more to enlarge my Review of what he had thus presented After these Sheets had for some time lyen by me and a motion was made to make them publick having also seen the Second part of the Survey of Naphtali I resolved because of the Connection of Purposes and that this Author appears to have more closely argued this Point than several other Episcopalians to add to the other two a Consideration of his attempt upon Presbyterian Government which the haste of the Press together with other urgent duties obliged me to perform more briefly yet I hope with some Satisfaction to the Intelligent That these Authors are presented in such an Order viz. the Later before the more Ancient hath proceeded from the Connection of References from the one to the other and the Method wherein Providence directed the Writing of these Replys For the Point of Antiquity critically Scanned on both sides in this Debate I found no neeessity here to dip in it that being performed as to A. M. D. D. already and for the third Author he doth not medle with it and so much the better only I have touched it a little with Dr. Scott there being no particular Reply for what I know to his Writings on this Head though all that he hath Offered this way hath been upon the Matter fully Answered by Presbyterian Writers The Truth is I have always judged that this Debate might arrive at a more satisfying and speedy Issue iâ— upon clear stating of the Questions and Points Controverted the Dispute were managed by a clear formal Arguing upon Scripture Testimonies allennarly One thing I must not omit to advertise the Reader of I found after this was written reports passing of A. M. D. D. his Death which I understood to be afterwards called in Question but since it is now Confirmed the Reader will excuse those Passages that do more directly address him as alive as indeed he was in the time that this was Written and some thought I had that this might probably come to his hand I shall detain the Reader no longer from the perusal of these Sheets Adding only my serious Prayer that the GOD of Truth may by his Holy Spirit lead his People into all Truth advance and more and more revive His Work and by the light of his Glorious Gospel dispel Antichristian darkness refresh his suffering Churcheâ—â— abroad now in the Furnace excite his people to a due Sympathy with Sufferers and quicken their Zeal against the great Whore the Beast drunk with the Blood of Saints imprint upon his Churches in these Islands a due Sense of their Solemn Vows and Engagements for Reformation in Doctrin Worship Discipline and Government that being ashamed for all our backslidings and breaches and looking to Him whom we have peirced with a Mourning Eye we may see his Pattern of the House in all its Ordinances and his Tabernacle being reared up among us accordingly the Lord may be one and his Name one he may own the Lands and dwell in them as Married Lands his Sanctuary being in the midst of us for ever more A REVIEW OF D r. Scott's Pleadings For the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY In his Book intituled The Christian Life Part II. Vol. 2. Chap. 7. Sect. 10. from Page 388. CHAP. I. The Doctor 's stating of the Question Examined Together with his first Argument taken from the Institution of our Saviour BEING about to Examin the Pleadings of this Doctor for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it is necessary that we first view how he states the Question All do know that a right Understanding of the State and Terms of the Question is indispensibly needful for the Decision of any Controversy To give then the state of the Question in the Drs. terms which he represents in a distinct character page 388. He thus exhibits the Claim of both Parties having told us that the Presbyterial and Episcopal are the two main rival Forms of Church Government pretending to Divine Institution The Presbyterian saith he is that which is seated in an Equality or Parity of Church Officers The Episcopal is that which is placed in a superior Order of Church Officers called Bishops to whom the other Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject and subordinat The Latter of which he undertaks to prove to be the true form of Government institut by our Saviour And that 1. from our Saviours Institution 2. From the Practice of the Holy Apostles 3. From the punctual Conformity of the Primitive Church to both 4. From our Saviours declared Allowance and Approbation of the Primitive Practice in this Matter First As to the State of the Question I find the Dr. doth pitifully prevaricat and mistake his Measures 1. In representing Presbyterian Government as consisting in a parity of Church Officers whereas it is evident we own maintain a Beautiful Subordination both of Officers and Courts in Church Government that Parochial Sessions are subordinate to Presbytries Presbytries to Provincial Synods Synods in a National Church to National Assemblies Thus likewise we hold the Pastors Office to be above that of the Ruling Elder the Ruling Elders Office above that of the Deacon Tho upon most solid Grounds we maintain against Prelatists an Equality in the Pastoral Office And that among the New Testament Officers both Ordinary and Extraordinary there is a Partity in their own kind no Apostle above another no Evangelist above another both which Offices taken in a proper formal Sense we hold to be expired Thus as to Ordinary Officers no Pastor above another nor Elder c. 2. He represents Episcopal Government as feated in a Superior Order of Church Officers called Bishops to whom the Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject but doth not particularly condescend upon the Nature of that Superiority which in stating the question should have been premised and whether he understands it of a Superiority Specifical or Gradual and in Order or Jurisdiction or both However the Dr. in the strain of his Dispute gives us to understand that he takes the Superiority of the Bishop as importing such an Absolut and Essential Interest in Government as leaves the Pastor nothing but the Doctrinal Key wherein he disowns Two Points of a Concession owned by many if not most Episcopalians and in so far discovers the Singularity and Unsoundness of his Pleading First That the Bishop is no Officer properly or essentially distinct from the Presbyter but only an Officer made distinct for order of Government Thus K. Charles I. in his Conference with Mr. Henderson who certainly had the Sense and Judgment of all the English Episcopal Doctors at that time And the present Bishop of Salisbury in his last Dialogues authorized by our Episcopal Church and published in Defence thereof in K. Charles II. Reign 4 th Conference pag. 310 311. tells us That he is not clear anent the Notion as he calls it of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter and acknowledges the Presbyter to
Quadratus Ignatius flourished let the Dr. observe this as to Ignatius here Cited by him may be truely called with Varro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscure wherein nothing that is certain has come to our Hands concerning the Affairs of Christians except some very few things which the Enemies of GOD has catched up by the way such as Suetonius and Corn. Tacitus Which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew somethings without Discretion and choise out of the Hypotyposis or Examples of I know not what Clement for he is not that Learned Clement that wrote the Strommata and out of the Five Books of Hegesippus a Writer no better Let the Dr. observe this as to Hegesippus and Clement here Cited by him Yea and Hegisipus himself as he shews lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the Apostolick Age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam Doctrinam tradebant initium caepit Error began to Spring and advance The Learned Iunius controv 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Mentions and proves an equivocal acceptation of the Word Bishop in the Writings of the Ancients The Learned Whittaker also will Inform the Dr. De Pont. Quest. 2. Cap. 15. That Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant c. The Fathers when they call Iames Bishop or Peter take not the Name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those Churches wherein they stayed for a time He adds That it is absurd to say that the Apostles were Bishops since he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle the Bishop being set over one Church and the Apostles Founders and overseers of many Churches Yea he is so Bold as to add further without craving Pardon of such as are of our Drs. Judgment That non procul distat ab insania c. It differs little from madness to say That Peter or any other Apostles were Bishops And to this purpose he speaks at large Cap. 3. Sect. 9. making good his Assertion from the unfixed extraordinary Nature of their Office who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places wherever they were called The Dr. might have also learned from Fran. Iunius Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. 5 the cause of the Error and mistake of the Ancients in terming the Apostles or Evangelists Bishops and drawing from them Supposititious patcht Catalogues of Bishops which are found contradictory to one another Viz. That such Ministers as they found in the Church Records more famous such they cull'd out to make up their Catalogues even tho they were contemporary and those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times whereas saith he there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appointed by the Apostles in the Churches Hence has proceeded this Confusion in the Catalogues for instance they make Peter Bishop of Rome and having a Seat there a Fable contradicted by many of the Learned and proved by them to be such but whether Clement was First or Third and who or in what Order next after Succeeded them whether Linus or Anacletus is never yet cleared Some make Titus Bishop of Crete some Arch-Bishop some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and Iohn are made by many Bishops in the same Post at the same time Some say Polycarpus was First Bishop of Smyrna some make him to Succeed one Bucolus some make Aristo First Some give Alexandria one Bishop some Two at once See Append. ad jus Divinum Minist Evang. Clearing this at large The Dr. also should have done well to have considered the important difficulty offered by Iosephus Scaliger about the Succession of the Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem related by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 123. wherein he proves Eusebius Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophesie anent the Destruction of Ierusalem and to Iosephus's History As likewise what this Learned Author hath observed and written to invalidat the Credit of Eusebius's History and the discovery he has made of his many gross Errors therein as well as in other Points So that our Dr. and his Fellow-pleaders might have observed this their grand Magazin to be but a corrupt Treasure and Poisoned Fountain How Fabulous is the Epistle of Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa related by him That which Philo the Iew wrote of the Esseans a Sect among the Iews Eusebius affirms that he Wrote it of Christian Monks which Scaliger in his Elencho tri Haeresii hath convict of falsehood out of Philo himself He proves Peters Crucifixion at Rome by a Tomb-proof In the Computation of Times Scaliger observes his gross Errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle Peter but another of the Number of the Seventy Disciples To which might be added many things in his personal Carriag and Qualities which doth weaken the Credit of his History as his presiding in the Council of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrian side Scaliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad P. 268 Sets down the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning his Errors and Arrianism wherein some affirm that he died When he Wrote the History he was in the Judgment of some an Arrian And even admitting the unexceptionableness of his History when first Written yet that it hath been corrupted by some ignorant Impostor is by Didoclav Cap. 4. P. 111. Demonstrat from this that he makes mention of Sozomen who was born an Hundred Years after his time Had the Doctor also Perused the Learned Reynolds he might have found that in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls he proves at large from Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others both Ancient and Modern Authors that in Scripture Presbyter and Bishop are all one The Epistles of Clement of the first Century are very pregnant against the Divine Right of Prelacy particularly his Epistle to the Philippians wherein he makes but Two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons which he says the Apostles set up to propogat the Ordinances to Believers But I am too prolix in a Matter of it self clear and plain and which we may probably have occasion again to touch Only before I part with the Drs. First Instance I cannot but in this place observe and again leave it to the Readers consideration that the Dr. affirms this Apostleship which Iames did derive from the Twelve was only an Episcopal Inspection of the Church in Ierusalem A strang Apostleship indeed and so very far unlike and disproportioned to the Apostolick Office that he might as well affirm that any Curat of the Church of England when set over a Flock or Cure has an Episcopal Authority committed to him The Drs. Second Instance to prove the Apostles committing their Apostolick Authority to Successors is taken from Epaphroditus Philip. 2.25 Who is Styled the Apostle of the Philippians Citing Ierom on Gal. 1.19 Who shews that others were Ordained Apostles as Epaphroditus And
Ordination of any higher Officer than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter I shall only add 3 ly That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice that they own the Ministers of the Word as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge and in the ordinary Power of Government their equals as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut which is above discribed doth make evident And it were strange that Evangelists should beâ—instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches who were inferior to Apostles That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie concurring Authoritatively tho Paul was present should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie tho inferior to an Apostle and that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree wherein was put forth both the Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in Church Government yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head that we may understand how well he has laid his Measures for reaching his Scope and End let it be remembered what it is he undertaks to prove viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as a standing necessary Function in the Church to be transmitted to after Ages with the same Authority and Commission as delivered at first to the Twelve For this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for from that passage of Scripture where Our Lord said to his Apostles As my Father hath sent Me so send I you And according to this Rule let us examin his Instances His first proof P. 406 is from St. Clement who mentions in his Epistle to the Corinthians three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levits which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacons A strange proof and an odd Explication indeed How doth the Doctor prove that Clement did any otherewise express himself than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers signifying that there are diverse Officers in the New Testament Ministry as in the Old Again How comes the Dr. to explain him of Bishop Presbyter in the Singular and Deacons in the Plural And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest in the singular and Priests in the plural Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest over the Christian Catholick Church as of the Church of the Iewes Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this Moreover the Drs. Explication of Clement viz. That he means by the High Priest the Bishop by the Priests the Presbyter c. Baffles his Design and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors as holding an Office and Authority corresponding to that of the Priests under the Old Testament then certainly he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government such as the Priests had For the Dr. will not be bold to say that the Sanehedrin made up of Priests had not a governing Power or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest as he affirms it is in the person of the Bishop secluding the Presbyters And further to discover how the Dr. has abused his Reader and forefeited his Credit in this Citation let us take Notice that Clement to remove the Sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 tells them how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed an High Priest Priests and Levits and then tells them that for the times of the Gospel Jesus Christ sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits approving them by the Spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterward believe From which Words the learned Authors of the Append. Minist Evang. Have long since concluded against the Dr. and his Fellows 1. That in the first and purest times the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how small little Apostles these were I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power as are many Pastors now in Scotland 2. That Bishops and Deacons are the only Orders of Ministry owned by Clement as planted by the Apostles the first Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery in making Clement to assert three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles by Jesus Christ knowing that contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop and being endu'd with perfect knowledg they appointed the foresaid Orders Viz Bishops and Deaeons Upon which the Learned Authors of the Apendix do further note 1. That by Name we are not to understand the bare Name but the Honour and Dignity as the word is taken Philip. 2.9 Eph. 1.21 The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters p. 57.58 2. That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy is by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons in Clements Judgement What ever Remedy of Schism the Church afterward applyed in setting up one Bishop over another Clement tells us that the Apostles endued with perfect knowledg of things Ordained only Bishops and Deacons Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72 will find he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church to be Governed by Presbyters without Bishops Besides that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously and supposes them to be one and the same throughout the whole Epistle The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field Whose Six Epistles written on the way to his Martyrdom he tells us are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles So that we have no other evasion but to alledg they are Counterfeit from which imputation they have been Triumphantly vindicat so he expresses it by a Learned Pen And that therefore no Man of Learning without exposing his Reputation can call them in Question Who this learned Pen is who thus vindicats them the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know and if he mean Dr. Pearson as probably he doth he should know that his pretended Vindication was confuted by a learned French Divine Dally and his Proofs convicted of Forgery So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion That the Vindication is Triumphant And as for the Drs. Re-vindication this Author should know the learned L'Rooque a Famous Pastor of the French Church replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge in defence of Dally upon the Point of Ignatius's
cut off the Dr's third Argument which he prosecutes P. 424 425 c. that nothing needs be further added as there might be with Advantage if a particular Examen were made of his Citations The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair or Primacy over the Asian Churches The Sottishness of which Conceit and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office is evident to any of common Sense since the Apostles by vertue of their Office which extended to all Churches planted and to be planted were Ministers thereof in actu exercito and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops forsooth to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province The Citation speaks of a Province in general which the Dr. will needs have to be that of Ephesus and the seven Angels must be these seven Bishops by whom he governed that Province Again the Angel is called by Augustin the Praepositus or President therefore he was an Hierarchical President as the Dr. has shapen out What Consequence is this As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna from Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 15. and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus Lib. 5. Cap. 24. we have spoken to it already and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles as likeways to Eusebius's History Besides that in Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 23. Irenaeus calls Anycetus Pius Heginus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt We also did shew that he thus expresses himself further Nec Polycarpus Anyceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandam esse diceret We have also already made appear that Polycarp his supposed Bishop disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr since Writing to the Philippians he ownes only Bishops and Deacons as the two Orders of Ministry and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ. To which we may add that Bishop Bilson himself acknowledges Perpet Gov. P. 158 159. that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches when Iohn wrote to them it is abundantly removed by what is said above in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop by Ancient Writers as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus which we shall take notice of he tells us that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas the Faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of Patmos immediatly before the Angel of that Church to whom Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clement succeeded to Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Paraeus says indeed that these of Pergamus had cruelly slain Antipas but adds quis fuerat ex Historia parum constat that there is no Light from History who he was He adds Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem c. that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church and under Domitian a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds that he to whom our Lord wrote might be tempted to lay aside his Office for fear of the like Punishment c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair and of his Name Paraeus says nothing neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office than that of Pastor seeming to take these Churches for Congregational And if the Office to which the Angel succeeded was that of a Pastor only where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair which he here assigns him Besides Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound touching the Office and Character of Antipas Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool do affirm That no Ecclesiastick History makes mention of Antipas and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note And that no History giving Account of him has inclined some to think this Epistle is wholly Prophetical and that Antipas signifies all such as oppose the Pope as if it were the same with Antipapa The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels is That it being apparent that there were Bishops presiding in each of these Churches when Iohn wrote consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches So that they being Bishops our Saviour in these Epithets allows and approves of the Episcopal Order But by what is above replyed it is evident that nothing which the Dr. has adduced amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops as he has shapen out in one or all of these Churches And therefore our Lords writing to these Angels gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order which he asserts And so to the Dr's Summ of all as he expresses it viz That the Episcopal form is of Divine Right upon Ground of our Saviours Institution Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles and conformity of the Primitive Churches and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone from what is above replyed that it is evident that the high-flown Hierarchy he pleads for has no Foundation either in our Lords Institution or the Practice of the Apostles is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church or our Saviours Approbation in his Epistles to the Asian Churches but as opposit to all these is by the Churches of Christ to be rejected and disowned CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government considered THE First Prerogative of the Bishop as contradistinct from a Presbyter is with the Dr. to make Laws and Canons which is the Essence of Government and supposes a Legislative Power else faith he Christs Wisdom is impeached if he left a Governed Society without a Legislative Power I need not stand to tell the Dr That by consent of Protestant Divines the Churches Power is not properly Nomothetick Architectonick Legislative but Ministerial and declarative of Christs Institution in reference to Ordinances the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government of his House The Dr. proves this Authority P. 433.434 from the Apostles Power Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision And says That in their Decree they exercise a Legislative Power laying upon the Churches to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity That as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the
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
Authority appropriat to them and that with Relation thereto the Bishop and the Presbyter are in Scripture made one and the same 2. When he says they are made of the same Order with respect to the Priesthood common to either He speaks Confusedly and Ignorantly For will he say that the attributing to Two Church Officers who are different the same Geneal or to speak to the Dr's Scope the same Generical Priesthood or Ministry will inferr that they are of the same order therein or specifical Office If so then Apostles who are called Presbyters or Elders he must say are of the same Order with them yea with Deacons also since sometimes their Office and Ministry is represented by such a term as Represents a Deaconate or common service Further I must here warn the Doctor to take up his Shield and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow Was our Lord of the same Order with the Prophets or Servants of God because in the capacity of Mediator and with Respect to a general Ministry or Service of the Father he gets the Designation name and thing of Prophet Messenger and Servant of God Will the Dr. thus Blasphemously degrade him into the same Order with mere Creatures who are Prophets and Servants In a word let us hold the Dr to his affirmative and challenge his proof of this Point viz. That in Scripture there is an ordinary standing Church Officer exhibit under the Character and designation of a Bishop who is alwise Reckoned above a Presbyter or Pastor when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named And according to the scope measures and extent of this Assertion let his ensuing Discourse Answers and proofs be examined wherein I am sure he has fair dealing according to all acknowledged Laws of Disputation Well proceed we then to his Proofs of this Assertion and the ground of his ensuing Answer to this Argument taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter He tells us that the inspired Writers as the Iews Dichotomotized or made a bipartit Division Reader be not so ignorant as to start at this term as a Goblin the Dr. as an English Orator may cast his Greek into an English Mould And you must know he is against new stanâ—â—t Opinions not Phrases Well what did they Dichotomtoize The Clergy saith the Dr. into Two Orders here he has soundly exponed his term like that of Priests and Levits tho as among the Jews So among Christians this admitted of a Sub-division and subordination of Church Officers among themselves as were the Priests of the Old Testament This he says was suitable to the Language of the Helenistical or Graecian Tribes high Oratory of the Apostolick Age the Name of Priest and High-Priest being Confounded Levit. 1.7 The Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put Fire c. v. 8. the Priests Aarons Sons shall lay the parts c. Now saith the Dr. if Priests and High-Priests got the same Name without any distinction of Order notwithstanding the High-Priests extraordinary priviledges the Name of High-Priest likewise being never affixt to Aaron or Eleazar and the term but Twice or Thrice mentioned in the Books of Moses while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not against the Subordination of Priests Could it be thought strange that Apostles or Apostolical Men in mentioning Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the current Phraseology of their Countreymen in speaking of Priests and Levites Dividing them into two Orders as if there were no more Tho the meanest Jew knew the high Priest was very Honourable and by all marks of eminency and Authority Disstinguished from ordinary Priests Thus he Pag. 23.24.25 I Answer Quod haec ad rhombum What says this to the Point Or how lyes this Discourse level to his scope either to prove the Bishops Jurisdictional Authority above a Presbyter or Pastor as Bishop in the Scripture Sense or to prove that we Argue sophistically when alledging that the Scripture makes the Bishop and Presbyter one in Name and thing and that therefore the discriminating of both by Episcopalians is antiscriptural How I say this lyes level to the Dr's Conclusion or can in solid Reason reach the same I must Confess passes my Comprehension For 1. Tho all the Dr. says be granted it is palpably evident that this pleading if it prove any thing levels merely against such as would draw the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter only from this that there is an homonymie of these two Names whereas it is the Identity of the Qualifications Gifts Duties and every essential of the Office which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from not merely the confusion of Names 2. The Dr. himsef acknowledges that notwithstanding of this supposed confusion of Names oâ— Dichotomotizing the Old Testament Church Officers yet the High-Priest was distinguished from the other Priests by marks of Eminency and Authority for instance that he is called High-Priest And therefore before his Discourse can have any shadow of Answer he is bound to Exhibit in a just Paralel the same Scripture marks of Eminency and Authority of the Diocesan Bishop above the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop as the Scripture Exhibits in reference to the High-Priests above the ordinary Priests or the Priests in reference to the Levites else this Answer by his own Confession and in the Sense of all men of Sense is but a pitiful Begging of the Question For upon this Ground he might alledge a Distinction betwixt the Pastor and Preaching Presbyter He alledges P. 25. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High-Priest is frequently distinguished by his proper and special Character Well then he is obliged to let us see in Scripture such a frequent distinction of the Prelatical or Diocesan Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter by such a Character as the Dr. makes special and Peculiar to him and exhibit his special Official difference therein and super eminent Authority over Pastors else he never touches the Point We hold that the Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture alwise one Name and thing The Dr. grants that the High Priest and other Priests are not so but distinguished and therefore he brings an impertinent Paralel and exception anent the sometimes Community of Names of Priests and High-Priests unless he can otherwise than thus disprove and answer our Assertion Besides the Critical Disputant will here put him to prove that the inspired Writers of the New Testament followed the Phraseologie of the Iews in speaking of the New Testament-Church Officers especially since we find frequent recitations of them in a far other strain and Phrase and that in their several Classes and Degrees both ordinary and extraordinary as 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. Eph. 4.11 Moreover when in that place Levit 1. Aaron is called not merely the Priest but emphatice Aaron the Priest whose eminent immediat Call to the Priesthood is so clear and distinguished from his Sons the Priests mentioned in the plural in that very Passage
he did well to add to his bold Assertion his two Limitations of Matters of moment and Canonically which must be referred to his Explication But we have made appear from the Learned Iunius and others what was Presbyters interest in Councils and he must be posed who concurred and Acted Authoritatively in that Council Act. 15 As for the Comparison of the Old and New Testament Ministry used by some of the Ancients we have seen what a pitiful Argument it is in reference to his Conclusion and that the Comparison is only with reference to a similitude in point of of a Distinction and Subordination of Courts and Officers not a Parity or Identity of both OEconomies For this were to make an illustrating similitude or allusion to infer an Identity with absurdity if the Dr. should draw upon himself who will not hiss him I desiderat still and call for the Dr s. Scripture-proof of the Diocesan Bishops Superiority to the Pastor or Presbyter according to the true State of the Question and his undertaking and supposition in his Answers but there is no scent of it tho I am still in Quest of the same Pag. 30. He is still repeating again his Notion and Phantastical Conceit of Dichotomies Well what more to this scope Clemens Romanus saith the Dr. divides the Clergy into two Orders and so he doth the Jewish Ministry into Priests and Levites tho in either there is no equality But to this nauseous repeating Dr. I must Repeat again 1. Tho he should exhibit Clemens's Assertion of his Hierarchical Bishop it touches not the Point in Question which is anent a Scripture Assertion of such an Officer not what any Human Writers have Asserted 2. He has not made appear Clemens's subdivision of the Pastoral Office into his fancied Orders nor the Assertions of any Writers else to this purpose For Tertullians Testimony if it prove any thing it proves too much and beyond his Assertion Viz. The Deacons Power to Baptize which the Dr. cannot own without disowning the Scripture-accounts of this Office and the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines But to proceed with the Dr. P. 31. In stead of a solid Answer to our Scripture Arguments for the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter or our demanded Scripture-proof of his supposed Imparity I find the Dr. is still casting up his pityful recocted Crambe of Dichotomies and telling us trifflling quibles of Tertullian's sense of the Seniores mentioned in his VVritings he tells us he is not at a Point in it whether by Seniores Tertullian understood all Presbyters or those only advanced to the Episcopal Dignity And what this signifies to the point in question often mentioned the Appeal is made to all considering persons to Judge And whether in such pretended Answers to our Scripture Arguments for Presbyterian Government long since offered to the view of the Learned World and to our demand of a Scripture proof of his supposed Impariity this Man be not a poor Beggarly Trifler and a Skirmisher with his own Shadow Besides Tertullian asserts that praesident probati quique Seniores if the Dr. is not sure but that such in Tertullian's sense might be Pastors he must acknowledge that according to Tertullian such presided or had the Authority of a Proestos in Church Judicatories as were not of his Hierarchical Order So that he did not well to raise this frighting Ghost What more to our Question We are told next That Clem. Alexan. Stromat Lib. 6. reckons up Three Orders of the Clergy What then We reckon up Pastors Ruling Elders Deacons The question is what Degrees he assigns of the Pastoral Office And further upon what Scripture VVarrand How long will scorners delight in scorning and fools hate Knowledge VVhat more Are we yet arrived at the Dr's Answer to Presbyterian Scripture Arguments or his own Scripture Proofs of what he here beggs No. We hear next that Cyprian asserts the Episcopal Jurisdiction But all who have read Cyprian can tell him that he also ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues without whom he could do nothing And therefore that he owned no sole Episcopal Iurisdiction VVhat more Polycarp troubles the Dr. who divids the Clergie into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians VVhat will remedy this VVhy He recommends Ignatius his Epistles where the Apostolick Hierarchie is often mentioned But what assurance gives the Dr. that these were his genuine Epistles which now go under his Name there being Passages in these Epistles which the Dr. himself cannot but be ashamed of But Polycarp in the Dr's Opinion was a very modest humble Man whose useual Stile was Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Which the Dr. will needs have to express his Episcopal Distinction from them A proof which if you be a Friend you may take off his Hand when the poor empty Man has no better I see it is now dangerous for any Minister to say or write I and the Pastors that are with me least the Dr. fasten an Episcopal Gloss upon it The Dr. profoundly supposes that nothing but an Episcopal Jurisdiction and Priority could warrand this Phrase and order of his Words The contrary whereof can be cleared by so many Instances as renders this Reason obviously ridiculous What more we are told P. 32. That there can be nothing more extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because the Ancients used the Jewish Phraseology since they frequentlie assert the Iurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters But what can be more extravagant than this Dr's Trifling in this Debate and telling over and over ad nauseam usque this pityful quible not to the purpose and the point in question and in stead of an Answer to our Nervous Scripture-Arguments for the Official Parity of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino presenting idle repeated Stories of the Ancients Phraseologie anent the New Testament Church Officers which all Men of Sense cannot but see to be as far from the purpose as East is from West While pretending to run the Carrier of a fierce Assault upon Presbyterians he doth nothing but chase empty insignificant quibles with his back to his Adversaries and to the point and in such a faint declining of a closs and true Scripture-Dispute upon this Question according to its genuine Nature and Terms as all Judicious Persons who read his Pamphlet may see that the Presbyterians have this pityful cowardly Braggard in Chase who dare not encounter them and fairly deal Stroaks upon the point The Scripture Assertion of the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop under that Character over the Pastor or Presbyter as an ordinary New Testament Officer is that which we are still seeking from this Dr. not the Assertion of Humane Writers Ancient or Modern which last notwithstanding so weak is his Cause he has not produced What more Answers P. 32.33 Hermes contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproved their ambition who in his time strove for Dignitie and Preferment Reader here is a
