the Angel of Ephesus trying the false Apostles which imports a Juridical Tryal the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which shews his Power to have cast him out upon the Angel of Thyatira for suffering Iezabel to Teach which shews that it was in his Power and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches in reference to Government are good and sound and accorded to by all Divines But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof in reference to his Scope which are to use our Scottish Proverb the Tongue of the Trump and without which all his Discourse is but like Sand without Lime 1. He says They were single Persons of great Authority But he has not yet made good that they were single Persons nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines to prove the contrary and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suteable to the Scripture and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles 2 ly Supposing them single Persons he has not proved either from the Title of Angel or their Authority imported in these Epistles that it reached any further than that of Presidents or that the Authority here Instanced was Monopolized and so inhanced in them as to exclud intirely all the Pastors therefrom The contrary whereof besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning we heard the Belgick Divines make out and give Instance particularly with reference to Ephesus to the Elders or Ministers of which Church Paul committed the whole Government as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof Act. 20.28 And therefore even supposing the Angel a single Person he cannot be supposed in Contradiction to that Scripture to have had such Authority and Power as did Inhance or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus so clearly therein asserted and held out The Dr. acknowledges That what our Lord writes is not to this Angel personally but also to the People P. 422. But I pray how will the Dr. set up his March-stone and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions in Point of Government distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors since neither the Supposition that the Bishop is a single Person will prove this nor the Honourable Title of Angel as the Dr. calls it a Title suteable to all Pastors who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts by their Office Nor can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions without a palpable begging of the Question And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches as Directed to them This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses or to any President or Mouth of a Meeting that it hath no imaginable Strength to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion The Dr's Third and last proof of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles and that the Angels were Bishops of these Churches and Presidents thereof is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity as he calls it for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned Bibleotheca patrum N. 244. Shewing that Iohn Two or Three years after his return from Patmos assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the Government of it which Seven were the Angels here here Addrest these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was Metropolis And therefore these Seven Bishops by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus are the Seven Angels all within that Province He adds That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus praepositos Ecclesiae Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels praepositi Ecclesiarum Comment in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels tells us that by Angels are meant the Bishops Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels Bishops and Presidents over these Churches in propounding this Proof if he intend only Presidents he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power which he ascribs to them a President and one who has all Authority Monopolized in him being quite distinct things If he intend by Presidents of the Churches such as are set over it in a general Sense Are not all Pastors in Scripture called such as are set over God's People and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons all Authority of Government a President being of far larger extent and surely with a relation to a Church it is not all one to say such a person is President of a Church and a Sole President As it it is not all one to say such a man is Minister of London and the Sole Minister For all Ministers in the Scripture Sense are Presidents over the Churches But 2 ly since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels addrest by our Lord in these Epistles and of the nature and extent of that Office which is indigitat by the term Angel and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions given to them from Primitive Antiquity as he calls it I would know whether the Dr. will own this Principle that Antiquity or even that which he calls Primitive or the First human Testimony secluding the Scriptures or of the First Ages after the Canon of the Scriptures is the infallible Rule and Commentarie for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers mentioned in Scripture If the Dr. will not own this Principle his evidence by his own confession is no evidence For an evidence which will fail and not reach the conclusion is no evidence at all and in the best construction no proper evidence without restriction s and limitations added If the Dr. hold the Affirmative then I would urge him thus First If Mens Testimony or the Churches Primitive practice tho never so early must be the Key and Comment in this Case of the Scripture Sense of the Character and description of Church Officers and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent why may not also human practice and profession of the Church simply considered determin our Faith and prectice as to every Scripture Truth and duty therein held out For the Dr. can assign no difference nor upon admitting the antecedent shew the least shaddow of a ground which will limit and enervat the consequence Secondly If this be admitted I would know whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal than the Scriptures as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice and in opposition to the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom not in the Wisdom of God and his Power and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter 2 Pet 1.20.21 make
the 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
Epistles and being again opposed by Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveridge prepared and had almost finished his Second Defence which by the importunity of the Favourers of Prelacy was concealed Of which see the Learned Mr. Iamison in his Piece called Nazianzeni quaerela c. Part 2 d. Pag. 112 So that the Dr. hath no reason to speak so bigg and call this vindication Triumphant None can deny several of these Epistles fathered upon him to be Spurious as his Epistle to the Blessed Virgin and his two to the Apostle Iohn not to mention that of the Virgin Mary to him and for the Six mentioned by the Dr. he should know that as Learned Pens as he can mention have made appear that they are depraved and Corrupted if the Dr. will allow Usher Arch Bishop of Armagh and the Learned Rivet Videlius and Cook in his Censura patrum to be reckoned among that Number Yea Baronius himself the great Popish Historian who as Causabon holds presents from these Epistles the Papists refuges for several of their Errours yet acknowledges that somethings therein are defective in curia librariorum The Man was not so happy as to light upon the more polit Coppies found out by our Dr. and his Fellows In the forementioned Appendix the Dr. might have seen several Reasons adduced to prove these Epistles not to be genuine Such as 1. That diverse things quoted out of these Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theodoret are either not found in them at all or found altered and Changed 2 ly That they Charge the Holy Martyr with supercilious Pride in extolling his own knowledg Epistle to the Trallians as reaching the Orders of Angels Arch-Angels differences of Powers and Dominations Thrones and Powers Cherubims and Seraphims c. Which none will believe to have fallen from the Pen of so Humble a Martyr nor can any but acknowledg that it is as far from the Simplicity of his times in an arrogant self-boasting as East from West And 3 ly His strange and anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy wherein he these forged Epistles rather goes beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty The Learned Authors of the foresaid Appendix have given several instances hereof which do palpably evidence such â—n Anti-scriptural Popish Strain as no Man of Sense can impute to this holy and early Martyr Nay none who owns the Scriptures of Truth but must needs accuse of Error For instance among many others in the Epistle to the Trallians he affirms The Bishop to be possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all c. And how will the Dt. make this accord with that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believed In the same Epistle he enjoins a Reverence to the Bishop as to Christ as the Holy Apostles has commanded But where is this commanded In the Epistle to the Magnesians he enjoyns that nothing seems Right that seems not so to the Bishop For what is contrary to his Judgement is enmity to God The Apostle Paul spoke with more caution and Modesty when he enjoyned thus Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians he enjoyns the Princes the Emperour c. and all the Clergy to obey the Bishop and this at such a time when there was no Christian Emperour or Prince nor many Years thereafter In the Epistle to the Smyrneans he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King but I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests c. He affirms they are guilty of greater punishment that do any thing against the Bishop than they that rise up against the King Thus preferring them above Kings Yea he saith That such as do any thing without consulting with the Bishop is a Worshipper of the Devil And what Censure these sayings put upon the Reformed Churches Govern'd without Prelats yea what repugnancy is therein to the Holy Scriptures I think may be obvious to the Dr's meanest reflection So that he might have been asham'd to bring for his proof such spurious Epistles â— Yet he is bold to cite sâ—me of these Passages particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians and Magnesians altho he is forc't I suppose for very shame to smooth the expressions and curtail them For instance in stead of that Expression in the Epistle to the Trallians wherein he asserts the Bishop to be Possest of all Principalitie and Authority beyond all as much as it is possible for Men to be Possest of as it is truely translated out of the Greek The Dr. Represents only this what is the Bishop but he who hath all Authority and Power Which altho it be much the same with what is above rehearsed yet is far short in extent and Expression But if the Dr. hath so high a veneration for these spurious Epistles I would fain know how he will reconcile this and such like Expressions with that one Scripture Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers c. Unless the Dr. will deny the Bishop to have a Soul he cannot exeem him from the obligation of this Command And if he be thus subject how is he Possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all as much as is possible for Men to be Possest of Or how will the Dr. make this accord with that Interest and Authority of the Civil Magistrat not only in Civils over all his Subjects but also in the Church and Kingdom of Christ which the Dr. in the same Book owns and asserts He also Cites the Epistle to the Magnesians wherein Obedience to the Bishop is enjoyned and contradicting him in any thing discharged which the Dr. will not deny to be cross to that limited Obedience which the Scripture enjoins to be given even to Parents by Children Who are Commanded to Obey them in the Lord only Moreover he Cites the Epistle to the Philadelphians wherein it is affirmed that such as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop such as are not are cursed And what censure this puts upon the Reformed Churches and how it Anathematizes them as not United to the Bishop I need not tell the Dr. nor what a black Theta he marks himself with in the Judgment of the Reformed Churches if owning such an absurd assertion I cannot stand upon many things that might be further noticed to evince the impertinency and Fooleries of these Citations Only it is very worthy of our observation that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epistle to the Magnesians obliges us in a piece of Ingenuity in expressing Ignatius's commending Obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytrie c which seems to allow the Presbytrie a Commanding Authority together with the Bishop as several of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause smooth the Episcopal Power but this I am sure is cross to the Drs. Scope and pleading who enhances
