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
himself two gross Absurdities 1. That Paul had and Exemplified a standing lawful Episcopal Authority wherever such Prescriptions were exercised and to whomsoever they could reach And this Reaching over all Churches his Care being thus extended as is above cleared the Dr. makes him a standing Primat and Patriarch over them Exemplifying a sort of Patriarchal Primacy to be Transmitted in the Church 2 ly That his Apostolick Prescription of the Duties of Church Officers was not Cumulative unto but Privative of whatever Authority and Interest in Government they might acclaim or in the Exercise of the Power of Order And thus suppose the Bishop of the Dr's Mould set over the Church of Corinth had neglected his Duty as these Officers are here found faulty in this point Pauls Apostolick Direction in the Dr's Sense and Pleading nullifies his Power and proves he had none Or supposing an Archippus or negligent Minister had needed his Apostolical Direction to perform such Acts of the Power of Order as were proper to his Function Pauls Prescription of Duty by the same Reason swallows it up and makes it null Certain it is that neither could the Apostles divest themselves of this directing Power of Judging upon neglect of Duty which had been a divesting themselves of their Office nor can they be supposed without the grossest Consequences striking at the Root of all Church Authority to have by their directing or judging Power exauctorat such to whom the Direction was given of their Power and Interest in their respective Duties whether as Members or Officers of the Churches Pool Anot Vol. 2. Expound this 4 th v. of the Power and Authority of Christ concurring with them while gathered together And upon v. 5. Expounding the delivering to Satan of Excommunication and casting out of the Church They give this Reason because the Apostle speaks of an Action which might be and ought to have been done by the Church of Corinth when they mett together and for not doing of which the Apostle blames them Thus clearly Asserting the Intrinsick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth herein and upon the same Grounds which we have Asigned To the same Scope do the Belgick Divines Expound this whole Passage paralelling it with the great Precept Matth. 18.15 Both upon v. 4 5. and upon 2 Cor. 2.6 touching the Subject of this Jurisdictional Act viz. That it was Inflicted of many they Expound of Church Governours or Officers Diodat upon Chap. 5. v. 4. thus Senses the Words That they were to perform this as the Lords Ministers by Authority received from Christ and that the Command is directed to the Pastors and Conductors of the Church being gathered together in Ecclesiastical Judgment having the Apostles Declaration instead of his Voice and Vote And to obviat such a Notion and Fancy as that of our Dr. upon this he adds That this was without doing any prejudice to the ordinary Ministry of the Church of Corinth And that Paul uses his Apostolical Power Modestly only to excite the other viz. the ordinary Power of Pastors and to strengthen it And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this Incestuous Man but all such Scandalous Kind of People who by their Infection might plunge again into the Ancient Corruption c. And upon v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within He says That it is certain that a Judge cannot exercise his Jurisdiction but only over those that are within his Precinct and subject to his Tribunal Clearly Asserting a Spiritual Tribunal in this Representative Church To the same Scope he Expounds the last verse The English Annot. upon v. 2. of this Chap. in Correspondence to the Exposition and Answer premised and in Opposition to the Dr's Reasoning do shew That the Apostle finds fault with the Corinthians for that they had not Excommunicat this Incestuous Person before he had Wrote unto them and Charged them so to do because the Fact was Notorious and the Church Scandalized And upon v. 4. which mentions the Power of Christ they shew That the Power of Excommunication and Absolving is Christs and the Ministry thereof only Committed to the Governours of the Church And the delivering to Satan mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel Matth. 18.17 We need not spend time in multiplying Instances of Sound Expositors in opposition to the Dr's Sense of this place That there is here an Allusion to the Iewish Synagogue is the Consentient Judgment of the learned viz. in their Way of Excluding and casting out the Scandalous Thus Grotius Estius Hammond Simplicius Piscotor Beza c. Pareus Paralelling v. 5. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. shews that the same Persons are Authorized to Comfort and forgive him who inflicted the Censure viz. the Church Officers What we have said might be further improven from the end of the Action which was the purging out the Old Leaven and taking the Scandalous Person from among them and the Character of the Censure it self called a Punishment inflicted of Many in Opposition to the Dr's Design and Argument But the thing it self is obvious And therefore we proceed The Dr. Adduces next Paul's Threatning not to spare 2. Cor. 13. But to proceed with Ecclesiastick Censures And his mentioning Two or Three Witnesses to establish every word according to the Words of our Lord when he Institute this Power of Censuring Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity according to the Power given him to Edification And to come with a Rod He must needs saith the Dr mean Apostolical Censures and Excommunication to be Execute and Performed in his own Person in which Respect he delivered Hereticks of the Church of Ephesus to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 It is Answered First all this is easily removed by the often Adduced Distinction of the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Authority and of a Cumulative and Privative Exercise thereof Altho the extraordinary Power upon fit Emergents such as either the supine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers or the more endangering spread of Offences or obstinacy of Offenders or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers in whom this Power was Lodged and Seated was alwise in readiness and to be Exercised for the Churches good and Edification yet nevertheless this Exercise as we have often told him was never exclusive of nor derogatory unto the Churches ordinary Intrinsick Authority nor except in Cases mentioned or Extraordinary Emergents without the actual Concurrence of the ordinary Church Officers And if as the Dr. says the Apostle here insinuats a method of procedure suitable to our Lords Institution Matth. 18. It could not be otherwise Besides he Threatens this severity as a proof of his Apostolick Power 2 Cor. 13.3 which some understand of his Miraculous Power to inflict Bodily Afflictions Others of his Power to cut off from the Communion of the Gospel Churches thus Pool Annot. And if the Dr. will allow that by mentioning Two or Three Witnesses he ties himself to