supposed Successors were of the number of the Seventy Disciples for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof or he says nothing Again in the 3d. place Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading that even upon this Supposition it is utterly lost and ruined unless he can make it appear that these Seventy had in their Commission the Doctrinal Key only but no interest in the Government which is his Supposition all along as to the Pastoral Office Now it is evident beyond contradiction that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government had both the Keys committed unto them only and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers as are called Bishops in a superior order to Pastors as specifically distinct from them intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First as well as the Power of Order and nothing at all thereof to the Second but the Doctrinal Key only Before I proceed let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office His Answer is That this is a begging of the question since we allow that Christ institut the Office but gave no signification that it was but for a Season But First How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question in supposing that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification He should know that we own and can make good the contrary And the current of all Protestant Divines owning the Apostolick Office to be extraordinary and expired must and do by necessary consequence hold That the Temporary Nature of the Office hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation that the Office was not to Continue but to Expire with the Persons who carried it The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession which is not ours but by him falsly imputed to us Next the Office it self in its Nature and End being as is said Temporary and owned so by the Body of all our Divines It necessarly follows that our Lords Institution terminat upon and relative to the Office was likewise thus Temporary and determined to a certain Season As under the Law Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances being to represent Christs Death the very Nature of the Institution did determin the Continuance till Christs coming and offering Himself and no longer As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited did expire at his Death Nay our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations to every Creature and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church in actu exercito both planted and to be planted to which they had an immediat Relation and instructing them with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues of Miracles c. did thus ex natura rei and from the Nature of the Institution it self discover His design as to the transient Office thus institut and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church it was to pass off with the same Sure should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl or for the continuance of such Gifts as the Dr. will acknowledg expired because of our Lords Institution and giving the Gifts and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office he would answer That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self now comprobat by the Event discovers the temporary Design thereof and that it was not to Continue and that therefore there was no need that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator in the Institution or Collation of the Gift Which Answer he may bestow for us upon himself as to the Point in hand Again to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles If he mean a Succession to their Office in its Nature and Extent as delineat in Scripture then he runs himself into gross Absurdities For 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut and that de facto there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs with an universal unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church to be continued therein with a Collateral and Equal Power 2. If he say this as he needs must if he speak to the Point and consequentialy he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors from among the 70 Disciples viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem Philip St. Paul at Cesarea Clement St. Peter at Rome For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World where Churches were planted or to be planted how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If their Ministry was confined to these Posts how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts succeeds the Apostolick Office which was of this universal Extent makes as good Sense and Harmony as to say that the Person who is installed Dean of Canterburry succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat and his Primacy over England 3. I would know whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas with these other Instances of Simeon Philip and Clement at Ierusalem Cesarea and Rome If he do not then his paralel Argument as to the Point of Succession is by his own Confession like the Legs of the Lame not equal it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances while the Persons instanced as succeeding are not of the same and equal Power and Authority If he say That he understands Successors in the same Apostolick Power then I would fain know how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon with a fixed Post at Ierusalem Philip at Cesarea Clement at Rome with the Succession of Matthias in the Apostolick Office by the Divine Appointment without the least hint of any fixed Station but with an universal Inspection as the other Apostles had But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma If he mean by Successors to the Apostles a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters in a certain Precinct not unto their Office and Authority every way or with reference either to their
fall within the compass of these expired Prerogatives so several of the Prelats pretended Prerogatives are contrary and repugnant thereunto such as their exercising an ordinary Power in fixed Diocesses the Appostolick Inspection was Unfixed and extraordinary and they were Officers in actu exercito of the whole Church Next the Bishops account themselves sole Pastors of the Diocess tho Pastors are therein Ordained and Fixed For they are the Fountains from whom the Power of Order and Jurisdiction in the Diocess is dierived and the Exercise of both depends upon their Lordly Disposal And this Preheminency no Apostle ever claimed their Office being only a Declarative Executive Ministry not a Lordly Dominion Besides the Prelats negative Voice and sole Decisive Power in Judicatories is point Blank contrair to the Apostles Carriage in that Synod Act 15. In which the Question was stated and debated in the ordinary way of Disputation and the Ordinary Officers did concurr and joyn with the Apostles in Authorizing and enjoyning the Decrees And further the Bishops thâ— ordinary Officers yet deny a Subjection to the Prophets in greater or lesser Assemblies of the Church whereof they are professed Officers and yet we find Paul asserting Universally and indefinitly That the Spirits of the Prophets are Subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14.32 Nay we find himself receiving Imposition of Hands and sent out by a Presbytrie upon a special Gospel legation which did consist not of Fellow-Apostles but of Prophets and Teachers Act. 13.1 2.3 But to what Assembly of Prophets are Prelats Subject either as to their Life or Doctrin Thirdly As to the perpetual ordinary Power given to the Apostles and transmitted by them to the Church They did neither claim nor exercise Superiority over other Ministers but we find them accounting them Brethren Partners Fellow-Labourers and themselves Fellow-Elders with them and as to the Pastoral Charge their Equals For that ordinary Power the Apostolick Office contained Eminenter which they transmitted to others But it is evident that as they planted Elders with equal Power in the Churches so in their last Farewels they committed as is above cleared the Government unto them without any hint of Imparity in its exercise Act. 20.28 Tit. 1.5 1 Cor. 5.1 Pet. 5. To which we may add in the Fourth place that the Apostles Discharging Lordly Dominion and Preheminency amongst Ministers over the Lord's Flocks or among themselves And the Apostle Iohn condemning expresly this in Diotrophes will infallibly prove that they neither allowed in others nor exercised themselves any such power else their Doctrin would contradict their Practice Hence it s infallibly clear that to make good the Drs. Proof of a Succession to the Apostles by Instances which he here undertaks there are two Points he must clearly prove and make good as the Affirmer 1. That these pretended Successors did de facto exercise and hold the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat 2. That de jure the Apostles by their Doctrin and Practice did devolve such an Authority upon them to be perpetually transmitted to the Church by Succession And therefore if in either or both these he fall short in his Instances of a pretended Succession he but beats the Air and loses his Design of proving That the Apostles communicated the same Office to Successors which our Saviour had communicated to them which in terminis he asserts p. 394. This being premised let us see how the Dr. proves by Instances the Succession of Apostles to Apostles as an Office still to be continued in the Church His first Instance of Succession is that of St. Iames in Ierusalem whose Succession in an Apostolick or Episcopal Preheminence there he labours much in the Proof of pag. 394 395 396 397. But. first tho this Matter of Fact were granted that Iames the Apostle or Evangelist not to stand here to discuss which did exercise his Ministry or Apostolate there how will it prove a Succession to the Apostolick Charge and Office in the Drs. Sense as above delineat And where is his Proof of any of the Apostles devolving this Charge upon him To prove either or both these as the Dr. here doth from any Scripture or History which suppose Iames to be in Ierusalem in the exercise of his Ministry requires to make the Reasoning valid such rules of Logick as hitherto has not been heard of What a strang Phantastick Proof is this Scripture affirms Iames to exercise his Ministry at Ierusalem Ergo he had devolved upon him by the other Apostles the Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as exercised by them and committed to them by our Saviour and this as a perpetual Function in the Church This is such Arguing and Rope of Sand-connection as any may laugh at and it is evident to common Sense that tho the exercise of Iames's Ministry in Ierusalem be granted yet the Instance is as far short of being a demonstrative Proof of what the Dr. asserts and aims at and reaching his Conclusion as the Pigmey's Arm is to fetch down Ulysses Helmet The Dr. in handling this instance endeavours to prove that the Iames spoken of Gal. 1.19 and called the Lords Brother was none of the Twelve Wherein he contradicts good Interpreters as might be cleard by a multiplicity of Instances if need were The Belgick Divines upon the Place take him to be the same mentioned Mark 10. And upon Act. 12.2 They shew that after Iames was killed this Iames spoken of here is he who left behind him the Epistle of Iames and is called the Lords Brother And upon v. 17. They affirm that this was Iames the less The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. upon Gal. 1.19 Do assert That he was one of the Twelve Apostles paralelling this passage touching Iames with Mark 6. The Drs. Proof that he was not an Apostle because Paul reckons him a part from the Twelve 1 Cor. 15.5.6.7 is utterly insufficient The Authors of Part 2. Pool Annot. draw no such Conclusion upon that verse but insinuat rather the contrar And the Dutch Divines are peremptor that the Iames mentioned in that Text was the Apostle Iames and one of the Two in the Catalogue of Apostles The Drs. Proof from his being mentioned a part from the Twelve is a pitiful lax Conceit For if the Apostle saying v. 7. That our Lord was seen of Iames then of all the Apostles will prove that Iames was not of the number his saying v. 5. That our Lord was seen of Cephas then of the Twelve will by the same Reason prove that Peter was none of the number The Doctor would needs have him the Thirteenth Apostle and the first that was made an Apostle after the Twelve I had thought that Matthias was the first Person made an Apostle after our Lords Ascension to make up the number of Twelve and supply the room of Iudas and that Paul was next added by our Lords special Call from Heaven but when
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
all the Power of Government in the person of the Bishop excluding wholly all Presbyters from any Interest therein So that the Dr. in this unwary Citation contradicts Ignatius and himself and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians wherein Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family to be his Steward He hath again Wounded himself For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry under the Authority of the Master and tyed up to his Orders is point blanck contrare unto and toto coelo different from that Principality of the highest Degree before ascribed to the Bishop and owned by the Dr. as his and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office Sure to be a Prince and a Steward in Government are distinct things and entirely and wholly opposit if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it who disowns a Dominion and in stead thereof and in opposition thereunto owns a Stewardship in God's Family and humble Sevice or Ministry 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations Whereof the first is That these Epistles were Written not above Eight or Nine years after the Decease of St. Iohn and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church who were not Subject to them That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches so that they were not within the Altar but without it who were not subject to them And therefore it may be concluded there were no Churches without them I Answer that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early no body will doubt but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries as are above rehearsed was written by Ignatius and was his Sense of Church Government no Man of Sense or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr will believe And we find the contrair is asserted and made good by several of the Godly Learned Not to stand upon a more critical Answer and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author tho admitted unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts the Judgment of the whole Church to be correspondent thereunto and that none who either wrot not or whose Writings may be lost were of contrary Judgment which he neither attempts to prove nor will ever be able The Drs. next Inference is That since there were Bishops so early in this Age presiding over the Churches they behoved to receive several of them at least their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles since Ignatius at the writing of these Epistles had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch an eminent Church planted immediatly by St. Peter It being the constant practice of the Apostles to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies that there were de facto and de jure such Prelats as he pleads for Nor can he from this Ground perswad any rational Man of this unless he could evince two Things which he will do ad Calendas Graecas 1. Not only that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius but likewise the Sense and Judgment as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer as the Bishop is correspondent to the Scripture Account and Sense of the Church Officers mentioned in the New Testament and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government and the Institution of the Officers thereof which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty Again his Reason here is very odd whereby he fortifies this Inference viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted For if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops as he needs must if he speak consequentially I would fain know First What shadow of Proof he can give for this and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such For if this be asserted then it follows that Bishops were set up when there were no Elders to presid over contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows except Dr. Hammond And next I would know how the Dr. upon this Supposition will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction and that both to himself and Ignatius Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders and himself holds that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem when the Apostle Paul went in to them were mere Presbyters or Pastors Again if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion who takes still the Elders for Prelats so he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church not to suppose it only else in his principles these Churches where mere Elders were placed were manck and wanted the power of Jurisdiction And since he has produced nothing from Scripture that proves such an institution of Bishops or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses his Dream of Ignatius is as easily rejected by us as affirmed by him We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas when sent out among the Gentiles and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat of the Drs. Mould in either of the Antiochs the Scripture is utterly silent And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion As for Chrysostom Tom. 5. edit Savil. p. 99. his admiring of Ignatius Dignity obtained by the Hands of Apostles laid upon him It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity which the Dr. alledges For doth not the Dr. think that the Office of the Scripture Bishop is a great Dignity And he should prove not suppose only that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense which as he offers not to do so if attempting it he could not chuse but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself who as is above cleared asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter The same I repone to what the Dr. alledgeth P. 410 of Polycarp his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna as also what is made good by many Protestant Divines viz. That the Fathers and Ancients used the Name of Bishops in a general Sense that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
Moderators had no Authority over the Presbytrie tho ordinarly thus termed And which clears this to Conviction Polycarp himself in his Epistle to the Philippians makes but two Orders of Ministry viz. Elders and Deacons as the Apostle Paul doth in his Epistle to the same Church and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould much more a derived Apostolat from these blind Testimonies The Dr. adds That it cannot be imagined that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time the Apostles being alive had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly But 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof for this universal Reception For I pray what proof is this Such and such Authors say there were Bishops in such and such Posts or rather put this general name upon such Persons Therefore the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as an Officer of Divine Institution For besides that the Dr. will never prove from the bare Assertion anent Bishops that they were of his Cutt and Mould the contrary being apparent especially in these early Times And many Fathers asserting the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop of his Mould before this Assertion can be made good 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church both under the Law and Gospel As in the times of the Old Testament he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf by the Church of Israel together with Aaron himself but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai And besides many such Instances in the Old Testament we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares early in the Church of the New Testament such as the Error about the Resurrection the worshipping of Angels Justification by the works of the Law the necessity of Circumcision and other Ceremonies the Error of the Nicolaitans c. And look a little forward in the early times of the Church we will find Errors Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles and owned by some of the Fathers themselves which notwithstanding the Dr cannot but acknowledg to be Errors Such as the Millâ—nary Error the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper c. whereof afterward The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn that they should receive a new Order of Men without his Authority But this Universal reception of such an Order as the Dr. supposes is not yet proved Besides that the Dr's supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption early creeping in because of some Apostles or even of Iohn yet alive he will find not to be solid when he ponders duely the working of the Mystrie of iniquity and the Seeds of a Papacy even in Paul's time and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence even in Iohn's time yea and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle The Dr. should know that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature while the Apostles were alive that we must found our Perswasion upon but the lively Oracles and living Doctrin of the Apostles is our Rule and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto tho all the Church should receive it yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it we ought to reject it and might call that Angel accursed For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. That de facto the Apostles with their own Hands Ordained several Bishops over Churches Viz Dion Areop Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archippus of Coloss Onesimus of Ephesus Epaphroditus of Phillippi Titus of Corinth c. I Answer the Dr. does well to add the Caution if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History And truely this History must be of mighty force that must be believed against clear Scripture and the Credit and belief founded thereupon must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows Nay the Drs. Credit of such History must needs set him at odds with himself For as to the First we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica Obedience to their Pastors jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock 1 Thess. 5.12.14 And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction upon the Apostle Paul as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church with Authority to Rule and Govern while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop or to take it afterward from them and put it in the Bishops Hands How I pray shall we believe such History against such plain Scripture And whether I pray deserves most our Credit the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica jointly as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids or an after Apocryphal History declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment monopolized in one Bishop either at that time or thereafter set up and Ordained by Paul Whether are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus as entrusted by Paul in his last farewel to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly as the Bishops thereof Authorized by the Holy Ghost or an Historical account of Onesimus as their sole Bishop who had this Power Monopolized in him in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church either at that time or thereafter I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it And whether upon such ground as this we might not cast off all Divine Institutions and receive all fopperies and Superstitions which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest The like might be said of Philippi the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church saluting the Bishops as their Pastors in common calling all the Ministers Bishops and thus applying to them that Name and Office which the Dr. and his Fellows will needs appropriat to a Prelat And sure Paul writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God to suppose that either now or afterwards such a pretended Prelat as the Dr. maintains either had or was to have by Divine appointment all this Authority of the Pastors enhansed
therefore in Ierom's Sense Pastors are such Sons and Successors of Apostles and have both Name and thing of the Scripture Bishop As for his Epistle ad Nepot asserting that what Aaron and his Sons were that are the Bishops and Presbters Ierom in this allusion in point of Government asserts only that God has under the New Testament as under the Old fixed a Church Government and Church Officers And giving the Dr. the advantage of this Sense that Ierom including the degenerat Custom of his time insinuats the premised difference betwixt the then Bishops and Presbyters I pray what says this to the Dr's scope viz To prove from Ierom's allusive Phrase and expressing himself thus The many Essential differences which he places betwixt Bishop and Presbyter No man of Sense can draw such an inference For 1. Ierom's Judgment founded upon so many clear Scripture Grounds as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when asserting and Disputing this Point ex professo ought in all Reason to preponderat any such General allusive Expressions and as a Comment Expound the same in a Sense most consentient to his Judgment if we will but allow him the Common priviledg of all Men to be the best Interpreter of his own Sense 2 ly The Dr. himself must acknowledg this else he will make Ierom plead for a Gospel Aaron or Universal Patriarch if the Words were taken in a strict Literal Sense as tending every way to equiparat the Government of the Church under the Old and New Testament The Dr. inferrs from this Passage Therefore as Aaron by Divine Right was Superior to his Sons so is the Bishop in Ierom's Sense to his Presbyters But he might as well infer Therefore as there was one Aaron set over his Sons and all the Priests and Levits of the Church of Israel so ought there to be in Ierom's Sense one Supreme President over al the Christian Church Besides 2 ly The Dr. dare not say that Aaron's Sons and the Priests had no Essential interest in Government and that it was inhanced and Monopolized in the person of Aaron as he holds and insinuats that Ierom also holds that it is thus Monopolized in the Person of the Bishop Ierom asserts that Presbyters and Bishops are all one Iure Divino consequently that they have the same Essential interest in Government So that whatever President he may suppose set over them by their Choice yet it neither doth nor can enhance nor seclude this their Power Thus we see that the Dr's alledged Contradiction in these Passages to his premised Testimony anent the identity of Bishop and Presbyter is but his own imagnation Besides that one of his Degree should know that no simile is to be strained beyond the Scope of the Author making use of it else it were not a simile The Dr. asks whether Ierom is more to be Credited when speaking without a Byass or when speaking partially and in his own Cause I Answer by a Counter-query whether Ierom's full and larg account of his Judgment when Disputing a Point ex professo and from Scripture is more to be believed and laid hold upon as expressing his Sense than a general dark allusive expression when under no such Circumstances and prosecuting no such scope and design and which of the two ought to preponderat And so I dismiss the Dr's Third Answer His Fourth exception to the premised Testimonie is That the translation of the Government from the common Counsel of Presbyters to one Bishop must be in Jerom's Sense Apostolick since it was made when it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollo's And therefore this Decree must needs have been made in Pauls time Ans. The Dr. might have seen this Phantastick exception long since removed First By Junius in the passage forecited scil de Cler. Cap. 15. Not. 16. where he at large expones this Testimony and removes this gloss tria distinguit tempora Hieronymus saith he c. Ierom distinguisheth Three Periods of time one wherein the Church was Governed by common Counsel of Presbyters The second wherein there were divisions in Religion and it was said among the People not at Corinth only I am of Paul c. For when these things were said at Corinth the Church was Governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters as appears 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 1. The Third and last wherein one chosen out from among the Presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the Vulgar had their own latitude Iunius here informs the Dr. that this was not said at Corinth only but among the People malum non Corinthi solum It was saith he a publick evil He adds that Paul himself prescribed no such remedy to the Corinthians And and afterward Not. 17. he tells us that Ierom saith That after it was said among the People this Change was made but not that this human Prostasie began at that time viz of the Schism but after that time To this Judicious account of the learned Iunius I shall add another of the famous Whittaker De Eccl. quest 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 29. where he thus obviats and removes the Drs. Quible upon Ierom's forementioned Testimony he saith not it was Decreed by the Apostles that one Presbyter should be set over the rest This he says was by the Churches custom not the Apostles Decree Then Jerom adds let the Bishops know that it is rather by custom than Divine appointment that they are set over Presbyters Had the Apostles saith Whittaker changed the First Order and set Bishops over Presbyters and forbidden the Churches to be Governed by their common Counsel truely this had been the â—ords appointment because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ unless we will ascribe to Custom not to Divine appointment what they decreed But the Apostles being alive there was nothing changed in that Order For the Epistle was written when Paul was in Macedonia c. The Dr. may in these accounts see his Error Jerom in the forementioned Testimonies proving a Scripture parity of Bishop and Presbyter through all the Apostles times and writings and even to John's time the surviver of them all could not be so bruitishly inconsequent as to make the Schism at Corinth the occasion of the Change of Government so long before his Testimony from John yea before Paul's farewel Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus from which he draws another of his Proofs but he speaks of an human Custom coming in Paulatim postea piece and piece and by degrees long after these times and but alluds unto that division 1 Cor. 1 where again the Dr. may see the Error of taking strictly his alluding Phrases expressing it in the Apostles words not of their times For as we heard Whittaker observe the Apostles never appointed such accressent Power of Prelats over Presbyters as a Remedy of Schism among all their Prescriptions of the Remedies of this evil Rom. 16. 1