all the Power of Government in the person of the Bishop excluding wholly all Presbyters from any Interest therein So that the Dr. in this unwary Citation contradicts Ignatius and himself and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians wherein Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family to be his Steward He hath again Wounded himself For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry under the Authority of the Master and tyed up to his Orders is point blanck contrare unto and toto coelo different from that Principality of the highest Degree before ascribed to the Bishop and owned by the Dr. as his and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office Sure to be a Prince and a Steward in Government are distinct things and entirely and wholly opposit if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it who disowns a Dominion and in stead thereof and in opposition thereunto owns a Stewardship in God's Family and humble Sevice or Ministry 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations Whereof the first is That these Epistles were Written not above Eight or Nine years after the Decease of St. Iohn and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches appointed by Christ and his Apostles and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church who were not Subject to them That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches so that they were not within the Altar but without it who were not subject to them And therefore it may be concluded there were no Churches without them I Answer that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early no body will doubt but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries as are above rehearsed was written by Ignatius and was his Sense of Church Government no Man of Sense or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr will believe And we find the contrair is asserted and made good by several of the Godly Learned Not to stand upon a more critical Answer and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author tho admitted unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts the Judgment of the whole Church to be correspondent thereunto and that none who either wrot not or whose Writings may be lost were of contrary Judgment which he neither attempts to prove nor will ever be able The Drs. next Inference is That since there were Bishops so early in this Age presiding over the Churches they behoved to receive several of them at least their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles since Ignatius at the writing of these Epistles had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch an eminent Church planted immediatly by St. Peter It being the constant practice of the Apostles to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies that there were de facto and de jure such Prelats as he pleads for Nor can he from this Ground perswad any rational Man of this unless he could evince two Things which he will do ad Calendas Graecas 1. Not only that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius but likewise the Sense and Judgment as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer as the Bishop is correspondent to the Scripture Account and Sense of the Church Officers mentioned in the New Testament and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government and the Institution of the Officers thereof which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty Again his Reason here is very odd whereby he fortifies this Inference viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted For if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops as he needs must if he speak consequentially I would fain know First What shadow of Proof he can give for this and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such For if this be asserted then it follows that Bishops were set up when there were no Elders to presid over contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows except Dr. Hammond And next I would know how the Dr. upon this Supposition will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction and that both to himself and Ignatius Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders and himself holds that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem when the Apostle Paul went in to them were mere Presbyters or Pastors Again if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion who takes still the Elders for Prelats so he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church not to suppose it only else in his principles these Churches where mere Elders were placed were manck and wanted the power of Jurisdiction And since he has produced nothing from Scripture that proves such an institution of Bishops or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses his Dream of Ignatius is as easily rejected by us as affirmed by him We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas when sent out among the Gentiles and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat of the Drs. Mould in either of the Antiochs the Scripture is utterly silent And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion As for Chrysostom Tom. 5. edit Savil. p. 99. his admiring of Ignatius Dignity obtained by the Hands of Apostles laid upon him It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity which the Dr. alledges For doth not the Dr. think that the Office of the Scripture Bishop is a great Dignity And he should prove not suppose only that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense which as he offers not to do so if attempting it he could not chuse but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself who as is above cleared asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter The same I repone to what the Dr. alledgeth P. 410 of Polycarp his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna as also what is made good by many Protestant Divines viz. That the Fathers and Ancients used the Name of Bishops in a general Sense that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
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
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
some of you into Prison that ye may be tryed In a word what ever Characteristick of this Angel the Dr. shall produce we can make it appear to be applicable to Presbyters or Pastors First Is it a Commission to Preach and Baptize This he will grant belongs to all Pastors Is it the Power of Ordination The Scripture shews us that this is Seated in a Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Matth. 18.17 Is it the Ruling Governing Power All Ministers are such Angels All that Watch for Souls do Rule over them and all Labourers in the Word and Doctrin have an equal joynt Interest in Feeding Censuring and Ruling in the Churches over which they are set Heb. 13.17 1 Thess. 5.12 And People are accordingly to submit themselves to them Therefore this Prostasie and Ruling Power is no sole Prerogative of a single Angel or supposed Bishop Thus it was with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. And it is much more suteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of a Plurality of Ministers to whom in a plain Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather than to Explain that plain Text by a Metaphor and contrary thereunto to set up one Angel or Diâ—cesan Bishop over that Church with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction The Dr. will find this our Sense of the Angel to be no new Opinion when he considers that Augustin Homil. 21. upon this Book thus takes it Expounding the Angel of Thyatira the Praepositi Ecclesiarum or Governours of the Churches So Aretas Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2.9.10 Primas in Apoc. Cap. 2. Ambros. Ambert Anselm Pererius Victorin Tirin Haym Bed Perkins Fox in his Meditations on the Revelation pag. 7 8. Pilkintoun Bishop of Durham in his Exposition of Hag. Ch. 1. v. 13. The second thing I premise is that the Dr. hath no advantage tho it be yielded that the Angel is a single Person For 1. He may be the Angelus Praeses or the Moderator Angel not the Angelus Princeps or the Lord Angel yea and the Praeses or Moderator for the time as a Speaker in Parliament Ephesus had many Angels Act. 20.28 1 Tim. 5.17 of equal Authority who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost and set over that Church accordingly and they are spoken to in the Plural though the Angel is named in the Singular Number 2. This Angel is said to have no Jurisdiction or Superiority over the rest of the Ministers nor can the Dr. shew where this Angel is spoken to with reference to Ministers as subject to him which notwithstanding is his begged Supposition and Petitio Principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesan Division of the Churches were long after this and not until the 260 year after Christ in the Judgment of best Antiquaries 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common Duty of all Pastors Finally suppose it were granted to him that a Superiority were imported in Naming this Angel it may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts and in such Moral Respects not of Power and Jurisdiction The Dr in Order to this his Scope proposes generally the Method of his Proof shewing That he will prove that they were single Persons 2 ly That they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches 3 ly That they were the Bishops or Presidents of these Churches Before I examin his Proofs it is pleasant to consider how well this Undertaking of the Dr. answers his Scope which all along in this Dispute is to prove a Succession of ordinary Officers in the Office of Apostolat as he calls it and in their whole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction excluding Pastors from the least Interest therein By his Principles these supposed Succeeding Prelats are the sole Governours of Churches have the sole Legislative Power wherein he says the Essence of Government consists the Power of Consecration and Ordination to Ecclesiastick Offices and that of the same Nature and Extent as he supposes the Apostles had it by vertue of their Apostolical Mission The Bishops also have by his Principles the sole Executive Spiritual Jurisdiction Monopolized in them as their peculiar Prerogative viz. as the Dr. explains it to Cite Examin Admonish Offenders Exclud from or Admit to Church Communion Censure or Absolve Bind or Loose The twelve Thrones to Judg Israels Tribes promised to Apostles he understands of the Authority of Judging and of all Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church Visible committed to them and by them to the Bishops as their only Successors in this Authority To which we may add the Confirming of the Baptized by Imposition of Hands which he also ascribes to them as their sole Prerogative This the Dr. at large insists upon from P. 433. to P. 438. Now to prove all these Prerogatives of the Bishops and this Extensive Power so paramount to all Authority or Interest of Pastors in Government as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure from the seven Asian Angels Because they were single Persons or of great Authority in the Churches or President-Bishops in these Churches is such a Proof as the Simplest may Laugh at For 1. Will any Man think that their being Saluted as single Persons will prove this Extensive Authority Why may not a Senate be Saluted in the Consuls a Parliament Addressed in the Chancellor or the House of Commons in an Epistle to the Speaker 2 ly Say that they were Presidents and admit that they had Deference and Authority as such as the Consul in the Senate will this suppose or by any Shadow of Consequence or Connection inferr that they had such a Power as is here described and such as swallows up wholly and absolutly all Authority of the Members of Church Judicatories Nay the Dr. will as soon joyn the Poles together as unite this Antecedent and Consequent Besides in calling them Presidents he discovers this and confutes himself since the Terme both Name and Thing in all Languages and in the Sense of all Men is appropriat to such as are set over Juridical Courts Civil or Ecclesiastick the Members whereof are still supposed to have a Decisive Suffrage and Interest in the Government Again 3 ly The Dr. says he will prove that they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches But if he speak to the Point and prosecut his Scope he must call it Absolute and Sole Authority intirely exclusive of all Interest which Pastors or any other Church Officers may claim therein Come we to the Dr's Grand Proofs First That they were single Persons he proves from this That they are mentioned as such the Angel of Ephesus the Angel of Smyrna And thus all along Addrest in the Singular Number I know thy Works I have a few things against thee Ans. This Argument is abundantly removed by what is premised anent the Collective Sense of the Word Angel which our Lords Addressing the the Epistle to one Angel doth no whit Impugn in the sense of sound Protestant
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
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
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