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
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
Pomp and absolut Dominion of the Prelats whom the Dr. pleads for And if any of them held this Notion of their pretended Dignity when their Power came to the length of incroaching upon that of Pastors in Government they held but an empty Chimerical Notion Contradictory to their Practice As the Popes Notion of his being Servus Servorum Dei The Dr. ibid. returns again to his Post telling us That it appears from what he has said we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Doctrine from the Texts above instanced Thus the Protestant Pleadings therefrom against the Papacy has no Shadow of Argument with him But whether our Arguments or his Answers be most Substantial is left to the Reader to Judge from what is said He tells us That Wallo Missalinus Glances at this Text but lays no great Stress upon it But the Dr. has not exhibit either his Words or Argument as neither Beza's Reflection upon the Passage in his larger Notes Tho he tells us as some great Discovery forsooth that Beza holds That all kind of Iurisdiction is not here forbidden but such as is joyned with Imperious Bitterness and Domination And what he would make of this I would fain know Did ever any imagine that all kind of Jurisdiction is here forbidden Did our Lord discharge all Government in his Church by this Precept and Prohibition As for Beza's expressing thus that which is forbidden it is evident to any who are acquaint with his Writings that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurisdiction which is joyned with Domination or Lordly Rule of one Pastor over another to be a Sinful Abuse of Jurisdiction and consequently to fall within the Compass of what is prohibited in these Texts I proceed to another Notion and Answer of the Dr's We are told next ibid. That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was establisht by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church If our Saviour had pulled down that Ancient Policy and commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between the Mosaick Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament Here the Dr. obliges us in affording still more Light in taking up his Judgment and Principles in Point of Church Government viz. in his Sense the Iewish Policy by our Lords Warrand was at this time standing as the exact Standart and Plat-Form for the Gospel Church Government And therefore we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places and Dignities and Honours in the Church and that he holds that our Saviour did not forbid but supposed the Lawfulness of a Chief Rule and Principality of one Disciple over the rest in the Church Nay P. 27. he is clear and positive in this That that Hierarchy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof was divided in a Supreme and Subordinat Priests was never abrogated consequently stands imitable and imitated in the New Testament I think the Dr. will find the clearest Pattern at Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy In Answer whereunto I need only say That the standing Policy of the Jewish Church never abrogat but continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Testament Church Government is so notoriously known to be the great Popish Argument for the Papal Hierarchy pleaded by all the Antichristian Rabble and Locusts who stand up for this Monster and Mystery of Iniquity and so Universally condemned by all Protestant Churches and Divines that there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man as of that Number in their Judgment than such an Assertion That all our Divines do hold the Abrogation of the Iewish Church Policy is so clear that it would Load much Paper but to Recite their Names Rivet Cath. Orth. Tract 2. Quest. 4. brings in his Iesuit Ballaeus with this Argument in his Mouth That because one High Priest under the Old Testament had the Chief Government therefore it ought to be so in the New And tells him that there is Multiplex Abusus or a manifold Abuse and Corruption in this Pleading He shews him further that every thing in that Dispensation reaches not us that the High Priest was Typical of Christ as the Apostle shews Heb. 7. That if a Parity of Government were pleaded there should be a Dedication of one Family for the Ministry as there was for Priests and Levites c. Turret Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 15.16 After he has set dâ—wn the Judgment of the Ancients against a Primacy in the Church he brings in the Solution of the Popish Objection and Argument taken from the Government of the Church under the Old Testament which he Baffles from several Grounds such as 1. The Extent of the Christian beyond that of the Iewish Church 2. That the High Priest had no absolute Authority over that Church being subject to the Jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin Deut. 17.11 3. That what Authority he had was Typical of Christs the High Priest of the New Testament Wallaeus de Function Ecclesiast P. mihi 470. brings in this Objection against Parity of Pastors taken from the High Priest under the Old Testament and the twenty four Orders of Priests over whom there were Presidents And thus Answers That these things were partly Typical partly Political that there was a Priority of Order here not an Essential Difference of Power and Authority that they all Governed the Church by Common Counsel But for the Abrogation of this Ministry and that it was to be no Standart for the Gospel Church I will produce and offer again to the Dr's Consideration that one Text Heb. 7.12 The Priesthood being changed there is made of Necessity a Change of the Law viz. The Policy suted to the State of that Church must be changed also The Text asserts that the Priesthood or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed or abrogat there is therefore a Change or Abrogation of the Law i. e. the Legal Ordinances respecting both their Worship and Government Pool Part. 2. tells us That this Change referrs to the Expiration of the Aaronical Order to which the Hebrews were not bound for that a better Priesthood and Law were to fill up its Room That the Mutation of the Priesthood required a Change of the Law That God determined that both Priesthood and Law should expire together English Annot. on v. 11. assert the Abrogation of the Legal Priesthood together with the Covenant viz. the Legal and by clear Consequence that Policy The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That the Levitical Priesthood was many ways involved with the Legal Dispensation of the Covenant aâ—d therefore abolished with it Diodate shews That the Priesthood and all the Ceremonial Worship of the Tribe of Levi was to give place to Christs in whom was accomplished all the Reality and Truth and he is now both Priest and Law-Giver Bilson an English Bishop shews the Reason why that Policy cannot stand under the New