Government that it occasioned Schisms For upon supposal of the soundness of Ierom's Scripture proofs the parity of Bishop and Presbyter being the mind of Christ and his Apostles this Government could never give ground to Schisms nor could the Church warrantably alter it upon any such pretence So that whensoever and by whomsoever the change was made it was made contrary to the revealed will of the great Law-giver The Second Point of unsoundness the Dr. is Chargable with is that in the beginning of his discourse upon Ierom's Testimony he professes that he will not disput with us the Sense of this Passage but allow it to bear our Sense Yet in several of his Answers he impugns our Sense Especially his 4.5 6. and not only our Sense but the Sense of sound Protestant Divines as is above evident His Conceit about Ierom's making the Decree or Custom he speaks of to be the Schism at Corinth which is his Fourth exception and his Supposition That Jerom by toto orbe decretum understands a formal joint Decree of the whole Church not a gradual Custom and that Jerom makes the Church to redress upon necessary grounds the Government appointed by Christ and his Apostles and thus to impeach his Divine Wisdom which are his other exceptions All these I say as they are Distortions of Jerom's sense so directly opposit to the Sense given by us and by all sound Divines yea and such as have been long since refuted by Protestant Writers in Answer to Popish glosses and exceptions with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join Issue So that we may judg of the affinity of both their Causes by the near cognation of their Pleadings CHAP. IV. The Dr 's Fourth Argument Examined taken from our Saviour's alledged allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches WE do now proceed to the Dr's last Argument to prove That the rightful Government of the Church is Episcopal taken from our Saviours Allowance and Approbation thereof in his Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia directed to the Seven Angels called Seven Stars in His Right Hand or the Seven Lights of the Seven Churches Rev. 1.20 and 2.1 And in every Epistle owned as his Angels and Messengers The Dr. tells us that if he can prove them to be Seven Bishops presiding over Clergy and Laity of these Churches at that time they are unanswerable instances of Christs Allowance and Approbation of the Episcopal Order This trite and often Baffled Argument taken from the supposed Episcopal Power of the Seven Asian Angels has been so frequently scanned and tossed by Writers on this Controversie that the Dr. since he makes here such a Parade should either have brought some new Strength upon the Field or offered an Answer to the many clear returns given to this Argument However to clear our way in examining what the Dr. says upon this head which is nothing else but some Old Musty stuff repeated I premise two things 1. That the Collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles 2. That allowing the Angels to be single Persons will nothing help the Drs. design and pleading For the First that the collective Sense of the term Angel is most suitable to Scripture and the Scope of these Epistles appears thus 1. This suits best the Stile of this Book which is by mystick visional Representations to includ many individuals As one singular so all the individuals of the Church both Members and Officers are represented by One Candlestick And why not also all the Ministers by one Angel A term which of it self and in this place imports no Jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the Angelical frame and qualities of Ministers 2. This is also suitable to the style of this Book as it is Epistolare the Address may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest As an Address from the King to a Speaker in Parliament will give the Speaker no Jurisdiction and Authority over his Fellow-Members When our Lord said unto Peter only expresly not to the rest of his fellow-Disciples I will give unto thee the Keyes c. who but brutish and partially affected Papists will conclud that he was Prince or Primate over the Apostles And that they had not and even by this promise an equal Authority with him in the use of the Keys This the Dr. must acknowledg unless he will justify the Popes Pleading from this Text. 3. This is suitable to Scripture Prophetick Writings and to this Book as such to represent many Individuals by one singular The Four beasts the Twenty Four Elders do not signify so many individual persons The singular Names of Woman Beast Whore Dragon signify a collection of many individuals So the one Spirit of God is called the Seven Spirits with reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8.20 One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deut. 17.12 i. e. The Priests in the plural So the Priests Lips should keep knowledg and the Law sought at his Mouth Mal. 2.7 Here also the Priest for Priests in the Plural Blest is that Servant whom the Lord c. i. e. Those Servants Particularly as to the term Angel It is said Psal. 34. that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly i. e. many Angels since they are all Ministring Spirits to them 4. It is suitable to Scripture and this Book to represent an indefinit number by a definit Thus all Iudahs Adversaries are represented by the Four Horns Zech. 1.18 All the Godly and the Ungodly are represented by the Five Wise and by the Five Foolish Virgins The Seven Angels standing before God Represents all the Angels Ch. 8. of this Book for in Ch. 7. mention is made of all the Angels who do thus stand And with the same indefinitness we are to understand the Septenarie number frequently elsewhere as the Seven Pillars which Wisdom Hews out Prov. 9. The Seven Pastors or Shepherds Micah 5. The Seven Eyes Zech. 3. And in this very Book Ch. 4.5.15 The Seven Candlesticks Lamps Viols 5. As we find the Scripture and this same Apostle First Naming a Multitude and then contracting it into a Singular as 2 Ioh. 7. v. Many deceivers are entred into the World Then This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist And sometimes the Individual in one Sentence turned into a Multitude as 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved i. e. the Woman bearing Children if they continue in Faith and Charity i. e. such Women in general So this single Angel is turned into many and spoken to in the Plural in one and the same Epistle Thus Rev. 2.24 Unto you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.10 We find John changing the singular Angel into a Multitudâ— Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer Behold the Devil shall cast
good of the Church in general so by their own Authority for particular Churches to which they were more particularly related Here is I must say odd and confused stuff First The Dr. supposes that the Decree Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down yea and Scripture Grounds 2 ly The Sentence runs in these terms It seemed good to the Holy Ghost viz. speaking in the Scripture and to us 3 ly Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews apparent in the debate and disquisition the things enjoined are termed necessary things and thus supposed materially such antecedaneously to the Decree Hence 4 ly The Dr. in saying That this Abstinence he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time place and persons was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity expugns from being Laws of Christianity all our Lords Precepts in point of Love and Unity and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones For these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence and ground the necessity thereof in the present Case and exigence Again in the nexplace The great point the Dr. has to prove is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative secluding Pastors This he proves by the Apostles together with the Elders and Brethren their comming together and determining this matter One would think this makes fair to prove the contrary The Apostles here meeting with and taking into the disquisition and Decree and into every step of the procedure the ordinary Ministers and Elders as persons interested and concerned and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed in order to the Churches Obedience Ay but the Dr. tells us That by consent of all Antiquity by these Elders we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt of a like soundness with himself But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders he must Esteem them Bishops where ever mentioned and deny the existence of any Pastors the true Scripture Bishops at this time wherein our Dr. will and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond For to omit other instances he holds the Elders present with Iames when Paul went into him to be Pastors over which Iames as Bishop of Ierusalem did preside 2 ly None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable For in the context it is evident that at this time the Apostles were but founding and gathering Churches in Iudea settling Churches therein and taking inspection of them by their Apostolick Authority And therefore it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea and of such a bulk and number as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them yea and Diocesan Bishops of so considerable a Number as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time and in this meeting yea and these besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors which this Man will not deny the Apostles to have ordained where Churches were planted Again why I pray the Bishops of Judea only gathered here in order to this general Decree for all the Churches and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches which he will say were by this time set up Besides that looking to the occasion of this debate anent the Circumcision which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea as from the Apostles and thus troubled the Churches the design of the Gentiles appears evidently to be to send Paul to the Apostles and Elders residing at Jerusalem without the least hint of any more enlarged Advertisement of others than such as were there at that time Again the Dr. says That Apostles and Primitive Bishops made general Laws for the whole Church and Bishops particular Laws for their particular Churches Thus saith he Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians for more decent communication of the Lords Supper Strong reasoning indeed and hanging well together First he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority the general Rules for the whole Church as proper to them with concurrence of ordinary Bishops the ordering of particular Churches being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops And presently to prove this he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles into the class of Ordinary Bishops in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth and wisely supposes that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating concerned only this Church of Corinth and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority nor by the Apostle Paul as in that capacity To this scope the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons to the Churches of Galatia contradicting therein the Relation of these Canons to particular Churches since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Of the same nature is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 5.7 Tit. 1.5 touching the redressing disorders and supplying defects in these Churches For besides that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists extraordinary Officers as Paul himself which clearly excludes Director and Directed from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny several of these directions at least to have been of universal concern and necessity and in this respect also as remote from his Design The Dr. adds That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors That Apostles and Evangelists exercised a Lawful Authority is indeed very sure and no less sure than the Dr's Argument here is loose and unsure from Apostolical directions to Evangelists to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats in reference to making Laws as is above evinced since the Dr. cannot shape out nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop to have been allowed suffrage in any of the First Four General Councils yet immediatly after some way retracting and correcting himself he allows them a place in General Councils but tell us it was only for debate and preparing the Matter of Laws but the form of Laws he says proceeded from the Bishops suffrage This is pretty First The Dr. will never prove that in the First Councils there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould Next its strange that in Councils Presbyters were sitting for
thus called he was called in a special manner to the Apostleship of the Gentiles I have appeared unto thee saith our Lord to make thee a Minister and a Witness delivering thee from the People and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to open their Eyes c. Upon which the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them Act. 26.17 18 19. The Apostle also tells us Gal. 1.15 16 17. that when it pleased God who separated me from my Mothers Womb and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach among the Heathen or Gentiles immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me Compare this with Ephes. 3.8 Hence its odd to suppose that either he or Barnabas were at this time ordained Apostles For Barnabas that he was an Apostle looking strictly to the Description of Apostles some may doubt but supposing him such he being joyned with Paul under that Character Act. 14.14 we read of his Officiating and for what can be understood from Scripture in the same manner and by virtue of the same Office as the Apostle Paul to the Gentiles before this time For Act. 11.22 he is sent to Antioch by the Church at Ierusalem for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there And v. 25 26. he goes to Tarsus to seek Paul and brings him to Antioch and Taught there a year with Paul where the Christian Name first took place Next the Dr. finding himself puzzled with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to their Apostolick Office by mere Prophets and Teachers has no Shift but to alledge they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria since they could not else have derived the Office of Apostolat A pretty Evasion indeed from a Phantastick Objection First these Prophets and Teachers are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers who had also the Gift of Prophecy Vigent at that time So Pool 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat upon the place says they were such as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29 32. who the Dr. will not doubt are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established And with these spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 He adds that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office and singular for these times yet inferior to that of Apostles and in many accompanied with Divine Predictions The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That some take the two Words Prophets and Teachers for one and the same thing Others distinguish them thus that Prophets were those who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost had extraordinary Gifts to foretell things to come and to expound the Holy Scriptures But Teachers were such who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts to Instruct and Govern the Church in the Worship of God And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost mentioned Act. 13.2 viz. Separat me Barnabas and Saul they Paraphrase thus That they were separat from the Service of this Church where there were other Teachers enough to send them to the Gentiles whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning citing Act. 26.16 And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them they Paraphrase thus Not thereby to chuse them to be Apostles whereunto they were before chosen v. 1. and Act. 9.15 but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus So Cornel. a Lapide to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such as by the Influence of the Spirit foretold things to come So Menochius That they were Expounders of the Scripture by the Spirits Revelation So Lorinus A Lapide Piscator The last of whom takes them to be the same with Teachers All which how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers and the Persons upon whom Hands were Imposed together with the end of this Action is obvious to the meanest Reflection In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat and the Belgick Divines we may further notice this particular Account of Pool Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already the Laying on of Hands did signify 1. Their being set apart to this particular Imploymentt hey were now sent about 2 ly The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had 3 ly Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them and Success upon the Work they went for But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles and that as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria is a Dream much if not only beholden to the Dr. himself Again the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer For if these his supposed Bishops of Syria were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size how could they derive an Apostolat of the Primary and first Order as he calls it unless the Dr. make them intirely one which he sometimes tho in this inconsistent with himself disownes as we heard above when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power to make general Canons to the whole Church to the Bishops only to their particular Diocesses But the Dr. finds another Objection viz. That those Officers who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas are called Prophets not Apostles or Bishops He Answers That so was Iudas and Silas Act. 15.32 and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren as he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found appropriat to any Church Officer straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head But this Term being appropriat to such Persons and in such Circumstances as will not admit this Office and Character but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him His Friends the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible smell'd out no Prelacy nor Ruling in this Term but Translat the Word Chief Men Primarios Praecipuos Estimatos Honoratos thus Erasmus Vatablus Beza Piscator Camerarius Drusius Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes so Beza Chief Men then may be understood thus that they were persons as in Ecclesiastick Offices so of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office and that such discriminating terms of one from another will infer no distinction therein Besides some might alledg that if he will allow Members of the Church visible the Scripture epithet of Brethren and of the Brotherhood which Denomination we find applyed unto them 1 Pet.
have told him before that Firmilianus saith of them that Rule in the Church quod Baptisandi manum imponendi Ordinandi possident potestatem and who these are he shews a little before viz. Seniores praepositi We have also told him that Chrysostom himself was found accused in Synod ad Quaercum Ann. 403. that he had made Ordinations with the Sentence and company of the Clergy And in the forecited Council of Carthage Canon 21. it is enacted That the Bishop Ordain not without the Clergy And Canon 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impose hands with the Bishop The Authors of Ius Divinum Minist Evan. in the Appendix together with Smectymnus and several other Presbyterian Writers have exhibit so many clear instances of this that we need only refer the Reader to their Learned Labours for the discovery of the Drs. folly in this Assertion In the close of his discourse upon this point he tells us That this is so undenyable that tho Ierom equalize Presbyters with Bishops yet he is forc't to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ans. If we should suppose Ierom to speak of the general custom of that time and place and neither absolutely nor Universally as to the practice or Matter of Fact far less of of a Divine Right the Dr's undenyable proof is soon overturned but especially it s Razed when we tell him that Ierom's excepta Ordinatione is well enough understood of the Bishops ordinarly assumed Chief interest in the rituals of Ordination tho Presbyters as is above cleared did intrust this to him as having a joint and essential interest in the thing it self The next peculiar Ministry of the Bishop which the Dr. assigns is The execution of Spiritual Iurisdiction viz. to Cite examin Offences before their Tribunals to admonish the Offender exclud from Church Communion or receive upon Repentance The Dr. discourses at large in proof of a Spiritual jurisdiction Established in the Church and proves it soundly from Matth. 18.16.17.18 Expounding that Clause tell it unto the Church of a Delation in Order to an Authoritative admonition and from those Passages in the context If he neglect to hear the Church let him be as a heathen c. and that other whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Concluds well a Power in the Church of excluding from and admission into Fellowship Citing that Paralell Math. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keyes c. which he also well explains by what is said Isai. 22.21 22. anent the Key of the Hâ—use of David i. e. the Government of his Church committed to our Lord in the Type of Eliakim's substituting to Shebna who was over the Household He expounds well the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven of the Government of the Church and the Power of Binding and loosing of admission to or exclusion from Church Fellowship All this is easily accorded But now comes the main Point and the Cardo questionis This Power saith the Dr is wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order This is soon said but to prove it hoc opus hic labor est It were superfluous here to remind the Reader how the Dr. understands the Episcopal Order or how far in a sound Scripture Sense of the Episcopal order this assertion might be admitted But to the Point the Dr. proves his Assertion from this ground that in all the forecited places it was only to Apostles that our Lord derived this Iurisdiction they alone being the Stewards to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Family to whom alone he promised Twelve Thrones to Rule and Govern his Spiritual Israel as the Chief of the Tribâ—s Governed the Natural Israel Math. 19.28 Upon which ground he tells us that the Heavenly Jerusalem has the Names of the Twelve Apostles upon its Gates Rev. 21.14 c. And the Twelve pretious Stones v. 19.20 Do in his Sense denote the Power and dignity of the Church As also the 144 Cubits of the Walls Measure amounting to Twelve times twelve he takes to denote the Apostles equal Government of the Church From all which the Dr. thrusts out as his project of the whole his former Notion and Topick of our Lords lodging this Jurisdiction in those of the Apostoliek Order derived from the Apostles which saith he was administrat accordingly either by the Apostles immediatly or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Order Ans. All this in so far as relates to the Dr's scope is nothing but a repetition of what is already Answered I shall easily accord with him in this that as our Lord placed and left in his Church a Spiritual Jurisdiction so his Apostles were the First and immediat Recipients of this from himself I do likewise consent to the Dr. in this that this Spiritual Authority was to be continued in the Church and Transmitted to fit Administrators and was not to die with the Apostles As also there is no doubt that they were to deliver our Lords mind and the Standart and continuing measures and Rules of all the Ordinances of the House of God the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government thereof in which Respect they are called the Churches Foundation But in all this the Dr. has not laid one Ground-Stone of his proof which as we have often told him lyes Chiefly in these two Points 1. That the Office of Apostolat in its entire nature and extent and as exercised by the Twelve was by our Lord intended for an ordinary Function and Office to be thus continued in and transmitted to the Church and devolved on Successors who were accordingly to exercise the same Office and Power 2 ly That these Successors were so invested with this Apostolick Power and Office as they had the whole Government the Power of Order and Jurisdiction monopolized in them in so far as the Pastors and Presbyters appointed and set up by Apostles in the Churches had only the Doctrinal Key entrusted to them but not that of Government whereas both the one and the other were committed to these supposed succedaneous Apostles Now its evident that if the Dr. prove not these he says nothing And that both these are unsound and Antiscriptural Suppositions we have already made appear 1. From the many evidences and clear Scripture discoveries of the extraordinarie expired nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office And 2. From the Apostles intrusting and transmitting to Pastors or Presbyters and devolving upon them both the Keyes of Doctrin and Government as their proper and imediat Successors as also from clear Scripture Grounds and instances which do evince their actual exercise of the same But next to examin a little more closely the Dr's Proofs I would gladly know of him or any of his Perswasion whether they do not look upon and understand that Text Math. 18. as containing a constant Fundamental Law and Rule given to the Christian Church to prescrib the Method of removing
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
their Doctrin and Practice they disown all dominion and Prelatical Principality in the Church and all outward grandure and greatness as inconsistent with their Office and the Office of all Gospel Ministers But to the Topick and ground of the Dr's Argument I Answer directly that the Apostles as they understood so they practised our Lords Precept in the sense we owne 1. In that they practised a compleat equality of Official Power among themselves This I hope he will not deny or if he do its easie to set all Protestant Divines in pursuit of him 2 In that they never exercised nor attempted to seek any Civil Greatness or Dominion such as the Prelats he pleads for do own as competent to their Office They knew that their Lord when but desired to give advice in a Civil Cause gave this return who made me a Iudg And declined the Imployment And that therefore neither they nor any of their Successors were to be Civil Counsellors and Spiritual Peers in Parliaments and Princes Courts 3. They disown all Dominion in one Pastor over another and discharged it earnestly Thus the Apostle Peter to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. Thus also Diotrephes affecting a Preheminence is rebuked by the Apostle Iohn And Paul owns himself and other Apostles as Stewards only in the House of God and disowns a Dominion as we have heard Next As for their Iurisdiction over subordinat Ecclesiasticks which is the Substratum of the Dr's great Answer and Question I do deny First that they exercised any Episcopal Jurisdiction properly taken over them Secondly such a Jurisdiction as did Cross this Precept The Proof of both these will fully discover the vanity of the Dr's Second Reply And First that the Apostles exercised no such Episcopal Authority over Ecclesiasticks or Churches planted as the Dr. pleads for is evident thus 1. Their Apostolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching reached to prescrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches consequently was cumulative thereto not privative thereof which appears in their enjoyning the exercise of Spiritual Iurisdiction as inherent in Church Officers as Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in Pastors both in the designations of Rulers Governours Overseers Bishops attribut to them As also in their frequent enjoyning the Peoples obedience and subjection to them as in that capacity Heb. 13.7.17 1 Pet. 5.2.3 1 Thess. 5.12.2 The Apostles did not as the Prelats invade the decisive Power of Pastors in Government but took along their decisive Votes and concurrence as we find in that Council Act. 15. where its evident that in every Point the Elders or Ministers conccurred with the Apostles in the Disquisition Sentence and decretal Letter 3. As the Apostles planted Churches with Pastors or Preaching Presbyters instructing them with Authority to Feed and Rule as Bishops or Rulers set up by the Holy Ghost so they committed the Government of the Churches to them in their last farewells without the least hint of Super-institut Officers of an higher Order So that the Apostles instructing Pastors with such Authority commanding its exercise enjoyning the Churches obedience to them exemplifying and Authorizing their interest in highest Judicatories yea making even Evangelists as Timothy pass through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination in order to the exercise of his Office Not to insist upon even Apostles submission to the Authoritative Imposition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers when sent out upon a special Gospel Legation To which we may add the Apostles owning Pastors as Brethren Fellow-helpers Fellow-Labourers Co-Presbyters or Elders It follows inevitably 1. That as to the Perpetual Pastoral Charge the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of the Sacraments and the appendent Jurisdictional Power which by the Apostles Doctrin is a Lower Step to this and connected therewith they own the Pastors or Preaching Presbyters their Equals and their proper Successors in this Ministerial Authority consequently the ordinary Church Officers of the highest Order to whom they committed the Keys of Doctrin and Disciplin 2. That the Exercise of their extraordinary Apostolick directive Power and Authority which they could not divest themselves of while alive did no whit impeach the standing Authority of Pastors nor did it includ any Jurisdiction properly over Churches constitut and Moulded in their Organick being By Iurisdiction properly I mean such as is of a standing necessity in order to the Churches Edification in all times or such a Jurisdiction over Churches as may be supposed paramount unto or privative of the Jurisdictional Authority of Pastors and of Organick Churches Secondly That the Apostles exercised no such Authority over the Churches as did cross our Lords Precept and Prohibition is evident in that 1. Our Saviour discharged Imparity among Church Officers of the same kind and therefore this could not impeach the Apostles Authority over ordinary Officers 2. Our Lords instructing them with such a measure of the Spirit as was sutable to the First founding of the Churches and with Authority as his living and infallibly inspired Oracles to plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government therein Unless the Dr. will say that our Lords Precept did cross and contradict his design he must needs ackdowledg that the Apostles in exercising this directive Power and extraordinary Authority over ordinary inferior Officers could not cross this his Precept and Prohibition they being our Lords immediatly called infallibly inspired and extraordinarly Gifted First Messengers in order to this end Thus we have seen the vanity and insufficiency of the Dr's Second Answer But there is no end of Vanities The Dr's Third Answer is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown swelling boast That which he says baffles and exposes our Argument to all intents and purposes is that our Lord did that himself among them which now he Commanded them to do one to another And the doing of this one to another in obedience to his Command could not infer a Parity unless we Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal For our Lord recommends what he enjoins from his own constant and visible Practice among them that he their Lord and Master was their Servant And therefore it became the greatest among them to be Modest calm and humble toward their Brethren which would qualify them for Ecclesiastick Promotions This poor and mean Answer and Reason of the Dr's is a notion for which he is beholden to his Popish Masters And being here subjoyned to such big words brings to mind some Poetick Phrases Quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu And Projicis ampullas sesquipedalia verba And that of Partuâ—iunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus There 's no doubt that the Dr. has as much exposed and baffled his own Judgment and Reputation in this thrasonick weak Answer as in any thing else But to the point First I must tell him that if this Argument tending to prove from this Text
ut istic constitueret Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docet quales essent illi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5 7. where after the Apostle had said that he had left Titus in Crete to place Presbyters in every City he shews how these Elders must be Qualified A Bishop must be blameless Asserting Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians so Close and Throng as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience Presbyterian Scriptures Presbyterian Sense Presbyterian Arguments Canted over by Dull Novelists one after another and which is yet more by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion But this that follows will possibly please worse Maccovius Redivivus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificorum Socin c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii or the Popish Cause and Doctrin which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom the Dr's Reverence It is even thus Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris tum ordinis potestate tum jurisdictione That the Bishop by Divine Right is Superior to the Ministers of the Word both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher Bellarmin lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The â— â— he thus represents consuetudo Romanorum quae Distinguit inter versantem verbum Dei Episcopum The Romish Custom which distinguishes betwixt the Preacher of the Word and the Bishop As our Romish Dr. doth This is Rude but how is this Refelled by Maccovius Why It s even thus Refellitur primo Philip. 1.1 Ubi idem Presbyteri predicantes Episcopi dicuntur Secundo Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.1.2 Uâ—i idem docentur esse Presbyteri Praedicantes Episcopi His two Proofs are that in these premised Scriptures the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor and the Bishop are held out as one and the same Another Novelist asserting this New Coyned Doctrin and falling into the same error with the Scots Presbyterians is Antonius Walleus de funct Eccâ—es P. mihi 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminenâ—â—â— inter Pastores ut unus gradu altero sit superior jure Divino adeo ut uni Potestas in alterum concedatur potestas scilicet mittendi aut deponendi ministros potestas excommunicandi aut admittendi leges praescribendi regendi c. qualem sibi bodierni Episcopi ascribunt whether there be such an Eminency among Pastors so as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right and has Authority over another the Authority of the Mission or deposition of Ministers the Authority and Power of Excommunication or relaxation of prescribing Laws and of Governing c. such as the present Bishops arrogat and appropriat to themselves Then he shews that he speaks of Spiritual Authority And thus Answers hoc est quod nostri negant adversus episcopales This is that we deny against the Episcopalians Here is a bold Novelist He after shews that the Divines of that Church were of his mind and thus exhibits a Muster Roll of New Coyned Novelists But he presents his praecipua Argumenta Chief Arguments What are these 1 in tota scriptura ejusmodi eminentiae potestatis nulla fit mentio That in all the Scripture there is no mention of such Eminency and Power of a Bishop above Pastors 2 quia in illis Locis ubi ex professo de ministrorum novi Testamenti gradibus fit mentio unius generis Pastorum Scriptura tantum meminit ut 1 Cor. 12.28 constituit in Ecclesia primum Apostolos secundo Prophetas Tertio Doctores Et Eph. 4.11 ipse dedit alios quidem Apostolos alios vero Pastores Doctores c. sic Rom. 12.6 Act. 20.17.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. That in those places where there is express mention of purpose made of the Degrees of Ministers of the New Testament the Scripture owns only one kind of Pastors as 1 Cor. 12.28 He set in the Church first Apostles secondarly Prophets Thirdly Doctors or Teachers and Eph. 4.11 He gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers c. Thus Rom. 12.6 Acts 2â— 17.28 1 Pet. 5.1.2 The 3 d Reason or Argument is thus quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos Presbyteros fuisse plane eosdâ—m ita Act. 20.17 convocavit Presbyteros v. 28. Dicit Spiritum Sanctum eos constituisse Episcopos Ita Phil. 1.1 Paulus Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus Sanctis qui sunt Phillippicum Episcopis Diaconis Et ad Titum 1.5 ideo reliqui te in Creta ut oppidatim constituas Presbyteros Et v. 7. opportet enim E-Eiscopum unius esse uxoris virum c. That the sacred Scriptures shews the Bishop and Presbyter to have been one and the same Thus Act. 20.7 the Apostle called together the Elders and v. 28. he saith that the Spirit of God had made them Bishops Also Philip. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus Servants of Iesus Christ to all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons and Tit. 1.5 For this Cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City and v. 6. For a Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife c. He adds that Ierom Comment in Tit. Eph. ad Evag. doth from these places collect as an old doting Novelist too that the Bishop and Presbyter is all one the one Name signifying the Age the other the Office he Cites also Ambrose in Eph. 4. as holding the same He adds sic Augustinus plurimi alii in hanc sententiam that Augustin and many others were of this Judgment to whom he also adds Bucer de gub P. 258. C. deinceps Thus Walleus holds that this forementioned Scots Presbyterian Sense of the Scriptures premised has for a considerable time been a working Notion for want no doubt of our Dr's clearer Instructions But this bigot Novelist goes on to add Denique ex nullo Scripturae loco prohibetur uni Presbytero aut Pastori ordinario ullam dari potestatem sive in verbi predicatione omnes enim sunt Doctores Pastores sive in Sacramentorum Administratione ut Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 11.23 sive in exercitio Disciplinae 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 sive in Ecclesiae rectione Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1.2 Heb. 13.17 obedite praepositis vestris qui non datur alteri That from no place of Scripture it can be made good that there is any Power given to an ordinary Pastor or singular Prerogative above another either in
