several places and capacities though the General Address supposes still the General Concern of all When the Apostle thus enjoins Warn them that are unruly and again if any obey not our Word in this Epistle mark that Man which all do understand of a Censuring mark as the word imports who will alledge that these Authoritative Acts were competent to every individual The Surveyer foreseeing this tells us P. 212. That though this in some things will hold yet in the usual Stile of the Apostolick Epistles there are distinctive Notes and Periods that each person may know the Precepts wherein they are concerned and Apostrophees made to several Ranks as Ministers Masters Servants to evite a dangerous Confusion And upon the same ground an acknowledged Iurisdiction in any of the Presbyters would have here procured a distinguishing of them from the People Ans. The Surveyers Concession That sometimes Precepts are not to be applyed and appropriat to all distributively but respectively according as several persons or sorts of Persons are concerned in these Commands contained in Epistles directed to the collective Body hath razed the Foundation of this Answer which from the Non-nomination of Elders concludes the collective Body of the People to be addressed only and stiffled it in the Birth Since he must acknowledge that sometimes peculiar Duties and such wherein some persons only have a special Interest are thus promiscuously and generally propounded and even in this same Epistle And then it would have suted his Thoughts to ponder how in this Case he could evite his own Consequence and Charge of a dangerous Confusion following thereupon unless he quite the Topick of this his Argument and Reason It would have likewayes suted his thoughts to assign his distinctive Notes and Apostrophees in the Passages cited and the Apostles Precepts touching the Lords Supper in the 11. Chap. As likewayes to assign such in the Passages which do intrust a Jurisdictional Power to Elders I mean such distinctive Notes and Apostrophees as would have distinguished the Bishop properly so called from his Minor and improperly so called Bishops in order to the eviting the Confusion of their Offices and to cut off the dangerous Presbyterian Consequence and Error of understanding the Bishop and Presbyter to be Indentified in Name and Thing He acknowledged that in some things this our Answer will hold And sure if in any Case it must in this where Rulers are supposed Existent and a competent knowledge of their Official Authority both in themselves and the People The Surveyer adds That there is a deep silence concerning Presbyters Iurisdiction or a fixed Presbytrie at Corinth at this time though there were Teachers and Eminent Teachers Extraordinary Prophets 1 Cor. 14. Ans. The Surveyer will not disowne that in that 1 Cor. 14. There is a Tryal and an Examination of the Doctrine ascribed to these Teachers therefore he cannot deny them the Authority of Iudging those that are within mentioned 12. v. of 5. Ch. But for the Surveyers deep silence which he alledges of a Presbyterial Jurisdiction here he might have found it removed by a full Scripture Sound had he pondered First in General the Jurisdictional Power ascribed to Pastors and Teachers such as is imported in these
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
the same Judgment by necessary consequence we must make of Titus since the Dr. and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both from these Epistles 3. In these Epistles themselves their Power stands so described and circumstantiat as to Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches as it clearly excluds an Episcopal Preheminence and Authority For First As Diocesan Bishops they ought to have been designedly set and fixed as Officers in these Churches but the contrary appears in the Text I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus saith Paul to Timothy And again to Titus I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting Which words point at an occasional transient Imployment there not a fixed Instalment Secondly In these Epistles they are both called back without the least intimation of their returning Thirdly If their Power was Episcopal and Ordinary then in the Apostles Prescriptions and Rules anent their Successors the Power and Authority of these Successors ought to have been described and Rules given touching the Gifts Call Ordination c. of the Diocesan Bishop especially since the Dr. holds that the Description of and Authorizing such a Bishop is the great scope of both these Epistles and he will not say that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus But so it is that the Apostle prescribs no Rules for any Church Officer higher than a Pastor and supposes still that he is the highest Ordinary Church Officer in all his Rules and Prescriptions in point of Church Government delivered either in these Epistles or any where else in Scripture Fourthly As Timothy is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and consequently Titus is supposed to hold the same Office so this Office in the Judgment of Protestant Divines is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary and Expired as that of the Apostles The Work and Exercise thereof consisting in a planetary Motion to Water where the Apostles Planted to bring Instructions from the Apostles to the Churches touching the Duties of both Pastors and People and Reports of the Churches State to the Apostles So their Office supposing the Churches in fieri as to their Organick Beeing in a great measure at least and also the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office they must needs be as the Apostles themselves Extraordinary Officers And in special Timothy and Titus accompanying Paul in his Travels and continual planetary Motion being so clearly held out in Scripture concluds the Impossibility of their being fixed to any Station and proves that Character given to them by Ambrose as Evangelists viz That they did Evangelizare sine Cathedra Their continual planetary Motion is by some largly described from the Apostolick Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles Thus first Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17.14 then at Athens v. 15. thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1 Thess. 3.1 2. Then having been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18.5 Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent to Macedonia Act. 19.22 whether Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas v. 5. and at Miletus v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of Ephesus their last Charge as the Bishops of that Church And after this he is found either in Journeys or absent from Ephesus For after he is found a Prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his Companion in these Epistles written while Paul was there as the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 1.1 Philem. v. 1. Col. 1.1 And he is never found again at Ephesus But towards the end of the Apostles Pilgrimage is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem before he came to Crete Gal. 2.1 thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 then to Corinth Then he is expected at Troas 2 Cor. 2.12 13. and meets with Paul at Macedonia 2 Cor. 7.6 whence he is again sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6 And after this near the time of Paul's Death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that whether we consider 1. The various Journies 2. The order of them 3. The time spent in them 4. The nature of their Imployment which was as the Apostles Co-adjutors to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches where they travelled and especially the Scripture-silence of their being Bishops of any one Church their supposed Episcopal Authority in these Churches of Ephesus and Crete doth palpably appear to be an Anti-scriptural groundless Fiction This Conclusion upon the premised accurat Search and Scripture account of Timothy and Titus is thus inferred by the reverend and learned Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight The Authors of Ius divinum minist Evangel In whose Words I have represented this Account both because of the judicious Concisness thereof and also because these Peices are but in few Hands These things thus premised its easie to discover the Absurdity of the Drs reasoning from his Third Instance to prove an Apostolical Authority Devolved upon Titus His Proof is from Chap. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee From whence the Dr. First Argues That Paul gave him the Supream Judgment in things that were wanting with an absolut Power to Reform and Correct them It is Answered 1 mo Tho an Episcopal inspection over this Church were granted the Dr. is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devolving upon Titus an Apostolical Authority in the Scripture Sense and Extent as we have often told him 2 do Upon supposition of that which we have before made good Viz That both Paul as an Apostle and Titus as an Evangelist had extraordinary Offices and suted to such a Case and exigence of the Christian Church as is now gone off this direction and Command proper and peculiar to the one and the other as Apostle and Evangelist and supposing this Exigence of the Church can lay no Foundation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers 3 tiâ— By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection from these prescriptions to Titus unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned or any interest therein in Churches Constitut For as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches in fieri is not to the purpose I mean in respect of the Organick being especially since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination and the Authority thereof is in Scripture held out to be competent to a Presbytrie which they exercised upon Timothy himself one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 So that it is evident that neither Timothy nor Titus were instructed with any singular
Episcopal Authority in this Matter among Churches Constitut in their Organick Beeing In the 4 th place the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power to Reform and Correct drawn from this Passage doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection For 1. The Apostles themselves arrogat no absolut or supreme Power Paul disowns a Dominion and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1.24 I had alwise thought that in the Judgment of all Protestants yea of all Men of Sense who ever read the Scriptures there is none hath a supreme Iudgment or absolut Power over the Church of God but He who is the Churches Head and Husband there being but one Lord and all Ministers being Brethren one Master of the House of God who hath Dominion over the Ordinances under whom even Apostles are but Stewards and Servants which I suppose none if not this Dr. will deny 2. It s strang that in reading this Passage the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words viz As I had appointed thee which doth very clearly suppose and import both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus and his restricting him to his Rules and authorizing Information in this Matter And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein and absolut Power will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat In a word this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus is disowned by all sound Interpreters as might be easily made appear And in special the Belgick Divines tells us upon this Passage That Titus was not to perform this by his own Authority and good Pleasure only as the Dr. holds but according to the Order which the Apostle prescribed and did observe himself paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14 where it appears that the Elders concurred with Paul in Timothy's Ordination And this last Clause of the Verse they render As I commanded thee The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority is P. 399 That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete left by the Apostle before Titus was left there who yet had no power to Ordain else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry Therefore this power of Ordination was competent to Titus only not to Presbyters especially since it is extended not only to Ordination of Elders but also to Rebuking with Authority to the Correction of Offenders with the Rod of Excommunication chap. 2.15 To Admonish Hereticks and to Reject them from Communion of the Church if obstinat chap. 3.10 From all which the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches planted by them I Answer 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question and argue ex ignoratione elenchi and this one point being but supposed That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary and we may justly suppose it having above made it good this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination we have told him That it is a Presbyterian Act competent to mere Presbyters And therefore neither Timothy nor Titus could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures supposed in these Directions I answer That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative For either it is meant of a private Rebuke and this every Christian hath Authority in thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour and not suffer Sin upon him Levit. 19.17 or of a Ministerial Rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the Word Isa. 58.1 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Tit. 1.13 2 Sam. 12.7 And besides Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power Prophets Rebuked but had no Jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter tho he reproved him Moreover we find the Authority to receive Accusations and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures competent to the Juridical Courts and Church Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 5. Gal. 6.1 2. 1 Thess. 5.12 In which places a judicial Rebuke and Admonition is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors not to one Prelat not uni but unitati 3. As for the Drs. Notion of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church who had no power of Ordination else this Prescription which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain had been fruitless and an Invasion of their Power in the Drs. Judgment I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection For 1. Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices Pauls instructing Titus and his Authority in Ordination thereupon was a power and Authority Cumulative unto but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing and ordinary Authority herein It being certain that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists as is above described could not bevoided whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches these extraordinary Officers had still their Authority and Inspection vigent I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church will he own the consequence that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein as Bishop Surely not And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced 2. Elders once ordained its true have power to ordain Elders yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists and their interposed Authority in that infant-state of the Church wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules in reference to Government were to be delivered to the Churches and practised accordingly And in a word the Dr. neither hath nor can prove that Titus did ordain here alone or solely perform any other authoritative Act where Elders were present and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines Judicious Calvin upon the place will tell him That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture And we may retort upon the Dr. thus If neither Apostles nor Evangelists extraordinary and highly gifted Officers did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships or juridical Courts of Pastors much less ought any ordinary Church Officer arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ and Judicatories of His Church when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of
any Officer of an higher order Moreover will the Dr. be bold to affirmâ— that what was prescribed to Timothy in Point of Order and Jurisdiction was confined within the Church of Ephesus and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches as the Apostle enjoined him And if this last must needs be asserted upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches as is above from Scrpture evinced and delineat it follows by inevitable consequence that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him while at Ephesus can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as there especially since the Apostle here enjoins him to do the Work of an Evangelist i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister as is above described not the work of a Prelat over this Church If the Dr. deny this he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches or else must quite his plea. But finally to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches before Timothy had these Prescriptions in point of Government Adddressed unto him therein From whence the Dr. concludes that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person presiding over Clergy and Laity Besides the exceptions above touched to which this is lvable I would First know of him whether this Pâ—esbytrie or Presbytries so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order as himself acknowledges competent to them such as Teaching and the like And if so as himself doth hold and suppose notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him Especially since it s known the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties exprest in the Precepts abovementioned And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy in the Power of Order and such Ministerial Duties as are contained in the forementioned Precepts nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein why I pray shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction What will the Dr. Answer if one should improve his own Argument thus Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie to use his own term and that there were many Pastors gifted to Preach and admonish yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy gave this Commandment to him not to them Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only And sure I am whatever Answer he can give to this which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture will loose and Answer his own Argument against us In a word its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time and shew that when pertinently improven it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows Which retortion I thus offer After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus with reference to the Clergy and Laity as he speaks the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus as to both Order and Jurisdiction without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them herein or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers upon him in the exercise of this their Power notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them when the Apostle gave this Charge and that it was his last farewell-Charge when never to see their Faces more Now if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before and Constitut him their Bishop what a pityful inconsistency retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice in the Instalment of Timothy to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule Surely if the Argument from Priority of time be valid it must be signally so in this Case wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text and to use the Drs. expression and Address him in his own words ibid. this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches and to be sure the Government now at last Established at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers since the Apostles ordained other Apostles and Bishops to presid over the Churches But sure looking to his Scope and Pleading nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould For he cannot but acknowledg That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat viz. To found and plant Churches through the World to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them and this with extraordinary Gifts and infallible directive Authority as Christs immediatly sent and first Ambassadors Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches with an ordinary and limited Power for I hope he will not make them all universal Patriarchs Now how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles any may judg yet he will have them not only Bishops but Apostles properly so called such as were the first Apostles and as succeeding them in their formal Office Besides in speaking of this Divine Right he tells us His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers Which is a General easily accorded by us as is said and no way will come home to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge The Dr. tells us ibid That if the ordaining of Presbyters be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office as we hold why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops as good an Argument for the perpetuity of that Office I answer when the Dr. shall make it good that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church as we can prove and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders or make it appear that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus any Rules for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop or for his Qualifications as in that Capacity as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor in both these Epistles then and not till then the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted But till then we must
Ordination of any higher Officer than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter I shall only add 3 ly That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice that they own the Ministers of the Word as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge and in the ordinary Power of Government their equals as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut which is above discribed doth make evident And it were strange that Evangelists should beâ—instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches who were inferior to Apostles That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie concurring Authoritatively tho Paul was present should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie tho inferior to an Apostle and that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree wherein was put forth both the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in Church Government yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head that we may understand how well he has laid his Measures for reaching his Scope and End let it be remembered what it is he undertaks to prove viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as a standing necessary Function in the Church to be transmitted to after Ages with the same Authority and Commission as delivered at first to the Twelve For this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for from that passage of Scripture where Our Lord said to his Apostles As my Father hath sent Me so send I you And according to this Rule let us examin his Instances His first proof P. 406 is from St. Clement who mentions in his Epistle to the Corinthians three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levits which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacons A strange proof and an odd Explication indeed How doth the Doctor prove that Clement did any otherewise express himself than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers signifying that there are diverse Officers in the New Testament Ministry as in the Old Again How comes the Dr. to explain him of Bishop Presbyter in the Singular and Deacons in the Plural And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest in the singular and Priests in the plural Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest over the Christian Catholick Church as of the Church of the Iewes Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this Moreover the Drs. Explication of Clement viz. That he means by the High Priest the Bishop by the Priests the Presbyter c. Baffles his Design and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors as holding an Office and Authority corresponding to that of the Priests under the Old Testament then certainly he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government such as the Priests had For the Dr. will not be bold to say that the Sanehedrin made up of Priests had not a governing Power or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest as he affirms it is in the person of the Bishop secluding the Presbyters And further to discover how the Dr. has abused his Reader and forefeited his Credit in this Citation let us take Notice that Clement to remove the Sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 tells them how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed an High Priest Priests and Levits and then tells them that for the times of the Gospel Jesus Christ sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits approving them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterward believe From which Words the learned Authors of the Append. Minist Evang. Have long since concluded against the Dr. and his Fellows 1. That in the first and purest times the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how small little Apostles these were I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power as are many Pastors now in Scotland 2. That Bishops and Deacons are the only Orders of Ministry owned by Clement as planted by the Apostles the first Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery in making Clement to assert three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles by Jesus Christ knowing that contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop and being endu'd with perfect knowledg they appointed the foresaid Orders Viz Bishops and Deaeons Upon which the Learned Authors of the Apendix do further note 1. That by Name we are not to understand the bare Name but the Honour and Dignity as the word is taken Philip. 2.9 Eph. 1.21 The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters p. 57.58 2. That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy is by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons in Clements Judgement What ever Remedy of Schism the Church afterward applyed in setting up one Bishop over another Clement tells us that the Apostles endued with perfect knowledg of things Ordained only Bishops and Deacons Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72 will find he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church to be Governed by Presbyters without Bishops Besides that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously and supposes them to be one and the same throughout the whole Epistle The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field Whose Six Epistles written on the way to his Martyrdom he tells us are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles So that we have no other evasion but to alledg they are Counterfeit from which imputation they have been Triumphantly vindicat so he expresses it by a Learned Pen And that therefore no Man of Learning without exposing his Reputation can call them in Question Who this learned Pen is who thus vindicats them the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know and if he mean Dr. Pearson as probably he doth he should know that his pretended Vindication was confuted by a learned French Divine Dally and his Proofs convicted of Forgery So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion That the Vindication is Triumphant And as for the Drs. Re-vindication this Author should know the learned L'Rooque a Famous Pastor of the French Church replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge in defence of Dally upon the Point of Ignatius's