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
Episcopis Diaconis Ex quibus omnibus satis patere arbitror Paulum eundem fuisse Episcopum qui Presbyter esset ad docendam Ecclesiam institutus Deinde cum Apostolus agit de muneribus Ecclesiasticis in Epist. ad Eph. Pastores quidem recenset Doctores nullum autem superiorem gradum Episcoporum Assignat Imo ne meminit quidem illius nominis adeo ut necessessit eos nomine Pastorum comprehendi Quod quidem Presbyteris convenire patet ex Cap. 20. Actorum ex 1 Pet. 5. Ne alii loci mihi commemorandi sint That the same Apostle Paul Act. 20. Thus Enjoins the Presbyters of Ephesus Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed the Church of GOD. And Philip. 1.1 he Salutes the Saints which were at Philippi together with the Bishops and Deacons From all which it is evident that with the Apostle Paul the Bishop is the same with the Presbyter who is appointed to Teach the Church Moreover when the Apostle is Treating of Ecclesiastick Offices in the Epist. to Eph. he reckons up Pastors and Doctors but Assigns no Superior Degree of Bishops nay he doth not so much as mention such a Name so that of necessity he must needs Comprehend them under the Name of Pastors And that the Name and thing is Competent to Presbyters appears from Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. that I need not mention other places But now let us hear what the Sorbon and our Reverend Dr. his Associat in the Cause do Reply to what is premised Thus our Author proceeds Respondet Sorbonicus nominum quidem esse sed non munerum confusionem Verum enimvero quando Presbyteri vocantur Episcopi ibi agitur non de nominibus ac titulis sed de ipsa muneris functione cum enim Paulus hortatur Presbyteros Epheseos ad suum munus legittime obeundum hanc addit rationem quod illos Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos Non igitur ait eos vocari tantum sed esse constituos Episcopos ex quo efficitur tot revera tunc fuisse Episcopos Ephesi quot erant Presbyteri Pastores Ecclesiae adeo ut plane jaceat illa responsio de sola nominum confusione i. e. The Sorbon doth Reply that there is indeed in the premised places a confusion of Names but not of the thing it self or the Office But when Presbyters are called Bishops the Apostle is in such places treating not of the Names or Titles only but of the Office and Function it self For when the Apostle exhorts the Presbyters of Ephesus to the right Exercise oâ— their Office he adds this Reason that the Holy Ghost had constitute them Bishops and therefore he says not that they were only called so but that they were in very deed Constitut such Bishops From whence it evidently follows that there were then at Ephesus as many Bishops as there were Presbyters and Pastors of the Church So that this answer touching the Confusion of Names only in the premised places is quite overthrown Well thus he thinks he has laid all along and aboard the Topgallant of the Sorbon and consequently our Dr's great Answer The Author proceeds to a New Objection sed objicit quod ait Paulus ad Timotheum 1 Tim. 5.22 Manus inquit ne cui cito imponito additque mandatum illud Pauli ad Titum de constituendis in Creta Presbyteris Utrumque enim Episcopum fuisse atque eo ratione jus ordinandi habuisse contendit That Paul saith to Timothy 1. Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands suddenly on no Man And that he adds that Command of Paul to Titus anent the Ordaining Elders in Crete and thereupon contends that both the one and the other were Bishops and upon this account had the Right of Ordination Here no doubt the Sorbon presented much of the Strength of our Dr's Reasoning so that we see how much the Popish Agents are in Love with our Prelatical Arguments and that there is no new thing under the Sun But let us hear our Authors Answer respondeo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impositionis manuum tota significatur electio That the whole Election of Pastors is signified by this Phrase of the Imposition of Hands And after some what in Confirmation of this he adds electionum vero curam â—ni Timotheo incubuisse ne ipse Doctor Sorbonicus dixisset qui ex frequenti veterum Lectione Dedicerat olim antistites Ecclesiae non aliter fuisse electos quam judicio totius Cleri c. That the Sorbon Dr. himself will not be Bold to say that the whole care of Elections was incumbent upon and Committed to Timothy alone who from the frequent reading of the Ancients had Learned that Church Rulers were not of old chosen otherwise than by the Judgment of the whole Clergy c. He adds merito dicere possumus in unius Timothei persona praefectos omnes Ecclesiasticos esse sui officii commonâ— factos That all Church Rulers are in the person of Timothy admonished of their duty And hence he further Argues that this Reasoning and Conclusion of the Sorbon is most absurd Paulus Timotheo praecepit ne cito manus imponat Nemo igitur praeter Timotheum illic habuit jus ordinationis Paul enjoins Timothy not to lay on hands suddenly therefore none but Timothy had the Right of Ordination Which he confutes from this jubetur Timotheus fabulas rejicere attendere Lectioni exhortationi Doctrinae c. Num igitur illa omnia sibi uni Timotheus vendicavit nonne pertinebant ad Presbyteros quos Paulus ipse testatur laborasse in Sermone Doctrina That Timothy is enjoyned to reject Fables give Attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrine c. Did therefore Timothy arrogat all these things to himself alone Did they not belong to Presbyters who by Pauls Testimony Laboured in the Word and Doctrine He adds that Timothy's Episcopacy at Ephesus Nullo Scripturae Testimonio confirmari potest can be made good by no Testimony of Scripture which he proves from these Words Rogavi te ut maneres Ephesi cum profisiscerem in Macedoniam 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 Which shews says our Author he was left there for some time for this end Quemadmodum ipsa Historiae series evincit As the very Tract of the History makes evident And this he proves from Timothy's attending Paul when to go to Asia As also from this Ground that Paul was ordinarly attended by Timothy and Titus in this Exercise of his Apostolick Function Adding further that if we suppose him Bishop of the Churches to which he was sent we will make him Bishop of the Corinthians Philippians Thessalonians c. He after puts the Querie to the Episcopalians Who upon their Hypothesis Ordained at Ephesus when Timothy was gone thence And whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Ephesios inter mortua