imports the Church of God Those whom Luke calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus those Paul calls the Bishops for this end constitut by the Holy Ghost to Feed the Church of God whence it evidently appears that Bishops Presbyters and Pastors are the same He adds de inde in una eadem ecclesiae simul conjunctim plures fuisse episcopos c. That it appears the Spirit of GOD placed at once and joyntly a Plurality of Bishops in one and the same Church Quem admodum ex eo quoque videri est quod Phil 1.1 Legimus Paulus ac Timotheus servi Iesu Christi omnibus sanctis qui sunt Philippi una cum Episcopis Diaconis Ecce Philippis plures simul erant Episcopi erant autem illi Seniores Ecclesiae That in the Church of Philippi a Plurality of Bishops are saluted by the Apostle who are supposed to be the same with Pastors He thus proceeds Et ubi in Epistola ad Titum Cap. 1. Legimus Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta ut quae desunt pergas corrigere constituas oppidatim Presbyteros sicut ego tibi ordinaram si quis est incupatus c. Opportet enim episcopum inculpatum esse c. An non hic quoque videmus eosdem esse Presbyterum Episcopum Et 1 Pet 5. Loco supra citato tres hae voces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad eosdem ab Apostolis Scriptae leguntur unde videas Apostolorum tempore in ecclesia Christi eosdem fuisse Presbyteros Pastores Episcopos That the Apostle in the Epistle to Titus Chap. 1. shewing that he left him to place Elders in Crete who must be Blameless c. Because a Bishop must be such doth shew That the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same And 1 Pet. 5. the three Original Words which signifie Presbyters Feeding and Overseeing or Acting the Bishops are by the Apostle Written and Ascribed to the same Persons Whence it is evident that in the Times of the Apostles Elders Pastors and Bishops were one and the same in Gods Church He adds Est itaque prorsus indubitatum Alas this Poor Man wanted the Venerable Dr's Instructions to have Corrected this Bigotrie in prima Apostolica Ecclesia sic fuisse ab Apostolis Dispositum ut Seniores Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Gregis Dominicae Curam gerentes Communi Opera Ministeria Docendi ac Râ—gendi obirent essentque ut ita dicam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Nulli Capiti ac Praesidi subjecti quales hâ—die quoque in nonnullis Ecclesiis Verbi Ministri reperiuntur inter quos nemo caeteris est superior Officio Potestate c. That it is beyond all Debate that the First and Apostolick Church was by the Apostles so Constitute that the Elders of the Church did Exercise a Common Episcopal Care over the Lords Flock and the same Function of Teaching and Governing the same and were therein subject to no Head or President Like unto whom are found several Ministers now in some Churches who owne no Superior in either Office or Authority c. Afterwards speaking of the Exalting of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the peculiar Name of Bishop and of Ieroms Account of this Practice viz. for Eviting of Schism which he calls Emphatically Tentatio illa that Tentation He adds Profuerit ne Consilium hoc Ecclesiae Christi melius est posterioribus saeculis declaratum quam cum baec Consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debemus omnem illam Principalium Equestrium Episcoporum Insolentiam Opulentiam Tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi Corruptionem quam si Hieronimus cerneret dubio procul Consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicut praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad Vastanda ac Perdenda prisca Pascendi Dominici Gregis Ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub Nominum istorum Larvis Otiosos Ventres ac Magnificos Princepes qui non modo non pascant ipsi Populum Domini Doctrina Sana Apostolica sed Improbissima Violentia vetant ne id per quenquam alium fiat Hoc sciz Consilio Satanae factum est ut habeant Ecclesiae pro Episcopis Potentes Dominos ac Princepes magna ex parte ex Ordine Nobilium ac Satrapum Saeculi Delectos c. Whether this Counsel or Method of Eviting Schism was profitable for the Church of Christ was more apparent to the After-Ages than when this Custom was first introduced For thereunto is owing all that Grandure Insolency and Tyrranny of those Knight-like and Princely Bishops yea the Corruption of all the Churches of Christ which if Ierom had discerned he would no doubt have acknowledged that this was not the Counsel of the Holy Ghost for the Removal of Schisms as was pretended but the very Project of the Devil to Wast and Destroy the Primitive Ministry appointed for Feeding the Lords Flock that thus the Church of God might not have true Pastors Doctors Presbyters and Bishops but under the Disguise of such Names Idle Bellies and Magnificent Princes who not only Feed not the People of God themselves with the Sound and Apostolical Doctrine but by most Wicked Violence hinders the same to be performed by any other And that by this Engyne of Satan it s come to pass that the Churches instead of true Bishops have Powerful Lords and Princes chosen for the most part out of the Order of the Nobility and Grandees of this World Thereafter he Inveighs against their Gorgeous Stoles Girdles c. which he says is to them instead of the Spiritual Armour enjoyned Eph. 6. calling them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Counterfeit Bishops and the Pastors the true ones Thus he P. 362. I must here again present to our Dr some further Account of the Sentiments of the Learned Iunius upon this Point in his Animadversions on Bellarmin ad Controver 4. de Concil in Cap. 15. Par. 9. Art 7. Non sunt Pastores Laici nec Ecclesiastici quicunque sed soli Episcopi That the Bishops only are the Pastors and no Inferior Officers He thus Animadverts and Answers Distinguenda Assumptio haec nam si anguste Episcopos ex Pontificiorum usu intelligas falsa est sin autem latius Communiterque Presbyteros Operam dantes Administratione Verbi ex Dono Vocatione Dei vera est Assumptio Recte enim Magister Sententiarum Lib. 4. Disput. 24. Excellenter inquit Canones duos tanquam Sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sciz Et Presbyteratus quia hos solos Primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis Preceptum Apostoli habemus enim vero si soli Episcopi Pastores essent profecto neque Episcopi faciunt officium qui non pascunt gregem c. That the premised Assertion that the Bishops
Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter And many Learned Protestant Divines think they have made it good whom the Dr. may please to advise if his leasure from Pamphleting work together with some piece of petty interest and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles will admit of the perusal If it be found in Scripture it was a pretty while it seems before Aerius But there is an English Divine of some considerable account good Old Whittaker if it were not that he had got the Scots new Notion in his Head who hath a Saying somewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum Aerio sâ—â—sit Hieronymus quo minus curandum est toties nobis objici Aerium ab insulsis hominibus Si fuit in hac re Haereticus Aerius socium haereseos habuit Hieâ—onymum nec illum modo sed alios etiam veteres patres Graecos pariter Latinos quemadmodum Medina confitetur Thus he Controv. â— 4ta quest 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Here we find he spares not to call these of the Dr's Judgment Blâ—ckish Men in objecting this anent Aerius affirming that not only Ierom but likewise both Greek and Latine Fathers were of Aerius Judgment in this point The Dr. might likewise have found that Michael Medina Lib. 1. de Sacr. Hominum Orig. continen Cap. 5. holds that not only Ierom but also Ambros. August Sedulius Primasius Chrysost. Theodoret OEcumen and Theophylact. were of the same mind with Aerius As also the Waldenses and Wickliff What more P. 35. Apostle Bishop and Presbyter are sometime remarked without a Distinction yet the Government of one among many is particularly demonstrated This is somewhat obscure No doubt Apostles Bishops and Presbyters have general and common Names For the Government of one among many in his Sense I do still call for the Dr's Proof but have no Return We are told next P. 35 36. That our Saviour is called an Apostle Heb. 3. That the Names seems restrained to the Twelve and yet Matthias is called an Apostle that the Name was bestowed on several others besides the Twelve as Paul Barnabas Adronicus Junius Epaphroditus That our Saviour is called a Bishop 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Government of the Apostles Episcopacy Act. 1.20 That Priests of the Apostolick Power and Iurisdiction are called Bishops That thus all the Fathers understand 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1.7 That the Bishops Philip. 1.1 are by Chrysost. OEcum Theoph. Theodo understood of Priests still Priests of the second Order For they conclude Epaphrod Bishop of Philippi from Philip. 2.25 The Dr. is never wearied of this Nominal Argument which seems one of Achillean Strength to him I am sorry he is put to so much Pains in Print to raise such Formidable Batteries against this New Notion and am afraid some Facetious Witts will alledge he is but getting himself a Heat in Cudgelling and Beating a Man of Straw of his own Upsetting But in short it passes much my Comprehension what he would make of all this if not to prove that palpably distinct Officers do sometimes come under general Names And who knows not that this Argument and Answer is still ex ignoratione Elenchi None of us doubts of this which he offers in Thesi But the Dr. will easily acknowledge that these Officers mentioned have in the Scripture Accounts their Marks of Distinction clearly set down which makes it evident that their Communicating in the same general Name will not conclude an Identity in the Office And thus the Dr. and we are easily agreed in the Application of the Answer when he has exhibit to us such Scripture Discriminations of the Office of the Bishop and Pastor or Preaching Presbyter such a clear Official Imparity and Difference as is betwixt the Office of an Apostle and Presbyter and betwixt our Saviours Apostolate and that of his Disciples and betwixt his Episcopacy or Overseeing Care and that of Apostles For the Denomination of Apostle I need not tell one who sets a D. D. to his Name in the Frontispiece of his Book how Protestant Divines understand the Name properly taken and do define the Office as distinct from all others That first Matthias and thereafter Paul were added to the Number of Apostles none doubts That the Name is sometimes taken improperly when attribute to certain Persons is as little doubted As for Adronicus Iunius who are said to be of Note among the Apostles the Phrase imports in the Sense of some that they were well known to the Apostles Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy Luk. 10. Others to be of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty mentioned Act. 1.15 Or of these Converted by Peter Act. 2.14 See Pool Annot. That 1 Tim. 3.1 and Tit. 1.7 are understood of Priests of the first Order with Apostolick Power by all the Fathers must pass current only with those who will take the Dr's ipse dixit for Proof But let them at their Leasure Pose him whether St. Chrysost. and Ierom upon these Passages were of that Judgement and whether he reckons them among the Fathers That the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip. 1.1 Understood it of the Priests of the second Order he should have proved from their Words and that they understood Epaphroditus to be Bishop of Philippi from Chap. 2.25 Our Translators renders it with the current of Protestant Divines as I have made good your Messenger which the Context convincingly discovers viz. The Messenger that ministred to Paul's wants But the Dr. has no shift but to censure them as following Beza A pityful shift indeed The Episcopal Translators who in their Translation so Zealously patronize that Cause that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the utmost endeavour translated to that Scope yet are so befooled in the Dr's Sense as to translate this passage so advantagious to Episcopacy contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Fathers yea and the Greek Fathers so well seen in that Language and all this to follow a Presbyterian Novelist But the Dr. preferrs Salmasius to his Episcopal Masters who thinks the word Apostle signifies Legatum Dei ad homines He is now become of sudden Fond of Salmasius But should have given us a better Account than a bare naming of Walo Messalinus putting us to search all the Book in order to an enquiry of what he here asserts I might tell him further that the Complex Phrase your Messenger and the Explication of ministring to Paul's wants sufficiently restricts the Term Apostle in this place tho it were granted that ordinarly it is thus taken But one Word more before I part with the Dr. on this Passage If in the Sense of these Fathers the Bishops mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle were Priests of the second Order only and Epaphroditus the Chief Priest or Bishop Then 1. It seems the Apostle Paul was somewhat rude in his Salutation to mention only these inferior underling Priests with the lowest petty Deacons passing quite over the High Priest without
come The 8 th Prerogative he represents thus Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extitâ—runt Their singular Authority which was of such a Nature that none of their Disciples or Successors in an ordinary Ministry could be compared with them nor can be For as Apostles they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church P. 538. He describes the Pastors to be such as are set over some particular Flock Citing Act. 20.28 Here I need not tell the Dr that this Man also is of the Novel Scots Opinion and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence a Socinian as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office giving the same Sense of its Ingredients as we do and holding that the Apostles neither were nor could be succeeded in their Office and consequently that their Formal Office as such ceased with themselves He asserts ibid. the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter And thereafter tells us that Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding Teaching the Church Citing Anaclet Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap Ecclesiae si in Apostolorum Loco sumus c. Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry And also Urbanus Secundus ex August Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office we may propose yea oppose to the Dr. viz the Famous and Learned Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit against whom he disputes proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests and all other Orders of the Ministry I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of universalis patrum consensus universal consent of the Fathers The great Answer is Apostolis Episcopos successisse That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles in their proper formal Office And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter viz Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles And remarkable it is that the Catholick Iesuit and he pleads upon the same very Grounds viz The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus yea and our Dr's Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot lib. de Baptismo Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet c. That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy may be kept intire Thereafter the Iesuit as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well some will alledge the Dr. in this point is pretty near the Sacred Order I cannot here transcribe all that this French or Scots Novelist Presbyterian Rivet returns in Answer to this point which I really judge had our Dr. impartially read and perused it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet He is first severe to the Iesuit and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos or Priest whereby they represent Pastors De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia saith he frustra disputatur cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo ut antea docuimus c. That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught so upon the preceeding Question Par. 4. He tells his Adversary the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest has no Successor Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers if you will accord with Rivet but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists Thereafter he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita and our Dr. Negamus saith he Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hà bere He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors Thereafter reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's quod Episcopi Apostolis Presbyteri Discipulis suecâ—sserantâ— That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles and Pastors the Seventy Disciples He answers thus hoc falsum est ac utrorumque Officio contrarium quod extraordinarium fuit nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolorâ—m in Doctrinae publicatione Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio successores dici possunt That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists which was extraordinary and none did succeed them in the same Order Office and Authority altho all true Pastors in respect of the publication of the Doctrin and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin may be called Successors of the Apostles Here the Scots Presbyterian Opinion pretty clear Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers to our Dr's and the Iesuits Arguments Subjoined His Answer to that of confusion of Names as not inferring the sameness of things is thus faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur vera est synonomia si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves yet when the same things are attribute to those to whom the same Names are given there is a true Synâ—nomie or sameness of both Name and thing the Name being common with the definition Here in this one Jâ—dicious Answer he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head Then for Confirmation of this Identity he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 2. Tit. 1.5.7 And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do that the Name Qualities and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same For Tertullians Testimony which the Dr. Iesuita and our Dr cites he tells him That Tertullian speaks de humano ordine suâ— tempore recepto of the human Order or custom received in his time which was that the probatus quisque Senior or
Christian Church as there was a Supreme High Priest set over the Iewish so-that this Argument proving too much and beyond his Assertion proves nothing 3. It is enough to found the allusion that there be some likeness of the things compared and thus in this Case there being in the Jewish Church Courts a sutable Subordination of the Lesser to the greater and a Correspondent Official Power seated therein the allusion stands good intire and evident upon this ground that Christian Church Courts are of such a Nature The Surveyer P. 207.208 makes his next Assault upon our Argument for the Official identity of Bishop and Presbyter drawn from Act. 20.17 28. where the Elders of the Church sent for by Puul to Miletus are called Bishops And from Tit. 1.5 7. where he that 's called an Elder is called also a Bishop and the Names are used as Synonimâ—us so 1 Pet. 5.1.2 the Elders are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have oversight over the Flock The Argument with the Surveyer runs thus If there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in Office there ought to be none now But there were none such in the Apostles days Ergo We do for Brevity rest upon this hint of Argument having spoken to it above as deducible from these Texts His fiâ—st Answer is That the first proposition is not so indubitable as it seems And his proof is that Beza though holding the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter to be â—ne and the same yet acknowledges the Lawfulness of that Episcopacy which he calls human And therefore though no such Bishops had been in the Apostles time the Churches appointment of such a Constitution guided by the Spirit might be a fit means for Conservation of Peace Ans. First The Surveyers founding the unsoundness of the proposition upon the supposed sentiments of Beza as it appears palpably unsound unless Beza were supposed infallible so it is evident and if we could here stay upon it might be made good at large from many Passages of Beza which we have elsewhere produced that he disowns the human Prostasie as a recess from the Divine appointment and the fiâ—st step of the Churches defection in point of Government On Philip. 1.1 he tells us of the community of the Name of Bishop and Presbyter which Continued till he who was in the Assembly set over the rest began to be peculiarly called the Bishop from hence saith he the Devil began to lay the first Foundation of Tyrannie in the Church of GOD. And discoursing further of the Ascension that was made from Bishops to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs c. He hath this remarkable Passage at the close of his Discourse Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline even in a hair-breadth from the Word of GOD. Now this Surveyer might have pondered what Sense or Divinity it could be in him or Beza to assert that the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declinings from the word of GOD. To this Scope we might Cite many Passages of Beza See for brevity Beza ad Cap. 9. apud Sarav num 20. Beza Resp. C. 11. N. 3. Likewise in Quest. 2. Referent Sarav P. 92. In which Passages and many such like we find him clearly condemning this Human Prostasie in so far as transcending the Limits of a Moderators Office The Surveyer next coming to the Second proposition of the Argument tells us That its sooner affirmed than proven that there were no Bishops in the Apostles days differing from Presbyters in the modern notion And he compares the Presbyterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens who concerned himself in every Ship arriving in the Harbour as his own property A Charge easily retorted since in such like Hypochondriack distempers the Surveyer as his Fellows would needs have the Hierarchical Bishop of their New Notion to be lodged under the Denomination of the Scripture Bishop Yea and in a Distemper beyond that of the Man at Athens will often lap him under the Denomination of a Presbyter where there is not so much as an appearance of this auspicious arriving Vessel The Surveyer tells us That the Name of Presbyter is not in Holy Scripture a distinguishing Name of one sort of Officers from all others although sometimes the Scripture requires that it must be looked on as Distinguishing those that are under that Name from other Officers Ans. The proposition he impugns is That in the Apostles days there were no Bishops Superior to Presbyters no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould or Bishops of his Modern Notion That from these places Cited it is aparent that the Ordinary Church Officers Instituted by Apostles were Bishops and Presbyters of the same Official Mould and Authority to whom the Feeding and Governing of the Church is enjoyned promiscuously And all his Answer to the Proposition amounts to this that the Name of Presbyter is sometimes a more general Name than to point at an ordinary Officer An Answer utterly remote from the Point as is obvious to any that considers That it touches not 1. The Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages Cited and their equal Official Authority as ordinary Church Officers given to Feed and Rule the Church jointly which is a necessary Consequence of the former 2. The unwarrantableness of such an Officer as the Hierarchical Prelat whose Office encroaches upon and robs them of that Power allowed them of GOD which is another Necessary Consequence drawn from this Ground This Charge is the more evident in that he hath acknowledged that sometimes these Names of Bishop and Presbyter distinguishes those that are under the same from other Officers And in the Passages Cited he cannot but acknowledge them thus distinguished Sure they are so at least for any thing he hath said He tells us he will in this and other Considerations remove our Mistake But sure he hath here presented his own He adds P. 209. That in the Rehearsal of Church Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 with Eph. 4.11 Presbyters are not in the Number though Bishops and they are comprehend under the Name of Pastors and Teachers which shews that the Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers Ans. The Surveyer could not but grant that the Hierarchical Bishop according to his modern Notion as distinguished by this Name from the Pastor or Presbyter is in none of these Rolls and therefore upon his own Principle this Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers And where is then his warrand for the Hierarchical Bishop as thus distinguished Likewise the Surveyer very unhappily made the Name of Teacher the Characteristick of his Hierarchical Bishop who looks upon Teaching as none of his work nor is Chargeable qua Prelat with any deficiency in his Office though his Sermons drop but once or twice pro forma and on Solemnities from one years and to another In a word as the
in Power It is 1. here impertinent to the Purpose and Point he has to prove For upon supposition that both Offices were Extraordinary and Ceast even admitting a Superiority of Apostles to the Disciples it will never prove essentially different Degrees in the Pastoral Office as is said And 2. Admitting some special Prerogatives in the Apostolick Office above that of the Seventy with a special respect to their Gifts the Jurisdiction and Power of both the one and the other with a general Respect to Church Government and the great and standing Ends thereof might notwithstanding be of the same Nature and Extent It is also here very noticeable how the Dr. prevaricats p. 393. and falls off the Hinges of the Point when he makes it to ly in this That our Lord appointed a Superiority and Subordination between Ecclesiastick Officers Which in general he cannot but know that Presbyterians do accord unto since we hold the Pastoral Office to be above that of the Elder and that of the Elder above the Deacon Whereas the State of the Question and the Drs. Undertaking therein is anent a superior Order of Officers called Bishops to whom the Order of Pastors is subject and subordinat or essentially different Functions in the Pastoral Office or Degrees thereof Now to prove this special specifical Subordination instanced from a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers in general is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative Est animal Ergo est homo By which Reasoning our poorest Tyrones in the Logicks would thus derid their Fellows I shall not say the Dr. for good Manners sake Es animal Ergo es brutum And so I dismiss the Drs. first Argument CHAP. II. The Drs Second Argument taken from the Practice of the Holy Apostles Examined THE Second Argument whereby the Dr. undertaks to prove the the Divine Right and Institution of Episcopacy is from the Practice of the Holy Apostles And this he prosecutes at large from p. 393. to p. 404. His Proofs may be thus generally summed up and run to this issue viz. That the Apostles did not only exercise that Superiority in their own Persons which their Office gave them over the inferiour Clergy but also derived it down with their Office to their Successors And that therefore they look not upon the Institution of their superior Office of Apostolate as a temporary Expedient only but as a standing Form of Ecclesiastick Government to be handed down to all succeeding Generations In Answer to which I do observe that the Dr. holds the Apostolick Office in a Formal Sense and in its proper Nature with all its Ingredients viz. immediat Mission universal unconfined Inspection infallible directive Power their Apostolick Power of Coertion by Judgments their Gifts of Tongues and Miracles c. all which were included in the Apostolick Office to be an ordinary standing Function in the Church and succeeded unto in this its whole Nature and Extent and as he expresses it Handed down to all succeeding Generations Wherein as the Dr. palpably contradicts not only clear Experience of all Generations the body of all Protestant Divines yea all Men of Sense that have ever bestowed their Thoughts upon this Subject but also his very Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause One of their late Writers of no small Repute in answer to this Objection viz. That the Apostles Superiority over the Seventy was Extraordinary and Temporary grants That in some Things their Priviledges were Extraordinary and to Cease with themselves instancing their immediat Calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility their Gifts of Tongues or whatever was necessary for the first Founding of the Christian Church Clearly contradicting the Drs. absurd Assertion of a Succession to the Apostolick Office without all Limitation But it s no strang thing that Midianites deal Stroaks among themselves when encamped against Israel By that Superiority which their Office gave them over the inferior Clergy he must needs understand an Official Superiority proper the Apostles as such and without any Restriction as is said since he makes the Apostolick Office to be institut by our Lord as Ordinary and Perpetual and the Practice of the Apostles in this pretended Derivation of their Office â—o Successors to be pursuant to the Institution of our Saviour He holds there was nothing of the Office of Apostolate of a Temporary Nature or as suted to the Exigence of that Time that it was the very same Office without any Restriction or Limitation which they did transmit unto Successors Thus he expresly p. 394. Now to raze this Foundation of the Drs Proof let these Things be considered First That our Divines do Harmoniously assert the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick Office as such and that they could not be Succeeded to in idem officium eundem gradum Particularly the Learned Polanus in his Syntag. lib. 7. Cap. 11. P. mihi 537.338.539 reckons up these their Prerogatives beyond ordinary Church Officers 1 Their immediat Institution by Christ therefore Paul was called from Heaven to be an Apostle 2 Their immediat Mission to Teach 3. Their Universal Legation to Plant and Found Churches through the World 2 Cor. 11. 4. It s visible Badg Viz conferring the Spirit by Laying on of Hands 5. Immunity from Error in Teaching 6. Their singular Right of Spiritual Coercing the Rebellious and extraordinary Authority hereanent and extraordinary Spiritual assistance 2 Cor. 10. 7. The Gift of Fore-telling Things to come Rom. 11.25 26. 2. Thess. 2.3 8. Their extraordinary Authority beyond any Successors as being over the whole Church c. It would consume much Time and Paper to set down the vast number of Testimonies correspondent to this and the thing were Superfluous All who are acquaint with our Writers being convinced hereof From hence we may thus Argue They whose Call whose special Work and Duties whose Qualifications for their Work are ceased their Office is ceased and they are not Succeeded therein But the Apostolick Call special Work and their proper Qualifications are ceased Ergo c. The Major is evident it consisting of a sufficient enumeration of ingredients to make up an Office and further undenyably Confirmed by this That our Divines take in these very things mentioned in the Definition of an extraordinary Office and as the evidences of it The Assumption is as evident the Appostles Call was immediat who will deny that this is ceased Their special Work and Duty as Apostles was to Plant Churches and the Gospel Ordinances and Government among them throughout the World and that by a special Commission intrusted to them of all which Churches they were in an immediat Sense and in actu exercito Officers And what Church Officer dare now arrogat that to himself Their Gifts Qualifications were extraordinary such as the working of Miracles Gifts of Tongues infallibility in Doctrin And can any deny that these are ceased Secondly Hence as whatever he would draw the Episcopal Preheminence from will necessarly
Excommunication is by the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 5. supposed to be competent to a Presbytry And therefore Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein For what the Dr. adds of the Testimonies of the Ancients touching Titus's Episcopacy at Crete such as Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. c. it is sufficiently Answered already and we need not repeat The Drs. Fourth and last instance to prove the Divine Right of Episcpacy from the Apostles practice is of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Timothy over Ephesus and that not only over the Laity to Command and Teach 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive or reject Widdows 1 Tim. 5.9 c. But also over the Clergy to take care for their Provision 1 Tim. 5.17 Not to admit Deacons but upon tryal nor Ordain the Elder till a good acquittance in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to receive accusations put the Guilty to shame 1 Tim. 5.19.20 And to exercise this Jurisdiction without Preferring one before another v. 21. which could not be without a Jurisdiction over them He has also ascribed unto him an Ordaining Power as to the laying on of Hands 1 Tim. 5.22 All which Authority that it was given him by Paul for a standing Form of Government the Dr. proves from this Ground because it was after the Presbytrie was formed and settled there and after Paul's great Labours in that large Church for Three Years And therefore he may be supposed not only to have Planted a Presbytrie there as in other Churches Acts 14.23 but also to have reduced it to much gâ—eater perfection than any other And by consequence Establishing this Authority in a single Person is such a Form of Government as the Apostle must needs have understood and intended to be of of that Nature as was to continue as a Pattern to other Churches It is Answered 1. There is nothing here of a New Argument but a Repitition of the former and a New Begging of the Question Viz. The â—tanding ordinary Office of Apostles and Evangelists which we have above convict of Falsehood But 2. To come a little closer to the Drs. New Instance since he presents here some Actings of the Power of Order which he acknowledges tho performed by Timothy and enjoyned to him by Paul in that Church yet are likewise Competent to Presbyters or Pastors Viz Teaching c. which together with other Actings of the Power of Order he makes common to Pastors and at large discourses this P. 427 428.429 c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diversifie these in this Instance and shew that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place such an exercise of the Power of Order as is above exprest will give him no peculiar Interest therein but joyntly with the Presbyters and yet that the Commands in point of Jurisdiction are delivered to him peculiarly and not to them Where will the Dr. shew this distinction and difference in the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy It should seem the ordinary Rule will take place here non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit since the Precepts are equally delivered and without the least Intimation of such a difference or distinction The person who makes the distinction seems Chargable with arrogant Anti-scriptural Boldness The Dr. pleads that the Apostolick Precept 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands suddenly on no man prescribes a standing Rule in Point of Jurisdiction Viz that the Prelat has a sole interest therein secluding Presbyters wholly from any Authority in this Matter For this he makes the Bishops peculiar prerogatiue P. 436.437 c. And he draws his great Proof in this place from the Apostles addressing this Precept to Timothy not to Pastors or Presbyters Now what if any shall lash the Dr. with his own Argument and Plead from the Apostles Solemn Charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.1.2 Preach the Word be instant in Season cut of Season and several such Precepts relative to General Ministerial Duties or Actings of the Power of Order such as a Right behaving in the House of GOD 1 Tim. 3.15 To be a growing Minister in the Words of Faith 1 Tim. 4.6 To exercise himself to Godliness v. 7. To be examplary to Believers in word and Conversation c. V. 12. To give attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrin not to neglect but to stir up his Gift to Meditat upon the things of God and give himself wholly thereunto to take heed unto himself and to the Doctrin and continue in them v. 13.14.15.16 with 2 Tim. 1.6 That such Actings of the Power of Order are proper only to the Bishop and such Ministerial Duties peculiar to him So that Presbyters or Pastors have no Interest or concern therein because these Precepts are pecuâ—iarly addressed to Timothy not to them What Answer and evasion can he have to save him from a Contradiction and inconsistency with himself If his own Argument be good against us upon the forementioned Ground why not the very same Argument in this Case against himself The Drs. only Answer and evasion which he can have is That these Commands as to the Exercise of the Power of Order or respecting Pastoral Duties in general tho peculiarly addressed to Timothy yet could give him no peculiar or sole Interest therein because Presbyters are elsewhere in Scripture Instructed with the same Power But 1. In this Answer he breaks his Argument all in pieces the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addressing these Precepts to Timothy But here he acknowledges that the peculiar Address will bear no such conclusion of Timothy's sole Interest in the Duty enjoyned And 2. If he say that the Bishops peculiar Interest and Jurisdiction is elsewhere evident in Scripture who sees not that he but pityfully beggs the Question and baffls his own General Argument And further he should know that the Presbyterians stand upon an advantagious Ground with him in this Point For we hold and can prove that the Power of Jurisdiction is prescribed and competent to Presbyters since the Scripture shews the Power of Ordination to be seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 with Act 22.5 Luk. 22.66 Matth. 18.17 Consequently correspondent Actings of a Jurisdictional Power All that watch for the Peoples Souls are in Scripture held out to have a joint Rule over them Heb. 13.17 In the Church of Thessalonica the Labourers in the Word and Doctrin jointly fed and laboured jointly censured and as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers were to be submittted to and obeyed 1 Thess. 5.12 So it was in the same Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these Elders or Bishops 1 Pet 5. And I would fain know why the Drs. Notion and Argument from the peculiar addressing of Precepts will not hold good in our Case against him upon the ground of these and such like Scriptures where the Power of Order and Jurisdiction is jointly ascribed to Presbyters without the least hint of a Superior Authority herein or their Precarious dependence upon