Precept supposing the same Had he Censured alone or assumed a sole Interest therein he had crossed the Apostles Doctrin who makes Censures the joint Authoritative Acts of the Collegiat Meetings of Pastors 1 Cor. 5.1 2 4 5 c. 2 Thess. 3.14 As for the exercise of such Episcopal Power in the Primitive times the Dr. will never prove the Bishops sole Power herein in the First and Purest times yea and even after the Episcopus Praeseâ— was set up and had obtained in Judicatories The Sixth Concession which the Dr will have from us is That this Authority was not of it self of a temporary duration transient or extraordinary but such as the constant necessities of the Church doth make necessary in all Ages That it was temporary and transient is that which we maintain and is the Sense of Sound Protestant Divines as is already made appear and we must have better Arguments to take this from us and beat us from this Post than our Dr's begging assertion without proof or a Shadow of it If the necessity of the Church calls for such an Office as this of Timothy according to the Scripture Character and Accounts then sure for that of Apostolat also in a proper formal Sense with all its Prerogatives viz That there be persons impowered to give infallible Commands to transient Evangelists and by infallible direction of the Spirit enjoining and Authorizing the exercise of their Function recalling thus the persons Authorized by an infallible Authority from one Church to the further prosecuting this Work in another and this in order to the Moulding and Watering of these Churches Hence 2. This Power not being properly and formally Episcopal but contrary to such a Function as well as in it self extraordinary and passed off with that first State and exigence of the Church neither can the Churches constant necessity crave it nor doth it in the least patronize the Bishops acclaimed Power For what the Dr. adds of Timothy's committing his Power unto faithful Men such as were able to Teach others We have above discovered the insufficiency of this Argument to bear the weight of his Conclusion And he must prove not barely assert that the Trust Committted to him was ordinary before it will be admitted or his ruinous Consequence built upon this rotten Foundation that therefore there was no need of an extraordinary Officer to manage it But now that the Dr. hath Done with Timothy he prâ—ceeds to Titus telling us P. 110.111 That the same Power was committed to Titus in Crete as one of Pauls Fellow-labourers And the exception that he was an Evangelist which he cannot but know to be the Sense of the generality of sound Pâ—otestant Divines our Dr. is bold to call a ridiculous subterfuge Truely if as ridiculous as his Arguments and Answers it were so at all will But why ridiculous Because it is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who are called Evangelists I could wish the Dr. had been pleased to give us the definition of Evangelist properly so taken that it might be seen how good Harmony he keeps with Protestant Churches and Divines in this Point I must add that our critical Dr. seems very way-ward and ill to please He will not have Titus an Evangelist because no where so called Now he cannot but Confess Timothy is expresly called Evangelist yea and emphatically enjoyned to do the work of an Evangelist yet neither will he admit him to be such We told the Dr. that the Professors of Leyden have this notion of the Office That Evangelists were either scriptores Evangelici de vita morte dictis factis Salvatoris c. such as wrote the History of our Saviours Life and Death or ab Apostolis ad Evangelium una cum ipsis praedicandum vocati c. such as were called by the Apostles to Preach the Gospel together with them and attended them as their Fellow-labourers unless when they were by the Apostles set to oversee some Churches for a time such were Barnabas Silas Timothy and Titus to whom some add the Seventy Disciples Here is the Protestant Notion of the Office which clearly appears Scriptural And upon the equality and sameness of Timothy and Titus Function and Work concluds them both Evangelists I must further tell the Dr that in Ambrose sense Evangelists were such as did Evangeliz are sine Cathedra Preached without a fixed Charge And Saravia himself de diversis gradibus Minist Cap. 6. upon that Precept of Paul Do the Work of an Evangelist tells us That he will not deny Timothy the Name of Evangelist since Paul enjoyned him to perform this Office The Man knew Paul put not upon him an empty Name But further the Dr. will have nothing in the Office of an Evangelist inconsistent with the Dignity of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon That the Evangelistick Office as in Scripture delineat stands opposit to that of the Hierarchical Bishop I have above made good How he comes to say it s not inconsistent with the Dignity of these Offices is some what Mysterious since the general acceptation of the Evangelistick Office is that it was next in Dignity to that of Apostles at least above all Ordinary Officers And for the Dignity of Deacons it seems Odd that the Lowest Office hath a Dignity suteable to that of Evangelists The Dr. tells us further That Eusebius Notion of Evangelist is one who Preached the Gospel to such as had not heard it or at least had Resisted its Light and were not Converted Eusebius takes the Title two ways either for such as Wrote the Gospel or those that Taught it and those again were either such as had ordinary Places and Gifts or whose Places and Gifts were Extraordinary not Settled upon any Charge but were Apostolorum Vice or Vice-Apostles having a Vicarious Care of the Churches as the Apostles had the principal Which Justles with the Dr's Account And in the Passage of Eusebius Cited by him he makes the Evangelist Work to be a Watering the Apostles Plantations as well as a Preaching to such as had not heard the Gospel But he adds That its agreeable to the Function of either of these Offices to Preach the Gospel to such as are not yet acquainted with it This is hardly intelligible 1. That the Evangelists Office consisted in mere Preaching and to such as were in the Character of Infidels or Resisters of the Gospel as it appears not to be Eusebius Sense so he cannot shew it to be the Sense of any Sound Protestant 2. The Dr. will not say that Timothy's Preaching-Work in Ephesus where he was called to be instant therein in Season and out of Season respected not mainly the Members of that Church wherein he was also called to give Attendance to Reading Exhortation and Doctrine And moreover by the Dr's Confession to many pieces of a Iurisdictional Work which he must either grant to fall within the Compass of his Evangelistick Office and consequently
Will that this Moderator or President should have their whole Authority Concentred in him as this Surveyâ—r pleads and so as to smallow up their whole decisive Suffrage and render them mere Cyphers This he cannot but acknowledge to exceed far the mere governing the Actions of the Meeting and preserving of Order Which is the proper Work of a Moderator I might add that the admitting it is GODs Will that Ministers set over their Associat Meetings one single person to Moderat will not so much as infer that he should moderat ad vitam Since 1. This will bring under the burden of whatever abuse of his Power he may be guilty of and exclude all Help and Redress 2. This will deny the Judicatory or Meeting the Advantage and Use of these governing Gifts and Graces that may be supposed in other Members And sure the Surveyer could not but acknowledge this contrary to the Divine Law since the Gifts and Graces of every Minister are given by GOD for the Advantage of His Church and to be improven accordingly The Ministration of the Spirit saith the Apostle is given to every one to profit withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Metaphor taken as some do judge from Bees bringing all to the common Hive Thus we see that unless the Surveyer degrade the Bishops to mere Moderators this Reason is utterly remote from and absolutely short of reaching any other Conclusion The Third Ground is That it is Juris Divini by way of Approbation that the Churches in their Ministerial Combinations for Government should have one over them who hath a singular Power for prevention of Schism and Disorder and such a Power as what is Right or Wrong in the Church may be imputed to him as is manifest from the Epistles directed to the Angels of the Churches Rev. 2.3 whom Beza Cartwright Reynolds c. hold to be single persons Ans. It is not clearly discernible what strength is in this Reason beyond the former since it still runs upon the Ius Divinum and necessity of a President in Church Meetings in order to this as its native and great End viz the Prevention of Schism and Disorder And if this be the Rule and Measure of such a Presidency the Surveyer had been hard put to it to prove that this doth necessarly infer and require that it be such as swallows up the whole decisive Power and Authority of Pastors in Government And that Disorder and Schism cannot be otherwise prevented by a President than thus Authorized and that reserving to Pastors their decisive Authority and Power cannot as well reach this End 2. For what the Surveyer adds That the Power of the President must be such as what is Right or amiss may be imputed to him as using his Power Well or Badly As it may have a terrible Sound in the Ears of the Hierarchical Prelat who hath an Authority and Power extended not only to all the Pastors of the Diocess but the whole Body of the People therein as this Surveyer owns P. 194. Since he hath thus a Work and Office of such a Nature as is impossible to be managed Besides that the Charge of all the evils within the Diocess lyeth necessarly upon him So likewise it is more than this Surveyer could prove that what was well or amiss in the Asian Churches is chiefly imputed to one Person For 1. It is not enough to say that some Authors though acknowledged Godly and Learned do hold them to be single persons but the Grounds hinc inde of those who hold them to be such and of those who understand the Word Angel in a Collective Sense must be weighed in the Ballances of the Sanctuary 2. Beza's Judgment is that the Proestos or President is first advertised that by him all the rest of the Colledge and also the whole Church might have notice made to them of that which concerned them all And further that not so much as the Office of a Perpetual President can be hence inferred as that which he holds to be the Foundation of the Tyranical Oligarchy whose Head is the Antichristian Beast 3. Granting a Presidency for prevention of Schism and disorder over these Churches the Question still is to be discussed what Presidency it was And that it could not be of the Surveyers Supposed Episcopal mould is evident and by thâ— Presbyterian Writers made good from several Grounds As that 1. It cannot be made good that any directions in these Epistles respecting Government diversifie one Pastor from another or suppose his Iurisdiction over the rest 2. That without fastning a contradiction upon the Scripture Account of the Presbyter or Pastors Office this cannot be admitted Pastors having the Name and thing of Rulers Governours and Bishops attributed unto them yea and the Episcopal Power being found committed to the Pastors of Ephesus the first of the Churches here addressed in Pauls last farewell to them Act. 20. And none will deny that the whole Churches were settled in an Uniform Mould of Government That the Collective Sense of the word Angel is most sutable to the Scope of these Epistles and paralel Scriptures is above made good and needs not be here repeated The Surveyer alledges P. 193. That if single persons had not been intended they would have been compared by the Spirit of God not to single Stars but Constellations Thus this critical Master of Language will needs Teach the Spirit of God how to express himself But since he acknowledges that these Churches tho made up of several Congregations do upon the Ground of an Unity in Government come under the denomination of one Candlestick why may not also the Pastors and Ministers because of a combination in Government come under the Denomination of single Stars Besides that these Stars or Angels are as is above made good sometimes addressed plurally and thus upon the matter held out as Constellations He adds That we may as well extend the seven Candlesticks beyond the Seven Churches as the Angel beyond a single Person But the Spirit of GOD calling these Candlesticks the Seven Churches and the Stars generally the Angels of the Churches not the Seven Angels sufficiently discovers the impertinent folly of this Objection But says the Surveyer ibid. by this Collective Sense of the Word Angel we will take in the Ruling Elders as Messengers of the Lord of Hosts or else assert that these Churches had none Ans. The Divine warrand of the Ruling Elder is made good upon clear Scripture grounds and if he have a share and Interest in Church Government the Surveyer could give no reason why he might not in so far come under this Denomination as a Church Officer supposing that our Lord addresseth in these Epistles both Church Officers and Members For what he adds of Blondels Sense of the Authority of these Angels P. 6. of his Preface It is evident to any that reads it That he ascribs the Power of Presidents only unto them and holds that the Proestotes