or where or by whom another Iames than either of the two mentioned by the Evangelist was Constitut a Thirteenth Apostle is a Point I am sure far surcharging the Drs Ability to prove and his proofs here adduced are such as the simplest may Laugh at Whereof this is one That the Scripture makes it evident that this Iames had the great Preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem And next That in the Council Act. 15. he gave the Decisive Sentence calling it his Sentence v. 19. and determined the Controversie after that Peter Paul and Barnabas had declared their Judgment Which Argues saith the Dr. that he had great Authority and Preheminence in that place An odd proof I must confess Behold the Visag of this Argument The Apostle Iames spoke last in the Council of Ierusalem he called the Judgment he delivered upon the Question his Sentence after others had spoken the Controversie came then to an Issue Ergo he was of Special and Eminent Authority in Ierusalem beyond any of the Apostles And this as a supernumerary Thirteenth Apostle Constitut by the rest to succeed in that Office and derive the Office of Apostolat to after Generations It is indeed a Question to me whether this Assertion and Conclusion it self or the Dr's Method of deducing it be more absurd But sure I am both are and that in an eminent degree The Dr. has so wonderful a value for Prelacy that he will needs have this new supposed Bishop of Ierusalem preferred upon that account by all the Apostles to themselves and set up in the Chair to presid in the Council as the Worthiest yea and that his very Judgement upon the account of his high Prelatick Office outweighed all the Apostles Sentiments and ended the Controversie as he expresses it Such a conceit this is and Phantastick account of that Scripture as I dare challenge the Dr. to show if it ever came in the mind of any Protestant Writers It would have suted the Drs. serious Thoughts to ponder whether that which was delivered by others in this meeting and in special by the Apostle Peter was not their Sentence as well as that delivered by James and whether both these Sentences of Peter and James were not the same and delivered upon the same Scripture Grounds and whether the delivering of a Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory which the Meeting finds equitable and do accord to upon Grounds offered by him and some others speaking before him can conclud an Episcopal Authority over the Meeting But to proceed the Dr. ibid Argues further from the Apostle Paul his going in to James mentioned Gal. 2.9 Upon the account of his supposed Episcopacy at Jerusalem altho none of the Twelve that he is upon this account preferred to Peter John had the Priority of them both in the Church of Jerusalem A conceit sufficiently refuted by a recitation What! The Apostle Paul become so high a Prelatist that a New Constitut Bishop at Jerusalem is by him preferred to Pillar-Apostles as having a Priority above them in that Church I had thought that our Blessed Lord recommended and Authorized his Apostles as the Universal Doctors of the whole Church before this time as the Foundation and Pillars thereof So they are called by the Apostle Paul Eph. 2.20 And that the Lord in Sealing them solemnly by the Spirit the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem from whence the Law was to go forth had recommended them as his highest Doctors and Apostles both to Jerusalem and to all the Churches and that Peter and John's Ministry had the First and Eminent Seals there yea and that the Apostleship of the Circumcision was especially committed to Peter and consequently his Apostolical Authority at Jerusalem singularly conspicuous weighty and acknowledged where his Ministry was chiefly exercised and this by the Apostle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 And that he paid so great deference to this Apostle that he went up to Jerusalem to see and visit him Gal. 1.18 Besides that the Dr. supposing this James not to be one of the Twelve is cross to the current of Protestant Writers and Commentators as we have said As for Paul's going into James with the Elders Act. 21.18 Which the Dr. saith will prove that James was of greatest note and Figure in that Church If the Dr. mean his exercising his Ministry there at that time and that he was of eminent Note among the Elders or ordinary Ministers As who can doubt of this in respect of his Apostolick Office This is easily accorded But the Drs. Inference from this that he was of greatest Note and Figure among the Apostles yea and eo nomine as Bishop of Ierusalem and moreover as in the Capacity of a Supernumerary Apostle and Bishop added to the Twelve he will as soon squeeze Water from a Flint as draw it from this Scripture The Dr. tells us P. 395.396 That as what he has said renders it highly probable that Iames was Apostle at Ierusalem peculiarly and had the Priority of Peter and Iohn therein so the Testimmonyes of early Antiquity advances this probability to a Demonstration Whereupon he Cites Hegesip and Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. Clement Lib. 2. Cap. 1. and some others That Iames whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apostle till constitut Apostle and Bishop of Ierusalem appears to the Dr. upon the pretended premised Scripture Grounds upon this account preferred to both Peter and Iohn tho Pillars hath so exposed his Understanding of the Scriptures as doth much save the Labour of an Adversaries discovering his Nakedness in this Point Besides it seems with the Dr. that Human Testimonies of Antiquity and of Human Writers puts the Cape-stone upon and compleats Scripture-proof So that what was upon the Scripture proof but probable upon the high accession of Human Testimonies is with him advanced to a Demonstration But the Dr must be minded that if his pretended Divine Proof which must be both of the Factum and the Ius as to Iames's Episcopacy obliges him to draw his Demonstration of both from Scripture and if by his acknouledgment all his Scripture Proof amounts but to a probability his pretended Demonstration made up by the patchment of Human Testimony added to the Divine as giving the Demonstrative evidence and Strength thereunto is a Demonstration like to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron which could never make one intire piece and cleave together Next For his Testimonies the Dr. cannot but know that in the Judgment of Famous Protestant Divines this Proof from the Testimonies of Fathers and the Denomination of Bishops by them put upon Eminent Ministers and even some in the Apostolick times is a very slippery and uncertain Proof The learned Scaliger will tell him Prolegom in Chro. Euseb. That â—tervallum illud ab ultimo capite Actorum c. The Interval from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the Reign of Trajan in which Tract
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
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
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
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.