any Officer of an higher order Moreover will the Dr. be bold to affirmâ— that what was prescribed to Timothy in Point of Order and Jurisdiction was confined within the Church of Ephesus and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches as the Apostle enjoined him And if this last must needs be asserted upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches as is above from Scrpture evinced and delineat it follows by inevitable consequence that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him while at Ephesus can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches as well as there especially since the Apostle here enjoins him to do the Work of an Evangelist i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister as is above described not the work of a Prelat over this Church If the Dr. deny this he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches or else must quite his plea. But finally to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches before Timothy had these Prescriptions in point of Government Adddressed unto him therein From whence the Dr. concludes that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person presiding over Clergy and Laity Besides the exceptions above touched to which this is lvable I would First know of him whether this Pâ—esbytrie or Presbytries so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order as himself acknowledges competent to them such as Teaching and the like And if so as himself doth hold and suppose notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him Especially since it s known the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties exprest in the Precepts abovementioned And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy in the Power of Order and such Ministerial Duties as are contained in the forementioned Precepts nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein why I pray shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction What will the Dr. Answer if one should improve his own Argument thus Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie to use his own term and that there were many Pastors gifted to Preach and admonish yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy gave this Commandment to him not to them Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only And sure I am whatever Answer he can give to this which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture will loose and Answer his own Argument against us In a word its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time and shew that when pertinently improven it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows Which retortion I thus offer After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus with reference to the Clergy and Laity as he speaks the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus as to both Order and Jurisdiction without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them herein or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers upon him in the exercise of this their Power notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them when the Apostle gave this Charge and that it was his last farewell-Charge when never to see their Faces more Now if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before and Constitut him their Bishop what a pityful inconsistency retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice in the Instalment of Timothy to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule Surely if the Argument from Priority of time be valid it must be signally so in this Case wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text and to use the Drs. expression and Address him in his own words ibid. this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches and to be sure the Government now at last Established at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers since the Apostles ordained other Apostles and Bishops to presid over the Churches But sure looking to his Scope and Pleading nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould For he cannot but acknowledg That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office in its whole Nature and Extent as above delineat viz. To found and plant Churches through the World to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them and this with extraordinary Gifts and infallible directive Authority as Christs immediatly sent and first Ambassadors Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches with an ordinary and limited Power for I hope he will not make them all universal Patriarchs Now how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles any may judg yet he will have them not only Bishops but Apostles properly so called such as were the first Apostles and as succeeding them in their formal Office Besides in speaking of this Divine Right he tells us His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers Which is a General easily accorded by us as is said and no way will come home to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge The Dr. tells us ibid That if the ordaining of Presbyters be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office as we hold why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops as good an Argument for the perpetuity of that Office I answer when the Dr. shall make it good that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church as we can prove and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders or make it appear that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus any Rules for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop or for his Qualifications as in that Capacity as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor in both these Epistles then and not till then the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted But till then we must
send it back to the Dr. with a Censure of Impertinency till it be returned with a Testimonial of a better proof than of his bare Assertion and ipse dixit The Dr. enquires how we can argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus citing Ius divinum Minist Evang. p. 159.167 if the Office they were ordained to were not perpetual And if perpetual then so is Episcopacy nothing different therefrom Answ. We hold the Ordination instanced to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination as well as in General a Power of Ordination in the Church Timothy's Ordination having this Scripture account that it was by Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie the Apostle Paul's presence and his Imposition of Hands tho supposed doth rather Strengthen than invalidat since neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy nor his designment for such an Eminent Office nor Paul's Imposition of Hands the Great Apostle of the Gentiles did Swallow up or exclud the Presbytries Ordinary Power and Authority but Timothy must pass through this Door of a Presbytries Authoritative Ordination and Imposition of Hands in order to the Exercise of his Office therefore much more doth this Authority belong to the Presbytrie now when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased And for Titus's Ordination in an active Sense or his Ordination of Elders the Apostle tells him expresly Chap. 1.5 the Passage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength that it was to be performed according to the Apostles appointment which appointment in the Sense of our Divines is none other else than that which himself examplified and is Intimat 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 i. e. with Authoritative concurrence of the Presbytrie or Eldership So that Titus had no Episcopal Authority therein notwithstanding of his Evangelistick extraordinary Office And this is invincibly made good in opposition to the Drs Design and pleading in that the Apostle in the same very Text wherein he enjoins Titus to ordain Elders doth identify and make one and the same the Office of the Bishop and Elder which were a mere implicantia in terminis if the Apostle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoyn the Drs. supposed Prelatical Power in Ordination as Competent to an higher Order of Bishops Superior to Prerbyters For the Drs. asserting the Office of Episcopacy and that of Timothy to be one and the same he therein beggs thâ— Question and supposes what he has to prove The Office of the Prelat and Evangelist being so vastly different as we have already made appear And therefore his Reason and Argument is pitifully absurd from our assertting the Power of Ordination as inherent to the Church upon the Ground of the Apostles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelists to conclud the standing Office of Prelatical inspection or Ordination The Dr. should also know that the asserting that a Church Officer such as an Apostle hath an extraordinary Authority conversant about Ordination can neither infer that the Power of Ordination it self is extraordinary and expired nor that every Person Ordained hath an ordinary standing Function Which the â—postles extraordinary Authority in the first Planting of Presbyters while the Churches were in fieri as to their Organick Being their Ordaining Evangelists extraordinary Officers together with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority as well in their Actings of the Power of Order and Preaching with Miraculous Gifts of Tongues and Confirming their Doctrins with Miracles as in Point of Jurisdiction their Extraordinary Censures above exprest doth evince and make evident The extraordinary Mission of the Twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Authority diffused and spread among all the ' Church Officers in the World none of which doth Succeed them into the same formal Office So Timothy's Evangelistick extraordinary Authority is derived handed down into and seated in a Presbytrie tho the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not Succeeded unto The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing to continue in all Ages and in all times doth not render the Apostolick Mission or Commission ordinary nor infer their being Succeeded in idem Officium eundem Ministerii gradum the ordinary Power being Institut and settled in the Hands of ordinary Officers by a New warrand and Commission according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination The Office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many Works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the Case is here The Evangelists extraordinary Office and Commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the First founding of the Churches for Watering the Apostles Plantation Building up the Churches in their Organick being and settling all the ordinary Officers thereof is changed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Church exercised and even in this of Ephesus For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity upon this head and touching Timothies Episcopacy over Ephesus they are sufficiently obviat by what is said above and in special by what we have offered and evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of the Names of Bishop and Apostle The Dr. brings an Anonymous Author to prove that Timothy was Enthroned forsooth Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by Paul A pityful Proof indeed and fit only for a nameless Author It being evident by the best searchers of Antiquity that the Office of Metropolitans had not a Being till several Ages after Timothy For Chrysostom his asserting that Timothy was intrusted with a Church or whole Nation If we shall assert that this is applicable to his transient or temporary Evangelistick Trust in correspondence to the extensive Office of Apostleship it says nothing to our purpose And the Dr. should know that Chrysostom upon Tit. 1.5 makes the Office of Bishop and Presbyter one and the same and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. design and arguing For other Authors who do call Timothy together with other Bishops then in being Apostles which the Dr. further Pleads it doth sufficiently evince what is said above of their improper equivocal acceptation of the Term since no person of Sense who ever Read the New Testament can take the Office of Apostle as delineat in Scripture to be applicable to Timothy far less to ordinary Bishops fixed in certain Posts Nay the Dr. himself and in contradiction to himself doth unawares bewray this in his Greek Citation of Theodoret who asserts that the Twelve Apostles were more strictly called so or rather according to the Truth of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles according to Truth or in very deed Clearly importing that the Name appropriat to other Officers was but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly as any Minister or Messenger of Christ may be thus called And if this be Theodorets general Rule as the Dr calls it that the Twelve Apostles were only such
and monopolized in him And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature opposit to Scripture we may make them as some Papists blaspheme them a Nose of Wax Again If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands For we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops in correspondence to Christs Institution lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus Bishop of Crete and that the instructions addrest to them in Point of Government in these Epistles are a clear indication yea and Demonstration in the Drs Sense and Pleading of this supposed instalment of the one and the other by the Apostles in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete and we know how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent Now if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor that the Apostles with their own hands installed not Timothy but Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus and Titus not Bishop of Crete but of Corinth what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture for their installment elsewhere The Dr. says The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus at Ephesus and Corinth and that by the Apostles own Hands is most certain if we believe Ecclesiastical History And if most certain upon this Ground then most certain it is 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete is most false and all his pretended Scripture Proofs by his own Confession mere wind and lies And 2 ly That all the Dr's Testimonies of Fathers and pretended Historical accounts hereanent are Fabulous Dreams I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath but to alledge their after-instalment in these places by the Apostles But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account as well as Historical of this matter ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge But to proceed The Dr's Third Inference is that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on as a Superior Order to Presbyters Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them according to Christs Institution Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles and consequently what a sandy Foundation the Dr. builds this inference upon Again if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him For in his Epistle to the Trallians he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie as the Apostles of Christ and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ And in the same Epistle he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop thus their Fellows in the Government and nothing else And how far this is from the Dr's supposition of Ignatius Judgment about the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church in this Point let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs from the next Age further as he tells us from the Scripture Antiquity And no doubt the more Dark in this Point He tells us of Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church who Consecrat the Bread and Wine gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present and to be carryed to the absent And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop he tells us appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth his Contemporary who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously A sorry Proof no doubt The Churches had a President or these called by Iustin so Therefore Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and holding the entire Apostolick Office Again these Presidents are called sometimes Bishops and gets that general Name Therefore they were such Bishops and of such a Mould as the Dr. pleads for What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as we have above cleared One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority as this of the supposed Bishops drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius I might further Argue and press the Dr. thus If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government competent to Pastors they do by necessary consequence overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop as set over Pastors and enhancing all this Authority and do by further consequence inferr either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops in the Dr's Sense or that if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word they must needs mean the Pastor only and not his imaginary Prelat And so whatever Sense the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius his Cause and Pleading here is lost and falls to the Ground Moreover if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office offered by Iustin he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper peculiar to him against the Dr's own Sense and Pleading who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function whereas here it is made peculiar to the Bishop to Consecrat the Bread and Wine Besides that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent a seed of gross Popish Superstitions But I am weary of this pityful trash As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus the Fragments whereof he says are in Eusebius's History anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome Anicetus Soter Eleutherius succeeding Sucessively and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem succeeded by Simon Cleophae Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth in his Epistles mentions Publius and Quadratus Successive Bishops of Athens and several other Bishops in their Respective Sees It is Answered this is abundantly obviat and removed by what is premised First Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers whom as we have heard the learned does Censure and disown which has no small confirmation from this that Eusebius himself in the Proaem of his History Professes that he is entred into a dark Desert having no footsteps of Historians going before him but only some petty Narrations which certain persons in certain times and places have left And for Hegesippus whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous and unworthy of Credit besides that no
parts of him are now Extent As for the Catalogues of Succession which the Dr. mentions we have heard how shattered they are and inconsistent with themselves and Censured consequently by the Learned as deserving no Credit Next as we have heard out of Iunius the Ground of this fancied Succession Viz That the most Eminent Ministers for Moral Respects found in Church Records were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues and termed Bishops in conformity to the times wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained tho they were mere Presbyters and for most part contemporary one with another So we have from the same Iunius made appear what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers Viz. To prove against Hereticks that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin and the traduces Apostolici Seminis as it was called but not to point out or assert a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats And therefore in the Third place the Dr. says nothing to the purpose unless he can prove that by Bishops they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould with such an absolute Apostolick Authority as he suggests which untill he make good he does but â—eaâ— the Air and â—egg the Question For since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter indifferently as the Prelatisâ—â— themselves acknowledg it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop which the Fathers make use of their assertion of the Prelatical Office which the Dr. pretends The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters whom he imagins Bishops in his Sense Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. calls Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus Xistus Presbyters of the Church of Rome Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt the Presbyters that went before thee Thus also he expresses himself Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat Tertullian also Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores or Presbyters when he saith Praesident probati quique Seniores For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus his seeing Polycarp and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle who affirms he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times reckoning Eleven from Linus to whom he says Peter â—and Paul delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church It is Answered That this is abundantly obviat by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter and the intendment of the Fathers in such recitations Yea and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters lib 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedire opportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt Reliquos vero qui absistunt a principali successione quocunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi haereticos malae sententiae vel quasi scindentes elatos sibi placentes c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap 44. he expresseth himself ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad Informationem correctionem aliorum From which Passages of Irenaeus the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned do infer 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles And I may add that if called so by the Fathers the terming of Prelats Successors of the Apostles is of no weight to prove the Dr's design 2 dly That they are also called Bishops 3 dly That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession 4 ly That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus which is not said of Presbyters and therefore such places cannot prove that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches Bishops distinct from Presbyters The Dr's two Countreymen Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop when applyed to Apostles and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them In a word in the forementioned Appendix the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is fully baffled from several Grounds 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop these of the first and later times being of a different Mould as to their Office and Power the later being Diocesian the first not so since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters and the Succession being drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the First Ordained Minister as among the Athenians there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers equal in Power and Authority yet the Succession of Governours there was derived from one who was the Chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio as Iunius expresses it and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister or the present Moderator and President 2 ly That the Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles times runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty and contradicts one another some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter some the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus are inextricable Some as we have above made appear calling Titus Bishop some Archbishop of Crete some Bishop of Dalmatia Timothy and the Apostle Iohn are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus at the same time Thus also Polycarp is said by some to be the First Bishop of Smyrna by others to Succeed one Bucolus and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities Two others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time What uncertainty and contradiction is here Iunius resolves the doubt Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5 Not. 15. viz. That these or some of these were Presbyters Ruling the Church in common but the following Ages fancying to themselves such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church fell into the Snares of Tradition supposing according to the custome of their own times that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once which saith he is quite cross to the Apostolical times 3 ly Upon the former grounds and in correspondence to this account of Iunius they do inferr That these Authors make the Catalogues speak according to the language of
their own times in which there was a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyters And therefore do call such as were before them Bishops whereas they were not so properly And the after Bishops succeeded these supposed First no otherways than Cesar did the Roman Consuls 4 ly The Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists do appear absurd viz That of Rome into Peter that of Alexandria into Mark that of Ephesus into Timothy that of Crete into Titus since neither Apostles nor Evangelists were Bishops in a formal Sense and having an Universal Commission and extraordinary Office could be Succeeded in neither the one nor the other tho in some part of their work they might by ordinary Officers as by Men of another Order but not as one Brother Succeeds another in the Inheritance And this doth fully remove what the Dr alledges out of Clem. Alexand. Strom. 6. And the Passage Cited by Eusebius out of him and from his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touching a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters and anent Presbyters not having the First Seat or Class in Ecclesiastick orders and that the Apostle Iohn returning from Patmos to Ephesus Visited the Province partly to Ordain Bishops and partly to set a part such for the Clergy as were pointed out by the Spirit For granting some distinction to to have crept in while these things were Written and as Augustin expresses it secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter Episcopus Presbytero Major yet this will never prove either 1. That this distinction was from the beginning which we find Augustin in this way of expressing himself contradicts Or 2 ly That there were Bishops of the Drs. Mould in a continued Line from the beginning and far less that the Apostle Iohn set up such Prelats since the Ancients as we have heard the Learned Iunius observe spoke of the Apostolick times in the Mould and after the manner of their own And surely if we acknowledg the late distinction of Clergy and Laity as we needs must to be far remote from Iohn's time we must consequently acknowledg that this Author spoke his own Sense and the Language of his time rather than the Sense or practice of the Apostle Iohn The Dr. next Generally Cites Tertullian Origen Cyprian for this continuance as he calls it of Apostolick Superiority from the Apostles themselves whose words he tells us he needs not Recit since Presbyterians acknowledg Episcopacy received about the year 140. Ans. As for the continuance and derivation of the Apostolick Office in a Succedaneous Episcopacy which the Dr. has been fencing for we deny it and have found his proofs utterly insufficient and that nothing he has adduced from the Fathers or Scripture can give the least shaddow of a sound Proof of this Point As for our acknowledgment of the Episcopacy introduced about the middle of the Second Century the Dr. should know that we acknowledg that Beza's Episcopus humanus or Episcopus praeces was about this time set up and obtained in the Churches and that as we have heard the First ordained Minister in a sort of Prostasie or fixed Moderatorship had some deference eo nomine and the next in order was set up to moderat in the Meetings when he was removed by Death or otherwise and had the Tittle of Bishop given to him and this was as Ambrose Phrases it multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum or by the Judgment and appointment of the Presbytrie Presbytri saith he unum ex se electum in excelsiore gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant So that in Ambrose's Sense he had this fixed Prostasie or new Name as their Mouth and Moderator for Orders sake and this by the free choice of the Presbytrie which shews the folly of the Dr's inference of a supposed existent Hierarchy of his mould from the nominal distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the Passages of Clemens and Eusebius and others generally mentioned or from these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being set in a higher Seat than Presbyterâ—s For upon the Constitution above rehearsed and confirmed by Ambrose both these might be Yet without any Impeachment of Pastors or Presbyters decisive Authority in Judicatories unless the Dr. will say that because the Moderator of an Assembly hath a peculiar Name and seat and a deference upon that Account He has therefore an Office and Authority paramount to that of the Assembly and such as inhances their decisive suffrage Besides the Dr. odly inferrs from our acknowledgment of this first human Prostasie our granting a derivation or continuance or even introductiion at that time of his pretended Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in the Nature and extent he pleads for who sees not that these are toto Caelo different Tho in the next Passage the Dr. seems to retract this telling his Reader That tho we acknowledg an Apostolick Superiority yet we deny that they left any to Succeed them in that Power But since he gives this our acknowledgment of the First Episcopacy as the reason why he needs not Cite his Authors Particularly to prove the derivation and continuance of Apostolick Superiority at that time he clearly supposes this and therefore speaks confusedly and inconsistently in the premised account of our Judgment and concession Well what further aocount gives the Dr. of Presbyterians Judgment in this Matter He adds We hold that the Church was every where governed by the common Council of Presbyters but this form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and divisions it was at last Universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to presid over all the rest and that this was the beginning of Episcopacy for which he says we Cite the famous Testimony of Ierom antequam Diaboli instinctu c. Where I find the Dr. either willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting our Cause and Principles First in alledging that we hold that this Form of Government by common Council of Pastors or Presbyters was found inconvenient or not suited to the ends of Government because it gave occasion for Schisms and Divisions A gross and lying imputation For all do know that we hold this Form of Government to be of Divine appointment and the Government established by the Apostles And it were a strange inconsistency and contradiction to the Scriptures of Truth to hold that this Divine Government appointed by God in the Scriptures of the New Testament and enjoined unto the Gospel Church was not suited to all the times thereof and to the great ends of Government and could of it self give a rise to Schisms and divisions What a gross imputation were this upon the Divine Institutions and opening a Door to lay them all aside upon pretence of eventual inconveniencies I dare challeng this Dr. or any of his mind to instance any Presbyterian Writer who ever asserted this For if he say we homologat