Surveyer in this Reason quite ruined his Cause and assertion so it is evident that in the Scripture Accounts of the institution and work of Presbyters the work and Office is found the same with that of these ordinary Officers Cited 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. since both Teaching and Government are evidently committed unto them Act. 20.28 with Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Tim. 5.17 But for the Divine Institution of his Hierarchical Prelat or any proper designation for his Office in that Capacity our Surveyer after all the Travels of his Surveying Notions brings us home nothing but a non inventus est He adds as a proof of his former Assertion That he knows no place of Scripture where the word Elder must needs point out an Officer fixed to a particular Charge in Teaching and Ruling having no other above him in Power or having Power over any other Officers But he should have pointed us to the place where the Diocesan Bishop of his new Mould is represented in Scripture under the Name of either Bishop or Presbyter And if he give over this discovery and the Answer of our demand hereanent he must take home and Lodge this Argument with himself and when he falls upon a good answer bestow it for us upon himself But for such Presbyters or Elders as he doth desiderat he might have found them in the same Text of Act. 20.17 28. impowered with the ordinary Office and Authority of Teaching and Ruling the Church as succeeding the Apostles in this ordinary Office yea and fixed as the ordinary Officers of this Church of Ephesus for this end as likewise Elders thus set up with an Episcopal Power and fixed to their Charges Tit. 1.5 with 1 Pet. 5. Likewise 1 Tim. 5.17 We have Elders or Presbyters supposed to have a fixed Relation to that Church having also a Teaching and Governing Power Yea Act. 14.23 We find such Pastors or Presbyters ordained Church by Church or in every Church But the Surveyer adds That Presbyterians hold Elders to be of two Ranks and therefore if the Ruling Elders are not to be here supposed they make the first Constitution of Churches manck and defective without Ruling Elders or Deacons Or if they include both under the Name of Elders he can with beteâ—â— Ground include the Majores Presbyteri or Bishops distinct from the Minores or Pastors Ans. Whether we assert there are Ruling Elders here or not his Hierarchical Bishop is not in the least helped or his Pleading for him strengthened For if we shall say that in this first plantation of the Churches there were only Teaching Elders or Pastors appointed who were in tuto to appoint and ordain Ruling Elders and Deacons his absurdity is easily evaded if we shall but suppose that which is easily supposable that in the first Constitution of Churches there was a gradual procedure and the chief Officers the Pastors first ordained and impowered as above said If we embrace the other Answer and affirm that Elders of both sorts were here ordained his Inference hath no shadow of a Connection hereupon since we do make good from Scripture the Distinction of the Teaching and Ruling Elder who both come under this general Designation But for his Hierarchical Bishop his Institution Name or Office the Surveyer can give us no shadow of a Pâ—â—of and but beggs the Question in supposing such an Officers Existence Besides though it were granted that such a Distinction could be admitted where finds this Surveyer the Deacons in these Catalogues And how will he thus evite the Rebound of his own Blow and his own absurdity of a manck Constitution of the Primitive Churches For what he adds That Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons is called a Presbyter of his Church of Lyons It is certain Bishops were sometimes so called and therefore they were the more guilty who did appropriat the Name Bishop to a pretended Office Superior to a Presbyter especially since this Retention of the Name Presbyter was from some Impression of the New Testament Times and Writings wherein the two Names are promisâ—uously used to point at one and the same Officer And it would seem this Name which with Beda signifieth Sapientiae Maturitatem should have been rather assumed by these pretended Fathers than that of Bishop which with him imports industriam curae pastoralis the Industry of the Pastoral Care a Work that Prelats are found little to concern themselves about There is another Passage wherein he might have seen such Presbyters as he desiderats viz. Act. 15.22 23. where mention is made of Apostles and Elders meeting in that Council at Ierusalem who must needs be understood of fixed Pastors of that Chuch The Surveyer P. 210. offers to our thoughts Whether James the LORDS Brother called by the Ancients Bishop of Jerusalem and is a Distinct person from the two of that Name comes under any of these Denominations We have above made appear in collating this Passage with Gal. 2.1.9 Gal. 1.19 That this Iames who is called the Lords Brother is called an Apostle and such an Apostle as Peter and others v. 17.18 Which is also clear from this that we read of a Iames the less Mark 15.14 Which as Ierom contra Helvidium reasons had been no fit Distinction had there been three Iames's The Harmony of Interpreters taking Iames to be an Apostle in Gal. 1.19 is above made appear such as Estius Paraeus Gomarus Menochius Piscator Tirinus Simplicius c. The Surveyer was not to be troubled in a Counter-enquiry To what purpose he proposed the Question Or next under which of these Names he comprehended the Deacons But for us a rational Account may be given If it be said they are comprehended under none of these Names there being in this Meeting put forth a Diatactick Critick and Dogmatick Power and Authority in none of which Deacons as such have an Interest their Work and Interest being to serve Tables To that Passage 1 Pet. 5. where the fixed Elders or Presbyters of the Churches have ascribed unto them an Authority in Feeding and Ruling the same The Surveyer Answers That the Name of Presbyter is common to all Church Officers Higher and Lower even to Apostles as Beza acknowledges Ans. He hath already acknowledged That it must sometimes in Scripture be looked on as distinguishing those pointed out thereby from other Officers So that it may here denote a Preaching Pastor in special notwithstanding that in a general Sense Superior Officers had that Name such as Apostles He could not deny the peculiar Office of a Deacon though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes appropriat to Superior Officers And besides that the proper Name and Designation of the Superior Officer he cannot shew to be given to the Inferior though the Superior in a General Sense have sometimes the Name of the Inferior attributted to them He might have here seen that these Officers or Presbyters have an Episcopal Inspection and Oversight over the
expones to be the Pastors and other Guides of the Church paralelling this Sense of the Elders with that of Act. 11.30 where we read of the Churches benevolence sent to the Elders and Church Rulers for the Relief of the Poor Saints in Iudea The Belgick Divines upon the place Translate this Clause of the Eldership That is say they of the Assembly of the Elders or Overseers of the Church c. The Eng. Annot. upon the place having added to the word Presbytrie the Phrase of Eldership thus proceed Some by Presbytrie understand the Office of a Presbyter which Timothy received by imposition of Hands but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in Scripture for the Office of a Presbyter but for the Company of Elders who here laid hands upon Timothy when he was Ordained And they add the agreeableness hereunto of the Canon of the 4 th Council of Carthage and the Practice of the Reformed Churches to this day Pool 2 d Part Paraphraseth this Passage thus That Timothy's Office was given by the Revelation of the Divine Will by the extraordinary Influence of the Spirit of GOD and the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie was a declaration of it The last clause of 6. v. 1 Ch. of 2 d Epistle they thus Paraphrase That he is called to the improvement of those Spiritual abilities given him upon the Prayers of Paul the Presbytrie when he was by them set a part to the work of an Evangelist for the end for which GOD had given them to him To these Expositors many others might be added exponing this word and term of a Collegiat Meeting such as Mâ—nochius Tirinus Zegerius Sligelius Beza Simplicius Vorstius c. But now to proceed after this little digression with Interpreters to our Surveyers Instances and Exceptions taken from the Terms in Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 11. We Answer that the exception is palpably absurd For he could not deny that these terms Church and Power are Ordinarly taken in Scripture in another Sense than in these Passages though the circumstances of these Scriptures plead for varrying from that Acceptation But he neither did nor could make it appear that this Term Presbytrie under debate is ever in Scripture taken in this Acceptation nor could he deny that it is taken in our Sense elsewhere So that his Exception touches not the Point And as much ridiculous if not more is that other Exception which he offers to the paralel Passages viz. That Rulers therein signifies Civil Rulers and Rulers who were Enemies to Christ For whatever were the Moral Qualities of the Rulers if the Word signifies a Collegiat Meeting of Rulers it is enough to our purpose and evinceth our Argument from the paralels to be good and valid unless he could evince a contrary Acceptation which he doth not so much as essay He could not deny that the Legal Constitution of one Assembly or Parliament is a far and distinct thing from the Qualities of the Members who consequently come truely under these Denominations upon the ground of a Legal Constitution And supposing our Sense of the Word Presbytrie and the Matter of Fact to be such as we assert he could not without making himself most ridiculous infer from these Paralels that the Members Constituent of this Presbytrie were either Civil Rulers or bad The Surveyer P. 217 218. is bold to call this our Exception against his Sense viz. That the Office hath no Hands to impose a ridiculous Objection flowing from a Mistake of the Meaning of the Text which attributes not the imposed Hands to the Presbytrie as to an Agent or Efficient but only limits and determines that Imposition of Hands which Timothy had from the Apostle or other high Officers of the Church to the particular use and end for which Hands were imposed on him viz. the giving him a Power of a Presbyter or Elder Ans. Here is a strange Exposition obscuring rather than clearing the Text. Had the Apostle no other way of expressing the end of the Ordination and its Nature than by telling him of Hands of the Office laid upon him which in all common Sense doth relate to an Agent or Instrument and not to the Limitation and Use of his Office A Man may thus fasten the most Fantastick Senses upon Scripture Besides he holds that there were eminent high Officers with Paul and concurring with this Imposition of Hands upon Timothy Why then will he strike off their Hands from being here meaned when Imposition of Hands is so expresly mentioned The Surveyer thus further Senseth the Words Neglect not the Gift given thee by the Laying on of Hands not Confirmatory not Reconciliatory but Imposition of Hands Ordinatory whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter Ans. Besides that this Division of Imposition of Hands is as odd as his Sense of the Text it is strange that he admits of Imposition of Hands upon Timothy in order to this end of making him a Minister and yet denyeth the Presbytrie here to import a Collegiat Meeting thus imposing He holds that the Sense is Neglect not the Gift given by the Laying on of the Hands whereby thou was ordained Now pray what hinders these Hands to be the Hands of the Collegiat Meeting imposing the same Whereby the Sense is ours or otherwise in Contradiction to himself he makes the Office the Ordaining Agent If he acknowledge this place paralel with 2 Tim. 1.6 he cannot but see a like Construction in both of the Term of Hands with the Genitive Nor can he deny that the Imposition of Hands is ever constructed with the Office in other Paralels Act. 6.6 and 13.3 He calls our Reason against his Gloss ridiculous but whether his Return be not more ridiculous is left to the Reader to judge We are told for his next Answer That were a Presbytrie here admitted there is nothing in the Context to evince that it was a Classical Presbytrie to which only we ascribe Ordination and not a Congregational or Paroch Presbytrie Ans. Here again the Surveyer is driven to seek shelter among the Independents but is ruined in this Shift For upon his Supposition that a Congregation or one Pastor with Unpreaching Elders is the Subject of an Ordaining Power the Prelatical as well as the Presbyterian Ordination is overthrown The places above referred to and hinted at do abundantly clear and evince the Divine Institution of Classical Presbytries and Collegiat Meetings of Pastors of several Congregations in order to a Ministerial Rule and Jurisdictional Authority over the same and consequently that they are the proper Subject of the Ordaining Power The Treatise above mentioned Ch. 10. besides several others have abundantly evinced this Point that the Fraternity or Community of the Faithful and consequently of the particular single Congregation cannot be the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power nor the Power of Order and â—oth are cleared by a large Account of the one and the other See P. 95 96 97