Epistles and being again opposed by Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveridge prepared and had almost finished his Second Defence which by the importunity of the Favourers of Prelacy was concealed Of which see the Learned Mr. Iamison in his Piece called Nazianzeni quaerela c. Part 2 d. Pag. 112 So that the Dr. hath no reason to speak so bigg and call this vindication Triumphant None can deny several of these Epistles fathered upon him to be Spurious as his Epistle to the Blessed Virgin and his two to the Apostle Iohn not to mention that of the Virgin Mary to him and for the Six mentioned by the Dr. he should know that as Learned Pens as he can mention have made appear that they are depraved and Corrupted if the Dr. will allow Usher Arch Bishop of Armagh and the Learned Rivet Videlius and Cook in his Censura patrum to be reckoned among that Number Yea Baronius himself the great Popish Historian who as Causabon holds presents from these Epistles the Papists refuges for several of their Errours yet acknowledges that somethings therein are defective in curia librariorum The Man was not so happy as to light upon the more polit Coppies found out by our Dr. and his Fellows In the forementioned Appendix the Dr. might have seen several Reasons adduced to prove these Epistles not to be genuine Such as 1. That diverse things quoted out of these Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theodoret are either not found in them at all or found altered and Changed 2 ly That they Charge the Holy Martyr with supercilious Pride in extolling his own knowledg Epistle to the Trallians as reaching the Orders of Angels Arch-Angels differences of Powers and Dominations Thrones and Powers Cherubims and Seraphims c. Which none will believe to have fallen from the Pen of so Humble a Martyr nor can any but acknowledg that it is as far from the Simplicity of his times in an arrogant self-boasting as East from West And 3 ly His strange and anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy wherein he these forged Epistles rather goes beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty The Learned Authors of the foresaid Appendix have given several instances hereof which do palpably evidence such â—n Anti-scriptural Popish Strain as no Man of Sense can impute to this holy and early Martyr Nay none who owns the Scriptures of Truth but must needs accuse of Error For instance among many others in the Epistle to the Trallians he affirms The Bishop to be possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all c. And how will the Dt. make this accord with that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believed In the same Epistle he enjoins a Reverence to the Bishop as to Christ as the Holy Apostles has commanded But where is this commanded In the Epistle to the Magnesians he enjoyns that nothing seems Right that seems not so to the Bishop For what is contrary to his Judgement is enmity to God The Apostle Paul spoke with more caution and Modesty when he enjoyned thus Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians he enjoyns the Princes the Emperour c. and all the Clergy to obey the Bishop and this at such a time when there was no Christian Emperour or Prince nor many Years thereafter In the Epistle to the Smyrneans he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King but I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests c. He affirms they are guilty of greater punishment that do any thing against the Bishop than they that rise up against the King Thus preferring them above Kings Yea he saith That such as do any thing without consulting with the Bishop is a Worshipper of the Devil And what Censure these sayings put upon the Reformed Churches Govern'd without Prelats yea what repugnancy is therein to the Holy Scriptures I think may be obvious to the Dr's meanest reflection So that he might have been asham'd to bring for his proof such spurious Epistles â— Yet he is bold to cite sâ—me of these Passages particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians and Magnesians altho he is forc't I suppose for very shame to smooth the expressions and curtail them For instance in stead of that Expression in the Epistle to the Trallians wherein he asserts the Bishop to be Possest of all Principalitie and Authority beyond all as much as it is possible for Men to be Possest of as it is truely translated out of the Greek The Dr. Represents only this what is the Bishop but he who hath all Authority and Power Which altho it be much the same with what is above rehearsed yet is far short in extent and Expression But if the Dr. hath so high a veneration for these spurious Epistles I would fain know how he will reconcile this and such like Expressions with that one Scripture Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers c. Unless the Dr. will deny the Bishop to have a Soul he cannot exeem him from the obligation of this Command And if he be thus subject how is he Possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all as much as is possible for Men to be Possest of Or how will the Dr. make this accord with that Interest and Authority of the Civil Magistrat not only in Civils over all his Subjects but also in the Church and Kingdom of Christ which the Dr. in the same Book owns and asserts He also Cites the Epistle to the Magnesians wherein Obedience to the Bishop is enjoyned and contradicting him in any thing discharged which the Dr. will not deny to be cross to that limited Obedience which the Scripture enjoins to be given even to Parents by Children Who are Commanded to Obey them in the Lord only Moreover he Cites the Epistle to the Philadelphians wherein it is affirmed that such as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop such as are not are cursed And what censure this puts upon the Reformed Churches and how it Anathematizes them as not United to the Bishop I need not tell the Dr. nor what a black Theta he marks himself with in the Judgment of the Reformed Churches if owning such an absurd assertion I cannot stand upon many things that might be further noticed to evince the impertinency and Fooleries of these Citations Only it is very worthy of our observation that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epistle to the Magnesians obliges us in a piece of Ingenuity in expressing Ignatius's commending Obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytrie c which seems to allow the Presbytrie a Commanding Authority together with the Bishop as several of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause smooth the Episcopal Power but this I am sure is cross to the Drs. Scope and pleading who enhances
all the Power of Government in the person of the Bishop excluding wholly all Presbyters from any Interest therein So that the Dr. in this unwary Citation contradicts Ignatius and himself and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians wherein Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family to be his Steward He hath again Wounded himself For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry under the Authority of the Master and tyed up to his Orders is point blanck contrare unto and toto coelo different from that Principality of the highest Degree before ascribed to the Bishop and owned by the Dr. as his and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office Sure to be a Prince and a Steward in Government are distinct things and entirely and wholly opposit if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it who disowns a Dominion and in stead thereof and in opposition thereunto owns a Stewardship in God's Family and humble Sevice or Ministry 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations Whereof the first is That these Epistles were Written not above Eight or Nine years after the Decease of St. Iohn and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church who were not Subject to them That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches so that they were not within the Altar but without it who were not subject to them And therefore it may be concluded there were no Churches without them I Answer that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early no body will doubt but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries as are above rehearsed was written by Ignatius and was his Sense of Church Government no Man of Sense or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr will believe And we find the contrair is asserted and made good by several of the Godly Learned Not to stand upon a more critical Answer and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author tho admitted unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts the Judgment of the whole Church to be correspondent thereunto and that none who either wrot not or whose Writings may be lost were of contrary Judgment which he neither attempts to prove nor will ever be able The Drs. next Inference is That since there were Bishops so early in this Age presiding over the Churches they behoved to receive several of them at least their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles since Ignatius at the writing of these Epistles had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch an eminent Church planted immediatly by St. Peter It being the constant practice of the Apostles to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies that there were de facto and de jure such Prelats as he pleads for Nor can he from this Ground perswad any rational Man of this unless he could evince two Things which he will do ad Calendas Graecas 1. Not only that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius but likewise the Sense and Judgment as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer as the Bishop is correspondent to the Scripture Account and Sense of the Church Officers mentioned in the New Testament and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government and the Institution of the Officers thereof which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty Again his Reason here is very odd whereby he fortifies this Inference viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted For if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops as he needs must if he speak consequentially I would fain know First What shadow of Proof he can give for this and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such For if this be asserted then it follows that Bishops were set up when there were no Elders to presid over contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows except Dr. Hammond And next I would know how the Dr. upon this Supposition will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction and that both to himself and Ignatius Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders and himself holds that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem when the Apostle Paul went in to them were mere Presbyters or Pastors Again if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion who takes still the Elders for Prelats so he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church not to suppose it only else in his principles these Churches where mere Elders were placed were manck and wanted the power of Jurisdiction And since he has produced nothing from Scripture that proves such an institution of Bishops or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses his Dream of Ignatius is as easily rejected by us as affirmed by him We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas when sent out among the Gentiles and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat of the Drs. Mould in either of the Antiochs the Scripture is utterly silent And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion As for Chrysostom Tom. 5. edit Savil. p. 99. his admiring of Ignatius Dignity obtained by the Hands of Apostles laid upon him It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity which the Dr. alledges For doth not the Dr. think that the Office of the Scripture Bishop is a great Dignity And he should prove not suppose only that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense which as he offers not to do so if attempting it he could not chuse but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself who as is above cleared asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter The same I repone to what the Dr. alledgeth P. 410 of Polycarp his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna as also what is made good by many Protestant Divines viz. That the Fathers and Ancients used the Name of Bishops in a general Sense that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
parts of him are now Extent As for the Catalogues of Succession which the Dr. mentions we have heard how shattered they are and inconsistent with themselves and Censured consequently by the Learned as deserving no Credit Next as we have heard out of Iunius the Ground of this fancied Succession Viz That the most Eminent Ministers for Moral Respects found in Church Records were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues and termed Bishops in conformity to the times wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained tho they were mere Presbyters and for most part contemporary one with another So we have from the same Iunius made appear what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers Viz. To prove against Hereticks that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin and the traduces Apostolici Seminis as it was called but not to point out or assert a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats And therefore in the Third place the Dr. says nothing to the purpose unless he can prove that by Bishops they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould with such an absolute Apostolick Authority as he suggests which untill he make good he does but â—eaâ— the Air and â—egg the Question For since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter indifferently as the Prelatisâ—â— themselves acknowledg it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop which the Fathers make use of their assertion of the Prelatical Office which the Dr. pretends The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters whom he imagins Bishops in his Sense Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. calls Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt the Presbyters that went before thee Thus also he expresses himself Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat Tertullian also Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores or Presbyters when he saith Praesident probati quique Seniores For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus his seeing Polycarp and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle who affirms he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times reckoning Eleven from Linus to whom he says Peter â—and Paul delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church It is Answered That this is abundantly obviat by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter and the intendment of the Fathers in such recitations Yea and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters lib 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt Reliquos vero qui absistunt a principali successione quocunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi haereticos malae sententiae vel quasi scindentes elatos sibi placentes c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap 44. he expresseth himself ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad Informationem correctionem aliorum From which Passages of Irenaeus the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned do infer 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles And I may add that if called so by the Fathers the terming of Prelats Successors of the Apostles is of no weight to prove the Dr's design 2 dly That they are also called Bishops 3 dly That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession 4 ly That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus which is not said of Presbyters and therefore such places cannot prove that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches Bishops distinct from Presbyters The Dr's two Countreymen Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop when applyed to Apostles and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them In a word in the forementioned Appendix the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is fully baffled from several Grounds 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop these of the first and later times being of a different Mould as to their Office and Power the later being Diocesian the first not so since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters and the Succession being drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the First Ordained Minister as among the Athenians there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers equal in Power and Authority yet the Succession of Governours there was derived from one who was the Chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio as Iunius expresses it and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister or the present Moderator and President 2 ly That the Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles times runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty and contradicts one another some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter some the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus are inextricable Some as we have above made appear calling Titus Bishop some Archbishop of Crete some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and the Apostle Iohn are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus at the same time Thus also Polycarp is said by some to be the First Bishop of Smyrna by others to Succeed one Bucolus and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities Two others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time What uncertainty and contradiction is here Iunius resolves the doubt Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5 Not. 15. viz. That these or some of these were Presbyters Ruling the Church in common but the following Ages fancying to themselves such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church fell into the Snares of Tradition supposing according to the custome of their own times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once which saith he is quite cross to the Apostolical times 3 ly Upon the former grounds and in correspondence to this account of Iunius they do inferr That these Authors make the Catalogues speak according to the language of
Augustin and Ambrose imputing also with Jerom the Episcopal Presidency which obtained in their time to the Churches Custom not to Divine Appointment do thus cast a contradicting blot upon his supposed Testimonies Ambrose acknouledging in special that non per omnia conveniunt Apostolorum scripta ordinationi quae nunc est in Eeclesia Comment in Cap. 4. ad Ephes. And tho it be controverted whether this was the true Ambrose yet we must tell him with the learned Professors of Saumur De Episcop Presb. Discrim P. mihi 300. Thes. 19. that he was Coetaneous with or rather more Ancient than Ambrose being Cited by Augustin who was Ambrose Disciple as an Holy Man lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4. which Epithet he would not have put upon a person of small account or one hetrodox 3 ly The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity of Bishops and Presbyters as his privat Judgment only but least he or any else suppose this he proves it by Divine Testimonies of the Apostles Writings yea and gives the same Sense of them which Presbyterian Writers do And therefore the Dr. must acknowledg him in so far acting a Divine Witness not giving a human Testimony only and that he more than â—utweighs his Human Testimonies else he is obliged to examin his Proâ—fs and Answer them and show if he can Ierom's Sense of these Scriptures to be disowned by any of his Authors which he doth not so much as attempt All who have seen Jerom's Testimony do know that he Reasons this Point of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter from Scripture least any should take this to be his private Opinion Putat aliquis saith he non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse the one Name importing the Age the other the Office of the Pastor Then he goes through these Scriptures Philip. 1.1 Act. 20.28 Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2.3 Drawing out upon the whole this Conclusion that the Bishops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters was rather by Custom than any true dispensation from the Lord. But of this again The Drs. Second Exception is That Jerom being a Presbyter himself speaks in his own Cause and in a warmth of Passion to curb the insolency of some pragmatick Deacons Ans. Jerom reasoning both in this place Cited and the Epistle to Evagrius this Point from Scripture and exhibiting the Divine Oracles the Apostles Doctrin and practice for what he holds speaks the mind of God and no Passion and untill the Dr. Answer his Scripture-reasonings in the Forecited Testimonies he is lyable to the Charge of imputing to the Scripture and to the Apostles Passion and Partiality As for his being a Presbyter himself what then can no Presbyter speak truely and impartially upon this head Besides he knows that several of his Witnesses for Episcopacy and whom he most Esteems are by him supposed Bishops of his high Hierarchical Mould and how shall we receive their Testimony in their own Cause And why may not we impute to them partiality and Passion and reject their Testimony unless their Episcopal Chair hath as that of the Pope a supposed infallibility anneâ—ed to it So that the Dr. is put to this Delemma either to quite his great Episcopal Testimonies as insufficient upon his own Ground or admit this of Jerom. It is the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens The Dr's Third Exception is That Jerom elsewhere owns the Bishop's Superiority whereof he exhibits First this Proof that in his Dialogue Advers Luciferians he gives this Reason why one not Baptized by the Bishop received not the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles Which the Dr. says makes it plain that he placed the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles A strange Proof indeed First we heard that Jerom Reasons the Point from Scripture that the Bishop and Presbyter are all one and therefore it is odd from Jerom's Naming a Bishop to understand him of his Hierarchical Bishop Again Jerom says quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbyter doth not A Clause and Passage we find the Dr. much harping upon but in his gloss upon this Testimony he doth in contradiction to himself and Jerom also appropriat to the Bishop the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism What if one Reason thus against the dispisers of this Ordinance Such a Person is not Sealed by the Spirit because not Baptized by a Pastor for the Holy Ghost Descended on the Apostles Will the Dr. disown this Reasoning Or will he own the Inference that therefore Pastors are equal to Apostles Or say it were such a Reasoning such a Person or Persons cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit not having heard the Converting Word Preached by a Pastor since the Apostles thus Converted and Ministred the Holy Ghost Will any but such as draw Reasons and Illustrations beyond the Moon as this Dr inferr that the Pastor is thus equal unto Apostles Will the Dr. in good earnest affirm that the Person who performs such Acts of the Power of Order as the Apostles did perform and with the saving Blessing of the Spirit is upon this Ground equalled in Office to the Apostles If so he must make all Faithful Pastors thus equal and overturn all his Reasoning from a supposed Succession of Bishops to the Apostolat The Dr's next Proof is drawn from Epist. 1. ad Heliod where he says the Bishops are in place of St. Paul and Peter And so say we are all Faithful Pastors whom Ierom makes one with Bishops according to the Scripture acceptation and at large makes it good in the place of Apostles as to the exercise of an ordinary Ministrie and the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Essential and necessar to the Church else our Lord had not promised His presence with His Apostles to the end of the World when He sent them out and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gospel and Disciple all Nations to Him Of the same Stamp is that which he Cits of Ierom on Psal. 45.16 That in stead of the Apostles gone from the World we have their Sons the Bishops the Fathers by whom they are Governed For I pray will this Dr. either assert 1. That Ierom held that the Power of Government and Authority Ecclesiastick died with the Apostles that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction was not to be preserved continued in the Church and Exercised by ordinary Church Officers and in this respect enjoined in the Fifth Comâ—and which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours and so are Ministers called in Scripture under the Character and Denomination of Fathers Or 2 ly Can he deny that Ierom holds that except Ordination or rather the Rituals of it at that time appropriat to the Bishop the Pastors and Presbyters performed all Acts of the Power of Order and Jurisdiction And that
which he says is as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastick History he therein crosses the Judgment of Learned Protestants who have made the contrary appear as is above evinced The Accounts of this supposed Succession being Contradictory one to another and sometimes Persons Contemporary made Succedaneous therein yea and the very Name and Office of Persons designed being of a various and different Nature and Signification some of these pretended succeeding Bishops being mere Presbyters But says the Doctor who will question an ancient Monarchy because of some Defect of the Historical Accounts of its Succession I answer The Original of the Monarchy being clear in History and also the Successors of the first in Point of an Historical Faith this will not be questioned And when the Dr. shal let us see the Bishops of his Mould set up by the Apostles and present to us the Scripture Escutchions of their Power together with clear Historical Accounts of their first Successors accordingly we shal admit his paralell Argument else it is a mere non sequitur The Dr. in the next place tells us That the Story of Jerom's Universal Decree being Unattested and Contradictory to all Antiquity it must needs be lookt upon as a mere Figment of his Fancy But from what is said its evident that the Dr. instead of Impugning the Decree which Jeroms Testimony speaks of has been in all that is premised but Fighting with his own Shadow and a Figment of his oâ—n Fancy and has never touched his Meaning and Scope nor has shown any much less all Antiquity against what Jerom asserts The Dr. demands an Instance of any Church of another Form of Government than Episcopacy Which Demand he might have found sufficiently answered by Presbyterian Writers who have made appear that the first Apostolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially The Authors of the Jus Divinum Regim Eccles. have long since exhibit clear Scripture Proofs of this which the Dr. should have Answered before he had made such a Challenge Besides the Multitud of Fathers who maintain the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters will go far in this Proof And if Blondels Demonstration from Antiquity Apol. Sect. 3. P. 308. c. that Bishops came not in till the year 140. hold good surely all the existent Churches in that Period of Time are so many Instances of such a Government And for this Church of Scotland we have its first Presbyterian Government attested by Iohan. Major de gest Scot. Lib 2 Fordons Scotochron Lib 3 cap 8 Blond Sect 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Governed by Presbyters without Bishops and that in that year the Bishop of Rome sent Palladius as our first Bishop So that we had our Union to the See of Rome together with Prelacy We come now to the Dr's last Exception to this Testimony of Ierom wherein he reposes great Confidence Ushering it in with an especially Considering Well what is that under his Consideration the Dr. will Amuse us with and Arrest our Thoughts upon This Conceit saith he reflects odiously upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters common Counsel which was the Occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions for Removal of which the Church found it needful to dissolve those Presbytries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room But the Doctor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long since removed and that his supposed Reflection depends not upon any Words of Ierom. Ierom says That Diaboli Instinctu by the Devils Instinct there fell Divisions and Factions one saying I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo and that thereupon this Remedy of setting up fixed Presidents was fallen upon Which the Learned Whittaker has told the Dr was a Remedy worse than the Disease And Ierom himself distinguishes this Humane Custom from the Divine Institution Now where is the Dr's Consequence Because Jerom says that for preventing Schisms at that time the Government was changed doth he therefore charge this upon the Apostles Government or Christs Institution He may as well say that a Mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will inferr his imputing them to the Ordinances Was there not Discord among the Apostles under Christs own immediat Government But did this Discord or the Record thereof in Scripture reflect on His Holy Government Paul and Barnabas divided and parted asunder but doth Luke in Recording this charge it upon the Apostolick Government To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference yet further to appear let these three things be considered 1. He confesses that Jerom asserts that the Apostolick Government of Presbyterian Parity was the Occasion only of these Schisms Therefore say I he makes it not the Cause If the Dr. assert this he will pitifully expose his Learning in not distinguishing these things which are so obviously distinguishable and reflect upon our Saviour in saying he came not to send Peace but a Sword and Division to kindle Fire upon the Earth to set a Man at Variance against his Father and to make those of a Man 's own House his Enemies as if His Holy Doctrin were the Cause of these Evils Paul tells us that his Corruption and Sin took Occasion from the Commandment and was irritat by the Law but prevents so gross a Mistake as to suppose any Imputation upon the Holy Law thereby Is the Law sin saith he God forbid He abhorrs the Consequence as absurd and blasphemous 2. The Dr. holds that Jerom asserts The Church found it necessary upon this Occasion to change the first Government by the Common Counsel of Presbyters and as he expresses it to Dissolve Presbytries and Introduce Episcopacy Wherein he abuses Ierom and pitifully Wire-draws his Words offering a mere Distortion of them For 1. Ierom speaks only as is above cleared of an Innovating Custom growing up by Degrees not of a Government introduced by the whole Church upon Ground of Necessity 2. He makes Ierom assert that upon the first Introduction of this Custom Presbytries were wholly dissolved which is most cross to Ieroms Meaning For even in his own time long after the first Origine of this Custom he says quid facit c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbytrie doth not So that in the first Introduction of this Episcopus Praeses Ierom could far less suppose a Dissolution of Presbytries or total Abolishing of their Authority as the Dr. foolishly suggests but only such a fixed President or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who as in that Capacity had a Deference and the Care committed to him but not so as wholly to exclud Presbyters Decisive Suffrage Again in the 3 d. place what ever may be said of this after-Practice and Frame of Government Ierom expresly denies a Divine Right or Ius to it and distinguishes it from the Truth of the Divine Appointment which first took place So that tho we should grant to the Dr that in Ierom's