Augustin and Ambrose imputing also with Jerom the Episcopal Presidency which obtained in their time to the Churches Custom not to Divine Appointment do thus cast a contradicting blot upon his supposed Testimonies Ambrose acknouledging in special that non per omnia conveniunt Apostolorum scripta ordinationi quae nunc est in Eeclesia Comment in Cap. 4. ad Ephes. And tho it be controverted whether this was the true Ambrose yet we must tell him with the learned Professors of Saumur De Episcop Presb. Discrim P. mihi 300. Thes. 19. that he was Coetaneous with or rather more Ancient than Ambrose being Cited by Augustin who was Ambrose Disciple as an Holy Man lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4. which Epithet he would not have put upon a person of small account or one hetrodox 3 ly The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity of Bishops and Presbyters as his privat Judgment only but least he or any else suppose this he proves it by Divine Testimonies of the Apostles Writings yea and gives the same Sense of them which Presbyterian Writers do And therefore the Dr. must acknowledg him in so far acting a Divine Witness not giving a human Testimony only and that he more than â—utweighs his Human Testimonies else he is obliged to examin his Proâ—fs and Answer them and show if he can Ierom's Sense of these Scriptures to be disowned by any of his Authors which he doth not so much as attempt All who have seen Jerom's Testimony do know that he Reasons this Point of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter from Scripture least any should take this to be his private Opinion Putat aliquis saith he non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse the one Name importing the Age the other the Office of the Pastor Then he goes through these Scriptures Philip. 1.1 Act. 20.28 Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2.3 Drawing out upon the whole this Conclusion that the Bishops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters was rather by Custom than any true dispensation from the Lord. But of this again The Drs. Second Exception is That Jerom being a Presbyter himself speaks in his own Cause and in a warmth of Passion to curb the insolency of some pragmatick Deacons Ans. Jerom reasoning both in this place Cited and the Epistle to Evagrius this Point from Scripture and exhibiting the Divine Oracles the Apostles Doctrin and practice for what he holds speaks the mind of God and no Passion and untill the Dr. Answer his Scripture-reasonings in the Forecited Testimonies he is lyable to the Charge of imputing to the Scripture and to the Apostles Passion and Partiality As for his being a Presbyter himself what then can no Presbyter speak truely and impartially upon this head Besides he knows that several of his Witnesses for Episcopacy and whom he most Esteems are by him supposed Bishops of his high Hierarchical Mould and how shall we receive their Testimony in their own Cause And why may not we impute to them partiality and Passion and reject their Testimony unless their Episcopal Chair hath as that of the Pope a supposed infallibility anneâ—ed to it So that the Dr. is put to this Delemma either to quite his great Episcopal Testimonies as insufficient upon his own Ground or admit this of Jerom. It is the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens The Dr's Third Exception is That Jerom elsewhere owns the Bishop's Superiority whereof he exhibits First this Proof that in his Dialogue Advers Luciferians he gives this Reason why one not Baptized by the Bishop received not the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles Which the Dr. says makes it plain that he placed the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles A strange Proof indeed First we heard that Jerom Reasons the Point from Scripture that the Bishop and Presbyter are all one and therefore it is odd from Jerom's Naming a Bishop to understand him of his Hierarchical Bishop Again Jerom says quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus c. what doth the Bishop except Ordination which the Presbyter doth not A Clause and Passage we find the Dr. much harping upon but in his gloss upon this Testimony he doth in contradiction to himself and Jerom also appropriat to the Bishop the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism What if one Reason thus against the dispisers of this Ordinance Such a Person is not Sealed by the Spirit because not Baptized by a Pastor for the Holy Ghost Descended on the Apostles Will the Dr. disown this Reasoning Or will he own the Inference that therefore Pastors are equal to Apostles Or say it were such a Reasoning such a Person or Persons cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit not having heard the Converting Word Preached by a Pastor since the Apostles thus Converted and Ministred the Holy Ghost Will any but such as draw Reasons and Illustrations beyond the Moon as this Dr inferr that the Pastor is thus equal unto Apostles Will the Dr. in good earnest affirm that the Person who performs such Acts of the Power of Order as the Apostles did perform and with the saving Blessing of the Spirit is upon this Ground equalled in Office to the Apostles If so he must make all Faithful Pastors thus equal and overturn all his Reasoning from a supposed Succession of Bishops to the Apostolat The Dr's next Proof is drawn from Epist. 1. ad Heliod where he says the Bishops are in place of St. Paul and Peter And so say we are all Faithful Pastors whom Ierom makes one with Bishops according to the Scripture acceptation and at large makes it good in the place of Apostles as to the exercise of an ordinary Ministrie and the Power of Order and Jurisdiction Essential and necessar to the Church else our Lord had not promised His presence with His Apostles to the end of the World when He sent them out and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gospel and Disciple all Nations to Him Of the same Stamp is that which he Cits of Ierom on Psal. 45.16 That in stead of the Apostles gone from the World we have their Sons the Bishops the Fathers by whom they are Governed For I pray will this Dr. either assert 1. That Ierom held that the Power of Government and Authority Ecclesiastick died with the Apostles that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction was not to be preserved continued in the Church and Exercised by ordinary Church Officers and in this respect enjoined in the Fifth Comâ—and which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours and so are Ministers called in Scripture under the Character and Denomination of Fathers Or 2 ly Can he deny that Ierom holds that except Ordination or rather the Rituals of it at that time appropriat to the Bishop the Pastors and Presbyters performed all Acts of the Power of Order and Jurisdiction And that
Conference and as no members I would fain know if the Dr. will say that these Elders meeting with the Apostles Act. 15. which he will no doubt acknowledg was one of the best Moulded Councils yea and a Standart for after-Councils were no Members but called and meeting for conference only since in the Scripture account and three fold Partition of those that mett Viz Apostles Elders Brethren there is an intire joint concurrence with the whole procedure viz both in the Disquisition the Sentence the decretal Epistle and Appointment in reference to the Churches obedience It does also sute the Dr's consideration to shew how it can consist with reason and the Nature of a Church Judicatory that such persons as are no Members nor fit to be Members are in tuto to prepare Matter for Laws and take share in debates But the Dr's Forgery here is evident For 1. If Presbyters concurrence in Ordination was Authoritative not by consent only and they imposed hands as proper Ordainers even when Bishops had obtained Power in Judicatories by confession of Episcopalians themselves see Dr. Forbes Iraen lib. 2. Cap. 11. I would fain know why such Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers as had Authority to Ordain which is one of the greatest Acts of Ministerial Authority had no Authority in enacting Laws in Councils but sat as Cyphers 2 ly The Dr. will find Antiquity against this deputed kind of conferring or consulting Power which he allows to Presbyters in Councils without Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom hom 17. on Matth. calls Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs Vicars or Deputes And its strange that such to whom Christ entrusted this Vicarious Power had no interest and Authority in enacting Laws in his Church and in the Government thereof Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 8. shews that Dominus Sacerdotes in Ecclesia c the Lord condescended to elect to himself Priests or Ministers in the Church the Dr. will not say that he put this designation only upon Prelats And did he elect and constitute them for no interest in the Government thereof Nay on the contrary the Judgment of the Ancients is clear in this that the Power of external Jurisdiction and consequently the Authority of enacting Laws or Canons was common to Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians called the Presbytrie Senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat non consiliarios solum as our Dr. makes them sed assessores Episcopi not his Advisers only but his Authoritative fellow-Counsellors And I hope such he will grant as are in this Character have interest not only in preparing matter for Laws but an essential Official Right in the Authoritative enacting of them Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 44. calls them Principes Princes or Chief And if such in his Judgment the forementioned Authority is clearly by him attributed to them Augustin Serm. 6. calls the Brethren in Eremo Patronos Rectores Terrae And what pitiful Patrons or Rectors are they who have no Authority in enacting Laws Chrysostom asserts expresly on 1 Tim. 1. hom 11 That they presided over the Churches as Bishops and received together with them the Office of Teaching and Governing the Church And if this with the preceeding Testimonies give not the Lie to the Dr's forementioned distinction anent Presbyters sole consulting interest in Councils and upon the Bishops Call allennarly without any Authority in enacting Laws let any Judg. Chrysostom moreover in the beginning of that Homily stating the Question wherefore the Apostle after he had spoken to the Office and Duty of Bishops passes over to Deacons omitting the order of Presbyters returns this Answer and Reason Because betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference and because that unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is committed And what he said concerning Bishops the same things also do agree to Presbyters And if with the Dr's good leave I might draw an inference from Chrysostom's assertion I would thus subsume But so it is that the Authority of Government and the enacting of Laws in Church Judicatories is by the Apostle ascribed to the Scripture Bishop whom he mentions Ergo the same Authority and Power is by the Apostle ascibed to Presbyters in Chrysostom's Sense Gratian in Decret Caus. 16. Quest. 1. Cap. shews that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum A Senat of Presbyters without whose Counsel the Bishop can do nothing They were not then called at the Bishops pleasure for debate only and preparing matters as the Dr. pretends but were the sine quibus non in the enacting of the Laws themselves The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decisive suffrage in Judicatories yet Cyprian Ep. 6. and 28. professes He neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy And the Fourth Council of Carthage condemns the Bishop's Decision unless Fortified by their Sentence So far was it that the Bishop's sole Suffrage gave the Strength and Formality to Laws that they were null without Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence This is clear by so full a consent of Antiquity that we will find That neither in Censuring of Presbyters Nor 2 ly In Judging the conversation or Crimes of Church Members Nor 3 ly In Excommunicating or Receiving of Penitents Bishops could do any thing without Presbyters Tertulian Apolog. Advers Gentes shews vs That the Churches Exhortations Castigations and Divine Censures were put forth by the Probati quique Seniores who did preside the accused Person being brought into the Congregation And this Authoritative Sentence of Presbyters was more approved than when passed by one Man As when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same Case The Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius because he passed it sine alicujus Fratris Consilio without the consent of any of his Brethren But were pacified with the Sentence of Ambrose because saith he hoc judicium nostrum cum Fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processerat This his Sentence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow Presbyters or Ministers Yea the very Admonition of Offenders were not given by the Bishops alone but by the Elders August De verb. Apost Serm. 19. Thus also Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. Excommunication it self Tertullian tells us was vibrated by those that laboured in the Word and Doctrin and the Presbytrie that delivered unto Satan as Jerom shews Epist. ad Heliod So Epist ad Demet. they also Received and Absolved the Penitents Cyprian Epist. 12 shews that this was the custom nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius ab Episcopo clero manus illi fuerit imposita such as were Excommunicat returned not to Church Fellowship before hands were laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy And writing to his Charge anent lapsed Christians he tells them exomologesi facta manu iis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita After Confession and laying on of the Presbyters hands they might be commended to God And such as returned from
this Rite of Imposing of Hands concludes upon solid Grounds Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination So that comparing our Dr's Concession with Dr. Forbes his Sense in Point of Ordination and with what we have evinced of Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Government in the Sense of the Primitive Church the Dr's Pleadings for the Prelates sole Interest therein is sufficiently overturned yea and the Inconsistency thereof with it self discovered For what he adds of Cyprian his Asserting that a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church might pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae autoritate have Chastised a Deacon without Appealing to the Synod The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of Cyprian where this is found And upon Supposition of what is clearly supposible in Cyprians time anent the Presbytrie their Deference and Entrusting the Execution of some Censures to the President-Bishop who had then obtained such a Minut-Matter as the Chastising of a Deacon might well fall within the Compass of the then Bishops Deputed Authority which will abundantly Salve this Expression from Wounding Pastors or Presbyters Essential Interest in Censures and Government Besides that Cyprian owning so clearly Presbyters Essential Interest both in Ordination and Censures in the above-mentioned Epistles viz. 33.58.75 compared with 12. and 46. doth clearly evince he owned no such sole Authority of the Prelat as the Dr. alledges Which is correspondent to the Testimony cited of Tert. Apol. advers Gentes cap. 39. Ambrose Epistola ad Siagrium Considering further the Smallness of the Charge of Prelats in the first Rise of the Episcopus Praeses who had their Charge confined oft to little Dorps or Villages and that the Pronunciation or Execution of Censures or Sentences was in a Deference to the then Bishops appropriat unto them by the Presbytrie who still retained an Essential Interest in Cognoscing upon the Cause The forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice which mentions the Separation from Communion by Bishops of the Province and by the Bishop from the Congregation and the Convention of Bishops of the Province for Cognoscing upon the Cause if Dubious doth no Whit favour the Dr's Conclusion of a Spiritual Iurisdiction wholly Seated in the Bishops the Radical Authority being still in the Presbyters or Consistorial Meetings of Pastors The fourth Peculiar of the Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter the Dr. tells us is To Confirm the Baptized which after their Instruction in Christian Faith was always performed by Prayer and Laying on of Hands upon which the Party Confirmed received the Gift of the Holy Ghost Tho upon the first Institution of this Imposition extraordinary Gifts followed as of Tongues c. Yet saith he it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Ministry to cease with those extraordinary Gifts no more than Preaching attended with those extraordinary Miraculous Operations The Function it self cannot cease no more than that of Preaching Because the extraordinary Gifts and Effects are gone and Christ promising a continual Communication of the Spirit to his Church he must be supposed to continue it by this Ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands and the ordinary Operations the same way that extraordinary were Hence the Apostle puts the Laying on of Hands in the same Class with Baptism Heb. 6.1 2. and makes it one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Therefore it must be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church Ans. I shall easily grant to the Dr that in the beginning of the Gospel and in the first Apostolical Times of the Christian Church there were sometimes extraordinary Effects and Efficacy of Gifts attending the standing Offices and Functions which are to be continued in the Church and the Duties of Prayer and Preaching As also that we have in Scripture Exemplified the Gifts of the Spirit attending the Imposition of Hands As likewise that there is an ordinary Communication of the Spirits Gifts and Graces in and by Christs Instituted Ordinances But all this is far remote from the Point in Question and reaching the Dr's Assertion and Conclusion viz. That Christ hath Institute Confirmation of the Baptized after Instruction by Imposition of the Hands of a Bishop as his sole Prerogative and in the Capacity of an Officer superior to a Pastor in Order to the Persons further Confirmation in the Faith Any with half an Eye may discover that this has no imaginable Connection with what the Dr. here offers As for that Text Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Proof of what he brings it for It s true there has been several Comments given of that Clause of Imposition of Hands but none of them favours the Dr's Fancy and imagined Sense Some have taken it to be meant of a Ceremony adjoyned to Baptism it self for a Sign of Blessing and Consecration to God Some have taken it saith Diodat for Laying Hands on such Catechumeni as had been Baptized for Confirmation of their Faith or as a Badge of Renewing their Covenant in Order to Partaking of the Lords Supper See Pool 2. Vol. on the place Certain it is the Laying on of Hands was either for Healing Diseases Mark 6.5 Luke 4.4 Act. 28.8 Or Communication of Blessings Matth. 19.13 15. Or Communication of the Gifts of the Spirit to such as were separat to Gods Service in the Church Act. 6.6 and 17.6 and 13.3 So 19.5 6. Hence some under this Expression take in all the Spirits Gifts whereby we are Renewed Increased Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal See Pool Annot. The Belgick Divines understand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Primitive Church imparted to Believers in general Act. 8.16 17. And especially in the Institution of Ministers in the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 Where this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Presbytrie Dr. Owen takes this Clause of Imposing Hands to import a Description of Persons to be instructed in the other Fundamental Principles but to be no Principle it self He also holds that in those days it did commonly accompany or immediatly follow Baptism Act. 8.14 15 16. and 19.6 Withal he shews that when Baptized Children gave an Account of their Faith and Repentance which others had done before they were Baptized they were admitted to the Communion of the Church the Elders thereof Laying their Hands on them in Token of their Acceptation and Praying for their Confirmation in the Faith An Account of this Matter given also by many of the Learned He distinguishes a fourfold Imposition of Hands The 1. Peculiar to our Lord in Way of Authoritative Benediction as when he owned little Children to belong to his Covenant he laid his Hands on them Mark 10.16 The 2 d. In Healing of Diseases Miraculously Luke 4.4 Mark 16.18 The 3 d. In Setting apart to the Work and Office of the Ministry 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 The 4 th In Collation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost Act. 8.17 and 19.6 Now that none of all these comes home to
the Church Thus P. 363. Cyprian Epist ad Iubajanum asserts the Custom of offering such as were Baptized to such as he terms Praepositi in order to their Prayers and laying on of Hands with Prayer That by Praepositi he means in general the Ministers of the Church and not the Bishop is clear by many Passages of Cyprian particularly Epist. 3. Par. 1. and Epist. 69. Par. 4. where he calls the Successors of the Seventy Disciples Praepositos as well as these of the Apostles So likewise Epist. 62. Par. 1. and Epist. 65. Par. 4. Thus also Epist. 21. Par. 3. The Confirmation he speaks of in the First Passage Cited is that used in the Apostolick Church for the giving of the Holy Ghost for which he Cites Act. 8.14 This is further noticeable of Dr. Lightfoot viz. That he shews that Imposition of Hands was not given but only to such as were ad Ministerium Ordinandi and was not given ad Sanctificationem sed ad Dona extraordinaria See Answer to the Principles of the Cyprianick Age P. 53. who also Cites Piscator Beza Grotius as thus Expounding the Passage Controverted Festus Hommius Disput. Theolog. 46. Thes. 1. Having shown that the Apostles used this Ceremony of Imposing Hands for Confirming their Doctrin by visible and Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit adds Haec Dona quia ad tempus tantum in Ecclesia viguerunt bodieque ut Ecclesiae non amplius hoc modo necessaria cessarunt etiam ritus ille eum in Finem neâ—â—debet servari nec potest adhiberi And Thes. 2. speaking of the Commendable custom of the Primitive Church that the Catechumeni when become Youths and ineunte adolescentia were presented to be Confirmed it was by Exhortation and Prayer and for this end they were presented says he Ecclesiae Pastoribus and dismissed with a Blessing The Dr. holds this Ministry of Confirmation P. 446. to be performed by Prayer and laying on of Hands The Party Confirmed receiving the Gifts of the Holy Ghost And what Gifts I pray were they which the Dr. Asserts were alwise conferred by this Ceremony and as he expresses it received thereby Sure not the ordinary Gifts For he will acknowledge these received in the Sacrament of Baptism The Extraordinary he Acknowledges are ceased And if neither Ordinary nor extraordinary Gifts are thereby conferred I know not what the Dr. can make of it unless he make it a sort of adjutory further Confirming Symbolical ritual Accessory to the Sacrament of Baptism and a renewed Representation and Seal of the same priviledges as are Sealed thereby And then it should seem it is brought within the stroak and reach of Cartwrights Arguments and Reasons against the Rhemists above rehearsed and that it falls within the compass of such a vain and ludicrous sign of Episeopal vanity as is above expressed Ierom in the forementioned Epistle adversus Luciferianus thus lashes this supposed prerogative of the Prelat That if not by a necessity of Law but for the Honour of the Episcopal Office the Spirit is given their Case is to be Lamented who in little Villages or remote places from the Diocess have been Baptized by Presbyters and prevented by Death before the Bishops visit Beda expresly upon Psal. 86. ascribs this to vanity And Calvin Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 19. thus lashes the Papists that so many of their Flocks being deprived of this supposed necessary Confirmation patiuntur in suo grege Semi-Christianos quorum imperfectionem mederi facile erat they admit many of their people to be but half Christians whose imperfection they may easily remedy And how far this is applicable to the Dr's Case I need not stand to subsum It s true the Dr. doth not in express terms call it a Sacrament yet seeing P. 447. he holds it is by Divine warrand placed in the same Class with Baptism and made one of the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ and in his sense appointed still to continue as a standing Ministry for Communication of the necessary influences of the Spirit It s left to the judicious to consider whether it fall not clearly within the compass of Cartwrights Reasons and of others above rehearsed as inferring its unlawfulness and in special an appeal is made to the Judicious to ponder how the appropriating of this Ceremony to a Bishop for the great ends mentioned can come within the compass of these Fundamental Principles of the Doctrin of Christ without the Knowledge and Belief whereof there can be no Salvation The Dr. I must needs say advances not only Prelacy it self but this supposed priviledge of Prelats to an high pitch in this Reasoning For what he adds of the Character and Quality of Philip and of Cyprians Opinion of his being one of the Seventy two Disciples Whether he he was Deacon or Evangelist it is all one in this Case since the Action here performed by the Apostles was proper to them upon the Grounds already Assigned and the account of their approach to Samaria after this begun Ministry of Philip is so represented by Protestant Divines as wholly overthrows his pleading and Razes it to the Foundation For What the Dr. alledges anent the constant Exercise of this supposed priviledge of Bishops in the Primitive Church As he has produced no Testimony of either Councils or Fathers in proof of this but only wraps up the Matter in a Confident general So he is forc't immediatly in the next words to make a sort of Retraction telling us That in later Ages there are Instances produced of Presbyters that Confirmed But least he should seem to fall foul upon his large Assertion immediatly premised he must needs lenify this and mix Water with his Wine adding That they Confirmed only in the Bishops absence and by his delegation and that it was in the later Ages We see these Charitable Lords became at last Liberal in parting with some Prerogatives admitting such as could only perform the mean Service of Baptizing to the High Episcopal Dignity of Confirming But the Account we have given of this Matter sufficiently discovers his unsoundness and prevarication in this Point and that as the Practice he pleads for had never any warrand from Scripture or prime Antiquity so what Imposition of Hands might have been practised in a supposed conformity to the Apostles Pattern was performed by the Elders or Ministers of the Church And therefore in opposition to the Dr's fair Conclusion as he calls it P. 448. that this Confirmation or Imposition of Hands was Peculiar to the Apostles in the Original and their Successors the Bishops in the continuation of it We may in the Confidence of Truth oppose this Antithesis or Counter-Conclusion That the Apostolick Confirmation which he instances was so peculiar to the Apostolick Office and so appropriat to extraordinary expired effects as therein the Apostles could have no Successors And that their Successors in all the necessary duties and Offices of a Gospel Ministry are the Faithful
be evident to any who will compare their Writings with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments from these Scriptures cited by him and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter From Act. 20. We thus Argue First That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock Whence we collect 1. That the Pastor is the true Scripture Bishop 2. That by his Office he Feeds and Rules the Flock and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost Next it hence follows that whatever Authority Power and Jurisdiction is imported in the Name Bishop falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command given to these Elders or Pastors who are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office the Diocesan Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretended Paramount Inspection over them evanisheth as a mere Chimaera especially since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors 3. It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy now present with Paul and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him for at Writing thereof the Apostle was at Macedonia And the Sacred History informs us that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy and gave the Elders this Charge In a Word this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge for after this they were to see his Face no more So that these being the Apostles last Thoughts to speak so and Testamentary Instructions in Point of Church Government we have here the the Samplare and Pattern shewed by this great Apostle upon the Mount of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions And since the Episcopalians will not call the Gospel-Church a Speckled Bird and her Government of diverse Cuts they must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14 doth furher clear From hence we further Argue First These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly are the Apostolick Bishops and these only Ergo the Hierarchical Prelat is no Apostolick Bishop 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors he is Pastor Pastorum 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock as such We Argue Secondly from the Text thus These Apostolick Bishops have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them by God both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key And therefore the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground 1. As Snatching away the last from Pastors and Arrogating it solely to himself 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes And this in a double Respect 1. In the Case of the Pastor to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key 2. With Respect to himself who is obliged ex Natura Ratione Officii or from the Nature of his Office to Preach the Gospel to no Flock but to Govern only Thirdly All this Scriptural Episcopal Jurisdiction is by the Apostle ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost in Presence of Timothy while there is Altum Silentium of any Interest he had over them in this Matter Whence it may be inferred 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein And 2. By clear Consequence it follows that nothing here enjoyned them inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him in these Duties or his Supereminent Inspection over them 3. By further necessary Consequence this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy in the first Epistle written to him it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only to pass off with that Exigent It being infallibly clear that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church and his Directions to Timothy while residing therein Finally It is hence infallibly concluded 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing as is properly and formally Episcopal or of the Hierarchical Mould This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders as their Essential Right and Priviledge 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats or Diocesan Bishops as their Succedaneous Substitutes upon their withdrawing unless we will make the Apostle Paul to Model this Church in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches And in a Word it hence follows that whatever may be pleaded as to Matter of Fact neither this nor any Church else could ever after Iure divest themselves of this Authority I mean the Church Representatives or Officers thereof in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God From Tit. 1.5 7. The Presbyterians Argue not merely from the Promiscuous Use or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning and the Connecting Particle and Illative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points at the very Topick and Ground upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not a Nominal only For thus his Argument lyes The Presbyter or Elder must be so and so Qualified for such must the Bishop be So that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two as different Orders of Ministers breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications because such are proper to the Superior Office No doubt the Holy Ghost who thus Reasons ascribes to them not only the same Name and he knew best how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words but likewise the same Qualifications Work and Office Episcopalians will not disowne it that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work from that of the Presbyter or Pastor So that they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications Office and Duties or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech and Unsoundness in Reasoning And therefore the Office of the one and the other is clearly supposed one and the same From Philip. 1.1 Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church We inferr 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto 2. That they could not be Diocesans 1. Because the Deacons the lowest Officers are immediatly subjoyned to them And Prelatists will not say that there were no Pastors in that Church but only Diocesans 2. It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical
the whole Gospel times last times and latter dayes And some will alledge there has been Separation and Singularity Old enough in years But if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick New Testament High Priest and Patriarch and the standing of the Old Testament Oeconomy as Exemplary to the New and who has for several Ages pretended to follow this Copie and who he is who has been for some Ages separat from tho once Universally wondered after and followed viz. The Good Old Gentleman with the Triple Crown I think Protestant Schismaticks as well as these their forementioned Opinions may be supposed to have been in this Assertion much in the Dr's View But that I be not tedious and may hasten to consider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Answer to the premised Scriptures and the New Protestant Glosses upon them which moves his Spleen to such declamatory anger against his Poor pur-blind Countreymen one thing I would suggest to him if I may do it without putting him into a Chaff which is this 'T is known that there is a certain English Dr. of as great Figure and Reputation almost in England as he is in Scotland and of a great Name to this day who having got this New Scots Notion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters into his unwarry head was bold to exhibit a great many Testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers for this New Opinion his Name is Doctor Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls the Dr. would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity and undeceive his Countriemen and others in the Point of this dangerous Error in examining his Citations It s long since the Epistle was Exhibit to publick view and is in many hands and upon a little enquiry the Dr. may easily have a view of this dangerous Piece For if these Citations hold the Opinion is not so New and Singular as the Dr. Suggests but it seems is an Old notion revived again As the Dr. knows the Waldenses revived Old Points before them and from them the Protestant Schismaticks have taken up the same and in special so Learned an Antiquary as the Dr. cannot be ignorant that this very Scots Dangerous New Notion against which his Pamphlet is levelled was condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff and the Waldenses as testifies Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap 5. But now that my hand is in before I come to examin the Dr's Answers to the premised Scriptures I must be bold to Exhibit to him some more of the Heretical assertors of Presbyters Power and interest in Government in correspondence to the New Scots Notion Festus Hommius Disput. Theol. Adversus Pontificios Disput. 25. De Minist Eccles Ordin Thes. 1. He calls the Office of Apostles and Evangelists Extraordinary and holds it to be expired Thes. 2. primus itaque ordo Ministrorum Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti ordinariorum est ordo Pastorum qui etiam Episcopi Presbyteri praesides laborantes Ministri Praedicantes servi dispensatcres praesides duces in Sacra Scriptura appellantur That the First order of the Ordinary Ministers of the New Testament is that of Pastors who in Scripture are called Bishops Presbyters Labouring Presidents Dispensing Servants Leaders Rulers c. Thes. 3. inter Episcopum Pastorem seuâ— Presbyterum in verbo laborantem Respectu Muneris seu ministerii nullum in sacra Scriptura verum essentiale discrimen reperitur haec enim vocibus hisce Promiscue utitur cum unum eundemque Ministrorum Novi Testamenti ordinem designat Quia in una Ecclesia Civitate plures tempore Apostolorum Episcopus fuisse diserte Scriptura Sacra Testatur That betwixt the Bisâ—op and Pastor or Presbyter labouring in the Word and Doctrin there is no essential or Official difference found in Scripture which uses these words promiscuously pointing out thereby the same Order of the New Testament Ministers Since it doth clearly Testify that in the times of the Apostles there were many Bishops in one City From whence he draws this Conclusion quare Epsicopi jure Divino Pastoribus neque gradu neque dignitate neque ordinis potestate neque Iurisdictione majores sunt That therefore Bishops by Divine Right are neither in Degree Dignity Power of Order nor Jurisdiction greater than Pastors Here is extensive Scots Bigotry I cannot but also observe how Crabbed and unlucky expressions he has Thes. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination of the Gospel Ministry by the term of Priesthood because Christs Priesthood is Eternal and admits of no Successors he doth upon this ground Reason thus quare Ministri Novi Testamenti nusquam in sacra Scriptura Sacerdotes proprie dicti appellantur That the Ministers of the New Testament are no where in Scripture called Priests Adding proinde pontificii Pastores cum nomen munus sacerdotis sibi arrogant non tantum palam judaizant sed etiam blaspheme sacrilege in Sanctissimum munus Domini in vâ—lant That therefore the Popish Ministers in arrogating to themselves the Name and Office of Priests do not only palpably Judaize but also make a Blasphemous and sacralegious Invasion upon the most Holy Office of Christ. Musculus loc Commun de Offic. Minist is Scots Presbyterian in grain in this Point P. mihi 360 361 362. after he has asserted from Scripture Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office and the identity of the Pastoral and Doctoral office with Ierom Because the Apostle Eph. 4. says not that our Lord gave some Pastors and some Doctors but Conjunctly Pastors and Doctors he adds eosdem esse Presbyteros Pastores ex eo patet quod 1 Pet. 5. Legimus Seniores ab Apostolis admoneri ut gregem Dei pascant That Elders and Ministers are by the Apostles admonished to feed the Lords Flock 3 tio saith he eosdem esse Presbyteros quoque Episcopas Pastores ex eo patet quod Act. 20. Legimus adhunc modum A Mileto autem missus Ephesum nuntius accersivit Presbyteros Ecclesiae qui cum venissent dixit iis vos scitis a primo die c. Et aliquanto post Attendite igitur vobis toto gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos ad pascendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei Quos Lucas vocat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae hos Paulus vocat Episcopos dixit eos ad hoc esse a Spiritu Sancto positos ut pascant Ecclesiam Dei sic palam videmus eosdem esse Presbyteros Episcopos Pastores He adds for his Third Reason that it appears from Act. 20. that Presbyters Bishops and Pastors are the same because Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church who being come to him he enjoins them to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops to Feed i. e. to Rule and Govern as the Original Word
Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds that these who have Laboured in Reforming the Church these Five Hundred Years have Taught that all Pastors be they Entitled Bishops or Priests have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word Citing first the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next Marsilius Patavinus Defens Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr we will find Bishop Iewel fully Combats him in this Point Defens Apol. cont Hard. Edit An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding saith he to make it an Heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one Knows he how far and to whom he reaches the Name of an Heretick Then he Cites Chrystos on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing that inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no Difference Ierom ad Evagrium asserting that Apostolus perspiâ—ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos The Apostle clearly Teaches the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same calling the contrary Opinion a Vecordia or Folly Also August Quest. Vet. N. Test. Quest. 101. Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter Amb. de Dignit Sacerd. Episcopi Presbyteri una est Ordinatio Asserting that the Ordination and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same All these and many more Holy Fathers saith Bishop Iewel together with St. Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardings Advice must be holden for Hereticks I will add and all these and many more together with the Apostle Paul by this Dr's Advice must be holden for Novelists and Scots Schismaticks But there are other Bishops will yet enter the Lists with our Dr Bishop Pilkinton on Revelation and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church Bishop Bilson Perpet Gover. Cap. 2. Yea more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 Dr. Humphray in Campian Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration 3. Whittaker above Cited So also ad Rationes Campiani Ration 6. Confutat Duraei Lib. 6. Chemnitius Gentiletus the great Examinators of the Council of Trent the one a Divine the other a Lawyer doth both Condemn as a Trent Error our Dr's Assertion anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter the one by Scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon Law We have heard that Dr. Reynolds for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter tells us It s needless to speak of the particular Persons since it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Poland the Low Countreys and our own Witness the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 11. Now from all that is said whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches be not for the Official as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum and Sophistical and Childish Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers who shall Weigh what is said in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason Before I proceed I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument He says this is our great Argument That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture And therefore we conclude that our Argument a Confusione nominum is demonstrative and solid As if when we maintain that in Scripture there is no distinction betwixt these Offices we meant a Nominal only and not a real diversity Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites or conferred with any Presbyterian who understands the Controversy he would have found that from the Scriptures Cited and many Paralels it s an Official oneness not a Nominal only we plead for and that our Arguments therefrom has such Nerves as he durst not medle with The Dr. tells us P. 23. That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest falls not under his enquiry nor is it very Material considered with Respect to the common Priesthood and Subordinat Officers they might be of the same Order tho at other times when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Here I must say is a strange Confusion and that not Nominum but Rerum 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion got into the Heads of his Countrymen and some others but never heard of this 1400 years For curing of which he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet yet he will not enquire whether a Bishop be of a higher Order or not to a Presbyter i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he have the Right in this Debate If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order his Countrey Presbyterians are Right their Arguments which ly level to this scope are good and Conclusive and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop The Antithesis whereof viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop of a Superior Order eo no nine the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris focis yet he says the enquiry into this Point which to all men of Sense is the Cardo Questionis is not in it self Material Let any ponder whether this stout pretended Signifer doth not here let fall his Standart and even flees at the First alarm 2. He tells us when Authority and Iurisdiction is named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Now I do appeal to all Men of Common sense whether the Dr dos not here Assert 1. A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter 2 By clear Consequence that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter or else how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him 3. That the Bishop under that Character and eo nomine is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him Now all this being his Assertion in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors how can he decline the enquiry whether the Bishop be of an higher Order Let any Judge if he says not this upon the Matter the thing is Clear in it self in the Scripture Accounts and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments or make good my own 3. He tells us they are sometime considered as of the same order with respect to the common Priesthood I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial
his Super-eminency above them is insinuat yea Asserted The Dr. is bold to assert that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named the Bishop with regard to his Dignity is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter Of this alwise we demand one instance the Dr's extensive Phraseologie boasts of a Plenty of Instances but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury especially when as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto But here as often elsewhere he plys us with generals alien from the purpose He tells us P. 26. Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy were called High Priests it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names to have inferred an Equality since their Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction Here again a Poor Repeated General Alien from the Point If this Dr. had intended to Dispute not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk he should instead of Begging Poorly the Question in Supposing it have made that good in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests were distinguished and what was appropriat to the one denyed to the other under that Dispensation so there is exhibit in the New Testament the same Discriminating Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians yet as an Officiperda so far mistaking his Mark and Measures that he never comes near the Point which they deny and he undertakes or stands obliged to prove He adds ibid. Bishops were called Presbyters who had Presbyters under them in the Days of the Apostles If he mean this of ordinary Officers distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters I deny it and that there were any such ordinary Officers with such Authority over Pastors under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter He tells us that the Presbyters signifie the Priests who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations A New Begging of the Question I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers and do consequently hold that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould The Dr. is bold to tell us That tho all Bishops are Presbyters yet not all Presbyters Bishops and therefore to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names is neither good Logick nor Good History But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers he shews himself no good Historian in Obtruding such Doctrine And since instead of proving he still beggs the Question and that doubly First In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names without respect to the Official Identity exhibit in the places which we plead Next In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter and grounding all his Answers thereupon without the least Offer of a Proof it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii P. 27. He will not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters from the High Priest among the Iews But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered what then would he prove Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order I have often told him that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter not from his Fancied Dichâ—tomies but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power And where there is such a Dichotomie as he alledges as Philip. 1.1 our Argument proceeds not merely upon this but also upon this Ground and Topick that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context as necessarly infers this our Conclusion The Dr. tells us next That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this at least what the Series of his Reasoning concludes even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church And therefore needs Stumble no Protestants nor Amuse them tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet or upon his Breast as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church He adds That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat as is clear from Philo the Jew He told us the Scripture distinguishes them pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo since the Presbyterians are satisfied in the first and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self But to proceed P. 28. He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question telling us of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division as reckoned either among themselves or with relation to the People as the Priests were by a Tripartit while reckoned by their Distinctions That Community of Names was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be But still we are Wearyed Calling upon our Triffling Dr to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings to the Point which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy in the Old The Dr. affirms That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews above other Priests who yet was Ranked among them without a Nominal Distinction But as in the rest so here the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Prâ—estos or first Presbyter Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact or such a Proestos in that Age Will that merely prove the Ius If the Dr. say so and he does say it in his Way of Arguing then he Claps the Lawful Mitre or a Divine Warrand at least upon the Head of a Diotrephes and Stamps this Ius Divinum upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity and other Tares which the
evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters as the High Priest above other Priests is as Ignorant an Assertion and Arrant Untruth as the Dr. could readily have let fall Whereof I will 1. Convince him out of his own Mouth unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he still begg the Question 2. From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office First He does acknowledge that the High Priest was thus Termed upon the Ground of Special Ministries which were Essential and Peculiar to him Now I pray what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos and even in the Point of Order in the Apostles Days above his Fellows Next the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies with Blood and Incense and had this Prerogative above other Priests the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born Tyed to his Family c. And would not the Dr. Blush to Assert such like Prerogatives as Applicable to the Proestos or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days But he adds Salmasius grants That when the pretended Equality prevailed a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it But if Salmasius assert that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed it is undenyable that he denyes to this President or Chair-man such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for and allows him only the Chair of Presidency not Principality A Moderator's Chair and no more Again I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence Salmasius asserts that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors when there was a Proestos set up during Life Ergo he asserts that this Proestos was ab initio in the Apostolick Age or approved by the Apostles For what he adds P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat in the Apostolick Age He should have Named them and where they assert this For as for what he adduces of Salmasius I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion And Beza I am sure whom no doubt the Dr. will owne as an Eminent Pleader for Parity condemns this Humane Prostasie as the Episcopus Humanus distinct from the Divine much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers the premised Account of them discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines No doubt if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters for this is the Parity which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General as he is for Imparity and the Prelatical Hierarchy their Stickling were not to be Valued But what are these palpable Evidences which convinces our greatest Sticklers Something saith the Dr that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction Some mighty Evidences then we must expect The first which he adduces is That of the Apocalyptick Angels among whom he tells us we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna But 1. How has he proved that these Angels were single Presidents and that the Term is not taken Collectively 2. How does he prove that such as acknowledge them single Persons do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore Beza I am sure acknowledges them only such Whom the Dr or any other do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church is not the Question but whom he can prove from Scripture to have been such and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture The Dr's next supposed evidence is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees To which I Answer in short First That the Dr. can neither prove 1. That the Apostles or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority to be continued in the Church Nor 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues such an Authority Since 1 They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority 2 Inconsistent and contradictory to one another 3 They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office admitted of no Succession and upon this very account can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends far less make the thing evident beyond contradiction What the Dr. adds further in this Page Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters and of the Ancients dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question with the former wherewith instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter he fills up idle Pages How often shall we tell him that the point in question is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings after the Apostolick Age What Comparisons Cyprian Clemens or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter Iure Divino And what proof from Scripture from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop under this Character above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter as he is bold to assert We often tell him that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies And tho that were made one Ground and say further he had disproved it in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed But proceed we P. 29.30 He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies Especially says he since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients and their words thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character from all subordinate Presbyters 2. The Dr. is obliged this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers and insinuat Argument to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office into higher and inferior Orders and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer as comes under the Character of Bishop from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors As for determination in Councils
mighty proof of Bishops their Precedencie and Official Dignitie above Presbyters and Answer to our Arguments to the contrary Marr not your Modesty in laughing at a Venerable Dr's Arguments and Answers while you read them The Dr. tells you he was contemporary with Clemens Romanus who was of the Apostolick Age. And he will probably be got perswaded that Clemens in this walkt up to the Sense of that Eminent and very Ancient Father the Apostle Iohn who reproved Diotrephes for his aspiring after this manner But least you abuse this Citation to infer the dangerous consequence and Heresie of the official parity of Bishop and Presbyter the warry prudent Dr. precludes your mistake by adding this Salvo If there was no such Precedencie then in the Church there was no Ground for his Reprehension Mighty Reason And well correspondent to his Reverend Father Bellarmin's Sense and Pleading against our Divines for the Papacie It should seem Men were never tempted to strive for a Dignity and Preferment in the Dr's Sense but what was Lawful And that this very seeking and enquiry proves the Lawfulness and supposes it It seems also that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diotrephes was seeking a Lawful Preheminence when he resisted the Apostle Iohn and the only fault was that the Man did not modestly stay till the place was for him and he for it And in correspondence to the Dr's Sense of this Reprehension when Petter exhorted not to be Lords over GOD's Heritage he rebuked only an ambitious seeking of a Lawful Lordship Our Saviour also in His great Command and Prohibition above mentioned relative to the Apostles seeking a Primacie and First Dignitie as the Dr. calls it supposed and established a Primacie in the Church otherwise ye will wrong and expose the Dr's Consequence if you admitt not this Reasoning For he will tell you That else there was no ground for such a Reprehension But now P. 33. The Dr. tells you he is come after this long Travel and Pains these Way-ward and Stubborn Presbyterians has put him to and arrived at the Summ of all that these Reasonings amounts unto We expect then the Distilled Spirits the Nerves of what goes before Epitomized if this be the Epilogue and Summ Total of what we have heard Well what is that Summ of all Why The Helenist Jews the Grecian Jews distinguished the High Priest from the Levites by the Name of Priest for which again Philo the Iew stands Voâ—cher yet none will conclude he had no Subordinat Priests as now adays Presbyterians argue upon the same Topick Sophistically for when the Priests were compared among themselves then their Dignities and Subordinations were mentioned when we compare the New Testament Priests and Deacons we say Priests and Deacons but when we compare them among themselves we acknowledge their Subordinations Really if this be the Comprehensive Account of all it is pity the Dr. has spent so much Discourse upon it and run himself out of Breath to catch a Nothing For I am of the mind that every Reader will judge that this his Summ might have very well served for all and saved him the Labour of the Tedious Discourse we have heard But to the point we often tell him I know not how often we must that our Argument from Philip. 1.1 which all this his Quible mainly aims at is not merely drawn from the Division and Dichotomie The Sense of the place already exhibit by our Divines evinces the contrary Nay further which discovers this Mans Vanity and Quibling Folly in this Matter we acknowledge that sometimes general Divisions of Church Officers in the New Testament admits of a Subdivision as particularly Rom. 12.6 7 8. is generally acknowledged As also in that of Philip. 1.1 But this we assert that these general Divisions and Subdivisions and the several Recitations of the New Testament Church Officers still supposes the Pastor-Bishop or Preaching Presbyter to be the highest ordinary Church Officer appointed of God and that the Pastor or Preaching Presbyters Office admits no Subdivision of Superior and Inferior Degrees no more than the Office of Apostles and Evangelists And we are still seeking from this Dr the proof of his supposed Affirmative that it doth I confess the Dr. Words it in so far well When we compare saith he Priests among themselves we must acknowledge their Subordinations We cannot help what the Dr. must but he must have better Prespectives to give us ere we can see his Subordination of Pastors in the New Testament And as for his New Testament Priests we owne them not We know there is an Holy Priesthood and Brotherhood whereby the Scripture points out Believers joynt Priviledges who are a Kingdom of Priests and that there is a Glorious High Priest of our Profession whose Priesthood is Unchangeable and passes not to others But for New Testament Priests thus Characterized as Church Officers we are yet to Learn their Warrand from our Dr among others his Mysterious Points I know the Prophecie of the Old Testament as to Ministers of the New runs thus I will take of them for Priests and Levites But if the Dr. Strain this Allusion to bear the Conclusion of a suteable Name of New Testament Officers he will also upon Malachie's Prophecy anent purifying the Sons of Levi in order to offering a pure offering in in every place draw the pretty Popish Conclusion with his Friend Bellarmin of a New Testament Sacrifice for his New Testament Priests And really when I consider his continued constant Designations of Ministers of the Gospel after this manner I do judge the Cardinal and he are much one in this Sense and Conclusion And that which follows confirms me For P. 33 34. the Dr. tells us That the Old Testament Priests were by their offering Sacrifices distinguished from the Levites and the New Testament Priests of the highest and subordinat Order are distinguished from the Deacons by their offering the Eucharistical Sacrifice Now we all know that Priests and Sacrifices are Correlates But the Dr. knows that his Novell Divines the Protestants tho they did pass with a Charitable Construction some of the Ancients Allusive Expressions this way yet do disowne the Name and Thing of a Sacrifice as appropriat to the Celebration of that Sacrament P. 34. The Dr. has not yet done with his Dichotomies And the Sum of this Page is The Iews used their Dichotomies of their Clergy in the Apostolick Age and the Bipartite or Tripartite Division upon this Ground was used by Jewish and Christian Writers yet these who Reckon the two Orders in other places reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons I have heard of a Beggar who pleased himself as possessing a great Sum by telling a piece of Money often over How often shall we have this more than recocted Crambe these often boyled Colworts repeated I am of the mind that Battologie was never better exemplified than in our Dr's Arguings We are still seeking from our nauseous
any Hint or Note of Distinction 2. It seems that either Ambrose or some of his late Episcopal Pleaders are pityfully bemisted who do cite Ambrose as holding that the Bishops saluted by Paul were not Bishops of that Church but extraneous Bishops accidentally present Thus the Author of the three Dialogues P. 9. But Theodoret saith the Dr. did judge that when in the Apostolick Age Bishops were named as contradistinct from Priests they were called Apostles Behold our critical Dr. censuring again the Apostle Paul in his Salutation It seems also there were none of the Apostles of the Dr's Mould when this Apostle gave his last Farewel to the Elders of Ephesus nor in the Church which Peter wrote to For Ministers there are called to act the Bishops and nothing is heard of an Apostle-bishop And really I think this inadvertant Man Paul is further to be blamed in that describing of set purpose 1 Tim. and in the Epistle to Titus which are in the Dr's Judgement the great Charter of the Episcopal Authority the Qualifications and Duties of Church Officers he was so leavened with his Notion of Dichotomies that he passes quite over in silence the High Priest Apostle-Bishops whose Office was chiefly under this Name and Character to have been discribed that the Churches then and in after ages together with all inferior Priests might understand their Duty towards them But since in all their Descriptions Recitals and Accounts of Church Officers he and other Apostles were so foregetful as to pass over in silence the absolute High-priest of the Christian Church the Pope's Holiness notwithstanding that the Iewish OEconomy of Church Government was never repealed but still standing as a Patern to the New Testament Church it is no wonder that they fell into this Mistake also P. 37. He tells us That he only mentions this transiently not insisting upon it What this extends to is somewhat dubious many it is like will be of Opinion of whom I am one that what ever he has offered hitherto is a Digression and but obiter to the point But his business he tells us at present is to prove that community of Names will not prove community of Offices Truely if this be all his business he is a mere Officiperda and has foregot his Episcopal Errand in this eloborat Pamphlet For no Presbyterian ever concluded this from the mere community of Names simplely and abstracted from other Grounds drawen from the Scope and Circumstances of such places as we do plead from Scripture upon this Point and from many other clear Scripture Arguments long since exhibite to him in the Books which he mentions and there needs no more than the reading to convince any person that he is acting the Thraso in this his pretended Confutation of the same which doth rather confirm than weaken the perswasion of any Man of Sense who have perused these Authors The Dr. tells us ibid. That Peter calls himself a Presbyter Well if this Apostle writing to Presbyters and dehorting them from acting the Bishops and Lording over the Flock put himself as to an ordinary Office and Ministry Pastoral among the number making this one of his Arguments It is evident that he thus asserts their proper Succession to him tho not to his Apostolat yet to his Pastoral Office of feeding by the Word and Discipline For his Command imports both But why did he not address the Chief Bishop or High-priest under the Apostolick Designation after this manner The Apostle and inferior Presbyters among you I exhort who am also an Apostle or thus The Super-eminent Bishop and Presbyters I exhort who also am a Bishop But the Dr's correcting information is come far too late to him I might further tell him that when he shall exhibite as clear a distinction betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter as there is betwixt the Office of Apostles and Presbyter then and not till then his paralel Argument will appear of some force which he draws from Peter and Iohns designing themselves Elders and shall be acknowledged conclusive to his Scope The Dr. will next preoccuppy our Argument from 1 Tim. 4.14 And tells us That the Presbytrie mentioned in that place was a Senat composed of Apostles and other Priests but whether of the first or second Rank he is not certain And really the Dr in my poor Judgment might have added whether there were any other Apostles in that Senat than the Apostle Paul is equally uncertain And let me humbly intreat his Reverence by his next to give us an Account of the Scripture Grounds of his Certainty of the one rather than of the other That the Apostle Paul was present and concurred in this Presbytrie I know is pleaded by his Episcopal Brethren tho Collating the two places 1 Tim. 4.14 and 2 Tim. 1.6 the different Phraâ—eology in both being pondered they will find the Work pretty hard to make it good against a Critical Disputant and the admitting of this rather Confirms than Weakens our Pleadings from that place as Presbyterian Writers have made appear Some have alledged that by the Presbytrie we are to understand the Office Which Pleaders have been long since told that the Office has no Hands to lay on But that other Apostles were there than Paul is a Notion I am sure much if not only beholden to the Dr's Fertile that I say not Fond Invention It were needless and but to burden Paper unnecessarly to recite Interpreters in Opposition to this his Gloss This is known to all that are acquaint with them But let us hear the Dr's Argument upon these Passages He tells us It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that Paul was of the Number and that in the other place 1 Tim. 4.14 he is exhâ—rted not to neglect the Gift given him with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie In the last he is put in mind to stir up the Gift which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands There is none doubts that these Passages thus stands in the New Testament but had he instead of this Dark Insinuating Hint drawn out a Formal Argument lying level to his Scope and Conclusion it would have deserved our Consideration However to prevent his Mistake Presbyterians have long since told him 1. That the different Phrase in both places viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second makes Paul's presence at least Debateable but clearly proves that the Laying on of the Presbytries Hands is evidently Diversified in a distinct Comma as a distinct Priviledge in its self considered from the Gifts given by Prophesie and ascribed to the Laying on of Pauls Hands And 2. That tho Paul's presence in this Action were admitted it clearly proves that even an Apostles Laying on of Hands upon an Evangelist did not exclude the Presbytries Authoritative Imposition And that therefore by a clear Consequence from the Greater to the Less that Priviledge much more belongs to them now
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
are thus subject is as great Non-Sense as to say a Man succeeding to a Privat Cure succeeds a Metropolitans Place or that the Person who succeeds to an Episcopal Chair doth succeed to the Papacy in its supposed Rectoral Power The Dr. doth here again Cant over That their Rectoral Pâ—wer distinguisht them from all Subordinat Officers And from hence we rationally inferr that all Ordinary Officers being Inferior and Subordinat to them this Rectoral Power reacht all Officers and Believers as to the Ius it self and consequently the Exercise upon Occasion And that therefore the Dr. absurdly calls this their Power Permanent and as absurdly holds that Officers related to particular Posts did therein succeed them P. 103 104. The Dr. thus proceeds When the Evangelical Priesthood still Priesthood got its Qualified Officers Bishops and Priests were not to encroach upon one another but every one was to Feed the Flock within the Limits alloted to him Now here is a Confession which contradicts and baffles all his Pleadings For even these pretended succeeding Bishops and Apostles in his Sense could not without Impeaching Christs Order and Encroaching on their Fellows go beyond their Limits in the Exercise of their Ministry And he will not deny that this Limited Ministry flowed from the very Nature of their Fixt and Limited Office But will he dare to say that any one of the Apostles were thus Limited or had an Office of this Nature or that they would have Encroached upon the Authority of any of these his supposed fixed Bishops if Officiating within their Bounds and Exercising their Apostolick Rectoral Power in an immediat manner without their previous Consent as one Bishop or Pastor cannot yea may not upon this Ground thus Officiaâ— But saith the Dr ibid. They were not so Confined to their Sees but that their Episcopal Care reacht the whole Church as far as was possible and Christian Charity did require I Answer 1. So is no Pastor fixt to his Post but as a Watchman upon Ierusalems Walls and thus having an immediat Relation to the Catholick Church his Pastoral Care in its Exercise in an Orderly Way is capable of a further Extension The Church of God is a City that has Watchmen set upon her Walls and in their several Posts whose Care must in a mediat Sense reach the whole City but cannot in its Exercise be extended but according to the Garrison-Laws and Discipline So that thus the Dr. will make any Pastor succeed the Apostles For he will not deny that the Pastoral Care is of this Nature Nor can he assign any Reason why since the Bishop is tyed to his Limits as well as the Pastor the Pastoral Care is not capable of such an Extension of its Exercise as is suteable to the Churches Edification But 2. The Dr. speaks improperly and confusedly when he assigns no other Rules and Measures of this extended Care but Christian Charity and a Possibility thereof merely For unless he turn Independent and deny all Subordination of Church Officers and Courts he must needs acknowledge that this Extension of Exercise must come under the Regulation and Authoritâ—tive Inspection of Superior Judicatories the Spirits of the Prophets being subject to the Prophets And the Church Representative must be still supposed the proper Ministerial Judges of her greater Good and Edification which is the great Ground of this Extension So that its pitifully impertinent to say that its only Christian Charity and the simple Possibility of the Thing in it self considered whereof the Person himself is supposed Judge that regulats this Matter of so high Importance Who will say that a Sentinel's Exercise of Military Inspection can be extended beyond his Post and Station assigned him by the Governour and Officers of the Garrison upon mere Charity and a Possibility of this further Extension without Respect to what the Military Discipline and the Authority of the Governour and Officers will allow Now to subsume I beseech this Dr. to tell me plainly and speak it out were the Apostles by vertue of their Office to extend their Apostolick Inspection from one Church or Countrey to another only after this Manner and by such Rules and Measures And dare he deny that they were to follow the Spirits Conduct every where and by vertue of their Office had an immediat Access to Exercise their Authority over all Churches wherever they came and were subject to no Churches Inspection or Direction in this Matter Can he not here see a palpable Distinction of the Office of Apostolat from all ordinary Officers as that of the Commanders of a Garrison who are called to go the Round over all the Posts and Sentinels to take Inspection over and Direct them differs necessarly and essentially from the Office and Charge of those who are in these fixed Posts whether their Inspection be of a Larger or Lesser Extension And hence it appears that unless the Dr. can let us see such Officers in Scripture whose proper Work was of this Nature succeeding the Apostles in the Inspection mentioned and having such a Power devolved upon them he will never prove it from the Occasional Transient Officiating of Fixed Officers beyond their Limits Directed and Authorized therein by and under the Inspection of Superior Church Officers and Iudicatories As for his Citation of Causabon Exercit. 14. ad Annal. Baron N. 4. touching the Bishops peculiar Care of their own Flock yet so as suo quodam modo they Cared for the whole Church I nothing doubt but that it may have a Safe and Sound Sense when applyed to every Pastor whose mediat Care actu primo suo modo reaches the whole Church And the Citation quite baffles the Dr. For if their care reached to a peculiar Charge committed to them in solidum it was toto coelo different from the Apostolick care and Charge as is above made good And the Dr. in saying that this exactly resembled the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office shews himself to be as bad unskilful in the Art of Limning as unsincere and unskilful in Disput. For such a Confined Limited Ministry under such Regulations as is above expressed can no more Represent the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office in a proper formal Sense and in its intire Nature as delineat in Scripture than a hand or Foot can Represent the Lineaments of an intire Body For what he adds ibid. That Confinment to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood but Rules of Prudence and Ecclesiastical OEconomy and Canonical Constitutions He speaks confusedly and without Sense For this being the Nature of the Priest-hood or Ministry viz That it is Gods Ordinance designed for Edification it must be consequently Adapted and measured to this end And therefore whatever Person hath an ordinary Ministry committed to him must have it in such a proportion as his Case and personal ability can reach God committing to no Man an immediat inspection of the Catholick Church as