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
might hope to get this believed Some of the Books he mentions P. 22. his Conscience could tell him are Written by Scotsmen viz. Didoclav and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day unto either of them It should then seem that his Countreymen should rather alledge these Doth he think indeed we esteem that we need no other Answer than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings Tho there are saith the Dr ibid. few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath Colour of Argument has been frequently exposed yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries Here 's a Deep Charge 1. His Countreymen Presbyterians becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's that few of them read these Books 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof so that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them if this Man may be believed But I will be bold to ask him what are these Evidences I mean Scripture-Evidences produced by him or any of his Party which we have not considered Dare he say that all in Scotland Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion do thus shut their Eyes And may we not easily Retort his Charge and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav Mr. Durh. and others whom he mentions And besides these many not Named by him to whom neither he nor any of his Gang have offered an Answer to this Day Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them Presbyterians no doubt need no other Evidence than this Pamphlet to convince the World that the Power of Prejudice has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light He pretends therein by his mighty Arguments to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work some considerable Authors whose Writings and Arguments he tells the World they ground their Perswasion upon yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them when fairly presented in their genuin strength And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality this savours of And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto he cannot but know that our Judgment in this Point is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines And are they also thus Hardned But more yet ibid. the Dr. tells us further That it is enough for us that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages and this in our Iudgment may barr all Dispute Indeed Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them than in your 339 Pages Stuffed with Blustering Talk and Empty Quiblings the Defence were no Defence We are again told That when we are bidden Name the Place which proves the New Doctrine we refuse any such closs Engagement Really the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well Decline a closs Engagement Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names judge what closs Engagement this Man has made with them and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter the Learned have sufficiently discovered But saith he Salmasius and Blondel have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons But now our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity Some no doubt not all and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments i. e. so as to convince all Readers that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings instead of Answer But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings that I interrupt not the Series thereof I must here pass over to his Second Chapter CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function in Opposition to Protestant Divines is exposed Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles in a proper Formal Sense His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities IN this Chapter the Dr. having told us That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity And what Scripture Arguments he has Examined let any judge gives us Encouragement by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie I am sorry he has not done it sooner No doubt all will acknowledge this to be what he stands obliged to But to Trace his Steps and Examine him clossly 1. I am agreed with him in this That the Government of the Christian Church has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles to continue to the end and who oppose this Institution are Schismaticks 2. For what he adds P. 95. That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests I must tell him that we do hold with all our Divines that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it And moreover we hold that both the one and the other was Typical and also such as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin or invade their Decisive Suffrage as Iunius particularly observes Our Dr's Inference That Subordination of one Priest to another is not simplely unlawful if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general is admitted If of one Pastor to another in Point of Official Authority it is a bad Inference and a Begging of the Question which is not about what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution in the New Testament OEconomy and Government The Dr's Distinction ibid. of the Apostles Ordinary Permanent Essential Power and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges suteable to the first Plantation of Churches is in general accorded But his Application and Explication subjoyned viz. That by the first they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers in the Christian Church is that which I deny And that upon this ground That Power which was Ordinary Permanent and Essential behoved to be so eminenter in the Apostles as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary Essential Permanent Power else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation when the Apostles at first Cloathed with it were gone off And therefore to be Transmitted to successive Officers consequently these ordinary succeeding Officers were in this equal to them when cloathed with this Power and invested therein And by further necessary Consequence the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers it being such as the Churches