some of you into Prison that ye may be tryed In a word what ever Characteristick of this Angel the Dr. shall produce we can make it appear to be applicable to Presbyters or Pastors First Is it a Commission to Preach and Baptize This he will grant belongs to all Pastors Is it the Power of Ordination The Scripture shews us that this is Seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Matth. 18.17 Is it the Ruling Governing Power All Ministers are such Angels All that Watch for Souls do Rule over them and all Labourers in the Word and Doctrin have an equal joynt Interest in Feeding Censuring and Ruling in the Churches over which they are set Heb. 13.17 1 Thess. 5.12 And People are accordingly to submit themselves to them Therefore this Prostasie and Ruling Power is no sole Prerogative of a single Angel or supposed Bishop Thus it was with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. And it is much more suteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of a Plurality of Ministers to whom in a plain Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather than to Explain that plain Text by a Metaphor and contrary thereunto to set up one Angel or Diâ—cesan Bishop over that Church with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction The Dr. will find this our Sense of the Angel to be no new Opinion when he considers that Augustin Homil. 21. upon this Book thus takes it Expounding the Angel of Thyatira the Praepositi Ecclesiarum or Governours of the Churches So Aretas Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2.9.10 Primas in Apoc. Cap. 2. Ambros. Ambert Anselm Pererius Victorin Tirin Haym Bed Perkins Fox in his Meditations on the Revelation pag. 7 8. Pilkintoun Bishop of Durham in his Exposition of Hag. Ch. 1. v. 13. The second thing I premise is that the Dr. hath no advantage tho it be yielded that the Angel is a single Person For 1. He may be the Angelus Praeses or the Moderator Angel not the Angelus Princeps or the Lord Angel yea and the Praeses or Moderator for the time as a Speaker in Parliament Ephesus had many Angels Act. 20.28 1 Tim. 5.17 of equal Authority who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost and set over that Church accordingly and they are spoken to in the Plural though the Angel is named in the Singular Number 2. This Angel is said to have no Jurisdiction or Superiority over the rest of the Ministers nor can the Dr. shew where this Angel is spoken to with reference to Ministers as subject to him which notwithstanding is his begged Supposition and Petitio Principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesan Division of the Churches were long after this and not until the 260 year after Christ in the Judgment of best Antiquaries 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common Duty of all Pastors Finally suppose it were granted to him that a Superiority were imported in Naming this Angel it may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts and in such Moral Respects not of Power and Jurisdiction The Dr in Order to this his Scope proposes generally the Method of his Proof shewing That he will prove that they were single Persons 2 ly That they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches 3 ly That they were the Bishops or Presidents of these Churches Before I examin his Proofs it is pleasant to consider how well this Undertaking of the Dr. answers his Scope which all along in this Dispute is to prove a Succession of ordinary Officers in the Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in their whole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction excluding Pastors from the least Interest therein By his Principles these supposed Succeeding Prelats are the sole Governours of Churches have the sole Legislative Power wherein he says the Essence of Government consists the Power of Consecration and Ordination to Ecclesiastick Offices and that of the same Nature and Extent as he supposes the Apostles had it by vertue of their Apostolical Mission The Bishops also have by his Principles the sole Executive Spiritual Jurisdiction Monopolized in them as their peculiar Prerogative viz. as the Dr. explains it to Cite Examin Admonish Offenders Exclud from or Admit to Church Communion Censure or Absolve Bind or Loose The twelve Thrones to Judg Israels Tribes promised to Apostles he understands of the Authority of Judging and of all Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church Visible committed to them and by them to the Bishops as their only Successors in this Authority To which we may add the Confirming of the Baptized by Imposition of Hands which he also ascribes to them as their sole Prerogative This the Dr. at large insists upon from P. 433. to P. 438. Now to prove all these Prerogatives of the Bishops and this Extensive Power so paramount to all Authority or Interest of Pastors in Government as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure from the seven Asian Angels Because they were single Persons or of great Authority in the Churches or president-President-Bishops in these Churches is such a Proof as the Simplest may Laugh at For 1. Will any Man think that their being Saluted as single Persons will prove this Extensive Authority Why may not a Senate be Saluted in the Consuls a Parliament Addressed in the Chancellor or the House of Commons in an Epistle to the Speaker 2 ly Say that they were Presidents and admit that they had Deference and Authority as such as the Consul in the Senate will this suppose or by any Shadow of Consequence or Connection inferr that they had such a Power as is here described and such as swallows up wholly and absolutly all Authority of the Members of Church Judicatories Nay the Dr. will as soon joyn the Poles together as unite this Antecedent and Consequent Besides in calling them Presidents he discovers this and confutes himself since the Terme both Name and Thing in all Languages and in the Sense of all Men is appropriat to such as are set over Juridical Courts Civil or Ecclesiastick the Members whereof are still supposed to have a Decisive Suffrage and Interest in the Government Again 3 ly The Dr. says he will prove that they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches But if he speak to the Point and prosecut his Scope he must call it Absolute and Sole Authority intirely exclusive of all Interest which Pastors or any other Church Officers may claim therein Come we to the Dr's Grand Proofs First That they were single Persons he proves from this That they are mentioned as such the Angel of Ephesus the Angel of Smyrna And thus all along Addrest in the Singular Number I know thy Works I have a few things against thee Ans. This Argument is abundantly removed by what is premised anent the Collective Sense of the Word Angel which our Lords Addressing the the Epistle to one Angel doth no whit Impugn in the sense of sound Protestant
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 Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make
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
good of the Church in general so by their own Authority for particular Churches to which they were more particularly related Here is I must say odd and confused stuff First The Dr. supposes that the Decree Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down yea and Scripture Grounds 2 ly The Sentence runs in these terms It seemed good to the Holy Ghost viz. speaking in the Scripture and to us 3 ly Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews apparent in the debate and disquisition the things enjoined are termed necessary things and thus supposed materially such antecedaneously to the Decree Hence 4 ly The Dr. in saying That this Abstinence he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time place and persons was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity expugns from being Laws of Christianity all our Lords Precepts in point of Love and Unity and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones For these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence and ground the necessity thereof in the present Case and exigence Again in the nexplace The great point the Dr. has to prove is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative secluding Pastors This he proves by the Apostles together with the Elders and Brethren their comming together and determining this matter One would think this makes fair to prove the contrary The Apostles here meeting with and taking into the disquisition and Decree and into every step of the procedure the ordinary Ministers and Elders as persons interested and concerned and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed in order to the Churches Obedience Ay but the Dr. tells us That by consent of all Antiquity by these Elders we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt of a like soundness with himself But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders he must Esteem them Bishops where ever mentioned and deny the existence of any Pastors the true Scripture Bishops at this time wherein our Dr. will and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond For to omit other instances he holds the Elders present with Iames when Paul went into him to be Pastors over which Iames as Bishop of Ierusalem did preside 2 ly None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable For in the context it is evident that at this time the Apostles were but founding and gathering Churches in Iudea settling Churches therein and taking inspection of them by their Apostolick Authority And therefore it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea and of such a bulk and number as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them yea and Diocesan Bishops of so considerable a Number as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time and in this meeting yea and these besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors which this Man will not deny the Apostles to have ordained where Churches were planted Again why I pray the Bishops of Judea only gathered here in order to this general Decree for all the Churches and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches which he will say were by this time set up Besides that looking to the occasion of this debate anent the Circumcision which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea as from the Apostles and thus troubled the Churches the design of the Gentiles appears evidently to be to send Paul to the Apostles and Elders residing at Jerusalem without the least hint of any more enlarged Advertisement of others than such as were there at that time Again the Dr. says That Apostles and Primitive Bishops made general Laws for the whole Church and Bishops particular Laws for their particular Churches Thus saith he Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians for more decent communication of the Lords Supper Strong reasoning indeed and hanging well together First he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority the general Rules for the whole Church as proper to them with concurrence of ordinary Bishops the ordering of particular Churches being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops And presently to prove this he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles into the class of Ordinary Bishops in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth and wisely supposes that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating concerned only this Church of Corinth and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority nor by the Apostle Paul as in that capacity To this scope the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons to the Churches of Galatia contradicting therein the Relation of these Canons to particular Churches since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Of the same nature is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 5.7 Tit. 1.5 touching the redressing disorders and supplying defects in these Churches For besides that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists extraordinary Officers as Paul himself which clearly excludes Director and Directed from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny several of these directions at least to have been of universal concern and necessity and in this respect also as remote from his Design The Dr. adds That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors That Apostles and Evangelists exercised a Lawful Authority is indeed very sure and no less sure than the Dr's Argument here is loose and unsure from Apostolical directions to Evangelists to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats in reference to making Laws as is above evinced since the Dr. cannot shape out nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop to have been allowed suffrage in any of the First Four General Councils yet immediatly after some way retracting and correcting himself he allows them a place in General Councils but tell us it was only for debate and preparing the Matter of Laws but the form of Laws he says proceeded from the Bishops suffrage This is pretty First The Dr. will never prove that in the First Councils there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould Next its strange that in Councils Presbyters were sitting for
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
Scandals as also the proper Subject of the Keyes and Iurisdictional Power and of that Power in special which is called Critick The Dr. holds That Christ here established a Iurisdiction in the Church he also acknowledges That the Church here meant hath Power of Authoritative Admonition and the Binding and Loosing Power since he holds it to be the same with that Binding and Loosing Authority which our Lord promises to Ratifie in Heaven Iohn 20.23 Matth. 16.19 He understands by this Jurisdiction this Authority and Exercise of the Keyes pointed at in these Paralells Nay he acknowledges P. 443. That in the Forecited Passage Matth. 18. our Lord institut the Power of Censuring And I need not tell him that Words of Institution of any Ordinance are the proper Standart and Measure thereof and the Pattern shewed upon the Mount Now what is meant by the Church the proper Subject of the Keyes in the Dr's Sense and Pleading is the Question The Dr. will not say it is the Political Magistrat as some have alledged for he holds That our Lord spoke this to his Church as a distinct Society and having distinct Officers from the Kingdoms of the World And whereas some have alledged that we are to understand this Church of a Iewish Sanehedrin the Dr in the whole Strain and Scope of his Discourse disownes this for he asserts That in this Text our Lord is speaking to the Christian Church and establishing a Spiritual Jurisdiction therein Neither can he understand by the Church the whole Collective Body according to the general Notion of the Word for the Dr in the Strain of his Discourse makes this Power and Authority peculiar and proper to Church Officers as is evident in his Paralells above-rehearsed and the Church Representative to be the proper Subject of that Jurisdictional Power here enjoyned Now all this being evident in his own Pleading since the proper Subject of this Power is by our Lord exprest who knew best how to express it by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church I would fain know by what Warrand the Dr. can can make this Term peculiar to one single Person viz. a Bishop so as it must be holden to express his sole Prerogative Or where will he shew or make it appear that in any Greek Author Sacred or Prophane the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes one single Person If he say that by the Church the Community of Church Rulers or Bishops is to be understood viz. that all Bishops in common and every Bishop apart hath this Power and Authority I Answer this understood of Scripture Bishops or Church Officers in general and of such Church Officers of particular Collegiat Churches is easily accorded But if he mean of his Hierarchical Bishops in Bulk and of every one of such a part he both Beggs the Question and Crosses the Scope of the Place For 1. Howsoever we take the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church whether for the Church Universal to whom Officers and a Government is given immediatly or for particular Churches to whom in a mediat Sense the same Government and Charge is given we must of necessity understand it to be given to such parts of this whole as do come under the Denomination and partake of the Nature of a Church and according to the Dr's Sense above-evinced an Imbodied Society or Juridical Court must in that Statute be understood which can never be applicable to a single Person And besides this would invert our Lords Method of Procedure and the Gradation here held out and enjoyned which is as the Dr. himself acknowledges from one to two or more and the last Result and ultimat Appeal is to the Church or the Imbodied Court of Officers with whom the Jurisdictional and Critical Power is lodged 2 ly Granting that this Jurisdictional Power in Order to the first Planting of Churches was for this end at first lodged with the Apostles yet the fore-mentioned great Rule and Fundamental Law as above Sensed and in a great Measure by the Dr. himself will still evince that the Apostles were not to Exercise it to the prejudice of the Authority given thereby to the standing Officers and ordinary Authorized Courts of the Christian Church unless they can be supposed to have had a Power Paramount thereunto For wherever a Christian Organick Chuch was gathered by vertue of this Precept tell the Church the Scandals were to be delated to the Officers thereof who consequently according to the Nature and Tenor of the foresaid Law are supposed to have the Binding and Loosing Power whatever Apostolical Authority might reach in Churches not Constitut or in way of Apostolical Direction to Churches Constitut as in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian yet this was not Privative of but Cumulative to the ordinary Power of Collegiat Organick Churches as is often told him I might further urge the Dr. with this that that Passage Iohn 20.23 cannot but be extended to a Doctrinal as well as Iurisdictional Remitting or Retaining Binding or Loosing the Doctrinal Key as well as Jurisdictional being Primarly given to Apostles to be by them derived to Successors Our Lord in his Gift to Apostles divided them not And therefore neither were the Apostles to divide them in Devolving this Power upon and Committing this Authority to Successors And since the Dr. acknowledges that the Apostles by virtue of our Lords Commission Devolved upon Pastors the Doctrinal Authority and Committed to them that Key thus P. 427 428. why not I pray the Jurisdictional also both being inseparably tyed together Nay the Dr. himself upon the Matter yields this for he tells us ubi supra That the Command Go Teach all Nations Math. 28.19 did reach Pastors as the Apostles Successors in this Ministerial Duty and that Preaching was one of the principal Imployments belonging to the Apostolical Office And if the Apostles were to commit to Pastors one principal part of their Office why not also the less principal Besides that the Command Go Teach or Disciple all Nations will clearly includ the Jurisdictional as well as Doctrinal Key The Dr. adds ibid. That yet this Command of Preaching was not restrained to their Office since inferior Officers Preacht as the seventy Yet he adds That none Preacht but either by immediat Commission from Christ or Apostolical Ordination But I pray were any in his Sense otherwise allowed to exercise Disciplin but in this method Why will not the Dr. allow the exercise of Disciplin to the Seventy and such a Mission of Rulers consequently For Timothy whom together with the Seventy he probably Judges to have held an Evangelistick Office he pleads had Authority both to Teach and Rule And the Teachers Act. 13. he holds to be Bishops So that in his Sense Government being annexed in these instances thereunto the Lord did extraordinarly call in these times of the Church some persons who were not Apostles Therefore his Reason is insufficient to prove that the
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
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
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-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
the Dr's Strained Exposition of such a Ceremony or Ordinance peculiar to a Bishop in the Sense he has offered is evident beyond all contradiction For taking it to import the Spirits Work in a Figurative Allusion to this Imposition or for Ministerial Imposition I mean in the Ordination of Pastors In both Senses it quite rejects the Dr's Gloss And even taking it in the most favourable Sense to his Scope viz. To import an Imposing Hands upon and Praying for the Baptized either at Baptism it self generally or upon the Adult who were Baptized it is beyond all contradiction that in this case it was joyned with that Sacrament and consequently performed by the Admistrator of that Ordinance Or admit that it was an Imposing of Hands upon Baptized Children sometime after their Baptism when grown up to give an Account of their Faith before their Admission to the Lords Supper the very Nature of the Action it self doth evince that in its purer and Primitive Practice and before Clogged with Additional Corruptions the thing was performed by the Elders and Ministers of the Church And the Dr. cannot shew either from Scripture or pure Antiquity that this was peculiar to a Bishop of his Cut and Mould Again it is a strange and most unaccountable Notion to assert that such as have Authority to Preach the Word and Administrat the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant and in special Baptism whereby Persons are to be Discipled and brought to Christ which was the great Commission of the Apostles themselves should notwithstanding have no Authority to Administrat such an Appendix of Baptism and Confirming Rite as this is supposed to be That such as have Authority to lay the Foundation can put no Hand to such a supposed Superstructure Nay that such as have Authority to dispense the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that great Sealing Faith-Confirming Ordinance have no Interest in the Administration of such a Confirming Ritual as this is Besides in the 3 d. place it is easie to destroy the Dr's Argument with his own Notion and Pleading He pleads That tho the extraordinary effects of Gospel Administrations be ceased yet such Functions and administrations continue as are means of the Spirits ordinary influences Gifts and Graces since our Saviour has promised to the Church a continual Communication of his Spirit Now dare the Dr. deny a continual Communication of the Spirit in and by the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments If these be to continue and for the great ends of Conversion Confirmation and grouth in Grace and in the Hands of Pastors as the proper Authorized Dispensers of these Ordinances which are the Ministration of the Spirit by what Shadow of Ground can the Dr. seclud them from any interest in this his Ministration of the Spirit He tells us that Christ now Communicats ordinary Operations in the same way that he did the extraordinary And he will not deny that he did Communicat the Extraordinary by the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers I mean in the external Administration and why not also the ordinary by the same Persons and Dispensers Again 4 ly The Dr. adds this his supposed strong proof and corroborating Argument especially saith he considering that this laying on of Hands is placed by the Apostle in the same Class with Baptism Hence I subsume if in the same Class it must be so as a Principle of the Doctrin of Christ as Baptism is so he calls it and as having the same Authority with Baptism as an Ordinance of Christ and a mean of dispensing the same influence of the Spirit And if so how will the Dr. Assign a Shadow of Distinction as to the Administrators and make it appear that two Ordinances of so near a Cognation and both Acts of the Power of Order of such an Affinity in their nature and scope should so vastly differ in the Instruments of Administration that the one is peculiar to the Office of Apostolat and a Succeedaneous Prelat Forsooth the other not but may be Administat by a Pastor He tells us The Apostle put both Ordinances in one Class but the Dr. in this crosses the Apostle and sets up in this respect Confirmation in the higher Class Here I would offer to the Dr. or those of his Perswasion Amesius's Answer to Bellarmin's Argument for this Right of Bishops One of his Arguments for the Divine Right of Episcopacy and of Bishops above Presbyters is Soli Episcopi ut Ordinarii Ministri c. Bishops only as Ordinary Ministers can Confirm the Baptized as also Consecrat Temples and Altars Citing Act. 8. Amesius returns him thus the Protestant Answer De Consecratione Templorum non laboramus c We value not the Consecration of Temples and Altars whited Walls may be the sole Consecraters of Walls and stones but for Confirmation of the Baptized in so far as it seems to have any thing of Divine Right in it and is thus lookt upon it doth equally agree to Presbyters and Bishops This saith he may be sufficiently proved from the Canon Law it self Dist. 95. and is evinced by this Reason of Ierom what is greater than Christ or what may be preferred to his Body and Blood He adds in Answer to that of Act. 8. that â—he Apostles were no Bishops nor sent unto an Ordinary Confirmation Bellarmin enerv Tom. 2. P. mihi 110 I need not inlarge upon any deductions from this Passage nor insist in shewing the Dr. the Correspondence of this Answer with what is above offered We may adduce another Venerable Countryman of his Cartwright Answering the Rhemists Pleading for this Sacrament of Confirmation from this Text tells the Iesuitâ— That the Apostle means no Sacrament much less Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope or borrowed Speech a Metonymia adjunctis as he calls it the Ministry of the Church upon which Hands were laid which appears saith he in that whosoever believes not that there ought to be a Ministry by Order to Teach and Govern the Church overthrows Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a Man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved Upon this Testimony of Cartwright we may very probably Conceive that the Sense he gives of that Passage is the General Sentiment and Judgment of Protestant Divines in his Day And to this Scope we find many of the later Protestant Divines expound it as might be easily made appear I need not add how obvious it is that the Drs. Opinion and Gloss hath no small influence upon the hardning the Papists who make Confirmation a Sacrament See for Cartwrights Sense of this place Gomarus Simplicius Pareus Mr. Dickson c. Among whom Gomarus shews that the Imposing Hands upon the Baptized is a Practice later than the Apostles But to proceed The Dr. in Confirmation of this his Gloss and Conceit adduces the Instances of the Holy Ghost comming upon these of Ephesus Act.