98. This Surveyer did but ridicule the Scriptures or rather expose himself while pretending to impugn the Presbyterians and answer their Scripture Reasonings for he comes on with his may be this and may be the other Sense the one sense may be striking out and Contradicting the other whereas in the Judgement of all who own the Truth and the Authority of the Scriptures the true sense is but one since otherwise there can be no Truth where there are different and various Senses In his first Answer he will needs have High Officers of the Church as he calls them to concur with the Apostle Paul in Imposing Hands upon Timothy these High Officers he no doubt advances far above the Sphere of Presbyters and Pastors and puts them in the Character of his Magnates or Hierarchical Bishops yet in this second Answer he will needs in a palpable Contradiction to the First croud in all these High Officers into one Congregation yea and positively asserts that there is no evidence in the Text to prove that this Presbytrie was any other than a Paroch-Presbytrie and that it will trouble the Presbyterians to prove the contrary But would it not much more have troubled this Fantastical Dictator with his Linsey-Woolsey party coloured Senses and Comments to prove that these High Officers near to the Apostolick Character were all related to one Congregation and but a Meeting of a Paroch Presbytrie as he speaks His Third answer is taken from collating this Passage with 2 Tim. 1.6 where Paul enjoins Timothy to stir up the Gift that is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the putting on of my Hands as here 1 Tim. 4.14 He saith Grace was given thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie The former place importing his Authority in the Action and the latter the concern and consent of the Meeting of Presbyters with him So that granting a Presbytrie present there is no ordaining power can be hence inferred Ans. We have already made appear that these places Collated do clearly evince a Presbyterial Authority in the Point of Ordination and that since the imposing of Pauls hands in order to the Gifts is clearly distinguished from the imposing of the Hands of the Presbytrie which must needs respect his Ordination and consequently their Authoritative influence thereupon these Texts collated do confirm this Point and further do thus give light unto it that supposing that the Imposition of Pauls hands and the Hands of the Presbytrie were contemporary the Presbyterian Cause is the more strengthened in that the imposing of an Apostles Hands did not swallow up nor exclude the Presbytries Authoritative imposition So that this Authority may be much more now supposed competent to them when the Office of Apostle is gone I must here again Reflect upon it that this our vertumnous Expositor who will needs have in his First Answer several High Officers to concurr with Paul in this Imposition of Hands makes Timothy thereby to receive a Presbyterate only And I pray what needs such High Officers to concur with Paul in order to this end But in this Answer we find ordinary Pastors concurring in the Ordination of this his supposed Presbyter for the Surveyer in collating these Texts insinuats no Officers of a higher Order to have been present except the Apostle Paul And indeed the Passages themselves do only point at the Presbytrie and the Apostle Paul Here also Presbyters are found laying hands upon our Surveyer and his Fellows supposed Hierarchical Prelat set over the Church of Ephesus Next he acknowledges that the mention of imposing of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 with the emphatick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by respects the Gift of GOD in him wherein he seems to distinguish the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Authority and the Gift yet expones this precisely of Pauls Authority in his Ordination exclusive of that of the Presbytrie But so it is that the imposing of Hands in order to Gifts of the Spirit he must needs acknowledge to be of it self distinct from such an Imposition of Hands as is in order to Ordination Yea even some of his own party acknowledge that Hands were twice laid upon Timothy and once by the Presbytrie alone Besides that Passage 1 Tim. 4.14 we find him very confusedly and inconsideratly exponing thus Viz. The Grace given him with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytrie Whereas the Text runs thus neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesie with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie where it is evident the Gift given and the Prophesie are in two distinct Clauses and the laying on of Hands of the Presbytrie is in the third and last and diversified by a distinct Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both from the Gift and from the Prophesie So that it is apparent that this Grace or Gift hath a special Respect to the Prophesie but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie is here set down in a distinct Clause as a distinct Priviledge from the other two and therefore must either import their Authoritative action or doth here signifie nothing especially since as is said the variation of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with doth here import so much and diversifie the one from the other Which baffles his Sense and Exposition that makes the imposing of the Presbytries hands to import no more but a Consent or Concurrence The folly of which Exposition is further evidenced in that 1. This solemn Action of Imposing Hands being in the Scripture Accounts and Sense a badge of Authoritative Blessing must neeeds import much more than a bare Consent or Concurrence for he will not dare to say that all those whose Hearts do concur in praying for the Blessing had right to impose hands upon the Ordained 2. He tells us in the beginning of his Answer that the Presbytrie imposed not hands alone without a Higher Officer joyned with them in the Act. Now I pray what was this Act if not of Ordination Now if the Presbytrie had an Authoritative Concurrence in the Act or rather an influence thereupon as their Act how can he say they did only consent to the thing For upon this ground of a naked consent he could not say that Paul was joined with him in the Act which imports their joint Authoritative Concurrence if this phrase have any Sense and yet notwithstanding of this according to his exposition in the latter part of his Answer the Action was Pauls alone and not theirs and he Confines the Authority of the Action within the compass of the Apostles Imposition solely I only add if the Actions were supposed diverse as severals do hold the Surveyer hath no Shield nor Buckler against such a Weapon which notwithstanding quite baffles this his Answer if admitted His fourth Answer is That since the Name of
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
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
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
Theodtret holding that he was Constitut their Bishop I answer 1. Tho his Episcopal Authority over this Church of Philippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and Assertion of devolving the Apostolick Office upon him but rather proves the contrary it being evident both from the Nature of the Thing it self and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines that these Two Offices are incompatible and inconsistent and it is a greater degrading of the Office of Apostolat as it stands delineat in Scripture to restrict it to any Particular Church than to make the Primat of England Curat of any Parish 2. The Dr. doth grosly mistake this Denomination of Epaphroditus while making it Import his being their Bishop as is obvious to any that Reads the Text and will view Commentators upon the place as might be easily and at large made appear if our intended brevity did permit The Belgick Divines upon the Passage tells us That the Word Apostle signifies one who was Called and sent forth by Christ himself to Preach the Gospel through the whole World meaning in its Strict and Proper acceptation for clearing which they Cite Gal. 1.1 Eph. 4.11 And here the Dr. may observe how they take the Nature and Extent of the Apostolick Office Then they add But here it is taken more largely in General for one who is sent forth by any one to act any Thing in his Name or for him He was by the Philippians sent unto Rome to Paul to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Maintinance Citing Chap. 4.18 Where the Apostle shews that he had Received what was sent by Epaphroditus Which discovers the Folly of the Drs. gloss They add That if it be rendered their Teacher the Word is sometimes taken so in a General Sense for any kind of Teacher Rom. 16.7 Where the Phrase of Note among the Apostles doth import among them who Preached the Gospel here and there paralelling this with that of 2 Cor. 8.23 Where the Phrase of Messengers or Apostles in the Churches is ascribed to other Brethren together with Titus and imports only Messengers and Teachers So That altho the Phrase of your Messenger or Apostle were in this place admitted to import a Pastoral Relation to Philippi it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the Drs. Gloss as East from West Grotius upon the place shews that Graece loquentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant qui sacras pecunias colligebant atque portabant at Diximus ad Math. 10.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dixit Ignatius That the Word Apostle is here taken late or largly and for Honours cause put upon this Person as a Minister only is Asserted by Erasm. Simplicius Vorstius That he is thus called quia missus fuit cum Eleemosyna and that this is Confirmed by the ensuing Clause of Ministring to the Apostles wants has a large Harmony of great Judgments Thus Zanch. Simp. Estius Beza Collating this with 2 Cor. 8.23 For what the Dr. adds ubi supra of Ierem and Theodoret It is easily answered that the Word Apostle ot Bishop is by them used in a General Acceptation as might be cleared from many Passages of the Fathers especially Ierom holding that through the Apostolick times communi Concilio Presbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Thus in his Comment upon Titus where he proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5. And if the Word Apostle in Scripture have this General Acceptation as we have heard why not also in the Writings of the Fathers The Drs Third Instance P. 398 is of Titus and some others whom the Apostle 2 Cor. 8.23 Calls Messengers or in the Greek Apostles of the Churches which the Dr. takes to hold out their Apostolick Authority over the same and will not have the Phrase to Import their Relation to these Churches whose liberality they carried Thereafter he Insists upon the Instance of Titus whose Episcopal Authority over Crete he endeavours to prove from the Epistle written to him To the Instance First in the General I Answer that the Drs. Sense of the Passage Cited is but his own Imagination without the least Shaddow of Ground in the Words or Context especially taking it to Import an Apostolick Authority in his Sense as might be cleared by multiplyed instances if needful We heard that the Pâ—lgick Divines take the Phrase to Import Teachers in a General Sense The Authors of part 2. Pool Annot. Thus Sense the Passage Viz That the Apostle calls Titus his Fellow-helper in the Business of the Gospel for the others he tells them they were such as the Churches thought fit to make their Messengers and had the Credit of the Churches whose Messengers they were since the Churches would not have Instructed them if they had not Judged them Faithful Both which Senses stands clearly cross to that which the Dr. Grounds upon And to discover further the weakness of his Reasoning even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Episcopacy of Titus and these other Messengers over some Churches how doth it prove the Apostles devolving upon them the entire Apostolick Office in the same Nature and Extent as it was committed to the Twelve by our Saviour The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Consequent by Scripture or Divine Reason And this being the Point he is all along undertaking to prove any may see how palpably he mistakes and misses his Mark in these Instances But now to examin the Drs. proof of Titus's Episcopacy these Things I do in general premise which do cut the Sinews of his or any others Arguings for the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy or Titus over these Churches 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely seated in them they were only to go before the Churches in wholesome Counsels in relation to the planting of Ministers not to do as they pleased excluding others as judicious Calvin expresses it Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. since Paul himself neither imposed Hands nor Excommunicat alone in Churches constitut And a whole Colledge of Apostles had the ordinary Elders going along with them in a Synodal Procedure Act. 15. far less could Timothy or Titus assum this Episcopal Preheminence who were inferior to Apostles 2. After the Church of Ephesus was Exedified and Compleated in its Organick Beeing and after Timothy had gotten his Charge as to Ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus in the first Epistle directed to him wherein the Dr. and his Fellows hold him to be instructed with Episcopal Authority Paul committed the whole Episcopal Power and Charge to the Elders before Timothy's Face in his last Farewel to that Church calling these Elders the Bishops and enjoyning them the Exercise of their Authority as appointed by the Holy Ghost and this without the least Hint of any Inspection or Authority that Timothy had over them hereanent or of any relation they had to him in this Matter thus Act. 20. And