subsistence required the same in all times And besides these succeeding Officers when invested with this ordinary Power were still subordinat to them as Apostles and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority I know that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers the Dr. excluds the Bishops in the Series of his Reasoning that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors But how absurdly and inconsequentially as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines in this Point is already evident and shall yet further appear To proceed the Dr. tells us That by the second i. e. their extrinsick extraordinary priviledges suted to the First Plantation of Churches they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success in the Conversion of Infidels in the Government of Churches Wherein I differ from him in tâ—is that he makes their Extraordinary Apostolical priviledges necessary only for the bene esse which were necessary Simpliciter for the Planting and Government of the Churches in that infant State thereof The very exercise of their Apostolical Authority as such did consist in exerting these extraordinary priviledges For thus their Mission their Gifts their extensive Power essential to the Apostolick Office taken in a formal sense Respected the founding and watering of the Churches in that Infant-state of Christianity the Establishing the Gospel Ordinances therein and all its ordinary standing Officers I must then mind the Dr. that when he speaks of the Apostles ordinary permanent essential Power by Essential he must not nay cannnot understand that Power which is Essential to them as Apostles strictly or under that reduplication qua Apostles For then their Office were not extraordinary but a standing Office to be succeeded to in its intire Nature formally as they were invested with it and did exercise it which is cross to that Sense of the Apostolick Office exhibit by Protestant Divines as I shall further make appear The Dr. will needs distinguish their Essential Apostolick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives their transient temporary Priviledges who were the first Apostles and were Limited in the exigences of the First Christian Mission Wherein he speaks confusedly For 1. These Prerogatives suted to the Churches First exigence were in such manner suted as was the very Office it self and consequently were Essential ingredients thereof for this end Hence 2. The Essential Office of the Apostolat as such or taken in a proper formal Sense could admit of no such spliting and distinction unless the Dr. will split and distinguish the Essence which he should know consists in indivisibili The Essential Apostolick Office the Dr. tells us P. 96. is necessary peramanent perpetual citing Matth. 28. Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World Hence in his Sense the Command and Promise in that place imports the standing Essential Office of Apostolat to the end What Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Interpreters let all judg Pool tells us The Promise imports his presence to the end with his Ministers Preaching Baptizing Teaching to observe what he has Commanded That it relates to Gospel Ministers in their Ministrations as the Apostles successors thus the English Notes and Belgick Divines But that it imports a standing Apostolick Office to the end no sound Protestant ever dreamed To proceed to make this appear the more saith the Dr. ibid. The Apostles as such were formally and essentially distinguished from all other Ecclesiastick subordinat Officers This indeed makes it appear more if one contradictory Proposition will prove another For if the Apostles were Formally and Essentially i. e. in respect of their essential formal Office distinguished from all inferior Officers all Officers who were not in a proper formal Sense Apostles How could any succeed them in this proper formal Office And consequently How could that Office be permanent It being certain that such Functions wherein they were to be succeeded could not be their Characteristick as Apostles and their mark of distinction from succeeding Officers For instance the Function of Preaching and Baptizing with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Government was a Work and Office wherein they were to be succeeded The Apostles were at first enjoyned go Teach Baptize and Disciple the Nations Paul enjoyned to the Elders of Ephesus to Feed and Rule by the Word and Discipline within their Percinct Hence these Duties simplely considered could not be that wherein they were distinguished from inferior Officers For 1. In respect of this Pastoral Work both the Apostle Peter and Iohn owned themselves as Co-presbyters which could have no good Sense if in this they were distinguished from all others 2. Hence this distinguishing Criterion had then evanished when inferior Officers had it So that the Dr. in his Series of Reasoning is driven upon this Scylla or Charybdis either to say that their Essential Office perished with themselves and consequently was not permanent in opposition to what he asserts P. 95. or else in respect thereof they were not formally and essentially distinguished from inferior Officers in contradiction to what he asserts P. 96. I know the Dr's tacite Evasion is that he supposes the Bishops not to be Subordinat Officers which how cross it is to the Series and Contexture of his Reasoning as well as the Sense of sound Divines we shall further mâ—ke appear The difference of their Office from that which is properly and formally Apostolick being so palpable that himself is forced to place a Distinction betwixt the Function of the one and the other yea and calls them a sort of secondary Apostles Thus distinguishing them from those he would have to be Primary But the Dr. will now enquire ibid. What distinguished the Apostles from the Seventy two from Presbyters in the Modern Notion as he speaks I could wish he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion from Deacons and other Offieers of the New Testament He undertakes 1. To exhibite the Presbyterian's Account of the Apostolick Office and tells us That the Presbyteriand and Socinians contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity affirm that the Apostolick Office is ceased as extraordinary that the Apostles were distinguished from Subordinat Ecclesiasticks by infallibility in Preaching their power of Miracles their being immediatly called by our Saviour to the Apostolat by their unlimited and unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations This is such Stuff as I dare challenge and appeal all Protestant Churches and Divines to give Judgment and Character upon the person who presents it which I am sure will be such as will fasten upon him an infamous Stigma Nor shall I here much medle with or stand upon the shameless Man his comparing us to and ranking us with the blasphemous Socinians in this point citing their Racovian Catechism Sect. 9. Chap. 2. But to convince all that are but acquaint in the least with the Protestant Doctrine in this point I shall exhibit in some
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
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