Holy Ghost And such a Church they profess the Protestant Church in this Realm to be From this Account of the Confession it is evident 1. That in the Sense of our first Reformers Church Government and Disciplin rightly Administred is an Essential Mark of the Church 2. That it must not be according to Mens Invention or Rules of Worldly Policy but according to the Prescription of the Word of God Thus clearly asserting that the Word of God prescribes the Rules and Measures of it and consequently determines what Government and Disciplin it is else there could be no Appeal to that Rule And look as they make the Word of God the Standart and Rule of the true Doctrine in the first Note so of Discipline and Government in this third Hence as none can without extremest Impudence assert that the Word leaves us to Waver and at an Uncertainty as to the true or false Doctrine or that it is not perfectly contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles Appealed to in that first Note so without the same Impudence neither can this be alledged of the Discipline or Government anent the Rectitude whereof and its Divine Measures the same Appeal is made 3. When exhibiting Scripture Instances they mention a Ministry established by Paul in the Churches and in special such a Ministry or Eldership as had the Government established and lodged with them in a Parity of Pastors as the Church of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge to Feed and Govern joyntly as the Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost they clearly assert the Divine Warrands of Presbyterian Parity Next for that Passage which the Dr. takes hold of in Art 21. which he durst not point his Reader to as knowing that the very Reading would discover his Forgery that which they affirm is thus expressed Not that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places c. It s evident that it utterly rejects his absurd gloss and impertinent groundless inference For 1. They are not speaking of the Species and form of Government but of these things which Councils has a Power to determin in yea peremptorly affirm that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word or the true interpretation thereof which was not so before by his Holy Will and by clear Consequence that no Councils can alter or change that Ministry and Government which in Art 19. They affirm the Apostles established 2. Having mentioned the Confutation of Heresies and giving a publick Confession of Faith according to the Word as one great design of General Councils they assign the Second which is to Constitut good Order and Policy to be observed in the Kirk that all things be done decently and in Order citing 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order Wherein Paul prescribs this general Rule to be applyed to the particular circumstances of that Church Then they add Not that we think any Policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages Times and places Adding That when Ceremonies foster Superstition they ought to be removed Wherein it is evident as the Meridian Light that that Policy which they hold alterable is not the Government of the Church appointed by the Apostles in the Word or that Ecclesiastick Disciplin therein prescribed For this they make a Note of the true Church and to call this alterable according to the difference of Times and Places were so gross a contradiction as no Men of Sense could fall into much less the Godly and Learned Compilers of that Confession But by this alterable Policy they mean such as Relâ—tes to the variable Circumstances of particular Churches and such appointments thereanent as God has left to the Regulation of the Christian Prudence of Church Governours according to the general Rules of the Word of which Rules that instance they exhibit 1 Cor. 14.40 hath the prime place So that the Dr's Inference that therefore the Authors of the Confession held not an indispensible Divine Right of Parity of Pastors or Presbyters has no dependence upon that Passage which he Cites nor has any Subsistence but in his own imagination The Dr. adds P. 13 That the First Presbyterians pleaded only that their New Form was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament Church and Primitive Institution that it came nearer to the Original Model of Churches But never affirmed that the Christian Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters and that no Officer in the Church higher than a Presbyter could pretend to any share in Ecclesiastick Government I Answer the Dr. hath not exhibit to us these Presbyterians whom he calls First and who thus pleaded We heard that our very First Reformers Pleads for that Government they were settling as a Divine Ministry and Government according to the Word and deriving its Original Pattern from the Apostles Plantation of Churches such as Ephesus had when Paul gave his last directions to that Church To which Original Pattern they hold that all Churches ought to be squared and Subordinat And if we advance a step further to our Books of Disciplin we will find the Divine Right of our Government Asserted in most Material Points thereof The Peoples interest in the Election of Pastors in their Call and in their Admission is Asserted in the First Book of Disciplin Head 1. with the Explication In the 7 Head of Ecclesiastick Disciplin the highest Censure of Excommunication is attributed to the Ministry as their Duty and Priviledge not to the Prelat and all Preachers without exception are declared Subject to Disciplin and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets in their Doctrin is Asserted in the 9. Head of Church Policy upon that special Point of Propesying and interpreting the Scriptures All which cutts the Sinnews of the Prelats Exercising Power over Pastors Establishing their Essential Divine Right of Government In 2 Book of Discipl Chap. 1. The Divine Right of Church Government and Policy is Asserted and its distinction from the Civil The unlawfulness of Ministers assuming Name or Thing of Lordship Again The extraordinary expired Function of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists is Asserted The identity of the Pastor and Bishops Office as the highest ordinary Function together with the Relation thereof to a particular Flock is Asserted Chap. 2. Moreover Ch. 7. initio the Ruling Elders Office and Congregational Eldership are Asserted Ibid. Our Church Judicatories Congregational Provincial and National are Asserted Chap. 11. The Unwarrantableness of the Office of Bishops Assuming Authority over Pastors and a Lordship over them and over Christs Inheritance is Asserted And such Bishops as refuse Subjection to the Established Disciplin and Government of Pastors are appointed to be deposed from all Function in this Kirk Likewise Patronages as crossing the Peoples Right in Election of Pastors are condemned
their Doctrin and Practice they disown all dominion and Prelatical Principality in the Church and all outward grandure and greatness as inconsistent with their Office and the Office of all Gospel Ministers But to the Topick and ground of the Dr's Argument I Answer directly that the Apostles as they understood so they practised our Lords Precept in the sense we owne 1. In that they practised a compleat equality of Official Power among themselves This I hope he will not deny or if he do its easie to set all Protestant Divines in pursuit of him 2 In that they never exercised nor attempted to seek any Civil Greatness or Dominion such as the Prelats he pleads for do own as competent to their Office They knew that their Lord when but desired to give advice in a Civil Cause gave this return who made me a Iudg And declined the Imployment And that therefore neither they nor any of their Successors were to be Civil Counsellors and Spiritual Peers in Parliaments and Princes Courts 3. They disown all Dominion in one Pastor over another and discharged it earnestly Thus the Apostle Peter to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. Thus also Diotrephes affecting a Preheminence is rebuked by the Apostle Iohn And Paul owns himself and other Apostles as Stewards only in the House of God and disowns a Dominion as we have heard Next As for their Iurisdiction over subordinat Ecclesiasticks which is the Substratum of the Dr's great Answer and Question I do deny First that they exercised any Episcopal Jurisdiction properly taken over them Secondly such a Jurisdiction as did Cross this Precept The Proof of both these will fully discover the vanity of the Dr's Second Reply And First that the Apostles exercised no such Episcopal Authority over Ecclesiasticks or Churches planted as the Dr. pleads for is evident thus 1. Their Apostolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching reached to prescrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches consequently was cumulative thereto not privative thereof which appears in their enjoyning the exercise of Spiritual Iurisdiction as inherent in Church Officers as Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in Pastors both in the designations of Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops attribut to them As also in their frequent enjoyning the Peoples obedience and subjection to them as in that capacity Heb. 13.7.17 1 Pet. 5.2.3 1 Thess. 5.12.2 The Apostles did not as the Prelats invade the decisive Power of Pastors in Government but took along their decisive Votes and concurrence as we find in that Council Act. 15. where its evident that in every Point the Elders or Ministers conccurred with the Apostles in the Disquisition Sentence and decretal Letter 3. As the Apostles planted Churches with Pastors or Preaching Presbyters instructing them with Authority to Feed and Rule as Bishops or Rulers set up by the Holy Ghost so they committed the Government of the Churches to them in their last farewells without the least hint of Super-institut Officers of an higher Order So that the Apostles instructing Pastors with such Authority commanding its exercise enjoyning the Churches obedience to them exemplifying and Authorizing their interest in highest Judicatories yea making even Evangelists as Timothy pass through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination in order to the exercise of his Office Not to insist upon even Apostles submission to the Authoritative Imposition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers when sent out upon a special Gospel Legation To which we may add the Apostles owning Pastors as Brethren Fellow-helpers Fellow-Labourers Co-Presbyters or Elders It follows inevitably 1. That as to the Perpetual Pastoral Charge the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of the Sacraments and the appendent Jurisdictional Power which by the Apostles Doctrin is a Lower Step to this and connected therewith they own the Pastors or Preaching Presbyters their Equals and their proper Successors in this Ministerial Authority consequently the ordinary Church Officers of the highest Order to whom they committed the Keys of Doctrin and Disciplin 2. That the Exercise of their extraordinary Apostolick directive Power and Authority which they could not divest themselves of while alive did no whit impeach the standing Authority of Pastors nor did it includ any Jurisdiction properly over Churches constitut and Moulded in their Organick being By Iurisdiction properly I mean such as is of a standing necessity in order to the Churches Edification in all times or such a Jurisdiction over Churches as may be supposed paramount unto or privative of the Jurisdictional Authority of Pastors and of Organick Churches Secondly That the Apostles exercised no such Authority over the Churches as did cross our Lords Precept and Prohibition is evident in that 1. Our Saviour discharged Imparity among Church Officers of the same kind and therefore this could not impeach the Apostles Authority over ordinary Officers 2. Our Lords instructing them with such a measure of the Spirit as was sutable to the First founding of the Churches and with Authority as his living and infallibly inspired Oracles to plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government therein Unless the Dr. will say that our Lords Precept did cross and contradict his design he must needs ackdowledg that the Apostles in exercising this directive Power and extraordinary Authority over ordinary inferior Officers could not cross this his Precept and Prohibition they being our Lords immediatly called infallibly inspired and extraordinarly Gifted First Messengers in order to this end Thus we have seen the vanity and insufficiency of the Dr's Second Answer But there is no end of Vanities The Dr's Third Answer is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown swelling boast That which he says baffles and exposes our Argument to all intents and purposes is that our Lord did that himself among them which now he Commanded them to do one to another And the doing of this one to another in obedience to his Command could not infer a Parity unless we Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal For our Lord recommends what he enjoins from his own constant and visible Practice among them that he their Lord and Master was their Servant And therefore it became the greatest among them to be Modest calm and humble toward their Brethren which would qualify them for Ecclesiastick Promotions This poor and mean Answer and Reason of the Dr's is a notion for which he is beholden to his Popish Masters And being here subjoyned to such big words brings to mind some Poetick Phrases Quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu And Projicis ampullas sesquipedalia verba And that of Partuâ—iunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus There 's no doubt that the Dr. has as much exposed and baffled his own Judgment and Reputation in this thrasonick weak Answer as in any thing else But to the point First I must tell him that if this Argument tending to prove from this Text
he adds in the other Branch in expressing what is enjoyned being examples to the Flock enjoining thus to Feed by Example and an Humble Ministry And this is opposit to all Dominion whatsoever and doth not discriminat one Dominion from another as is also evident in the positive part of the Paralel Precepts abovementioned We have also told him that the instance and Illustration drawn from such Princes of the Gentiles as were accounted Gracious Lords and the simple word of Rule used by Luke in the paralel confutes this Gloss and doth demonstrat that it is not proud insolent Dominion or a Dominion secundum quid and thus qualified which is only here forbidden but Lordship and Dominion simpliciter the desire whereof did notwithstanding proceed in the Apostles from some remainders of Pride and in their Case could not be exercised or assumed without a fastuous insolency it being Diametrically opposit to the Nature of their Holy Office and Function So then I argue against the Dr. from his own Principle and Gloss If Peter thus understood our Lords Precept Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. in this Sense that Pride was the Principle of their desire and of that greatness they sought and that the exercise of this greatness was prohibit as the very emanation of insolent Pride and if with all he coppied out this his Precept to Ministers from that great Command of his Lord and took his Measures therefrom he could not but look upon Pastors Lording over the Flâ—cks as proceeding from Pride and the very practice and exercise of a Domineering Tyranny yea he could not but put under this Character whatever exercise of pretended Ministerial Authority goes beyond the Limits of that humble exemplary Ministry that Ministerial diligence and service of the Lords Flocks which is enjoyned in the positive part of his Masters Command exactly coppied out in this his Apostolick Precept I further remark that the Dr. holding out the Sense of the Apostle as terminating only in this General discharging Pride and Insolency in Government without condescending upon the extent of the Negative and positive explication of the Precept and the Nature of that Power here specified and Discharged as Flowing from this Pride and Insolent Disposition and but only shewing that it is a Pride unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat and the setting up of such a Dominion in the Church as may be supposed in an abstracted Sense and in its general Nature Lawful and thus still saves the Popes Mitre from the Touch of this prohibition The Dr. holds That our exposition of those Texts was never heard of till these latter days Thus with him the Papists only have hit upon the true Ancient Exposition and Protestants have missed it Amongst many other confuting Instances he might have minded the abovementioned Passages of Bernard to Eugenius lib. 2. Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus Ergo tu tibi usurpare aude ut Dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus Dominatum CHAP. II. A Confutation of what the Dr. offers in Answer to the Presbyterians Argument for Parity of Pastors taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in the Scripture Account of the Pastoral Office THe Dr. by this time has finisht his first easie Task of Discussing our Argument from Christs Institution He will next fall upon our Argument from Scripture Consequences And that his Work here may be as easie as the first and least he should break his Word to his Friend in giving him a large History of our Arguments on this Head Of them all he is pleased to Single out one taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter which he says fills all our Books Citing Smectym Ius Divin Minist Ang. Unbishopping Tim. and Tit. Altare Damasc. Durh. Dissert But surely any who have Seriously and Impartially perused these Authors and compares what they have written with that which this Man pretends to Answer may Laugh at his Prodigious Folly in Boasting of an Answer to Books which he appears never to have read or understood It were good for him that the Authors he paints his Margine with were out of the World that the Ignorant or such as never saw them might believe that this Personat Champion had made a mighty Baffling Assault upon them But all such as are acquaint with their Writings will easily discover that he is here Acting a Pedantick Nomenclator of these Authors and no more The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter I mean an Official Identity I acknowledge is improven by these Authors and other Presbyterian Writers and am content to try Issue with him upon this Head but the Dr I find is so Loose and Perverse a Disputer that he doth not so much as offer to propose one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope He alledges We Argue from the Homonomy of Names of Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament to prove the Sameness of the Office and that the Clergy of the New Testament are Dichotomised into Bishops and Deacons only in some Texts And thus in some Ancient Writers That we thus exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter tho the Offices themselves be as much distinguished in several Texts of the New Testament as is possible He holds P. 22 23. That we found the Solidity of our Demonstration of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter merely upon the Confusio Nominum which he represents in a distinct Character as our only Topick To which purpose he tells us we cite Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.6 7. and several other places There needs no more than the Reciting of this to discover this Mans Precarious Vanity and Ignorance of this Controversie since all that are acquaint with it do know that it is not the Sameness ef Names simplely and in its self considered which the Presbyterians ground upon tho this have its own Secondary Weight but the Sameness and Identity of the Qualifications Ordination Work Duties and every other Essential of the Office Which is an Argument with more Demonstrative Nerves than that of the Sameness of Names Presbyters being in Scripture called and owned as Rulers Governors Overseers Bishops And both Ordination and Iurisdiction appropriat to them without the least Hint of Imparity among them in the Exercise thereof Tit. 1.5 Act. 20.17 28. 1 Pet. 5.2.2 1 Thess. 5.12 14. Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Cor. 5.12 1 Tim. 4.14 Now if it be thus sure the Conclusion of the Identity of the Office clearly follows And had this Man perused these Authors he might have discovered that their Arguments run to this Issue and are not merely Bottomed upon so slight a Ground as he would make such believe whose Knowledge is of a like Size and Measure with his own Yet so weak is his Cause that his Answer cannot stand before this very Argument as he propounds it at least with a due Respect to the Scope of the Places Cited which will
be evident to any who will compare their Writings with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments from these Scriptures cited by him and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter From Act. 20. We thus Argue First That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock Whence we collect 1. That the Pastor is the true Scripture Bishop 2. That by his Office he Feeds and Rules the Flock and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost Next it hence follows that whatever Authority Power and Jurisdiction is imported in the Name Bishop falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command given to these Elders or Pastors who are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office the Diocesan Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretended Paramount Inspection over them evanisheth as a mere Chimaera especially since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors 3. It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy now present with Paul and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him for at Writing thereof the Apostle was at Macedonia And the Sacred History informs us that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy and gave the Elders this Charge In a Word this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge for after this they were to see his Face no more So that these being the Apostles last Thoughts to speak so and Testamentary Instructions in Point of Church Government we have here the the Samplare and Pattern shewed by this great Apostle upon the Mount of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions And since the Episcopalians will not call the Gospel-Church a Speckled Bird and her Government of diverse Cuts they must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14 doth furher clear From hence we further Argue First These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly are the Apostolick Bishops and these only Ergo the Hierarchical Prelat is no Apostolick Bishop 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors he is Pastor Pastorum 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock as such We Argue Secondly from the Text thus These Apostolick Bishops have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them by God both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key And therefore the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground 1. As Snatching away the last from Pastors and Arrogating it solely to himself 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes And this in a double Respect 1. In the Case of the Pastor to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key 2. With Respect to himself who is obliged ex Natura Ratione Officii or from the Nature of his Office to Preach the Gospel to no Flock but to Govern only Thirdly All this Scriptural Episcopal Jurisdiction is by the Apostle ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost in Presence of Timothy while there is Altum Silentium of any Interest he had over them in this Matter Whence it may be inferred 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein And 2. By clear Consequence it follows that nothing here enjoyned them inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him in these Duties or his Supereminent Inspection over them 3. By further necessary Consequence this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy in the first Epistle written to him it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only to pass off with that Exigent It being infallibly clear that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church and his Directions to Timothy while residing therein Finally It is hence infallibly concluded 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing as is properly and formally Episcopal or of the Hierarchical Mould This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders as their Essential Right and Priviledge 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats or Diocesan Bishops as their Succedaneous Substitutes upon their withdrawing unless we will make the Apostle Paul to Model this Church in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches And in a Word it hence follows that whatever may be pleaded as to Matter of Fact neither this nor any Church else could ever after Iure divest themselves of this Authority I mean the Church Representatives or Officers thereof in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God From Tit. 1.5 7. The Presbyterians Argue not merely from the Promiscuous Use or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning and the Connecting Particle and Illative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points at the very Topick and Ground upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not a Nominal only For thus his Argument lyes The Presbyter or Elder must be so and so Qualified for such must the Bishop be So that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two as different Orders of Ministers breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications because such are proper to the Superior Office No doubt the Holy Ghost who thus Reasons ascribes to them not only the same Name and he knew best how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words but likewise the same Qualifications Work and Office Episcopalians will not disowne it that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work from that of the Presbyter or Pastor So that they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications Office and Duties or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech and Unsoundness in Reasoning And therefore the Office of the one and the other is clearly supposed one and the same From Philip. 1.1 Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church We inferr 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto 2. That they could not be Diocesans 1. Because the Deacons the lowest Officers are immediatly subjoyned to them And Prelatists will not say that there were no Pastors in that Church but only Diocesans 2. It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical
atque Inspectioni Commissam non enim alicujus in alios Ministros Autoritatis aut alicujus prae aliis Prerogativae sed sâ—lius istius Curae ac Vigilantiae Respectu Episcoporum Titulo in Sacris Literis Insigniuntur That the Bishops are called such not with Relation to any supposed Subordinat Bishops or Presbyters but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care in which Respect alone they have that Title in Scripture but not upon the Account of any Prerogative or Authority which one Minister has over another Which how clearly it asserts our Judgment Principles and Pleading upon these Texts in Opposition to the Hierarchical Bishop and for the Parity of Pastors is convincingly evident But let us hear their Inference Thes. 30. which is thus Non ergo ex Divino sed ex Humano Instituto aliquis post Apostolorum tempora aliis ex Ordine Presbyterorum fuit Authoritate praepositus atque Episcopus dictus ex singulari Prerogativa sicut post Hieronimum non-nulli quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim Lombard Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Gratian Dist. 93. c. Legimus Dist. 25. c. olim Cusanus de Concord Cathol Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Citing first Ierom on Tit. 1. ad Evag. In summ that the Setting of one Presbyter over another in a supposed Supereminent Authority and Peculiar Prerogative under the Character and Designation of a Bishop is an Humane Invention only without any Divine Warrand as not only Hierom but several Popish School Men have acknowledged The Professors of Saumur speak also our Sense here fully Syntag. Thes. Theolog. de Divers Minist Evang. Grad Thes. 7. They hold the Office of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to be Extraordinary and Expired making peculiar to them their immediat Call Infallibility in Teaching their Universal Legation to all Churches their Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts c. The Pastors and Doctors Office they hold Ordinary and affirm they are the same with Presbyters planted in every Church Thes. 16.20 de Episcop Presb. Discrimine Thes. 7.8 they shew that the Apostles placed Presbyters Church by Church for the Government thereof citing Act. 14.23 and 20.17 28. where they Collect that these Presbyters were Commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take heed to the Flock and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they infer that it belonged to them to Watch over Inspect to see unto and take Care for such things as tended to the Conservation Propagation and Growth of the Church Adding Quod fieri sine Regiminis Cura Potestate non potest which could not be performed without the Care and Authority of Government Thes. 9. They assert that Pastors being thus in the beginning Constitute by the Apostles they did according to the Apostles Command and from the Nature of the Office Intrusted to them ex Officio sibi ab Apostolis demandato Govern the Church Communi Consilio by Common Counsel according to Hierom's Phrase Communibus Suffragiis Communi Solicitudine Cura by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care Adding Nullus tum eorum in reliquos Sym-Presbyteros Autoritatem Potestatem Imperium aut Iurisdictionem habuit sed par equalis Cura Solicitudo omnibus singuâ—is in totum Gregem competebat that in these First times no Presbyter or Pastor had Authority Power or Jurisdiction over his Fellow-Presbyters but the same and alike Care and solicitude over the whole Flock was competent to every one Thes. 10. they shew That tho there was one who as in every Colledge or Juridical Court was Primus or President yet that Primatus was Ordinis duntaxat non Authoritatis Potestatis Dominii Imperii Iurisdictionis sic enim non fuissent Sym-Presbyteri quomodo passim vocantur in Patrum Scriptis of Order only not of Authority and not importing a Iurisdictional Power and Dominion For thus they had not been Collegues or Co-Presbyters as they were every where called in the Writings of the Fathers Thes. 14. they shew That things being thus Constitute by the Apostles as every one of these Presbyters had not only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments Verum etiam pari Iure pari Autoritate ad Ecclesiae Clavum Gubernaoula sedebant quam ut dixi Communi Consilio Communibus Suffragiis regebant That with the same Authority also and Equal Jurisdiction Ministers did sit at the Churches Helm and Governed her by Common Suffrages Adding Quod hinc liquot quod omnes communiter Presbyteri Episcopi pariter in Scriptis Apostolicis adeoque Vetustioribus Scriptoribus vocantur promiscue That Pastors are called both Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously in the Apostles Writings makes the preceeding Assertion apparent Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus Id quod satiâ— manifestum ex loco Act. 20.28 Ubi Ephesinae Ecclesiae Presbyteri dicuntur â— Spiritu Sancto constituti Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam ex Philip. 1.1 Ubi Apostolus Epistolam suam inscribit Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulla factâ— Presbyterorum mentione quos Episcoporum nomine isthic procul dubio intelligit Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclesia Episcopi ex quo Episcopus singularem habuit ac praecipuam supra Presbyteros Autoritatem atque Potestatem ejusque Manus distinctum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine That the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter appears from Act. 20.28 where the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus are said to be Constitute Bishops of the Church by the Holy Ghost As also from Philip. 1.1 where the Apostle inscribes his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of that Church making no mention of Presbyters whom without doubt he understands by the Name of Bishops For there were never more Bishops in the same Church since the time that the Bishop had a Singular Power and Authority above Presbyters and his Office was distinguished from the Order and Office of Pastors Then they add Thes. 15. Id ipsum manifestam ex 1 Tim. 3.2 Opportet Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem c. nulla mentione facta Presbyteri Nam si alias tum fuiâ—set Episcopus alius Presbyter Paulus isthic Presbyterum non omisisset sed adjecisset eadem in Presbytero requiri vel si alia aut pauciora in eo requiri voluisset id procul dubio monuisset alioqui ea in parte Officio suo Defuisset That the same appears from 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishop must be blameless c. without mentioning the Presbyter For if the Bishop and Presbyter had been then distinct Paul would not in this place have omitted the Presbyter but would have added that the same things were required in him or if he would have required either other or fewer things in him he would without doubt have admonished hereof otherwise in so far he had been wanting in his Duty They add Idem liquet ex Tit. 1.5 7. Nam ubi dixit Titum se reliquisse in Creta
ut istic constitueret Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docet quales essent illi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5 7. where after the Apostle had said that he had left Titus in Crete to place Presbyters in every City he shews how these Elders must be Qualified A Bishop must be blameless Asserting Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians so Close and Throng as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience Presbyterian Scriptures Presbyterian Sense Presbyterian Arguments Canted over by Dull Novelists one after another and which is yet more by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion But this that follows will possibly please worse Maccovius Redivivus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificorum Socin c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii or the Popish Cause and Doctrin which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom the Dr's Reverence It is even thus Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris tum ordinis potestate tum jurisdictione That the Bishop by Divine Right is Superior to the Ministers of the Word both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher Bellarmin lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The â— â— he thus represents consuetudo Romanorum quae Distinguit inter versantem verbum Dei Episcopum The Romish Custom which distinguishes betwixt the Preacher of the Word and the Bishop As our Romish Dr. doth This is Rude but how is this Refelled by Maccovius Why It s even thus Refellitur primo Philip. 1.1 Ubi idem Presbyteri predicantes Episcopi dicuntur Secundo Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.1.2 Uâ—i idem docentur esse Presbyteri Praedicantes Episcopi His two Proofs are that in these premised Scriptures the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor and the Bishop are held out as one and the same Another Novelist asserting this New Coyned Doctrin and falling into the same error with the Scots Presbyterians is Antonius Walleus de funct Eccâ—es P. mihi 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminenâ—â—â— inter Pastores ut unus gradu altero sit superior jure Divino adeo ut uni Potestas in alterum concedatur potestas scilicet mittendi aut deponendi ministros potestas excommunicandi aut admittendi leges praescribendi regendi c. qualem sibi bodierni Episcopi ascribunt whether there be such an Eminency among Pastors so as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right and has Authority over another the Authority of the Mission or deposition of Ministers the Authority and Power of Excommunication or relaxation of prescribing Laws and of Governing c. such as the present Bishops arrogat and appropriat to themselves Then he shews that he speaks of Spiritual Authority And thus Answers hoc est quod nostri negant adversus episcopales This is that we deny against the Episcopalians Here is a bold Novelist He after shews that the Divines of that Church were of his mind and thus exhibits a Muster Roll of New Coyned Novelists But he presents his praecipua Argumenta Chief Arguments What are these 1 in tota scriptura ejusmodi eminentiae potestatis nulla fit mentio That in all the Scripture there is no mention of such Eminency and Power of a Bishop above Pastors 2 quia in illis Locis ubi ex professo de ministrorum novi Testamenti gradibus fit mentio unius generis Pastorum Scriptura tantum meminit ut 1 Cor. 12.28 constituit in Ecclesia primum Apostolos secundo Prophetas Tertio Doctores Et Eph. 4.11 ipse dedit alios quidem Apostolos alios vero Pastores Doctores c. sic Rom. 12.6 Act. 20.17.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. That in those places where there is express mention of purpose made of the Degrees of Ministers of the New Testament the Scripture owns only one kind of Pastors as 1 Cor. 12.28 He set in the Church first Apostles secondarly Prophets Thirdly Doctors or Teachers and Eph. 4.11 He gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers c. Thus Rom. 12.6 Acts 2â— 17.28 1 Pet. 5.1.2 The 3 d Reason or Argument is thus quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos Presbyteros fuisse plane eosdâ—m ita Act. 20.17 convocavit Presbyteros v. 28. Dicit Spiritum Sanctum eos constituisse Episcopos Ita Phil. 1.1 Paulus Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus Sanctis qui sunt Phillippicum Episcopis Diaconis Et ad Titum 1.5 ideo reliqui te in Creta ut oppidatim constituas Presbyteros Et v. 7. opportet enim E-Eiscopum unius esse uxoris virum c. That the sacred Scriptures shews the Bishop and Presbyter to have been one and the same Thus Act. 20.7 the Apostle called together the Elders and v. 28. he saith that the Spirit of God had made them Bishops Also Philip. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus Servants of Iesus Christ to all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons and Tit. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City and v. 6. For a Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife c. He adds that Ierom Comment in Tit. Eph. ad Evag. doth from these places collect as an old doting Novelist too that the Bishop and Presbyter is all one the one Name signifying the Age the other the Office he Cites also Ambrose in Eph. 4. as holding the same He adds sic Augustinus plurimi alii in hanc sententiam that Augustin and many others were of this Judgment to whom he also adds Bucer de gub P. 258. C. deinceps Thus Walleus holds that this forementioned Scots Presbyterian Sense of the Scriptures premised has for a considerable time been a working Notion for want no doubt of our Dr's clearer Instructions But this bigot Novelist goes on to add Denique ex nullo Scripturae loco prohibetur uni Presbytero aut Pastori ordinario ullam dari potestatem sive in verbi predicatione omnes enim sunt Doctores Pastores sive in Sacramentorum Administratione ut Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 11.23 sive in exercitio Disciplinae 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 sive in Ecclesiae rectione Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1.2 Heb. 13.17 obedite praepositis vestris qui non datur alteri That from no place of Scripture it can be made good that there is any Power given to an ordinary Pastor or singular Prerogative above another either in
only are Pastors is rightly understood if applyed to Presbyters who Labours in the Administration of the Word who are thereunto Called of God and have Correspondent Gifts That the Master of Sentences does rightly assert that the Canons do only owne Two Orders as Sacred Viz. The Diaconate and Presbyterate Because we read that the Primitive Church had these only and of these alone we have the Command of the Apostle Moreover if Bishops only be Pastors these Bishops do not their Duty who Feed not the Flock He adds after nam illa Episcoporum distinctio a Pastoribus Presbyterorum ordine juris Divini non est sed humani instituti Nos de Iure solum communi Divinoque agimus Presbyteris ergo qui dabant operam administrationi verbi jus commune fuit ut Conciliis interessent c. That the distinction of Bishops from Pastors has no Divine Warand but is of Human Institution only That Presbyters who Labour in Dispensing the Word had an Interest to Sit in Councils Where its evident that he calls the Dr's Notion of the Bishop as its distinct from the Pastor and Superior to him Popish and an Human Invention and Asserts the Identity of Pastor anâ— Bishop by Divine Right they being Members of Councils And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen as Lombard c. 10. ibid. Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei That the Holy Ghost set up Bishops to Rule the Church of God Thus Iunius animadverts aequivoce nam Episcopos dicit Apostolus communi significato i. e. inspectores Curatores Ecclesiae esse Presbyteros illius Agit autem cum Presbyteris unius Ecclesiae puta Ephesinae quos accersi ad se curaverat quod si unus tantum esse debet ut volunt Pontificii in una Ecclesia Episcopus ejus est solius pascere cur Paulus per omnia plurali numero usus est in hoc suo protreptico ad Presbyteros Ephesi Adding falsa ex aequivocatione sententia that the premised Assertion anent the Establishing Bishops in the Church by the Holy Ghost when applyed to the Prelat Bishop is not found since the Apostle according to the common use of the Word calls the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church her Inspectors or Bishops Because in that place viz. Act. 20. the Apostles Speech is directed to that one Church of Ephesus for whose Pastors he had sent but if as the Papists would have it there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church and it is proper to him alone to Feed how comes it that Paul all along makes use of the Plural Number in this his Exhortatory Speech or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephesus After in Art 9. Passim asserunt Concilia Episcoporum esse That Councils were made up of Bishops Thus Iunius animadverts in his Third Answer quod Episcopi plurimum adessent non ideo factum est quod Episcopi essent sed quod eruditione Doctrina praestarent plerumque aliis de Presbyterio qui propterea suffragiis Presbyterii praefecti essent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecclesia singuli Nam qui erant ejusmodi eos ad Consilia generalia communibus Ecclesiae suffragiis mitti erat aequius quam rudiores c. That the Bishops were for most part present at Councils this was not upon the account of their being Bishops or as in that Character but because they for most part were beyond others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning and that for this Reason every such Bishop was by the suffrages of the Presbytrie made President of their Collegiat Meeting for such as were in this capacity it was more equitable they should be sent to General Councils by the Churches common suffrages than those that were less learned c. He adds tanquam perpetui juris statuae Episcoporum pontificiorum sibi Assumpserunt sicut omnem autoritatem Ecclesiae Presbyterii That the Popish Bishops as if founded upon a standing Right and Tittle have Usurpt and assum'd to themselves the whole Authority of the Church and the Presbytrie In Art 10. he Corrects Bellarmin's absurd Gloss as if Theodosius and Valentinianus had intended only the Bishops to be Received in the Council And 15. ibid. he shews that the Chorepiscopi Presbyteri Subscribed and Voted in the Council of Nice And in Art 11. inveniâ—ntur soli Episcopi Subscripsisse That Bishops only did Subscribe He Answers that this is false De Niceno modo Diximus Not. 15. Constantinopolitano pâ—â—no Subscripserunt aliquot Presbyteri Alpius Presb. pro Philomuso Alexandrino Cappadociae Paulus Presb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Isauriae c. That in the First Council of Constantinople Presbyters Subscribed Thereafter he shews why the Bishops were Chosen to General Councils in singulis Presbyteriis cujuscunque Provinciae Communibus suffragiis Episcopi eligerentur ii qui Pietate Doctrina Iudicio praestare viderentur Adfuerunt autem Presbyteri juarum Ecclesiarum singuli Communi Synodorum particularium calculo ad actionem illam deputati tum Ecclesiae suae tum Provinciae totius nomine That in every Presbytrie of the respective Provinces these Bishops were Chosen by common suffrage who were judged more Eminent in Piety and Learning but Presbyters were also present being deputed to that Work both by the Vote of their own Churches and the common suffrage of Particular Synods and thus in the Name both of their own Church and of the whole Province He had said before that of the whole Province few were laid aside from Councils Upon 19. ibid. Where it is alledged that the Interest of any other than Bishops in Councils is contra morem omnis Antiquitatis Against the Custom of all Antiquity In Opposition to this Iunius produces the Pattern of that Council Act. 15. where it is said Paul and those with him were received by the Apostles and Elders that the Apostles and Elders met in Council Citing v. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders to send Chosen Men and v. 23. where the Apostles and Elders wrote to the Churches Adding atque â—ita diu in Ecclesia fuisse observatum demonstrat Exemplum Romanae Synodi quae contra Novatum fuit habita a 60 Episcopis Presbyterisque Diaconis pluribus qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum Apostolici illius Concilii Exemplo ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. Et Ruffin Cap. 33. Item Alexandrinae Synodi contra Arrium apud Gelasium Cyzicenum That it was thus of a long time observed in the Church is demonstrat by the example of the Roman Synod which was held against Novatus by 60 Bishops and many Presbyters and Deacons who gave Sentence against Novatus after the Example of that Apostolical Synod by the Testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus in their Histories As also by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria against Arius according to Gelasius c. By this time its evident what the Judgment of
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
jacebat the Ordaining Power at Ephesus lay dead in his Absence He shews that his Transient Unfixed Ministry could not Consist with a Fixed Episcopal Station And that this Razeth Câ—mmentum illud de Timothei Episcopatu that Fable concerning Timothy's Episcopacy He after improves the Argument from Paul's Farewel Sermon to the Elders and Church of Ephesus in Timothy's Presence and Committing the Episcopal Charge over that Church to them and not to him Ecquando potius elucere debuit saith he Splendor Episcopatus Ephesinae quam cum Paulus tam pie de Ecclesiae salute disserebat tam fancte Praefectos omnes cohortabatur ad intercludendum Lupis viam alioquin totum Gregem dissipaturis When was there a fitter Season for Illustrating the Splendor and Authority of the Episcopacy a Ephesus than when Paul was so Piously Discoursing of that Churches Safety and so Holily Exhorting all the Governours thereof to Stop the Way against the Wolves who were otherwise ready to Scatter that Flock He adds Huie Disputationi he means anent Timothy's Episcopacy Paulus ipse modum imponit cum expressis verbis Timotheum vocat Evangelistam 2 Tim. 4. qui gradus tantum ad aliquod tempus in Ecclesia locum habuit alios autem fuisse Evangelistas ab ordinariis Ecclesiae Pastoribus aperâ—e docâ—t Ap. in Epist. ad Eph. Cap. 4. That the Apostle Paul himself put an end to this Dispute in Calling Timothy expresly an Evangelist which Degree and Office was to continue for a time only in the Church The Apostle also shewing evidently Eph. 4. that Evangelists were distinct from the ordinary Pastors of the Church He adds thereafter that the Sorbon Dr. commits a Twofold Error in Arguing from Timothy's Imposing Hands to an Episcopal Prerogative in this Matter First In that this is Sophistically made Exclusive of Presbyters Interest which can no more be said than this can be inferred from the Command of Exhorting Reading delivered to him which he Confirms by the Scripture Instances of a Plurality of Church Officers Imposing Hands As upon the Deacons by all the Apostles upon Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch upon Timothy by the Presbytrie Secondly In that tho it were granted that he Imposed Hands solely he did this as an Evangelist in Paul's Absence not as a Bishop But saith he Si absque contentionis studiorem ipsam intueamur facile videbimus in unius Timothei persona omnes Ecclesiae Praefectos sui officii admoneri That to such as are not Contentious but considers the thing it self all Church Rulers in the Person of Timothy are Admonished of their Duty He after Cites several of the Ancients to Confirm this his Sense and Exposition such as Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 43. where he sheweth that Presbyters have the Successio Episcopatus Succession of Episcopacy So ibid. Cap. 44. Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in justitia That the Church has such Presbyters of whom the Prophet said I will give you Rulers and Bishops in Peace and Righteousness Ecce saith our Author eosdem vocat Episcopos quos antea Presbyteros appellavit Presbyteris tribuit Episcopatum That he calls the same Persons Bishops whom before he Named Presbyters and Ascribes to Presbyters an Episcopacy Afterwards he Cites Ambrose on Eph. 4. shewing that the Pâ—esbyters were called Bishops and in Egypt Ordained if the Bishop were not present So Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. shewing that the same Persons were called Bishops and Presbyters that the one is the Name of Dignity the other of Age. And Epist. ad Oceanum where he asserts that Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos So Epist. ad Evagrium Likewise his Famous Testimony upon Tit. 1. Presbyter idem est qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Instinctu c. So also Augustin Ep. 19. Quanuqam secundum Honorum Vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit c. Where Augustin asserts that his Episcopal Distinction from Ierom and of a Bishop from a Presbyter was only in some Titles of Respect which the Churches use had obtained Likewise that Passage in Alexandria per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter That in Alexandria and through all Egypt Presbyters did Ordain in Absence of the Bishop These he tells his Popish Adversary he Cites quia pluris faciunt Autoritatem Veterum quam ipsos plane Scripturae Locos Because they esteem more the Authority of the Ancients than plain Places of Scripture I cannot but add what he has further If saith he we all allow to Presbyters the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of Baptism the Celebration of the Lords Supper and if by their Judgment Ecclesiastical Elections are to be made Ecquid erit Causae quam ob rem non possunt Electum Sanctis Praecibus Manuum Impositione Deo Consecrare Upon what imaginable Ground can we suppose they cannot Consecrat and set apart to God the Person thus Elected by Prayer and Imposition of Hands when the other parts of this Work are brought tanquam ad Fastigium to the Accomplishment or Copestone as it were Wherefore are they ut Indigni Inutiles as Useless and Unworthy Forbidden Manum Operi Imponere to set the last Hand to this Work in its Accomplishment He adds that we oft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching of the Gospel which is the Pastor or Presbyters Function Magnifying his own Authority therein Cur non ille potius summum hoc Ius Ordinationis in medium proponit Wherefore presents he not rather his chief Interest in Ordination He afterwards Cites Ieroms Notable Saying Ad quorum Preces Corpus Sanguis Christi conficitur atque interim Ius Ordinandi ipsis Presbyteris denegant That Presbyters are absurdly denyed the Right of Ordination by whose Prayers notwithstanding the Sacramental Elements are Consecrat to Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. The Author adds Obsecro utrum majus est Manus Imponere an Christi Corpus Sanguinem Precibus conficere Itaque qui Presbyteros a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excludunt ipsi profecto Vim ac Naturam ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod sit ipsum Presbyterii Munus penitus ignorant Whether is greater I pray to Impose Hands in Ordination or in Prayer to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore such as exclude Presbyters from this Imposition of Hands do shew themselves to be grosly ignorant both of the Nature of Ordination and the Pastoral Office And thus we dismiss Sadael whom we have found sufficiently to Combat and Worst our Dr. But to proceed Dr. Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle after Citing several Fathers for this Identity of Bishop and Presbyter such as Ierom Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact Occumenius 1 Tim. 3. Yea Gregory Pellic. Lib. 2. Tit. 19 39. Grat. Cap. Legimus Dist. 39.
Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds that these who have Laboured in Reforming the Church these Five Hundred Years have Taught that all Pastors be they Entitled Bishops or Priests have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word Citing first the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next Marsilius Patavinus Defens Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr we will find Bishop Iewel fully Combats him in this Point Defens Apol. cont Hard. Edit An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding saith he to make it an Heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one Knows he how far and to whom he reaches the Name of an Heretick Then he Cites Chrystos on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing that inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no Difference Ierom ad Evagrium asserting that Apostolus perspiâ—ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos The Apostle clearly Teaches the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same calling the contrary Opinion a Vecordia or Folly Also August Quest. Vet. N. Test. Quest. 101. Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter Amb. de Dignit Sacerd. Episcopi Presbyteri una est Ordinatio Asserting that the Ordination and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same All these and many more Holy Fathers saith Bishop Iewel together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings Advice must be holden for Hereticks I will add and all these and many more together with the Apostle Paul by this Dr's Advice must be holden for Novelists and Scots Schismaticks But there are other Bishops will yet enter the Lists with our Dr Bishop Pilkinton on Revelation and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church Bishop Bilson Perpet Gover. Cap. 2. Yea more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 Dr. Humphray in Campian Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration 3. Whittaker above Cited So also ad Rationes Campiani Ration 6. Confutat Duraei Lib. 6. Chemnitius Gentiletus the great Examinators of the Council of Trent the one a Divine the other a Lawyer doth both Condemn as a Trent Error our Dr's Assertion anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter the one by Scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon Law We have heard that Dr. Reynolds for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter tells us It s needless to speak of the particular Persons since it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Poland the Low Countreys and our own Witness the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 11. Now from all that is said whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches be not for the Official as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum and Sophistical and Childish Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers who shall Weigh what is said in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason Before I proceed I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument He says this is our great Argument That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture And therefore we conclude that our Argument a Confusione nominum is demonstrative and solid As if when we maintain that in Scripture there is no distinction betwixt these Offices we meant a Nominal only and not a real diversity Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites or conferred with any Presbyterian who understands the Controversy he would have found that from the Scriptures Cited and many Paralels it s an Official oneness not a Nominal only we plead for and that our Arguments therefrom has such Nerves as he durst not medle with The Dr. tells us P. 23. That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest falls not under his enquiry nor is it very Material considered with Respect to the common Priesthood and Subordinat Officers they might be of the same Order tho at other times when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Here I must say is a strange Confusion and that not Nominum but Rerum 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion got into the Heads of his Countrymen and some others but never heard of this 1400 years For curing of which he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet yet he will not enquire whether a Bishop be of a higher Order or not to a Presbyter i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he have the Right in this Debate If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order his Countrey Presbyterians are Right their Arguments which ly level to this scope are good and Conclusive and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop The Antithesis whereof viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop of a Superior Order eo no nine the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris focis yet he says the enquiry into this Point which to all men of Sense is the Cardo Questionis is not in it self Material Let any ponder whether this stout pretended Signifer doth not here let fall his Standart and even flees at the First alarm 2. He tells us when Authority and Iurisdiction is named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Now I do appeal to all Men of Common sense whether the Dr dos not here Assert 1. A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter 2 By clear Consequence that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter or else how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him 3. That the Bishop under that Character and eo nomine is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him Now all this being his Assertion in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors how can he decline the enquiry whether the Bishop be of an higher Order Let any Judge if he says not this upon the Matter the thing is Clear in it self in the Scripture Accounts and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments or make good my own 3. He tells us they are sometime considered as of the same order with respect to the common Priesthood I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial
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
his Super-eminency above them is insinuat yea Asserted The Dr. is bold to assert that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Of this alwise we demand one instance the Dr's extensive Phraseologie boasts of a Plenty of Instances but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury especially when as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto But here as often elsewhere he plys us with generals alien from the purpose He tells us P. 26. Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy were called High Priests it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names to have inferred an Equality since their Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction Here again a Poor Repeated General Alien from the Point If this Dr. had intended to Dispute not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk he should instead of Begging Poorly the Question in Supposing it have made that good in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests were distinguished and what was appropriat to the one denyed to the other under that Dispensation so there is exhibit in the New Testament the same Discriminating Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians yet as an Officiperda so far mistaking his Mark and Measures that he never comes near the Point which they deny and he undertakes or stands obliged to prove He adds ibid. Bishops were called Presbyters who had Presbyters under them in the Days of the Apostles If he mean this of ordinary Officers distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters I deny it and that there were any such ordinary Officers with such Authority over Pastors under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter He tells us that the Presbyters signifie the Priests who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations A New Begging of the Question I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers and do consequently hold that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould The Dr. is bold to tell us That tho all Bishops are Presbyters yet not all Presbyters Bishops and therefore to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names is neither good Logick nor Good History But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers he shews himself no good Historian in Obtruding such Doctrine And since instead of proving he still beggs the Question and that doubly First In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names without respect to the Official Identity exhibit in the places which we plead Next In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter and grounding all his Answers thereupon without the least Offer of a Proof it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii P. 27. He will not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters from the High Priest among the Iews But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered what then would he prove Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order I have often told him that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not from his Fancied Dichâ—tomies but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power And where there is such a Dichotomie as he alledges as Philip. 1.1 our Argument proceeds not merely upon this but also upon this Ground and Topick that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context as necessarly infers this our Conclusion The Dr. tells us next That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this at least what the Series of his Reasoning concludes even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church And therefore needs Stumble no Protestants nor Amuse them tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet or upon his Breast as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church He adds That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat as is clear from Philo the Jew He told us the Scripture distinguishes them pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo since the Presbyterians are satisfied in the first and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self But to proceed P. 28. He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question telling us of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division as reckoned either among themselves or with relation to the People as the Priests were by a Tripartit while reckoned by their Distinctions That Community of Names was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be But still we are Wearyed Calling upon our Triffling Dr to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings to the Point which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy in the Old The Dr. affirms That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews above other Priests who yet was Ranked among them without a Nominal Distinction But as in the rest so here the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Prâ—estos or first Presbyter Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact or such a Proestos in that Age Will that merely prove the Ius If the Dr. say so and he does say it in his Way of Arguing then he Claps the Lawful Mitre or a Divine Warrand at least upon the Head of a Diotrephes and Stamps this Ius Divinum upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity and other Tares which the
evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters as the High Priest above other Priests is as Ignorant an Assertion and Arrant Untruth as the Dr. could readily have let fall Whereof I will 1. Convince him out of his own Mouth unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he still begg the Question 2. From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office First He does acknowledge that the High Priest was thus Termed upon the Ground of Special Ministries which were Essential and Peculiar to him Now I pray what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos and even in the Point of Order in the Apostles Days above his Fellows Next the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies with Blood and Incense and had this Prerogative above other Priests the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born Tyed to his Family c. And would not the Dr. Blush to Assert such like Prerogatives as Applicable to the Proestos or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days But he adds Salmasius grants That when the pretended Equality prevailed a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it But if Salmasius assert that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed it is undenyable that he denyes to this President or Chair-man such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for and allows him only the Chair of Presidency not Principality A Moderator's Chair and no more Again I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence Salmasius asserts that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors when there was a Proestos set up during Life Ergo he asserts that this Proestos was ab initio in the Apostolick Age or approved by the Apostles For what he adds P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age He should have Named them and where they assert this For as for what he adduces of Salmasius I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion And Beza I am sure whom no doubt the Dr. will owne as an Eminent Pleader for Parity condemns this Humane Prostasie as the Episcopus Humanus distinct from the Divine much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers the premised Account of them discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines No doubt if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters for this is the Parity which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General as he is for Imparity and the Prelatical Hierarchy their Stickling were not to be Valued But what are these palpable Evidences which convinces our greatest Sticklers Something saith the Dr that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction Some mighty Evidences then we must expect The first which he adduces is That of the Apocalyptick Angels among whom he tells us we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna But 1. How has he proved that these Angels were single Presidents and that the Term is not taken Collectively 2. How does he prove that such as acknowledge them single Persons do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore Beza I am sure acknowledges them only such Whom the Dr or any other do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church is not the Question but whom he can prove from Scripture to have been such and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture The Dr's next supposed evidence is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees To which I Answer in short First That the Dr. can neither prove 1. That the Apostles or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority to be continued in the Church Nor 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues such an Authority Since 1 They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority 2 Inconsistent and contradictory to one another 3 They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office admitted of no Succession and upon this very account can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends far less make the thing evident beyond contradiction What the Dr. adds further in this Page Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters and of the Ancients dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question with the former wherewith instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter he fills up idle Pages How often shall we tell him that the point in question is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings after the Apostolick Age What Comparisons Cyprian Clemens or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino And what proof from Scripture from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop under this Character above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter as he is bold to assert We often tell him that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies And tho that were made one Ground and say further he had disproved it in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed But proceed we P. 29.30 He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies Especially says he since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients and their words thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character from all subordinate Presbyters 2. The Dr. is obliged this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers and insinuat Argument to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office into higher and inferior Orders and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer as comes under the Character of Bishop from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors As for determination in Councils
Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite or Tripartite Division of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters in the Scriptures and inspired Writings of the Apostles And we do again as often before Challenge one Instance of this We have already told him and that not once That we hold that there is a Subordination of Officers and Courts of Judicature Represented in the New Testament yea and a tripartite Division of Officers viz. Pastors Ruling Elders and Deacons But that Officers Ordinary and Extraordinary Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. are of one Official Authority and equal in their own kind we maintain and are still challenging his contrary proof And to this Point it is palpably impertinent to tell us of Ecclesiastical Writers distinguishing Bishops Elders and Deacons Besides that the early Prostasie that obtained and the Bishops Nominal distinction thence ensuing might easily be productive of such a Division or Phraseology in some of the Ancients as he mentions who never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head and the Authority which Presbyters are clearly found to exercise in Judicatories after the Proestos came in together with the First Bishops acknowledgment of Presbyters collegiat Power with them as Cyprian particularly Besides the acknowledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter as having one and the same Ordination especially by Chrisostom and Ambrose doth evince this beyond contradiction I might add that the Office of the Presbyter or Senior who Rules only acknowledged by the Ancients as Presbyterians have made appear might easily in some Writers have produced this Tripartite Division of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon wouthout the least Shadow of advantage to his Cause The Dr. in the close of this Page soares aloft in a Triumphing Vein telling us That we may easily perceive that our Argument against Episcopacy founded upon Dichotomies is not only weak but foolish and extravagant But truely the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments against Episcopacy upon this head to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies and offering in Answer thereto such trivial babling Repetitions has discovered to all judicious Readers that weakness folly extravagancie which he imputes to us To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing person hereof let it be considered that he Cites Smectymnus Ius Divin Minist Ang. The unbishop of Tim. and Tit. Alt. Damasc. Mr. Dur. on Rev. He would be thought to answer these Authors and their great Argument he represents thus That it is taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter There is no doubt but that this is one great Topick and Argument and Mr. Durham makes use of that Term of Identity in the Title of his Digression upon this head But dare this Man say or tho he should have the Brow to say it will any who ever Read so much as one much less all of these Authors believe it that it is a mere Nominal Identity that they plead from and not an Official in all the parts and ingredients of the Office Or that the Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a confusione Nominum as he expresses it and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds which in the Texts mentioned by him and other Paralels do evince an Official Identity Why then bottoms he all his Answers and impertinent quiblings upon this palpably false Supposition To make what I assert evident to conviction one of the Authors he names viz Ius Div. Minist Ang. proposes the Question thus We undertake to prove that according to the Scripture Pattern which is a perfect Rule both for Doctrin and Government a Bishop and Presbyter are all one not only in Name but in Office and that there is no such Officer in the Church Ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters Then they propose no fewer than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments all running to this issue to prove an Official Identity The Topick of the Fourth whereof is thus proposed They who have the same Name the same qualifications for their Office and the same Ordination and the same work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer Then subsuming that thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bishop and Presbyter They subjoin Scripture-proofs to every one of these Clauses and Assertions and thereupon conclud that they are one and the same Officer Now upon this small view of but one of these Authors let the World Judge of this Mans Impudence in asserting that not only that Authors Arguments but all the Arguments of the Authors he mentions concluds only a confusione nominum as he expresses it in a distinct Character and whether his founding of all his supposed confutation of Presbyterian Arguments upon this supposition and quiblings about a Dichotomie be not extravagancy with a Witness Moreover let the Serious Impartial Judge since these Authors he mentions presents so considerable a Number of Scripture-Arguments For that which this Man calls a New Foolish Opinion in order to his design of making men believe he has fully Confuted them and convinced them of folly whether he was not in Conscience and Reason obliged fairly to present their Arguments to his Readers view and offer formal Replys to them I may further pose the Impartial Reader upon it whether this Man who has never encountered their Arguments nor tryed their Strength in a fair and formal Dispute and yet would fain Triumph in this boasting Pamphlet charging all their Arguments with weakness folly and evtravagancy has not Written himself a Fool of the first Magnitude and a personat Thraâ—o in Disput I must not forget that while I view that Fourth Argument of the Ius Div. Minist Ang. I find they have upon the Margin Ambrose's Testimony upon 1 Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi ordinationem subjicit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est After the Bishop the Apostle subjoins the Ordination of the Deacon and upon what other ground but this that the Bishop and the Presbyter have one and the same Ordination One would think that this is a little more than the assertion of a mere Confusio Nominum and that both from Scripture and Antiquity But to proceed our Dr. P. 35. Censures Blondel Salmasius Dallie as â—mploying their Learning to support their own Hypothesis with this Argument of the Confusion of Names And the Dr. regrats that Sir Tho. Craig a Man otherwise learned in Law was deceived with this fallacy We see that in the Dr's Sense learned Men have been imposed upon by this Scots Notion but when he has exhibit and answered their Pleadings whom he here mentions then and not till then his Censure is to be admitted But he tells us That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius Good Mr. Dr. ye know the Answer of Protestant Divines to the Papists Objection where was your Religion your Church and Doctrin before Luther viz. That it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirm of the
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-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