Episcopal Authority in this Matter among Churches Constitut in their Organick Beeing In the 4 th place the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power to Reform and Correct drawn from this Passage doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection For 1. The Apostles themselves arrogat no absolut or supreme Power Paul disowns a Dominion and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him 1 Cor. 4.1 2 Cor. 1.24 I had alwise thought that in the Judgment of all Protestants yea of all Men of Sense who ever read the Scriptures there is none hath a supreme Iudgment or absolut Power over the Church of God but He who is the Churches Head and Husband there being but one Lord and all Ministers being Brethren one Master of the House of God who hath Dominion over the Ordinances under whom even Apostles are but Stewards and Servants which I suppose none if not this Dr. will deny 2. It s strang that in reading this Passage the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words viz As I had appointed thee which doth very clearly suppose and import both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus and his restricting him to his Rules and authorizing Information in this Matter And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein and absolut Power will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat In a word this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus is disowned by all sound Interpreters as might be easily made appear And in special the Belgick Divines tells us upon this Passage That Titus was not to perform this by his own Authority and good Pleasure only as the Dr. holds but according to the Order which the Apostle prescribed and did observe himself paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14 where it appears that the Elders concurred with Paul in Timothy's Ordination And this last Clause of the Verse they render As I commanded thee The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority is P. 399 That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete left by the Apostle before Titus was left there who yet had no power to Ordain else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry Therefore this power of Ordination was competent to Titus only not to Presbyters especially since it is extended not only to Ordination of Elders but also to Rebuking with Authority to the Correction of Offenders with the Rod of Excommunication chap. 2.15 To Admonish Hereticks and to Reject them from Communion of the Church if obstinat chap. 3.10 From all which the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches planted by them I Answer 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question and argue ex ignoratione elenchi and this one point being but supposed That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary and we may justly suppose it having above made it good this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination we have told him That it is a Presbyterian Act competent to mere Presbyters And therefore neither Timothy nor Titus could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures supposed in these Directions I answer That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative For either it is meant of a private Rebuke and this every Christian hath Authority in thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour and not suffer Sin upon him Levit. 19.17 or of a Ministerial Rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the Word Isa. 58.1 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Tit. 1.13 2 Sam. 12.7 And besides Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power Prophets Rebuked but had no Jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter tho he reproved him Moreover we find the Authority to receive Accusations and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures competent to the Juridical Courts and Church Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 5. Gal. 6.1 2. 1 Thess. 5.12 In which places a judicial Rebuke and Admonition is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors not to one Prelat not uni but unitati 3. As for the Drs. Notion of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church who had no power of Ordination else this Prescription which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain had been fruitless and an Invasion of their Power in the Drs. Judgment I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection For 1. Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices Pauls instructing Titus and his Authority in Ordination thereupon was a power and Authority Cumulative unto but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing and ordinary Authority herein It being certain that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists as is above described could not bevoided whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches these extraordinary Officers had still their Authority and Inspection vigent I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church will he own the consequence that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein as Bishop Surely not And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced 2. Elders once ordained its true have power to ordain Elders yet the bene esse did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists and their interposed Authority in that infant-state of the Church wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules in reference to Government were to be delivered to the Churches and practised accordingly And in a word the Dr. neither hath nor can prove that Titus did ordain here alone or solely perform any other authoritative Act where Elders were present and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines Judicious Calvin upon the place will tell him That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture And we may retort upon the Dr. thus If neither Apostles nor Evangelists extraordinary and highly gifted Officers did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships or juridical Courts of Pastors much less ought any ordinary Church Officer arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ and Judicatories of His Church when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of
according to Truth he doth consequently assert the Drs pleading for the Bishops as succeedanous Apostles and as holding and having derived unto them their entire Office to be not according to Truth So that he did not well to raise this Ghost As for the Storie or Fable of the Prince of Edessa which the Dr. next presents out of Eusebius to whom he tells us that Thaddeus was sent by St. Thomas and called an Apostle by Eusebius His Denomination as it is of it self of no weight to prove the Drs assertion as is clear in the like instances So this is so generally acknowledged to be a Fable and Eusebius thereupon so Censured by Judicious Divines that the Doctor hath been far to seek for his proofs when catching up so pityful stuff as this And thus we proceed to the Drs next Proofs CHAP. III. The Dr's Third Argument considered taken from an alledged punctual conformity of the Primitive Church to Christs Institution and the Apostolick Practice in Point of Episcopacy THE Dr's Third great Proof for the Divine Right of Episcopacy isâ—drawn from the punctual and universal Conformity as he calls it of the Primitive Church to this supposed Institution of our Saviour and the Practice of the Holy Apostles in this Matter But if the Dr's Proof of a Conformity be no better than his Proof of this supposed Institution and Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles and amount to no more than what he has made appear upon these Points we need not fear his Proof However before I engage the Dr. upon this head and examin his Proofs there are two things I would premise as that which the Dr. is obliged to prove 1. That the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature as Institut by our Saviour and for its proper ends exprest in Scripture was transmitted by the Apostles unto the Church as a standing Office to continue till the end of Time And 2 That the Primitive Church and in an Universal consent and Practice did homologat this Institution and Embrace the same And when the Dr. hath proved both these erit mihi magnus Apollo and will far outstrip his Fellows whoever have pleaded in this Cause And if he fall short of his proof of either or both he losses his labour Before the Dr. come directly to his Proof he moves an Objection That our Saviour did Institut the Superior Order of Twelve Apostles to preside over the rest of the Church Officers yet with an extraordinary Commission which he did not intend they should derive down to the Church as a Perpetual Model of Government but was limited to the persons of the Apostles and to expire with them That the formal Office of Apostolat in its Nature and ends as delineat in Scripture did expire with the Apostles themselves is the consentient judgment of Protestant Divines The Dr. says this is an Objection of Adversaries and indeed if he account such his Adversaries as assert this he has entered the Lists with a strong party who probably will prove too hard for him Well What is his Answer to this Objection He Tells us That this Office was not Limited to the Persons of Apostles since he has proved that they derived it to others which had it been appropriat to their Persons they could not have done without violating their Trust and exceeding the bounds of their Commission How the Dr. hath proved the derivation of the Apostolat by the Persons of the Apostles to other Succeeding Apostles we have seen above and do refer the Reader to the premised discoveries of the utter insufficiency of his Proof this way And indeed the derivation of the Apostolat to Successors could not have been done without violating their Trust and exceeding the limits of their Commission Their Commission being to Disciple and Teach all Nations to found the Gospel Church and Plant the Gospel Ordinances therein and that with an infallible directive Power as living Oracles and immediat Ambassadors of the King of Saints So that the attempting to Substitut Successors in this work and Office had been both an unfaithful over-stretch of their Commission as contrar to its Nature and end and an endeavouring of that which was impossible unless he will say that the Work of laying the Churches Foundation and delivering our Lords mind as to the Doctrin Worship Disciplin and Government thereof is a work that could be twice done Which as it repugns to the common sense of all men so to the many Precepts delivered to the Churches anent holding fast the received Ordinances and contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints and building upon that Holy Faith and Foundation laid by the Apostles Nay further it doth evidently appear that the Apostles exercising themselves and deriving to others such an Episcopal Primacy as the Dr pleads for had been a gross impeachment of their Faithfulness in the Execution of their Trust. 1. In their exercising and transmitting a Power in its very Nature distinct from what our Lord allowed and enjoyned them Viz. A Lordly Dominion not a Ministerial Service and Stewardship only which as we have heard the Apostle Paul disown the one and assert the other so we find the express and personal Prescription of our Blessed Lord in point of this Nature of their Power The Dr. will not disown that the Prelats he pleads for and as he pretends exemplified in the Apostolick Office have both the Name and thing of a Lordly Dominion yea and that not in Spirituals only in which respect they own the Designation and Character of Spiritual Lords but likewise a Lordship and Peerage in Civil Government and such a Dominion as Princes of the Gentiles exercise And that our Blessed Lord did expresly Discharg this to his Apostles As also that the Apostle Peter in his Masters Name discharges a Lording over Gods Heritage or Church or the Clâ—rgey as the Greek word with some will sound I suppose the Dr. will not deny or if he do the Proof is very easie and evident 2. Had the Apostles exercised or derived to Successors such an Episcopacy as the Dr. pleads for they should have unfaithfully in their own persons straitned the Apostolick inspection and carryed an Office incompatible with it unless the Dr. will undertake to reconcile contradictions he cannot deny this For as Apostles their Ministry was of an unfixed indefinit Universal Nature As Prelats they behoved to be fixed to such and such Posts so that thus they should have unfaithfully torn out a part of their Commission in exercising an ordinary Ministry in particular Diocesses whereas their Commission was to exercise an extraordinary unfixed Ministry towards all the Churches planted and to be planted Again in transmitting such a Prelacy to others their practice should have contradicted their Prescriptions in Point of Church Government and the Offices and Officers thereof wherein there is not the least Intimation of such an Officer nor any Rules given for either the Qualifications 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
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