imbodied Society or Court as is the proper Subject of a Jurisdictional Censuring Power and to whom the Appeal is to be made after more privat Dealings which if evinced the Hierachical Prelats arrogated Power monopolizing this Jurisdiction and to use the Surveyers term concentring this Authority in himself solely is sufficiently overthrown as contrary to the Scripture Pattern and cross to this great Rule and Standart For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Consentient Judgement of Criticks and Interpreteâ—s that it naturally signifies a Caetus and Caetas evocatus a concio convocatorum an indicta concio thus Suidas thus Demosthenes and in Scripture it points out generally a Convocation as Act. 19 32. and a Convocation in curia or a Caetus civilis v. 39. And sometimes it s put for the Assembly of Believers sometimes for the Church Militant sometimes for a Province Kingdom or City Compare Eph. 5.23 with Act. 8.13 Rev. 12.5 Rom. 16.5 And here good Interpreters do consequently take it to Represent the Ecclesiastick Senat or Presbytrie making it one and the some with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 Hence the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies in Concione delibero Verba facio to Consult Deliberat and Discourse in Publick Assembly The Text convinces of this For 1. The Gradation is from the Lesser to the Greater Number 2. Our Lord v. 19 20. speaks of an agreeing on Earth and gathering together in his Name Besides that the Surveyer himself expones the Church of the Rulers and Governours who if they have a joynt Essential Interest in their Jurisdiction he overthrows his Opinion of Concentring this in the Prelat if he ascribe the Jurisdictional Decisive Authority to one who is Chief making the rest but his Assistants he again contradicts himself in seeming to ascribe this Ruling Power to the whole Meeting for thus the Sense could not be as he says tell the Rulers and Governours For what he adds of Commissioners it is palpably absurd For 1. The Church Representative or the Officers thereof have a Divine immediat Institution are set by God therein and have not a derived Authority from the Church 2. It is the Court it self not the Deputed Commissioner one or more which is the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power 3. To make the Paralel hold he behoved to say the Prelats have a derived Power as Commissioner from the Church the Falshood whereof is apparent The Surveyer adds P. 206. That the attributing a Iurisdictional Power to the Church is nothing against him who allows not to one single Bishop this Power without the Council of Presbyters according to the 4th Council of Carthage Can. 23. though nothing is to be done without the Bishop Ans. In Stating the Question with the Presbyterians P. 192. he tells us It is whether this Power be equally Diffused in the whole Colledge of Presbyters or Concentred in one Person Now if the Person of the Bishop be the Centre he cannot allow this Official Power to step beyond that Centre So that no Members of the Meeting have any Interest therein He adds here as likeways in the place before Cited That the Bishop must exercise this Power with the Concurrâ—nce and the Assistance of Presbyters But this can import no Exercise of Jurisdiction since privat Persons may Counsel and Advise who have no Decisive Suffrage And he knew that in the late Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy the Clergy were to Advise the Bishop only and scarce that So that our Prelats in such Exercise of their Power baffled that Act of the Council of Carthage which he mentions The Surveyer adds That there is a Plurality of Officers even where this Inequality of Power is supposed whether Iudging or Advising But if one only Judge and the rest are but mere Advisers the Judging Power being thus Concentred in one there is no such Court as is the Subject of a Jurisdictional Power So that the Surveyer bewrays great Impudence in saying that the Determination properly flows from them all since the Authority is thus Concentred in one But says the Surveyer since the Organick Church is made up of Rulers and Ruled the Notion of a Church will not import an Equality of Power in all Ans. This Paralel is palpably unjust and impertinent since the Church Organick considered thus complexly doth necessarly and essentially include Members and Officers Rulers and Ruled and consequently a necessary Inequality But the Surveyer could not deny that in this place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church imports a Society or Colledge of Rulers only which can come under no such Consideration of a necessary Inequality The Surveyers Fourth Answer is in Summ That we find the highest Censures of the Church inflicted by the Authority of single Persons who ever otherwise concurred So Paul excommunicat Hymeneus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1.20 And to say he acted as a Member of a Quorum is to make him a vain Boaster and to make the Scripture speak what we will Ans. The Surveyer must acknowledge yea hath acknowledged the difference betwixt the Apostolick Authority in the Framing and Constitution of Churches and the Exercise of their Power in Churches already constitute in their Organick Beeing In the first Case there was an indispensible necessity of exerting a singular Apostolick Authority when no Officers were to concur and Churches were not fully Moulded in their Organick Beeing And we heard himself distinguish the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Power In the other Case when Churches were constitute it is evident and hath been made good that they did assume the Official Concurrence of ordinary Church Rulers The Surveyer challengeth us to produce a Warrand for our Assertion of Pauls acting here upon an extraordinary Apostolick Authority Thus he challenges the Apostle Paul to produce his Warrand for this his Apostolick Acting which he has long since produced and recorded if this Man had been pleased to read and consider it Whereas he tells us It was none of the extraordinary Characters of the Apostles to act in these Matters by his own only Authority We say it was where Churches were not constitute and no ordinary Officers to concur And this Surveyer might be challenged as the Affirmer to prove that this Act was put forth in an Organick Church where ordinary Officers were to concur or else in denying this to be one of the Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office he asperses his Apostolick Power and Authority He adds That what was beyond their immediat Calling infallible Direction illimited Iurisdiction c. was transmittable to his Successors and actually transmitted to Timothy and Titus It is Answered we have made appear that their immediat Calling considered with reference to its Nature and End of Planting Churches Constituting the Officers Ordinances thereof did necessarly include this Authority in this first Framing of Churches which neither was nor could be transmitted unless it be pleaded that the Churches Foundation could