with relation to ordinary Pastors or Ministers when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased But if I might be bold with a Person of the Dr's Reverence I would ask him this Question He holds Timothy was Consecrat a Bishop here we find a Presbytrie Laying Hands upon him with Paul whom the Dr. holds to be here Acting the Bishop How comes he then to say It is uncertain whether they were Presbyters or Priests of the first or second Rank Really if he be uncertain in this he holds by clear Consequence that mere Presbyters might have laid on Hands upon a Bishop at his Consecration yea and this by Apostolical Warrand tho Bishops superior to them were present at this great Work And what Consequence in Doctrine and Practice this will further amount to I leave to the Dr's Melancholick Reflection But further in mentioning this last Text the Dr. says He is put in mind to stir up the Gift which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands He has also told us and positively asserted that this Senat was composed of Apostles in the plural How many there were I think the Dr. found it hard to determin but in this he is clear and positive that there were other Apostles with Paul and consequently of equal official Authority with him in this Action Now upon this I would desire his grave Judgment how comes this Apostle to mention the laying on of his own hands solely and of no Apostles else We find him so humble an Apostle and Biishop that in the inscription of several Epistles he takes in the Inferior Clergy and Presbyters with himself whence then comes this singularity of expression herein attributing to himself solely what was equally applicable to other Apostles concurring with him What he adds further of the Work and Ministry of Apostles and Pastors sometimes exprest by the General term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already made appear how insignificant it is to his scope so that it is here Idlely repeated We are next told P. 38. That if any infer the Community of Offices from the Community of Names he confounds the highest and lowest Rank of Officers The Presbyeerians are of his mind when the inference is from a mere Community of Names while the Offices are otherwise distinguished in Scripture but when both Name and Office in all essentials thereof are identified they think the Argument from hence for an Official Parity concludes well and they pity this Dr's continued Repetition of his mistake in stead of an Answer to their Argument He tells us next That it is certain the Offices were carefully distinguished and separated in those days This is true when understood of Church Officers in general and hence we conclude that the Spirit of God has left us clear distinguishing marks of the Superiority and distinction of such Officers as do communicat in General Names with the inferior and this to prevent the mistake which he instances And therefore unless the Dr. will fasten a blasphemous Reflection upon the Spirit who dictat the Scriptures he is obliged to let us see therein the distinguishing marks and Characters fixt to the Bishop and Pastors Office to shew the Official difference of the one from the other And this he cannot but acknowledge necessary to prevent the bad consequence of an Official Identity drawn from the Community of Names And no doubt had he as sincerely designed to give and receive light in this Point as to present a vain prattling Pamphlet he would have examined the Presbyterians Arguments for the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and endeavoured to produce the Scripture distinguishing differences discriminating the one from the other What more We are told ibid. That the Humility of Superior Officers hindered them not to distinguish themselves from their subordinat Brethren Right Paul no doubt owns and strenuously pleads for the Authority of his Apostolick Office notwithstanding of his often instanced Humble Respect to Officers of inferior Rank What then Why Bishops in the second Century transcribed this tho they preserved the distinction betwixt Priests still Priests of the first and second Order But we are wearied seeking from this Dr. the Scripture Distinction of Pastors and Presbyters into a first and second Order Besides it is odd that no Bishops were so modest and humble in this point and prudent withal but those of the second Century We must know the Dr. prefaced thus that he might tell us That they studied humble modest Expressions and of Condiscension which he instances in the Inscription of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians But since this modest Condescension the Dr. will acknowledge did not prejudge his care to distinguish the Offices of Bishops and Priests of Priests of the first and second Rank he must either exhibit this in the place cited or he puts this Reflection upon Polycarp He may also remember how that afterward p. 84. he makes Augustine to pass from his Episcopal Authority in a Complement to Ierom in his foolish gloss on that passage of Ep. 19. Episcopus Presbytero major secundum honoris vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit That he was distinguished from Ierom by a customary Title only of a Bishop As for the Elegy of Apostolick Martyr which he bestows upon Polycarp we let it pass as capable of a sound Sense But for that of Prince of the Asiatick Church I remit him to 1 Cor. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2.3 2 Cor. 1.24 to be censured for his vain precipitancy The Dr. P. 38. drawing to an end of these impregnable reasonings must needs give us a touch of his pulse and humour in concluding with high Rantings This Argument he tells us he has considered the more carefully in that he Finds it over and over again in all the Writings of the Ecclesiastick Levellers as their first and last refuge Truely if these Disputers he calls so had as inspidily proposed it far less repeated it so often as he has Parat-like câ—nted over and over in so many Pages his babling repetitions of an impertinent quible instead of an Answer they had as much exposed their Judgment and ingenuity in this Controversy as I am sure his now is in the Sense of all men that understand it and have Read the Authors mentioned by him whereof this petulent Scorner discovers he knows no more but the Names As for the Character of Ecclesiastick Levellers which he bestows upon the Presbyterians I think indeed his experience together with that of his Fellow has taught him that in this respect they deserve it Viz. That their nervous Scripture Reasonings which he dare not encounter has so levelled and laid along and aboard the high Top-gallant of the Hierarchical Prelat he so zealously fences for as all his Wit and Learning will never erect it again which in this place is convincingly apparent since among the many Argumnts used by them he has upon this head insisted so long upon if not solely singled out this
come The 8 th Prerogative he represents thus Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extitâ—runt Their singular Authority which was of such a Nature that none of their Disciples or Successors in an ordinary Ministry could be compared with them nor can be For as Apostles they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church P. 538. He describes the Pastors to be such as are set over some particular Flock Citing Act. 20.28 Here I need not tell the Dr that this Man also is of the Novel Scots Opinion and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence a Socinian as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office giving the same Sense of its Ingredients as we do and holding that the Apostles neither were nor could be succeeded in their Office and consequently that their Formal Office as such ceased with themselves He asserts ibid. the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter And thereafter tells us that Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding Teaching the Church Citing Anaclet Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap Ecclesiae si in Apostolorum Loco sumus c. Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry And also Urbanus Secundus ex August Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office we may propose yea oppose to the Dr. viz the Famous and Learned Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit against whom he disputes proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests and all other Orders of the Ministry I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of universalis patrum consensus universal consent of the Fathers The great Answer is Apostolis Episcopos successisse That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles in their proper formal Office And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter viz Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles And remarkable it is that the Catholick Iesuit and he pleads upon the same very Grounds viz The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus yea and our Dr's Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot lib. de Baptismo Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet c. That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy may be kept intire Thereafter the Iesuit as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well some will alledge the Dr. in this point is pretty near the Sacred Order I cannot here transcribe all that this French or Scots Novelist Presbyterian Rivet returns in Answer to this point which I really judge had our Dr. impartially read and perused it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet He is first severe to the Iesuit and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos or Priest whereby they represent Pastors De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia saith he frustra disputatur cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo ut antea docuimus c. That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught so upon the preceeding Question Par. 4. He tells his Adversary the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest has no Successor Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers if you will accord with Rivet but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists Thereafter he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita and our Dr. Negamus saith he Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hà bere He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors Thereafter reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's quod Episcopi Apostolis Presbyteri Discipulis suecâ—sserantâ— That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles and Pastors the Seventy Disciples He answers thus hoc falsum est ac utrorumque Officio contrarium quod extraordinarium fuit nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolorâ—m in Doctrinae publicatione Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio successores dici possunt That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists which was extraordinary and none did succeed them in the same Order Office and Authority altho all true Pastors in respect of the publication of the Doctrin and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin may be called Successors of the Apostles Here the Scots Presbyterian Opinion pretty clear Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers to our Dr's and the Iesuits Arguments Subjoined His Answer to that of confusion of Names as not inferring the sameness of things is thus faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur vera est synonomia si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves yet when the same things are attribute to those to whom the same Names are given there is a true Synâ—nomie or sameness of both Name and thing the Name being common with the definition Here in this one Jâ—dicious Answer he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head Then for Confirmation of this Identity he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5.7 And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do that the Name Qualities and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same For Tertullians Testimony which the Dr. Iesuita and our Dr cites he tells him That Tertullian speaks de humano ordine suâ— tempore recepto of the human Order or custom received in his time which was that the probatus quisque Senior or
Officers and Members are temporary expired Priviledges For this he clearly distinguishes from them And it being thus the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this Whether to some of them who are of Special Character or to all If to all then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another as being all Infallible and Supreme in the Exercise of their Government If to some only under what Character are they Primats Arch-bishops or Patriarchs And whether are they subject to one Head If to one Head then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist Yet it will be hard to say that they were not subject to a General Council as to their Doctrine and Administration And sure I am the Dr. will assert that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory and this their Supreme Authority he asserts to be Constant and Permanent still necessary for the Church and died not with their Persons So that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies But further to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him two things are again considerable First He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat but to be still vigent as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest who was an OEcumenick President over that Church over all inferior Priests and all their Courts For he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge Hence iâ— inevitably follows that this Supremacy is in his Sense applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President that the Christian Church may come up to its Pattern And it being thus let us in the next place see how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points 1. In making this Constant Supreme Spiritual Power over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles and by them derived to their respective Successors 2. In holding in discriminatim and without any note of distinction of one from another that the Bishops yea all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles he means in a proper formal Sense For this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as is said Further I would gladly know whether our Dr. ownes any Church-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
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
Precept supposing the same Had he Censured alone or assumed a sole Interest therein he had crossed the Apostles Doctrin who makes Censures the joint Authoritative Acts of the Collegiat Meetings of Pastors 1 Cor. 5.1 2 4 5 c. 2 Thess. 3.14 As for the exercise of such Episcopal Power in the Primitive times the Dr. will never prove the Bishops sole Power herein in the First and Purest times yea and even after the Episcopus Praeseâ— was set up and had obtained in Judicatories The Sixth Concession which the Dr will have from us is That this Authority was not of it self of a temporary duration transient or extraordinary but such as the constant necessities of the Church doth make necessary in all Ages That it was temporary and transient is that which we maintain and is the Sense of Sound Protestant Divines as is already made appear and we must have better Arguments to take this from us and beat us from this Post than our Dr's begging assertion without proof or a Shadow of it If the necessity of the Church calls for such an Office as this of Timothy according to the Scripture Character and Accounts then sure for that of Apostolat also in a proper formal Sense with all its Prerogatives viz That there be persons impowered to give infallible Commands to transient Evangelists and by infallible direction of the Spirit enjoining and Authorizing the exercise of their Function recalling thus the persons Authorized by an infallible Authority from one Church to the further prosecuting this Work in another and this in order to the Moulding and Watering of these Churches Hence 2. This Power not being properly and formally Episcopal but contrary to such a Function as well as in it self extraordinary and passed off with that first State and exigence of the Church neither can the Churches constant necessity crave it nor doth it in the least patronize the Bishops acclaimed Power For what the Dr. adds of Timothy's committing his Power unto faithful Men such as were able to Teach others We have above discovered the insufficiency of this Argument to bear the weight of his Conclusion And he must prove not barely assert that the Trust Committted to him was ordinary before it will be admitted or his ruinous Consequence built upon this rotten Foundation that therefore there was no need of an extraordinary Officer to manage it But now that the Dr. hath Done with Timothy he prâ—ceeds to Titus telling us P. 110.111 That the same Power was committed to Titus in Crete as one of Pauls Fellow-labourers And the exception that he was an Evangelist which he cannot but know to be the Sense of the generality of sound Pâ—otestant Divines our Dr. is bold to call a ridiculous subterfuge Truely if as ridiculous as his Arguments and Answers it were so at all will But why ridiculous Because it is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who are called Evangelists I could wish the Dr. had been pleased to give us the definition of Evangelist properly so taken that it might be seen how good Harmony he keeps with Protestant Churches and Divines in this Point I must add that our critical Dr. seems very way-ward and ill to please He will not have Titus an Evangelist because no where so called Now he cannot but Confess Timothy is expresly called Evangelist yea and emphatically enjoyned to do the work of an Evangelist yet neither will he admit him to be such We told the Dr. that the Professors of Leyden have this notion of the Office That Evangelists were either scriptores Evangelici de vita morte dictis factis Salvatoris c. such as wrote the History of our Saviours Life and Death or ab Apostolis ad Evangelium una cum ipsis praedicandum vocati c. such as were called by the Apostles to Preach the Gospel together with them and attended them as their Fellow-labourers unless when they were by the Apostles set to oversee some Churches for a time such were Barnabas Silas Timothy and Titus to whom some add the Seventy Disciples Here is the Protestant Notion of the Office which clearly appears Scriptural And upon the equality and sameness of Timothy and Titus Function and Work concluds them both Evangelists I must further tell the Dr that in Ambrose sense Evangelists were such as did Evangeliz are sine Cathedra Preached without a fixed Charge And Saravia himself de diversis gradibus Minist Cap. 6. upon that Precept of Paul Do the Work of an Evangelist tells us That he will not deny Timothy the Name of Evangelist since Paul enjoyned him to perform this Office The Man knew Paul put not upon him an empty Name But further the Dr. will have nothing in the Office of an Evangelist inconsistent with the Dignity of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon That the Evangelistick Office as in Scripture delineat stands opposit to that of the Hierarchical Bishop I have above made good How he comes to say it s not inconsistent with the Dignity of these Offices is some what Mysterious since the general acceptation of the Evangelistick Office is that it was next in Dignity to that of Apostles at least above all Ordinary Officers And for the Dignity of Deacons it seems Odd that the Lowest Office hath a Dignity suteable to that of Evangelists The Dr. tells us further That Eusebius Notion of Evangelist is one who Preached the Gospel to such as had not heard it or at least had Resisted its Light and were not Converted Eusebius takes the Title two ways either for such as Wrote the Gospel or those that Taught it and those again were either such as had ordinary Places and Gifts or whose Places and Gifts were Extraordinary not Settled upon any Charge but were Apostolorum Vice or Vice-Apostles having a Vicarious Care of the Churches as the Apostles had the principal Which Justles with the Dr's Account And in the Passage of Eusebius Cited by him he makes the Evangelist Work to be a Watering the Apostles Plantations as well as a Preaching to such as had not heard the Gospel But he adds That its agreeable to the Function of either of these Offices to Preach the Gospel to such as are not yet acquainted with it This is hardly intelligible 1. That the Evangelists Office consisted in mere Preaching and to such as were in the Character of Infidels or Resisters of the Gospel as it appears not to be Eusebius Sense so he cannot shew it to be the Sense of any Sound Protestant 2. The Dr. will not say that Timothy's Preaching-Work in Ephesus where he was called to be instant therein in Season and out of Season respected not mainly the Members of that Church wherein he was also called to give Attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrine And moreover by the Dr's Confession to many pieces of a Iurisdictional Work which he must either grant to fall within the Compass of his Evangelistick Office and consequently
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-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-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
Christian Church as there was a Supreme High Priest set over the Iewish so-that this Argument proving too much and beyond his Assertion proves nothing 3. It is enough to found the allusion that there be some likeness of the things compared and thus in this Case there being in the Jewish Church Courts a sutable Subordination of the Lesser to the greater and a Correspondent Official Power seated therein the allusion stands good intire and evident upon this ground that Christian Church Courts are of such a Nature The Surveyer P. 207.208 makes his next Assault upon our Argument for the Official identity of Bishop and Presbyter drawn from Act. 20.17 28. where the Elders of the Church sent for by Puul to Miletus are called Bishops And from Tit. 1.5 7. where he that 's called an Elder is called also a Bishop and the Names are used as Synonimâ—us so 1 Pet. 5.1.2 the Elders are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have oversight over the Flock The Argument with the Surveyer runs thus If there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in Office there ought to be none now But there were none such in the Apostles days Ergo We do for Brevity rest upon this hint of Argument having spoken to it above as deducible from these Texts His fiâ—st Answer is That the first proposition is not so indubitable as it seems And his proof is that Beza though holding the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter to be â—ne and the same yet acknowledges the Lawfulness of that Episcopacy which he calls human And therefore though no such Bishops had been in the Apostles time the Churches appointment of such a Constitution guided by the Spirit might be a fit means for Conservation of Peace Ans. First The Surveyers founding the unsoundness of the proposition upon the supposed sentiments of Beza as it appears palpably unsound unless Beza were supposed infallible so it is evident and if we could here stay upon it might be made good at large from many Passages of Beza which we have elsewhere produced that he disowns the human Prostasie as a recess from the Divine appointment and the fiâ—st step of the Churches defection in point of Government On Philip. 1.1 he tells us of the community of the Name of Bishop and Presbyter which Continued till he who was in the Assembly set over the rest began to be peculiarly called the Bishop from hence saith he the Devil began to lay the first Foundation of Tyrannie in the Church of GOD. And discoursing further of the Ascension that was made from Bishops to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs c. He hath this remarkable Passage at the close of his Discourse Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline even in a hair-breadth from the Word of GOD. Now this Surveyer might have pondered what Sense or Divinity it could be in him or Beza to assert that the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declinings from the word of GOD. To this Scope we might Cite many Passages of Beza See for brevity Beza ad Cap. 9. apud Sarav num 20. Beza Resp. C. 11. N. 3. Likewise in Quest. 2. Referent Sarav P. 92. In which Passages and many such like we find him clearly condemning this Human Prostasie in so far as transcending the Limits of a Moderators Office The Surveyer next coming to the Second proposition of the Argument tells us That its sooner affirmed than proven that there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in the modern notion And he compares the Presbyterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens who concerned himself in every Ship arriving in the Harbour as his own property A Charge easily retorted since in such like Hypochondriack distempers the Surveyer as his Fellows would needs have the Hierarchical Bishop of their New Notion to be lodged under the Denomination of the Scripture Bishop Yea and in a Distemper beyond that of the Man at Athens will often lap him under the Denomination of a Presbyter where there is not so much as an appearance of this auspicious arriving Vessel The Surveyer tells us That the Name of Presbyter is not in Holy Scripture a distinguishing Name of one sort of Officers from all others although sometimes the Scripture requires that it must be looked on as Distinguishing those that are under that Name from other Officers Ans. The proposition he impugns is That in the Apostles days there were no Bishops Superior to Presbyters no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould or Bishops of his Modern Notion That from these places Cited it is aparent that the Ordinary Church Officers Instituted by Apostles were Bishops and Presbyters of the same Official Mould and Authority to whom the Feeding and Governing of the Church is enjoyned promiscuously And all his Answer to the Proposition amounts to this that the Name of Presbyter is sometimes a more general Name than to point at an ordinary Officer An Answer utterly remote from the Point as is obvious to any that considers That it touches not 1. The Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages Cited and their equal Official Authority as ordinary Church Officers given to Feed and Rule the Church jointly which is a necessary Consequence of the former 2. The unwarrantableness of such an Officer as the Hierarchical Prelat whose Office encroaches upon and robs them of that Power allowed them of GOD which is another Necessary Consequence drawn from this Ground This Charge is the more evident in that he hath acknowledged that sometimes these Names of Bishop and Presbyter distinguishes those that are under the same from other Officers And in the Passages Cited he cannot but acknowledge them thus distinguished Sure they are so at least for any thing he hath said He tells us he will in this and other Considerations remove our Mistake But sure he hath here presented his own He adds P. 209. That in the Rehearsal of Church Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 with Eph. 4.11 Presbyters are not in the Number though Bishops and they are comprehend under the Name of Pastors and Teachers which shews that the Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers Ans. The Surveyer could not but grant that the Hierarchical Bishop according to his modern Notion as distinguished by this Name from the Pastor or Presbyter is in none of these Rolls and therefore upon his own Principle this Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers And where is then his warrand for the Hierarchical Bishop as thus distinguished Likewise the Surveyer very unhappily made the Name of Teacher the Characteristick of his Hierarchical Bishop who looks upon Teaching as none of his work nor is Chargeable qua Prelat with any deficiency in his Office though his Sermons drop but once or twice pro forma and on Solemnities from one years and to another In a word as the