Apostolick Warrand as knowing that the contrary Practice and Principles of almost the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines do in this Point contradict him He therefore pretends to Abstract from this supposed Necessity and the Grounds thereof and to plead only for the Lawfulness of the Order Yet least he should seem too Cool a Pleader he presents some things which he calls Positive Grounds of Episcopacy Whereof the First in Summ is That Christ hath appointed in his Church an Official Power which we call Episcopal paramount unto and above any Power that can be Exercised by a single Presbyter alone Which Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is acknowledged utrinque Lawful in it self the only Difference is that Presbyterians hold it to be Seated in a Colledge of Presbyters and the Episcopalians hold it to be Concentred in one Person yet to be Exercised by Presbyters Concurrence and Consent So that the Difference of this Diffused Episcopacy in the Presbytrie and Contracted in a single Bishop to be managed with Consent of Presbyters is like that between mâ—nus aperta and manus clausa Ans. The Surveyer doth but here Shufflle and Obscure the true State of this Question betwixt Episcopalians and Presbyterians Which is this viz. Upon our Supposal of that Authority and Government ascribed in Scripture to Pastors or Presbyters and their Essential Interest therein how an Officer who is pretended to be Distinct from them and Superior unto them and Enhancing and Concentring all their Power in himself can be consistent with the Scripture Prescriptions in point of Government The Surveyer should have known that the Scripture doth not only appoint the Official Power but its proper Subject So that the Removing it from its proper Basis and Subject is a palpable Impeachment of these Institutions in point of Government And therefore if by our Lords Warrand this Official Power is Diffused in a Colledge of Pastors or Presbyters the Concentring it in the person of one Prelat must needs be an arrant Usurpation in Men yea and if possible in Angels Next the Surveyer Narroweth and Disguiseth the Bishops Power he pleads for And that several ways 1. He overleaps his Arrogated Power of Order whereof he is the proper and primary Subject in the Diocess wherein Pastors Act but as his Deputs 2. His Civil Acclaimed Power 3. He seems to Tye the Exercise of it to the Consent and Concurrence of Presbyters wherein he dissembles the Nature of their Arrogated Jurisdictional Power For if he did mean a Concurrence and Consent which is Decisive Besides that he in this contradicts himself in Concentring this Power in the Prelat since frustra est potentia quae non potest reduci in actum he durst not affirm that the Official Power of the Prelat then existent by Law and whom he pleaded for was of this Nature For according to the Law establishing Prelacy they were to Exercise their Power with Advice only and of such of the Clergy only as they should find they themselves being Judges of known Loyaltie and Prudence Again should the Surveyer say this Advice was only Consultive not Decisive he did but Mock and Prevaricat in adding this Limitation of Presbyters Consent and Concurrence and in pretending thus to put some Limitations on the Prelats sole Exercise of his Power as if it did not swallow up and exclude the Official Authority of Presbyters and Pastors in Government In a Word as it is certain that the Diversifying of the Subject diversifieth the Species and Kinds of Government which is evident in that of Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy c. So in the point of Church Government depending upon Divine and positive Institution It is easie to discover such a vast Variation upon this Ground as might have covered this Surveyer with Blushes and which baffles his Notion with his own Similitude of the manus aperta clausa For he will not deny the Lawfulness of an OEcomenick or General Council in a Just Representative of all Christian Churches having an Authority diffused in all the Members which respects the whole Churches Now here is the manus aperta and in his Sense the manus clausa or the Monopolizing and Concentring this Authority in one person doth no whit impeach the Lawfulness of the Power it self Then advance the manus clausa an OEcumenick Bishop or Supreme Head over all the Church having all this Authority Monopolized in him which was before diffused in the General Council And here it may be demanded whether this Pleader or such as he did owne such an Officer as Lawful or not If such an Officer be owned as Lawful then farewel the Protestant Profession and the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches against a Papal Supremacy Universal OEcumenick Bishop If such an Officer be held unlawful then this Notion and Argument is quit baffled and excluded which asserted the Lawfulness both of the Diffused and Contracted Official Power For here the one Power is owned as warranded of GOD and instituted in its Nature and Exercise The other is disowned as contrary to His Institution What the Surveyer adds upon this Head touching a Lawful Demanour towards Powers that are usurped and entertaining fellowship with a Ministerial Church though called by an usurping Bishop hath been sufficiently answered by the Apologist and Others and the Difference so clearly stated betwixt the Condition of a Church wherein Prelats are obtruded upon the standing Church Judicatories in which Case Ministers are to keep their places and contend against them and such a State and Condition of a Church wherein the Government is razed and the Foundation of it laid upon a Princes arrogated Supremacy over the same and Prelats Authority as his Administrators in the Government thereof and withall in the Concurrence a formal and direct acknowledgment of both the one and the other being required as the Condition of Ministerial Communion that nothing needs here be further added The Next Ground the Surveyer adduceth is That Ministers Union and Association of themselves and setting over them one single Person to Moderat and Govern the Actions of the Meeting is Juris Divini and that by our own Confession Ans. The Surveyer durst not make his Application here or had he done so the absurdity of the Consequence from this Moderator or President to the Prelat he pleaded for would have palpably appeared and his Inconsistency with himself For 1. He saith that Associat Ministers set over themselves this Moderator and this he holds to be Iuris Divini and GODs Will And if so then sure it is neither Iuris Divini nor GODs Will that this Moderator should be obtruded upon them by an Extraneous Power without the least shadow of their Consent as he could not but know the Prelats he pleaded for were obtruded upon this Church 2. If it be GODs Will that this President be set over Meetings of Ministers to govern the Actions of the Meeting and preserve Due Order then it is not His
Flock ascribed unto them and that of such a Nature as imports a compleat Official Equality and Excludes Lordship over GODS Heritage Which doth clearly Justle out his Hierarchical Prelat as having no Interest in Church Government The Surveyer further tells us There is no ground to assert that the Presbyters Act. 20.17.28 were such only in the Modern Notion and none of them Bishops in the Modern Notion And to obviat an Objection from their Relation to Ephesus he adds That they were not only Elders of that Church but of the Churches of Asia about so far as in a transient Visit they might get Intelligence This often baffled Subterfuge Episcopalians have been told is contrary to the Sense of Ancient Fathers Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom contrary to several Councils contrary to the Syriack Translation which reads the Text thus be sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Dr. Lightfoot holds they were the Twelve upon whom the Apostle Paul imposed Hands and gave them the Spirit Act. 19.6 and such others if any such were whom Timothy had ordained See Lightfoot Harm Chron. N. Test. The Text says He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Sure of that Church to which he sent and there is no shadow of a hint of any other Elders there present Again he sent for the Elders of the Church in the Singular Number viz. that particular Church But the Surveyers Gloss will read the Elders of the Churches in the Plural viz. of Asia then mett at Ephesus The Scripture expresses Provincial Churches in the plural as the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 Churches of Iudea but otherwise of the Church of Ierusalem Corinth in the singular which were in Cities Neither will the old rotten Evasion help the Surveyer viz. that v. 18. it s said he Preached throughout all Asia and v. 25. speaking to these that were conveened he saith you all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God from which he pleads there were others present as well as the Elders of Ephesus who might be proper Bishops in their places Since it is evident that the Term All ye doth properly relate to the Elders of Ephesus then present and was immediatly spoken to them Such Universal Terms used in such a Sense and to such a Scope are very ordinary and caseable as if one should say to a certain Number of an Assembly ye are all now dissolved it would not imply the presence of all the Members Again the Apostle might speak many things which did import the Concern and Duty of all though the Speech were directed immediatly and personally to those only that were present When he said You all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God the Surveyer will not be bold to say this will infer that these all were present or that the Speech did import so much As for the Passages Cited viz. v. 18 25. It is Answered that the Apostle spent most of these Years in Ephesus only viz. two Years and three Months and the Superplus in the places adjacent So that these Elders could not be ignorant how the whole was spent Some have observed further that there is nothing of a peculiar Address here to a supposed Bishop of Ephesus and that all these Elders are Charged with the Oversight of that Flock But the Surveyer will not have the Presbyters here to be meaned in the restrained Signification or that this Term should restrain the Term of Bishop But we restrain none of them from their due and Native Signification as importing the Preaching Presbyter or Pastor As for his enlarged Signification stretching to an Hierarchical Prelat it is the Chimera of his own Fancy whereof he hath offered no Shadow of a Proof To that Text of Tit. 1.5 wherein the Bishop and Elder are found clearly Identified and a Plurality of them fixed in that one Church The Surveyer P. 211. repones again his Old Recocted Crambe of the Majores Minores Presbyteri as comprehended in these Terms and tells us of an Analogical Reasoning which the Apostle uses from the Qualifications and Duties of the Bishop properly so called to shew the necessity of the like in all Presbyters who are comprehended under their Order Ans. As his Supposition of the properly and improperly called Bishops is still begged by him without any ground as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him So his Gloss and Reason adduced is clearly cross to the Text Since the Apostle shewing Titus how the Elders to be ordained in every City were to be qualified adds this Reason of Advice for a Bishop must be blameless this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for is causal shewing the Identity of the Office as well as the Name else the Reasoning were false Should a Chancellor in one of the Universities saith Smectymnus who useth this illustrating Similitude give Order to his Vice-Chancellor to admit none to the Degree of Batchelour of Arts but such as were able to Preach or keep a Divinity Act for Batchelours of Divinity must be so What Reason or Equity were in this And we may enquire here what Reason is this The improperly called Bishop must be so and so qualified because the Bishop of the higher Order and distinct Function must be so qualified Gerard. 〈◊〉 Minist Eccles. useth the same Reason to shew the Absurdity of such a Gloss. The Apostle in the Series of his Reasoning Identifies both the Work and Office of Bishop and Presbyter But this Surveyer will needs correct him and cast in his Limiting Cautions and instead of that identity that the Apostle asserts of the Offices make them only in some Sense the same not intirely He tells us That in Sacerdotal Acts they are the same But he cannot say that the Apostles Identity here asserted reaches and includes only the Acts of Order and is not to be extended to the Exercise of Jurisdiction As for the Acts of Order the Hierarchical Bishop is in their Principles the proper Primary Subject of the Sacerdotal Acts and Authority in the whole Diocess whereas that of the Pastor is Precarious and Subaltern to his and fixed to one Flock He calls P. 200. the Acts of Jurisdiction a Personal Application only of the Word or of the Power of Order yet he doth here Diversifie them so that though he assert the Pastor is the very same with the Prelat in the Sacerdotal Acts he is not so in those of Jurisdiction But we cannot stand to Trace all the Inconsistencies of the Surveyers Notions This distinction of Presbyters of the First and Second Order in a New Petitio principii serves his turn as an Answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5. And here we are again told That the Presbyterians allow two Ranks and Orders of Presbyters Where it would seem he Screws up his Hierarchical Prelat in this and the preceeding Answers to a Divine Right and thus quites and Justles with what he often pretends anent a
Right he calls partly Ecclesiastick Again the Text ascribs an Episcopal Authority and oversight to these Elders and Bishops which as is said in former Cases and Instances overthrows the Hierarchical Prelats sole arrogated Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction It hath further this unlucky aspect upon my Lord Bishop that the Bishops or Elders here are enjoined an immediat Ministerial Inspection over the Flocks and diligently to Feed the same by sound Doctrin are forbidden to be Lords over GODs Heretage much more to be Peers in Parliament which pitifully plucks the Plums of their Lordships Grandure and marrs their Figure in Herauldry They are bidden beware of the Filthy Lucre which will much straiten their Revenues which doth so far overstretch the allowed Maintainance of a Laborious Pastor But of this enough CHAP. III. Some more Exceptions and Answers of the Surveyer examined Viz To that Passage 1 Cor. 5 To that of Eph. 4 11. To which the Paralels 1 Cor 12.28 Rom 12 6 7 8 are to be joyned To that Passage Philip 1 1. And to 1 Tim 4 14 His unsoundness and inconsistency therein further made appear PRoceed we to that considerable Text 1 Cor. 5. the energy and force whereof in order to the evincing a Presbyterial Authoririty of Pastors in that Church is above spoken to He tells us It is alledged that the Church of Corinth not having a Bishop â—is acknowledged by the Apostle to have the Power of Ecclesiastiâ—k censures even of Excommunication and is reproved for not executing these Censures and exhorted speedily to execute the same that hence it is concluded seeing this Apostolick Church was so Constitut with such a Power of Excommunication by its own Officers and Presbyters without a Bishop that therefore all other Churches should have the same Power according to the Word of GOD. In Answer to this the Surveyer not unlike a Fugitive Criminal who will flee to a place of the greatest hazard otherways so he may escape the Pursuer Fleeth to the exploded Notion of the Independents a Party standing in most opposit Terms to the Episcopalians telling us that this Power of Iurisdiction and Censure is not found here in the Eldership or in them alone since the whole Church is spoken to in this Matter There is Fornication among you ye are puffed up c. and all the Saints Are concerned of whom he saith they Judge them that are within That it were strange that Elders who are not named should be concerned and not the People who are expresly named that there is no more mention of the Governing Presbytrie there than of the Governing Bishop Ans. The Surveyer here is so unhappy as to Raze the Foundation of all his pleading which if it have any foundation at all must needs be grounded upon and suppose a Distinction of the Church Representative and Collective Church Officers and Church Members Nay he Cuts the Throat of his Assertion P. 203. That there is an Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Censure and Disciplin Established in the Church for keeping Gods Ordinances in Purity which no person of common Sense or Reason can but ascribe to a distinct Select Society from the whole Community For if all were Correctors and Rulers there is no Correlate of this Relative Power or persons to be Ruled If he understand the Passage Do not ye Iudge them that are within of a Jurisdictional Power and Authority it must needs have some Object and consequently must have for its Subject some Select Order of Men distinct from the Collective Body Next who knows not that the Directions Generally addressed in the Epistles to the whole Incorporation or Body of the Church are to be understood and applyed pro unius cujusque Modulo according to Persons several places and capacities though the General Address supposes still the General Concern of all When the Apostle thus enjoins Warn them that are unruly and again if any obey not our Word in this Epistle mark that Man which all do understand of a Censuring mark as the word imports who will alledge that these Authoritative Acts were competent to every individual The Surveyer foreseeing this tells us P. 212. That though this in some things will hold yet in the usual Stile of the Apostolick Epistles there are distinctive Notes and Periods that each person may know the Precepts wherein they are concerned and Apostrophees made to several Ranks as Ministers Masters Servants to evite a dangerous Confusion And upon the same ground an acknowledged Iurisdiction in any of the Presbyters would have here procured a distinguishing of them from the People Ans. The Surveyers Concession That sometimes Precepts are not to be applyed and appropriat to all distributively but respectively according as several persons or sorts of Persons are concerned in these Commands contained in Epistles directed to the collective Body hath razed the Foundation of this Answer which from the Non-nomination of Elders concludes the collective Body of the People to be addressed only and stiffled it in the Birth Since he must acknowledge that sometimes peculiar Duties and such wherein some persons only have a special Interest are thus promiscuously and generally propounded and even in this same Epistle And then it would have suted his Thoughts to ponder how in this Case he could evite his own Consequence and Charge of a dangerous Confusion following thereupon unless he quite the Topick of this his Argument and Reason It would have likewayes suted his thoughts to assign his distinctive Notes and Apostrophees in the Passages cited and the Apostles Precepts touching the Lords Supper in the 11. Chap. As likewayes to assign such in the Passages which do intrust a Jurisdictional Power to Elders I mean such distinctive Notes and Apostrophees as would have distinguished the Bishop properly so called from his Minor and improperly so called Bishops in order to the eviting the Confusion of their Offices and to cut off the dangerous Presbyterian Consequence and Error of understanding the Bishop and Presbyter to be Indentified in Name and Thing He acknowledged that in some things this our Answer will hold And sure if in any Case it must in this where Rulers are supposed Existent and a competent knowledge of their Official Authority both in themselves and the People The Surveyer adds That there is a deep silence concerning Presbyters Iurisdiction or a fixed Presbytrie at Corinth at this time though there were Teachers and Eminent Teachers Extraordinary Prophets 1 Cor. 14. Ans. The Surveyer will not disowne that in that 1 Cor. 14. There is a Tryal and an Examination of the Doctrine ascribed to these Teachers therefore he cannot deny them the Authority of Iudging those that are within mentioned 12. v. of 5. Ch. But for the Surveyers deep silence which he alledges of a Presbyterial Jurisdiction here he might have found it removed by a full Scripture Sound had he pondered First in General the Jurisdictional Power ascribed to Pastors and Teachers such as is imported in these
found to be solely with respect to an extraordinary end not to be now expected and to be performed by persons in an extraordinary Office as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Badg thereof this doth cast the scales and shews the Action not to be imitable nor to found warrand or exemplifie an ordinary standing Duty And whereas the Dr. adds That tho Philip was a Worker of Miracles yet this Action of Imposing Hands upon these Believers was not performed by him It is Answered Suppose he did Work Miracles yet in this Case and Time for the greater Honour of the Apostolick Office and the Glorious Confirmation of the Gospel Testimony by them who were Honoured to be its first Heraulds and eminently Sealed with the Spirit for this great End God would upon these grounds have this reserved to them who as we have heard above were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church further to strengthen Believers and to give this Church its fit Organick Frame according to the Gospel Rules I shall not stand to improve an Argument some would be apt to bring against the Dr's Pleading viz. That this Ceremony as described by him seems to encroach upon the Rights and Nature of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism Only it is worthy of our Observation which Cartwright brings against the Rhemists upon Act. 8.17 Pleading for the Sacrament of Confirmation he tells them That they are justly Charged with Incroaching upon the Possession of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism which Sealing up unto us not only the Forgiveness of Sins but also both the Burial and Mortification of the Old Man and the Resurrection and Quickning again of the New Man And in a Word the whole Putting on of Christ It is manifest that this Sacrament of Confirmation which Vaunts it self of Strength and Courage given thereby to the Vanquishing of the Devil makes Forcible Entry upon the Due and Right of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism He adds That our Lord in his Care to bring the Gospel Sacraments to as small a number as might be must be supposed rather to Seal many Promises with one Seal than one Promise with many Seals or one and the same Promise with two Seals How far this Pleading of Judicious Cartwright strikes at the Sinews of the Dr's Argument upon this Head is obvious enough To this I shall add a Testimony or two which fully confirms our Pleadings in Opposition to the Dr. on this Head The one is of the Professors of Saumer De 5. Fals. Dict. Sacrat Thes. 7. P. mihi 242. Si impositio manuum in eum finem instituta fuit ut Donorum miraculosorum collationem comitaretur cessantibus illis Donis cessa re ipsa debuit Et si soli Apostoli ea virtute praediti fuerunt ut Spiritum illum miraculosorum Donorum autorem fidelibus communicarent debuit in eorum personis subsistere manuum imponendarum potestas Thus they in Impugning the Sacrament of Confirmation Adding That as the Apostles had no Command in this Point as is most probable so if they had the Scripture is purposely silent of it For which they give this Reason ne ritum istum cum Sacramentis quorum institutionem nobis disertissime tradidit perperam confunderemus The next Testimony is of Turretin part 3. quaest 31. De 5. fals Sacram. P. mihi 615. Par. 5.6 When he is offering Reasons against this Bastard Sacrament his First touches the Action or Ceremony it self thus primo saith he quia non habet institutionem Divinam ne quidem ut sit nedum ut Sacramentum dici possit that there is no Divine warrand for the Action and Ceremony it self Viz of Imposing Hands upon the Baptized by a Bishop as he has formerly discribed it far less that it ought to be esteemed a Sacrament His Fifth Reason is thus Derogat Baptismo quia juxta Doctrinam Pontificiorum sequitur Baptismum non efficere nos plane Christianos cum tamen jam ante Baptizati in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti in communionem ejus admissi simus per Baptismum Christo inseramur sequitur in baptismo non dari Spiritum Sanctum ad robur augumentum gratiae quasi baptismo non obsignetur nobis gratia Spiritus Sancti corroborans aeque ac sanctificans Which is in Summ that Justifying Sanctifying corroborating Grace being Sealed up in Baptism this Ceremony encroaches upon its Nature when obtruded as a Sacrament And thereafter Par. 6. Asserting that the very Rite it self cannot be shown from Scripture he thus Answers the Objections taken from Act. 8.15 and 19.6 which are our Dr's grand proofs Apostoli quidem adhibuerunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu manuum impositionem Act. 8.15 19.6 Sed cum id factum constet invisibili dispensatione Spiritus Sancti pro Ecclesiae nascentis conditione quidem ex promisso Speciali clarum est ritum extraordinarium eoque temporarium solum fuisse cujus usus una cum aliis miraculis desiit Adding upon the Text further in Confirmation of this 1. That the Spirit in this extraordinary manner to those already Baptized consequently such as were made partakers of his common operations Act. 8.16 2 ly That the Spirit is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illabi irruere v. 9. Which is proper to the Spirit of Prophesie not of Sanctification as also Act. 10.44.46 He is said to fall upon them so that they spoke with Tongues Adding that it is not unusual in Scripture to represent extraordinar and invisible Gifts by the name of the Spirit simplely as Act. 19. doth prove against Bellarmin Spalatensis de Repub. Lib 5. bap 5. Num. 10. proves from a multiplicity of the Ancient Fathers that for several Ages the Ceremony of Confirming was a Ceremonial Rite of Baptism it self not distinct from it Remarkable is that of Ierom adversus Luciferianus That Confirmation by the Hands of the Bishop is a Ceremony belonging to Baptism Ita tamen saith he ut ne que necessaria sit neque quicquam illa per se spiritualiter efficiat sed quod ei a quibusdam tribui solet ut det Spiritum Sanctum id totum perfectissime haberi in solo Baptismo lege tamen Ecclesiastica eam adhibére propter solum honorem quendam externum Episcopalis Dignitatis So that in stead of any Spiritual use Ierom makes it an empty Badg of Episcopal vanity The Learned Bucer in his Censure of the Book of the English Liturgy doth at Large shew the unsuitableness of this Ceremony to the ends for which it is pretended or the supposed Primitive Patterns And we find it largely paralelled by Didoclavius with the Popish Confirmation both in respect of the supposed Grace which it gives the Sign and the Words adhibit therein the Administrator thereof c. P. mihi 358.359.360.361 c. who also gives proofs from Antiquity that this was not alwise reserved to the Bishop even when this Ceremony had obtained in
only are Pastors is rightly understood if applyed to Presbyters who Labours in the Administration of the Word who are thereunto Called of God and have Correspondent Gifts That the Master of Sentences does rightly assert that the Canons do only owne Two Orders as Sacred Viz. The Diaconate and Presbyterate Because we read that the Primitive Church had these only and of these alone we have the Command of the Apostle Moreover if Bishops only be Pastors these Bishops do not their Duty who Feed not the Flock He adds after nam illa Episcoporum distinctio a Pastoribus Presbyterorum ordine juris Divini non est sed humani instituti Nos de Iure solum communi Divinoque agimus Presbyteris ergo qui dabant operam administrationi verbi jus commune fuit ut Conciliis interessent c. That the distinction of Bishops from Pastors has no Divine Warand but is of Human Institution only That Presbyters who Labour in Dispensing the Word had an Interest to Sit in Councils Where its evident that he calls the Dr's Notion of the Bishop as its distinct from the Pastor and Superior to him Popish and an Human Invention and Asserts the Identity of Pastor anâ— Bishop by Divine Right they being Members of Councils And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen as Lombard c. 10. ibid. Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei That the Holy Ghost set up Bishops to Rule the Church of God Thus Iunius animadverts aequivoce nam Episcopos dicit Apostolus communi significato i. e. inspectores Curatores Ecclesiae esse Presbyteros illius Agit autem cum Presbyteris unius Ecclesiae puta Ephesinae quos accersi ad se curaverat quod si unus tantum esse debet ut volunt Pontificii in una Ecclesia Episcopus ejus est solius pascere cur Paulus per omnia plurali numero usus est in hoc suo protreptico ad Presbyteros Ephesi Adding falsa ex aequivocatione sententia that the premised Assertion anent the Establishing Bishops in the Church by the Holy Ghost when applyed to the Prelat Bishop is not found since the Apostle according to the common use of the Word calls the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church her Inspectors or Bishops Because in that place viz. Act. 20. the Apostles Speech is directed to that one Church of Ephesus for whose Pastors he had sent but if as the Papists would have it there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church and it is proper to him alone to Feed how comes it that Paul all along makes use of the Plural Number in this his Exhortatory Speech or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephesus After in Art 9. Passim asserunt Concilia Episcoporum esse That Councils were made up of Bishops Thus Iunius animadverts in his Third Answer quod Episcopi plurimum adessent non ideo factum est quod Episcopi essent sed quod eruditione Doctrina praestarent plerumque aliis de Presbyterio qui propterea suffragiis Presbyterii praefecti essent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecclesia singuli Nam qui erant ejusmodi eos ad Consilia generalia communibus Ecclesiae suffragiis mitti erat aequius quam rudiores c. That the Bishops were for most part present at Councils this was not upon the account of their being Bishops or as in that Character but because they for most part were beyond others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning and that for this Reason every such Bishop was by the suffrages of the Presbytrie made President of their Collegiat Meeting for such as were in this capacity it was more equitable they should be sent to General Councils by the Churches common suffrages than those that were less learned c. He adds tanquam perpetui juris statuae Episcoporum pontificiorum sibi Assumpserunt sicut omnem autoritatem Ecclesiae Presbyterii That the Popish Bishops as if founded upon a standing Right and Tittle have Usurpt and assum'd to themselves the whole Authority of the Church and the Presbytrie In Art 10. he Corrects Bellarmin's absurd Gloss as if Theodosius and Valentinianus had intended only the Bishops to be Received in the Council And 15. ibid. he shews that the Chorepiscopi Presbyteri Subscribed and Voted in the Council of Nice And in Art 11. inveniâ—ntur soli Episcopi Subscripsisse That Bishops only did Subscribe He Answers that this is false De Niceno modo Diximus Not. 15. Constantinopolitano pâ—â—no Subscripserunt aliquot Presbyteri Alpius Presb. pro Philomuso Alexandrino Cappadociae Paulus Presb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Isauriae c. That in the First Council of Constantinople Presbyters Subscribed Thereafter he shews why the Bishops were Chosen to General Councils in singulis Presbyteriis cujuscunque Provinciae Communibus suffragiis Episcopi eligerentur ii qui Pietate Doctrina Iudicio praestare viderentur Adfuerunt autem Presbyteri juarum Ecclesiarum singuli Communi Synodorum particularium calculo ad actionem illam deputati tum Ecclesiae suae tum Provinciae totius nomine That in every Presbytrie of the respective Provinces these Bishops were Chosen by common suffrage who were judged more Eminent in Piety and Learning but Presbyters were also present being deputed to that Work both by the Vote of their own Churches and the common suffrage of Particular Synods and thus in the Name both of their own Church and of the whole Province He had said before that of the whole Province few were laid aside from Councils Upon 19. ibid. Where it is alledged that the Interest of any other than Bishops in Councils is contra morem omnis Antiquitatis Against the Custom of all Antiquity In Opposition to this Iunius produces the Pattern of that Council Act. 15. where it is said Paul and those with him were received by the Apostles and Elders that the Apostles and Elders met in Council Citing v. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders to send Chosen Men and v. 23. where the Apostles and Elders wrote to the Churches Adding atque â—ita diu in Ecclesia fuisse observatum demonstrat Exemplum Romanae Synodi quae contra Novatum fuit habita a 60 Episcopis Presbyterisque Diaconis pluribus qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum Apostolici illius Concilii Exemplo ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. Et Ruffin Cap. 33. Item Alexandrinae Synodi contra Arrium apud Gelasium Cyzicenum That it was thus of a long time observed in the Church is demonstrat by the example of the Roman Synod which was held against Novatus by 60 Bishops and many Presbyters and Deacons who gave Sentence against Novatus after the Example of that Apostolical Synod by the Testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus in their Histories As also by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria against Arius according to Gelasius c. By this time its evident what the Judgment of