why then did he in Contradiction to himself call for another Rule But the Surveyer P. 216.217 presents yet another evasion That this Church might have had a Bishop Eminenter so called though not present at Philippi That we cannot otherwise account of Epaphroditus who is called their Apostle Philip. 2.25 or Messenger as the Angels Rev. 2. and 3. are called the Angels of the Churches and not for any Temporal Imployment of being sent with their Alms it being too high a Stile to give Men upon so low an Account Thus 2 Cor. 8.23 We read of the Messengers of the Churches and the Glory of Christ. Ans. We have above removed the Foundation of this exception both in Reference to Epaphroditus and the Asian Angels That Epaphroditus gets the Name of their Apostle and Messenger Catachrestice and improperly and consequently that he was no such Bishop as the Surveyer pretends is most evident in the Sacred Text since he is thus termed with respect to that special Employment of carrying the Churches Benevolence to Paul For the Apostle after he hath called him their Messenger doth expresly adjoyn this ground of the Epithet and Denomination viz. He that Ministred to my Wants which doth clearly restrict and explain the Term Messenger in this Context Besides that v. 30. he is said to come to supply their Lack of Service towards the Apostle and the Apostle mentioning him again Ch. 4.18 tells this Church That he received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent by them As for the Surveyers Exception That this was too high a Stile to be given upon so low an Account comparing this with 2 Cor. 8.23 I have above told such Pleaders that the Service of the Churches and the Interest of Christ in them is such a Honourable Employment as the most eminent need not be ashamed of since he who is Lord of all came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister and the Holy Angels literally so called think it no Disparagement to their High Estate and Dignity to be sent forth as Messengers to Minister and do Service to the meanest who are Heirs of Salvation For that Passage 2 Cor. 8. we have made appear that it rather Confirms than Impugns our Answer and Exposition of this Scripture anent Epaphroditus The Apostles Scope in that place being evidently to stir up the Church to a large Expression of their Charity and Bounty upon the Account of the Fidelity and Worth of the Messengers sent to them for that end Next I might tell this Surveyer that Epaphroditus and these other Messengers being restrictedly called Messengers of the Churches and with a special respect to the Employment specified in the Text are thus distinguished from the Apostles who properly are Christs Messengers to the Churches And therefore Persons under this Character of Messengers from Churches to Churches have not that special proper Signature which the Surveyer pleads for upon the account of the general Name Messenger applyed to them In a word in this Conjecture as the Surveyer presents but a new Petitio Principii and groundless Fancy without the least shadow of Proof so it s baffled by his own Principle who thinks it below his supposed great Men to be sent upon a Temporary Employment Now it is certain that Epaphroditus was sent with this Churches Benevolence to Paul and it would have puzzled this Surveyer to Ansâ—er the Querie Why none else but the sole and eminent Bishop was sent with this Benevolence As likeways to Answer further these Queries First Why the Apostle Paul put the proper Name and Characteristick of this sole and eminent Bishop upon all the Pastors of the Church of Philippi Which upon his Principles did draw with it great Inconveniences as tending 1. To cast a Cloud of Ignorance upon these Pastors in reference to a Person to whom they did owe important Duties 2. This might tend to involve them in the Temptation of a Sinful Emulous Disposition and Breach among themselves And no body will judge that the Apostle was not careful to prevent this Besides this could not consist with that high Esteem of Epaphroditus which the Apostle here expresses thus to deal with him and in special to make him the Messenger of such Derogatory Expressions in this Epistle wherein he is so much commended Thus we have seen that the Evidence of this Scripture as likewise of the preceeding doth quite dispel the Mist of the Surveyers fond Exceptions The Surveyer tells us He finds one Scripture more wherein because Presbytrie is Named we account we have great Advantage for our Way The Passage is 1 Tim. 4.14 Whereas he may more justly triumph in the word Bishop so often mentioned in Scripture He professeth his Resolution pressely to consider this place And his Replyes shall be pressely considered His first Reply is That we cannot prove that by Presbytrie here is meant a Colledge of single Presbyters in the Modern Notion and not rather the Dignity and Office of a Presbyter as Calvin Institut Lib. 4. Cap. 3. Jerom and others also do judge Ans. 1. Not to stand upon the Surveyers cutting off by this Gloss Presbyters from so much as a consent to Timothies Ordination which in contradiction to himself here he doth in his other Replyes to this Text allow them It is in this place very considerable that this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytrie being used only thrice in the New Testament viz. Luk. 22.66 and Act. 22.5 and in this Passage under Debate Since in the two first places it must necessarly be taken for a Concessus Presbyter orum a Colledge of Elders or Presbyters this Surveyer could offer no shadow of Reason or Evidence for the altering the Signification in this Passage Since 1. The Scope and Circumstances do clearly lead to this its ordinary Acceptation And 2. There can no such Exposition be offered here without a very gross Imputation upon the Language and Sense of the Holy Ghost It differing little from Non-sense if at all reconcilable to Sense thus to read the Text Neglect not the Gift given thee c. by the laying on of the Hands of the Office For what Hands hath an Office to lay on Not only Reason but the very Ear disrelishes such a Sense Especally if the Matter of Fact be admitted in opposition to which the Surveyer could give no Evidence that as there was Ruling Officers or Presbyters then existent so they did de facto lay Hands upon Timothy For Calvins Judgement we find that in his Commentary upon the place he asserts that such as understand the Word Presbytrie here in a collective Sense and to import the Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters do in his Iudgement put a right Sense upon the Words So that he cannot be reckoned as holding the Surveyers Gloss And however we do not judge that most worthy Person as neither Ierom in this point Inferior to Greek Fathers infallible or our selves obliged jurare in ejus verba As for the
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