Flock ascribed unto them and that of such a Nature as imports a compleat Official Equality and Excludes Lordship over GODS Heritage Which doth clearly Justle out his Hierarchical Prelat as having no Interest in Church Government The Surveyer further tells us There is no ground to assert that the Presbyters Act. 20.17.28 were such only in the Modern Notion and none of them Bishops in the Modern Notion And to obviat an Objection from their Relation to Ephesus he adds That they were not only Elders of that Church but of the Churches of Asia about so far as in a transient Visit they might get Intelligence This often baffled Subterfuge Episcopalians have been told is contrary to the Sense of Ancient Fathers Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom contrary to several Councils contrary to the Syriack Translation which reads the Text thus be sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Dr. Lightfoot holds they were the Twelve upon whom the Apostle Paul imposed Hands and gave them the Spirit Act. 19.6 and such others if any such were whom Timothy had ordained See Lightfoot Harm Chron. N. Test. The Text says He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Sure of that Church to which he sent and there is no shadow of a hint of any other Elders there present Again he sent for the Elders of the Church in the Singular Number viz. that particular Church But the Surveyers Gloss will read the Elders of the Churches in the Plural viz. of Asia then mett at Ephesus The Scripture expresses Provincial Churches in the plural as the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 Churches of Iudea but otherwise of the Church of Ierusalem Corinth in the singular which were in Cities Neither will the old rotten Evasion help the Surveyer viz. that v. 18. it s said he Preached throughout all Asia and v. 25. speaking to these that were conveened he saith you all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God from which he pleads there were others present as well as the Elders of Ephesus who might be proper Bishops in their places Since it is evident that the Term All ye doth properly relate to the Elders of Ephesus then present and was immediatly spoken to them Such Universal Terms used in such a Sense and to such a Scope are very ordinary and caseable as if one should say to a certain Number of an Assembly ye are all now dissolved it would not imply the presence of all the Members Again the Apostle might speak many things which did import the Concern and Duty of all though the Speech were directed immediatly and personally to those only that were present When he said You all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God the Surveyer will not be bold to say this will infer that these all were present or that the Speech did import so much As for the Passages Cited viz. v. 18 25. It is Answered that the Apostle spent most of these Years in Ephesus only viz. two Years and three Months and the Superplus in the places adjacent So that these Elders could not be ignorant how the whole was spent Some have observed further that there is nothing of a peculiar Address here to a supposed Bishop of Ephesus and that all these Elders are Charged with the Oversight of that Flock But the Surveyer will not have the Presbyters here to be meaned in the restrained Signification or that this Term should restrain the Term of Bishop But we restrain none of them from their due and Native Signification as importing the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor As for his enlarged Signification stretching to an Hierarchical Prelat it is the Chimera of his own Fancy whereof he hath offered no Shadow of a Proof To that Text of Tit. 1.5 wherein the Bishop and Elder are found clearly Identified and a Plurality of them fixed in that one Church The Surveyer P. 211. repones again his Old Recocted Crambe of the Majores Minores Presbyteri as comprehended in these Terms and tells us of an Analogical Reasoning which the Apostle uses from the Qualifications and Duties of the Bishop properly so called to shew the necessity of the like in all Presbyters who are comprehended under their Order Ans. As his Supposition of the properly and improperly called Bishops is still begged by him without any ground as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him So his Gloss and Reason adduced is clearly cross to the Text Since the Apostle shewing Titus how the Elders to be ordained in every City were to be qualified adds this Reason of Advice for a Bishop must be blameless this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for is causal shewing the Identity of the Office as well as the Name else the Reasoning were false Should a Chancellor in one of the Universities saith Smectymnus who useth this illustrating Similitude give Order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the Degree of Batchelour of Arts but such as were able to Preach or keep a Divinity Act for Batchelours of Divinity must be so What Reason or Equity were in this And we may enquire here what Reason is this The improperly called Bishop must be so and so qualified because the Bishop of the higher Order and distinct Function must be so qualified Gerard. 〈◊〉 Minist Eccles. useth the same Reason to shew the Absurdity of such a Gloss. The Apostle in the Series of his Reasoning Identifies both the Work and Office of Bishop and Presbyter But this Surveyer will needs correct him and cast in his Limiting Cautions and instead of that identity that the Apostle asserts of the Offices make them only in some Sense the same not intirely He tells us That in Sacerdotal Acts they are the same But he cannot say that the Apostles Identity here asserted reaches and includes only the Acts of Order and is not to be extended to the Exercise of Jurisdiction As for the Acts of Order the Hierarchical Bishop is in their Principles the proper Primary Subject of the Sacerdotal Acts and Authority in the whole Diocess whereas that of the Pastor is Precarious and Subaltern to his and fixed to one Flock He calls P. 200. the Acts of Jurisdiction a Personal Application only of the Word or of the Power of Order yet he doth here Diversifie them so that though he assert the Pastor is the very same with the Prelat in the Sacerdotal Acts he is not so in those of Jurisdiction But we cannot stand to Trace all the Inconsistencies of the Surveyers Notions This distinction of Presbyters of the First and Second Order in a New Petitio principii serves his turn as an Answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5. And here we are again told That the Presbyterians allow two Ranks and Orders of Presbyters Where it would seem he Screws up his Hierarchical Prelat in this and the preceeding Answers to a Divine Right and thus quites and Justles with what he often pretends anent a
Names mentioned viz. Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops Ministers Stewards Ambassadors And next in Special that this Church of Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church and under the Inspection of a Presbyterial associat Ministry 1. There was a great multitude of Believers there mention being made of many Believers of many Baptized and added to the Church All whom Paul Baptized not himself consequently are supposed to be Baptized by other Ministers God likewayes having a great Harvest of Souls there much People in that City upon which Paul was encouraged to stay among them for so considerable a time as the Year and six Moneths compare Act. 18.1.7 8 9 10 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congregations 2. There is correspondent Plenty of Ministers and Preachers found there pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church and not one single Congregation first Paul stayed all this time at Corinth as a Master Builder having other under Builders Act. 18.11 1 Cor. 3.10 an occasion of their Doting some upon one some upon a second some upon a third Teacher So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there who had their several Flocks and Followers And Paul speaks of their not having many Fathers though they had ten thousand Instructers compare 1. Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. 5.14 Mention is likewayes made of a Subordination of Prophets to Prophets 1 Cor. 14.29 Considering likewayes the Division of Tongues and Languages this Church could not be one Congregation but united in a Presbyterial Classical Unity Which in a word is further confirmed from this Principle that we read of a Plurality of Churches there while the Apostle sayes Let your Women keep silence in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayes not the Women in general but your Women in that Church Yet this Plurality of single Congregations in Corinth are called and owned as one Church in the Inscription of the Epistle which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity for thus they were jure-charitatis nor in regard of an Explicit Church-Covenant whereof the Scripture is silent nor in respect of the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments for these were dispensed in single Congregations severally since they could not all meet in one Congregation So that of necessity they are owned and designed as one Church in regard of one joynt Administration of Government among them by one common Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders associated for that End See Ius Divin Minist Eccles. P. mihi 206.207 208. That the Prophets mentioned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pastors and Ministers of that Church not extraordinary Officers as the Surveyer insinuats since Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to ordinary Pastors are imposed upon them for the well ordering their Ministerial Exercises is upon this and many other Grounds made good by Mr. Rutherfurd in his Due Right of Presbyt P. 466.467 The Surveyer in his next Answer is in with standing the Evidence of this Scripture driven upon the contrary extreme of ascribing the Authority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apostle Paul solely He tells us That the Apostle speaks of the Sentence as proceeding from himself though the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto the Corinthians that they are charged for not mourning that the Incestuous might be taken away by such as had Power And it were improper to say a Man were to take a thing away from himself Ans. The plain reading of the Text is a sufficient Confutation of this Distortion and Gloss. The Apostle certainly reprehends this Church and imputs a Guilt to them as to Non-procedure in this Matter Now the Question is wherein their Negligence appeared And this is best seen and understood in pondering the Duty enjoyned viz. their Iudging such as were within Purging out the Infectious bad Leaven the Delivery unto Satan c. comp v. 5 7 12. with 2 Cor. 2.6 If they had no Authority hereanent why is such a Defect and Negligence reprehended This Surveyer in making them only the Promulgaters and Executers of the Apostles previous Sentence taketh the Guilt of this Negligence from the Corinthians and puts it upon the Apostle Paul The Surveyers Gloss upon the Apostles Rebuke as to their not mourning over this Wickedness viz. That they sought not with Tears to such as had Power to inflict the Censure If meant of a Power lodged in the Apostle is contrary to the Scope since they are enjoyned to deliver the Person to Satan and to put him away from among themselves But says the Surveyer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged imports the Apostles sole Determination that none are taken in as Sharers with him in this Censure and imports he required only the Execution of their Sentence We have already removed this Objection the Apostles giving his Apostolick Judgment as touching the Necessity and Expediency of the Thing can no more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Interest of the Ordinary Church Officers herein than his giving his Apostolick Judgment in any other Uncontroverted Duty wherein the Persons enjoyned the same have an infallible Interest will bear such a Conclusion Suppose the Apostle giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in his Ministry And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage and the Duties thereof as one that had found mercy to be faithful can this prejudge the Interest of the Persons concerned in the Duties enjoyned Or would the Surveyer have said that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers in any Point of their Ministerial Duties and shewing them that he had judged such and such things to be their Duty will conclude they had no Authority and Interest therein antecedaneously to such Judging and Enjoyning Surely not at all Nay suppose his Hierarchical Bishop set up in this Church with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Censures and that upon his Neglect of putting forth his Power Paul had thus declared that he had already judged the Necessity and Expediency of such Duties will this prove that the Bishop was destitute of all this Authority antecedaneously to such Judging or had none previous thereunto The Surveyer could not say it and no more could he assert it in this case The Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I do also which looks like the Apostles corresponding with the inherent Authority in these Officers so that the Apostles Judging in this Case was to prevent and obviat their Pretences of Delay and quicken them to their Duty But the Surveyer P. 213. from that Passage when you are mett together with my Spirit and the Power of the Lord Iesus inferrs That something was to be done beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth viz. Delivering of the Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly which Paul only by his Miraculous Power could effectuat Ans. Suppose such an extraordinary Appendix distinct from the Censure it self which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt it doth no whit
calling into Question the Uniformity of the Apostolick Church Government The Surveyer next assaults our Argument from the not mentioning of the Bishop in the Catalogue of Church Officers but palpably disguises it as if we argued merely from the non-nomination of the Bishop in Eph 4.11 among the Officers there mentioned as Gifted to the Church The Argument is this That there being several Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Institution as in that Passage Eph. 4. and likewise 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6.7 The Diocesan Hierarchical Bishop is found in none of them and we may add and likewise in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Officers exhibit in Scripture and therefore is no Officer appâ—inted of GOD. He tells us That though not mentioned under that Name they are mentioned under the Name of Pastors and Teachers But as he unjustly supposes that our Argument Concludes from that one place so he deals as unjustly or unskilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers who so little concern themselves in that work and marrs his design in making them Succeed to the Apostles in the plenitude of their ordinary Power as he doth P. 194 195. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apostles or else he must bring up Pastors and Teachers to the same Succession The Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apostolick or Evangelistick Office why then did he assign different Degrees of the Pastoral Office This Consequence the Surveyer calls weak because a Governing Superiority among Apostles and Evangelists was partly impracticable partly unnecessary they seldom living in ordinary Societies because of their Dispersion for speedy spreading of the Gospel and having infallible direction in their Ministry Whereas Pastors living in Society and fixed-upon their Charges their Associations have need of some Governing Superiority among them to be a Nerve and Sinnew of their Union and that the Prudence of some may repress the Levity of others Ans. This Reason is but the ignis fatuus of our Surveyers fancy First as touching Apostles we find them notwithstanding of the infallible conduct of the Spirit joyning Counsel together yea and with concurrence of ordinary Officers as Act. 15. and a Moderator of the Meeting presiding whom his Party will needs make us believe did preside as Bishop of Jerusalem so that this very Colledge of Apostles had the Superintendency of this Episcopal Nerve in their Sense And none can deny that persons managing one work if far dispersed have the greater need of a Corresponding headâ— Next as for Pastors we find their social Government by common Counsel exhibit in Scripture and that their Union was a Presbyterial Classical Union and did not Coalesce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat Besides the Surveyer is a niggardly Dispenser of Governing Prudence when Monopolizing it in one Prelat and denying it to the rest of the Members of the Society of Pastors Or if he allow it to more than one Person he plucks the Hierarchical Bishop from his Seat and disownes the Concentring of this Authority in his Person For what he adds of the Early Reception of this supposed Headship of the Hierarchical Prelat by the whole Church His Confident Assertion is easily Answered by a well grounded Denyal He is bold to say there is nothing in Scripture against this Officer But his palpable Perversion of the Scriptures pleaded against him discovers there is more said against him than he was able to Answer and these Texts pleaded appears the more forcible after all his faint Essays this way He offers in the next place P. 214. a Reply to our Argument from Philip. 1.1 From which we argue That there being here a Plurality in one and the same Church who must need be Pastors and Officers therein Therefore the Scripture Bishop is not the Hierarchical Bishop since the Apostle salutes these Pastors joyntly as Officers of the Highest Rank under this Notion of being Bishops thereof and without the least hint of a respect to any Superior Officer set over them Besides that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior In Answer to this the Surveyer first takes notice that in this Epistle only the Direction is by Paul to the Officers as contradistinct from the Church whereas in the rest of the Epistles he includes them in the Organick Church without express mentioning of them Ans. Not to stand upon this Variety in the Inscription of Epistles wherein sometimes the Apostle Stile himself by his Authority sometimes not sometimes associats with himself Officers of an Inferior Order sometimes not It is noticeable here how this Man in a palpable Contradiction to himself doth quite baffle and run down his first large Answer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5. which concludes the People only to be bespoken because Officers are not Named Whereas here he acknowledges that except in this one Epistle in the rest the Church Officers are included in the Organick Church without the express mentioning of them But to proceed the Surveyer will needs with Ambrose have the Reason of the Difference to be that they were not Bishops and Deacons of that Church but present with Paul and Timothy at Writing of the Epistle and assumed as Consenters with him and this he makes paralel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me He tells us the Apostle calls them not Bishops and Deacons of Philippi but absolutely Bishops and Deacons and the Copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to Paul and Timothy the Writers as well as to the Saints at Philippi Ans. The Surveyer in approving this palpably absurd Gloss discovers how miserably he is put to it to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument For â—not to speak of Ambrose Sentiments wherein the Surveyer cannot make it appear he is followed by any Interpreters it is evident beyond all Contradiction that the Apostles usual Method in the Inscription of all the Epistles is First To describe himself either by his Office of Apostle or otherwayes as the Pen-man of the Epistle together with Others if any such be whom he is pleased to Associat with him in the Inscription And then in a Distinct Clause and Branch to Describe these whether persons or Churches to whom the Epistle is Addresed And we dare confidently Challenge such as embrace this Sense to exhibit a contrary Instance in any of the Epistles or to shew where the persons supposed present with the Apostle are in their Description cast behind his Character of himself and the Description of the Persons to whom he writes Nay this so evident that the Surveyers own Instance Gal. 1. baffles his Answer For after Pauls Description of himself as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man calling himself an Apostle not of Men neither by Man c. He doth in the 2 v. add and all that are with me And next describes those to whom the Epistle is directed viz.
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
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
Reason in a suitable Methodical invention to digest the Matter he delivereth in the best Mould for the Case and Edification of the People to whom he is the Mouth of God and must divide the Word of Truth aright unto them applying it for Doctrin Reproof Exhortation c. according to their various Conditions For the Covenant which the Surveyer in derision calls Holy it falls under the same Consideration with the preceeding Instances besides the clear Scripture Precedents recommending and warranding the Practice These I say are so far from reaching any Patrociny to the setting up of a Prelat whose Office encroaches upon the Due Rights of a true Gospel Ministry and consequently stands in opposition both to Divine Institutions and ends of Government that this defence appears no defence at all For what he adds of the â—reed and Doxologie it is removed by what is said and we need only to add that the end of such Observances is better reached in the present Practice of our Church in point of Worship than with such Observances But the Surveyer appears very angry at the calling the Diocesan Bishop a New Officer not Instituted by GOD in his House and speâ—ds to this Scope many words P. 222.223 which is this in Summ. First That the Prelatical Function is only a new Dignity and Authority granted for Peace sake to one Minister above others within the bounds of the same Order Ans. First the Surveyer should have considered that his Spliting of a supposed Divinely Instituted Office and dividing the Work and Duties thereof unto different Subjects and Recipients is upon the Matter a devising of New Orders and all one therewith Do not Papists tell us that the Priest is the Highest Order of Ministry and comprises with the Diaconate their whole Hierarchy which is nothing else but an extension of these Suppose the Pastoral Power of Order were thus Split that one Rank or degree of Men were allowed only to Baptize not to Preach others to Preach not at all to Baptize who will disown it that these were Antiscriptural Human Inventions dividing what GOD hath conjoined And once admitting this what limits can be set to Mens inventions in this Point Or how can the Multiplyed Orders in Popery be condemned and all the Swarm of their new invented Officers Sure the solid ground of Condemning them is that they are a Spurious Brood inverting and destroying the End Union and Order of the Divinely appointed Officers of the House of GOD. The Spliting of the Actings of the Power of Order is surely condemned upon this Ground of the Oneness and Identity of this Office of the Pastor And if the Case stands thus with Reference to the Power and Exercise of Order why is not the case the same in the Point of Jurisdiction which is for the same end as the other Moreover if upon pretence of Order and Unity this extension of the exercise were admitted in the Method he pleads this Jurisdictional Power may be extended to the highest degree even of a Patriarchat or Popedome for the Pope doth pretend he is but of the order of Priestood and the lowest Rank of that Hierarchy have by this Principle a fundamental aptitude for the highest Office and extent of their Order The Surveyer will have a Power left to the Church to Rank Ministers with a Respect to Union and here is an Union of the Universal Church resolving in such an Officer and clearly going upon his Principle of the way of uniting particular Churches And who will doubt that the Union of the Church Universal hath the same Ground with that of Particular Churches In a word the Folly of this Discourse appears in this that Ministers who have an unquestionable interest in Ordination and Jurisdiction are charged by the Great Master duely to exercise both as they shall Answer to him and therefore must not but upon their perril denude themselves of any piece of that Work and Authority committed to them this being the Talent whereof they are to give an account to him who hath given to every one of his Servants their Work The distinction of the Diocesan Hierarchical Prelat from the Presbyter as a New Officer is evident whether we consider his New Name of Bishop or Archbishop his New work of Governing the Diocess besides his Trust in the Civil Government his New Ordination or Consecration to his New work his distinct Qualifications in consequence of the whole from the Pastor or Minister So that he appears in all these Respects a Compacted New Officer and supposing the Pastors Divine Authority a New Usurper The Surveyer tells us He is no New Officer since the inferior Officer doing thâ— same Acts it is not a nullity But as this Reason would tend to the former Antiscriptural spliting of Offices so that the Episcopalians will not allow this Concession is by this time evident We all know who have in a late practice condemned the Presbyterial Ordination of the Protestant Church of France For what he adds of the Power of the Commission of Assemblies to Fortifie his Notion the Disparity is palpable and apparent whether we consider the Powers Deputing and giving Commission viz The King in the Case of the Prelats the Churches Representative or Assembly in the Case of the Commission The Prelat receiving a New Ordination The Commissioners not The Commissioners being limited as to their work and continuance by the Assembly and as being Answerable unto them not the Prelats c. But of this above As for his discourse of Superintendents P. 223. The Author of the Vindiciae Epistolae Philadelphi against Spotswoods Calumnies hath at large made good the vast and essential difference betwixt the transient Office of the Superintendents and that of Prelats P. 31.32 in no less than Twelve Instances to which for brevitie we refer the Reader The Surveyer P. 223.224 attempts in the next place to answer the Objection against the Hierarchical Prelat taken from Christs Faithfulness and the Scriptures perfection From the Comparison institut in Scripture betwixt Christ and Moses in point of Faithfulness in the Ordering and Institution of the Government and Ordinances of the House of God The Argument is no doubt very considerable upon both grounds if we shall but suppose the Absolute Perfection of all our Mâ—diators Offices and the Correspondent Exercises thereof for the Edification and Salvation of his Church and especially under the Gospel Dispensation As a Prophet he hath fully revealed the Counsel and Mind of GOD so as nothing is to be added to his Divine Revelations thereof no new Rules Truths or Duties to be superadded beyond the limits he hath revealed As a Priest his Satisfaction his Intercession is so full that no pretended subservient Intercessors or Saviours are to be devised by Men Thus ful and perfect is the Exercise of his Kingly Office in appointing the Officers Censures Laws and Government of his House The Argument appears further invincibly strong when we Ponder
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