Cor. 3. Whittaker also will tell the Dr. that this was a Remedy worse than the disease The Dr. adds to confirm his Sense of Jerom's Words that Jerom in his Book De Eccles. Script shews that after the Lord's Ascension James was Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Jerusalem Timothy by Paul Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Polycarp of Smyrna So that he must either mean an Apostolick Decree or else he must contradict himself Ans. Not to detain the Dr. to prove this Book to be Jerom's which some hold to be spurious this is easily removed by what we have above offered and even from Whittaker of the Fathers general improper ambiguous Speech of Bishops and their various use of this epithet terming such Persons who did for some time Officiat in a place whether extraordinary Officers or ordinary the Bishops thereof after the Denomination and custom which had then obtained whereof instances have been above exhibited Jerom speaking of the Alexandrian Succession says the Presbyters chused out one to preside a Marco Evangelista and terming Mark thus not meerly upon the account of his being a Writer of the Gospel which is the strictest acceptation but in the Judgment of those best acquaint with his Writings an Evangelist as a transient unfixed Preacher of the Gospel he must needs account Timothy and Titus of the same Office And therefore not Bishops in a formal Sense nor set up in such a manner and for such an end which were Cross to their Office as I have above made good Besides that it seems odd and inconsistent with common Sense that immediatly after the Lords Ascension such Persons were set up in the Office and Character specified and cross to this whole Testimony of Jerom For thus there could be no time for Presbyters governing by common counsel nor the Schism to grow up thereupon both which Jerom's Testimonies does suppose in distinct Periods of time as we heard Iunius observe So that the Dr. speaks very bluntly and inconsideratly when he tells us That either Ierom must mean a Decree Apostolick immediatly after our Lord's Ascension or else expresly contradict himself This Alternative of the Dr's I say is pityful inadvertency For should Ierom speak of such an Apostolick Decree as he imputes to him he must needs directly contradict himself in Asserting the Churches Government to have been for a time communi consilio Presbyterorum And a Schism growing thereupon For in the Dr's Sense there was never such a Government or an occasion of Schism existent Besides That this Gloss of the Dr's makes Ierom say that the Apostles changed the Divine appointment to make way for an human form For Jerom holds the Government by common Council of Presbyters to be founded upon Divine Institution and that which Succeeded upon human Custom only The Dr. therefore and all else who would accord Jerom's Testimony with what he here Cites must understand his words in the sense I have offered which as is said is the Sense and Judgment of famous Protestant Divines The Dr's Fifth exception is That had this change of the Government from Presbyterian to Episcopal been in very deed it must either have been made by the Apostles or thereafter If we say by the Apostles its strange there is no mention of it in Scripture But to this the Answer is easie and ready that we own no such Sense of Jerom's words nor can they admit the same as I have already made good Well but the Dr. pushes us with the other horn of his Dilemma viz. That if we say it was made after the Apostles or about the year 140 how comes it that such a Decree relative to an Universal Change of the Government from one kind to another is not mentioned in Ecclesiastick Antiquity There being no such Decree heard of and Clemens Ignatius Hegesippus Irenaeus Dionysius of Corinth who lived in that Period are so far from taking notice of this that they maintain the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles I answer this other push and Horn of the Dr's Dilemma is as far from harming us as the other For it is grounded upon the Dr's own groundless fancie and distorted Sense of Jerom's words as if by toto orbe decretum he had meant a formal general Decree of a Council Which phantastick conceit several Learned Divines have refuted from the Tenor and Scope of Jerom's words Jerom says prospiciente Concilio toto orbe decretum not in any formed Council either in the Apostles time or afterward but he means when through the World it was said among the People I am of Paul c. postquam alii Corinthiorum more Dementati in partes discerptae sunt as Blondel expresses and expounds it it was Decreed among the People or in and among particular Churches through the whole World Decreed through the whole World is all one with by the whole World which is distributively to be taken Jerom's words evince this For the Council's Decree representing the whole World would have been all at once but Jerom says this change came not in simul semel but paulatim by degrees and that the after Prostasie came in Consuetudine or by custom which points at a gradual comming in Thus we have seen the Dr's fancied absurdity evanish I might add that the Churches speedy defection from the Apostolick Purity and Institutions in point of Government will not appear strange to any who considers Scripture Instances of as great and more speedy Defections Witness that of Israel's worshiping the Golden Calf so shortly after the Promulgation of the Law And the early workings of the Mysterie of iniquity in the New Testament Church and affectation of Episcopal Primacy in the Apostle John's time c. Of which already For what he adds of the Testimonies of Authors as to the Succession of Bishops from Apostles at Rome Jerusalem c. we have already discovered fully what a mean and chattered proof this is and that the pretended Succession is lyable to unanswerable exceptions and terminating in Apostles or Evangelists whose Office is extraordinary and expired the fabulous vanity thereof is in this convincingly apparent The Dr. tells us That Irenaeus while at Rome might as well know Peters Successors there as we may know who succeeded Bishop Whitgift in the Chair of Canterbury he being no further distant from the one than we from the other But truly were there no greater Certainty of the one than of the other I should confidently Challenge that Matter of Fact as Fabulous And had that Chair had no other Successors of Whitgift than the first Pastors or Bishops of Rome it had been an empty Chair And were there as great Uncertainty of an Arch-Bishop Whitgift at Canterbury and as many famous Contradictors of this Matter of Fact and of his Successors as in this case of Rome the Succession would merit no Mans Belief For the Dr's Assertion of the Clearness of Ierusalem and Romes Successions
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
Divines For further clearing this let us hear the Belgick Divines upon the Text To the Angel i. e. to the Overseer Inspector or Pastor of the Church This is set down here in the Singular Number either in regard of their whole Colledg as Mal. 2.7 Under the Name of Angel in the Singular the whole Colledg of Priests was to be understood or because that some one had the Presidency among them in Order by whom it was to be communicat to the rest as appears by Act. 20.17 28. That there were more Elders or Overseers in this Church of Ephesus whom Paul charges in his last Farewel to take heed to themselves and to the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers for to Feed the Flock So that it is groundless from hence to inferr an Episcopal Authority of one person above the rest For the verry matter it self written here to the Angel of the Church is Written for a warning to the whole Church as appears by v. 7. here and above Chap. 1.11 The English Divines the Authors of Part Second Annot. going under the Name of Pool thus sense that Passage Rev. 2.1 To the Angel it appears from Act. 20.17 That there were more Ministers there than one but they were all Angels and from the oneness of their business they are called one Angel And upon Chap. 1.20 they tell us That certain it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than is commmon to all Ministers viz. to be Gods Messengers and move upon his errands That we are to understand here the Doctors Pastors and Ministers of the Church is the sense and Judgment of Cluverus Dr. Lightfoot Cluverus takes notice that the Change of the Number v. 10.19 Argues that the Epistle is not directed to one Person And Dr. Lightfoot shews that this Tittle is with allusion to that of the Minister of the Synagogue whose Office was publickly to read and expound the Prophets unto the People as these Ministers were to Read these Epistles in the publick Congregation Thus also Piscator understands the whole Pastors of the Church From whence and from many others which might be added it is evident 1. That the collective Sense of the word Angel is Judged by them consonant to Scripture and to the Scope of the Epistles 2 ly That even supposing some speciality in the Address to one person this doth import a simple Presidency only especially in the sense of the Belgick Divines and that they do intirely join with us in the Grounds we have offered against the Dr's supposition of an Hierarchical Bishop and particularly from this that the Angel is sometimes addressed in the Plural That Ground which the Belgick Divines and others insist upon taken from the Matter of the Epistles is important and that our Lord addresses to all the Angels of the Church as concerning them Rev. 1.11 Write saith he to the Churches of Ephesus Smyrna c. And at the close of every Epistle Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches And therefore when it is said I know thy Works c. this thou hast c. We must understand the whole Company of Ministers and the whole Church because the punishment or reward is proposed to the whole And the Dr. will not say that for the sin of one Bishop the Gospel is to be removed when other Ministers and the Church it self is free from his evils The Dr. alledges That the Angel is alwise addrest in the singular number And to that which is adduced to prove his being addrest in the Plural he Answers That in these Passages he writes not only to the Bishops personally but to the People under their Government and inspection so he understands that of Chap. 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison paralelling it with v. 13. Antipas slain among you and v. 23. And all the Churches shall know c. But first not to stand upon the Drs. begging the Question in a supposition cross to his scope the paralells are not every way alike When the Lord says all the Churches and slain among you c. the Scope and Mould of these expressions makes it evident that both Ministers and People are spoken of But when immediatly after addressing the Angel in the Singular he adds the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison changing the Singular Angel into a Plural it appears that the Ministers are more directly included as the adduced paralel 1 Tim. 2.15 Discovers But not to insist upon this In the next place the folly and inconsistency of his gloss and discourse in this Answer is several ways apparent For First He will have these Passages I know thy works I have some what against thee c. addrest Singlely to the Angel From the singularity of which Adress he collects the Bishop's single and absolute Authority over these Churches But I pray what Sense will the Dr. make of this Will he say our Lord knew the Works only of one single Bishop of no Ministers else That one Bishop Laboured at Ephesus none else That one Bishop at Ephesus fell from his first Love no Church Officers else A pityful imputation the Dr. puts thus upon Timothy the supposed Bishop of Ephesus in staging him as the only Apostat of the Church The same may be applyed to his other Instances I have a few things against thee Viz one Bishop no Ministers else Remember whence thou art fallen viz. The Bishop fallen only none else Repent and do thy First Works this only addrest to the Bishop none else concerned in this Duty but his Lordship If he say that these things are spoken to the Bishop as chiefly concerned and interested Then besides his begging the Question he losses his Plea and quite ruins all his Pleading from a supposed singularity of the Address to conclud the singularity of the person Addressed And thus including Ministers as concerned and interested in the prescriptions in point of Government he cuts the Wind-Pipe of his grand Topick and notion here But Secondly we see when he is forc't to acknowledg from the Plural Mould of the Address that more than the Bishop are spoken to he gives us a fair acknowledgment in these terms That the Bishops are not only written to Personally but also the People under their Government and inspection But I pray why not also Ministers and Pastors also bespoken as well as the People The Dr. asserting That both Clergy and Laity are under the Bishop's inspection Aâ—d it being supposible that in these Churches especially at Ephesus there was at this time a Colledge of Pastors How come the Dr. when he supposes the Address to overstretch the person of the Bishop and to includ more to assert That it reaches the People only and not to the Pastors also This I must confess is odd Sense in Divinity in these great Evangelistick Precepts and Reprensions the Lord Addresses not solely the Bishop
but the People under him yet not one word to Pastors I had thought that the Clergy and Laity being distinguished by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other in his Sense under the Bishops Government and inspection when he makes the Plural Address to go beyond the Bishop he would have cast an Eye upon the under-Clergy or Ministry before the People as concerned before them in these important duties or supposed Transgressions But we may easily discover the knack of the Dr's policy in this For Pleading in his Second Argument That an Authority in reference to Church Government is clearly imported in several of these directions or reprehensions particularly those addressed to the Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira in reference to Juridical Tryal conviction and Censures He was afraid least by this means he should have opened a door for Ministers claim to the Bishop's incommunicable prerogatives had he extended the plural Address to them as well as to the People Thirdly The Dr. having told us That in such plural Addresses the people under the Bishop's Government are included gives for instance that Passage Rev. 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison I should verrily think he was here concerned to specifie the Clergy and Laity and include both For it seems in his Sense all the Pastors were safe from the Thunder-clap of this warning I know not by what shield except that of the Drs. fancy and there were no prisons there for Pastors this being only spoke to the People This charge of gross folly upon his Mould of Reasoning and it is gross enough at all will is the more evident in that Answer to the Objection taken from that phrase Chap. 2.25 unto you and unto the rest in Thyatira from which passage we plead for a plural diversifying Ministers and people under distinct Comma's The Dr. will admit it by no means to to be meant of any but the People making the term you and the rest in Thyatria one and the same as distinguishing only the sound from the unsound part in that Church So that it is evident the D appropriats the Plural Phrases to the People only and consequently is exposed to the forementioned absurdities in his way and method of pleading That that Passage Chap. 2.10 doth reach the Pastors is upon several important grounds made good by Mr. Durham upon the place as 1. from the remarkable change of the singular number to the Plural 2 ly That his was a searching tryal to the Church whereof it was her concern to be warned 3 ly That the preservation of Some was as signal a consolation in such a Tryal as Isai. 30.20.21 See others cited by Pool Critic upon the place The Dr. enquires If Angels had not been single Persons why are they not mentioned Plurally as well as the People This Querie confirms what is now imputed to him That they are mentioned Plurally we have already made good in the premised Instances Yea the Dr. himself answers himself acknowledging that there is a Plurality bespoken in the Person of the Angels so that he is not only Personally Addressed But the Dr's strange Fetch is that he will allow a Plurality of the People to be Addrest and spoken to in one singular Bishop or Angel but none of the Pastors at all For which Notion I had almost said Non-sense no imaginable ground can be given but the Dr's good Will to his Hierarchical Bishop whom he would fain shape out of this Scripture which we see so rejects and baffles his Endeavours that instead of any evident ground of Answer from the Text he must needs embrace an Airy Notion of his own Brain Thus to that pregnant Passage Chap. 2.24 which we adduce to prove the Angel to be Addrest Plurally viz. To you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira Where there is a clear Distinction made betwixt the Plural you viz. the Pastors and the rest in Thyatira viz. the People The Dr. has no other Shift but that pitiful one viz. That the Ancient Greek Manuscripts leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Read it To you the rest in Thyatira distinguishing the Seduced from the not Seduced And therefore cannot be meant of the Angel who is always Addrest in the Singular Number But 1. This Shift baffles most of all the old Greek Copies the Reading he embraces being supposed Mantytecla's Manuscript baffles all the Episcopal English Clergy concerned in our last Translation who notwithstanding all their Zeal for Episcopacy as appears in their various and unsound Translation of the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet durst not make this Adventure with the Dr but with the Current of Ancient Copies Read the Text with the Conjunction Notwithstanding that in their Preface to the Reader they assert their Diligence in Searching the Original Text. I need not stand here to recount the large Testimony and Cloud of Witnesses the Body of Protestant Divines Translators and Interpreters all concurring in this our Sense and Reading in Contradiction to the Dr's Conceit and Exception See Paraeus Arethas Ribera Dr. More who expresly taketh the you to import the Pastors Beza c. But 2 ly This Conjecture and Answer is clearly Cross to the Text For 1. The Adversative but in the beginning of v. 24. clearly limits the you here and distinguishes it from the you meant of the People in the close of v. 23. 2. The Conclusion of this verse clears this to Conviction I will put upon you none other burden hold fast Pray by what Logick will the Dr. exclud Ministers and includ the People only in this Plural Phrase Were no Ministers kept unpolluted Or were there some other burdens to be put upon them than what they had already And are they excluded from holding fast ' till Christ come what is received from him and only the People concerned herein as contradistinct from the Bishop Sure I am such absurd Consequeuces might cover with Blushes the Asserters of this Opinion I might add that even granting the Dr the Advantage of this Gloss and leaving out the Conjunction and admitting with Grotius that thus the Sound are distinguished from the Unsound in this Church the Dr. would be pitifully puzzl'd to prove that none of the Clergy as he calls them is in both these Classes and consequently that the Plural Phrase doth not stand for us even in this Discriminating Sense But this we insist not upon To proceed to the Dr's second Proof p. 423. of our Lords Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles viz. That they were Persons of great Authority This he proves from the Title of Angel shewing them to be Persons of Office and Eminency Christ also Directing to them the Epistles to be communicat to their Churches To which he adds another Proof taken from the Authority which is supposed to be exercised by some of these Angels and competent to others He gives Instance of
good of the Church in general so by their own Authority for particular Churches to which they were more particularly related Here is I must say odd and confused stuff First The Dr. supposes that the Decree Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down yea and Scripture Grounds 2 ly The Sentence runs in these terms It seemed good to the Holy Ghost viz. speaking in the Scripture and to us 3 ly Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews apparent in the debate and disquisition the things enjoined are termed necessary things and thus supposed materially such antecedaneously to the Decree Hence 4 ly The Dr. in saying That this Abstinence he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time place and persons was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity expugns from being Laws of Christianity all our Lords Precepts in point of Love and Unity and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones For these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence and ground the necessity thereof in the present Case and exigence Again in the nexplace The great point the Dr. has to prove is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative secluding Pastors This he proves by the Apostles together with the Elders and Brethren their comming together and determining this matter One would think this makes fair to prove the contrary The Apostles here meeting with and taking into the disquisition and Decree and into every step of the procedure the ordinary Ministers and Elders as persons interested and concerned and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed in order to the Churches Obedience Ay but the Dr. tells us That by consent of all Antiquity by these Elders we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt of a like soundness with himself But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders he must Esteem them Bishops where ever mentioned and deny the existence of any Pastors the true Scripture Bishops at this time wherein our Dr. will and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond For to omit other instances he holds the Elders present with Iames when Paul went into him to be Pastors over which Iames as Bishop of Ierusalem did preside 2 ly None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable For in the context it is evident that at this time the Apostles were but founding and gathering Churches in Iudea settling Churches therein and taking inspection of them by their Apostolick Authority And therefore it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea and of such a bulk and number as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them yea and Diocesan Bishops of so considerable a Number as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time and in this meeting yea and these besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors which this Man will not deny the Apostles to have ordained where Churches were planted Again why I pray the Bishops of Judea only gathered here in order to this general Decree for all the Churches and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches which he will say were by this time set up Besides that looking to the occasion of this debate anent the Circumcision which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea as from the Apostles and thus troubled the Churches the design of the Gentiles appears evidently to be to send Paul to the Apostles and Elders residing at Jerusalem without the least hint of any more enlarged Advertisement of others than such as were there at that time Again the Dr. says That Apostles and Primitive Bishops made general Laws for the whole Church and Bishops particular Laws for their particular Churches Thus saith he Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians for more decent communication of the Lords Supper Strong reasoning indeed and hanging well together First he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority the general Rules for the whole Church as proper to them with concurrence of ordinary Bishops the ordering of particular Churches being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops And presently to prove this he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles into the class of Ordinary Bishops in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth and wisely supposes that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating concerned only this Church of Corinth and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority nor by the Apostle Paul as in that capacity To this scope the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons to the Churches of Galatia contradicting therein the Relation of these Canons to particular Churches since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Of the same nature is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 5.7 Tit. 1.5 touching the redressing disorders and supplying defects in these Churches For besides that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists extraordinary Officers as Paul himself which clearly excludes Director and Directed from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny several of these directions at least to have been of universal concern and necessity and in this respect also as remote from his Design The Dr. adds That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors That Apostles and Evangelists exercised a Lawful Authority is indeed very sure and no less sure than the Dr's Argument here is loose and unsure from Apostolical directions to Evangelists to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats in reference to making Laws as is above evinced since the Dr. cannot shape out nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop to have been allowed suffrage in any of the First Four General Councils yet immediatly after some way retracting and correcting himself he allows them a place in General Councils but tell us it was only for debate and preparing the Matter of Laws but the form of Laws he says proceeded from the Bishops suffrage This is pretty First The Dr. will never prove that in the First Councils there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould Next its strange that in Councils Presbyters were sitting for
Heresie and were to be Received in the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius Cyprian tells us Epist. 6. compared with 46. they came before the Presbytrie and Confessing their Sins were Received Now if Presbyters had such Authority and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature and thus Limited let any Judg how the Dr's Assertion can subsist viz That in Judicatories Pastors had no decisive suffrage For the Dr's after-discourse P. 436. anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power as he calls it I shall not it being some what out of our way much digress in examining the same tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions yea and hardly reconcilable with it self or sound sense and Divinity The Dr. holds That the Churches Legislative Power cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees And yet holds That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws Now the Dr. will not say that the Churches Legislative Power is not founded upon and Authorised by Gods Laws nay he positively asserts that it is He adds That next to the Laws of God the Soveraigns Laws are to be obeyed And thus makes the Law of God the overruling Law the Regula Regulans and paramount to those of the Soveraign And therefore by good consequence from this Assertion the Churches Legislative Power in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto and first obeyed Especially if he stand to that instance of his Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws wherein the enacted Canon and Decree is said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost and thus a Divine Law the Authority of God being thereto interponed Yet in the very next Words he lays down this Assertion That next to the Laws of the Soveraign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed And so here these Civil Laws are set in an higher Sphere and made Paramount to all Church Laws and this without any exception or Limitation whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law in the Laws of the Church The person who will reconcile and soudder these must in my apprehension be better skill'd than all Vulcan's Gimmerers and no doubt better seen in logical Rules and subtilties than I. So much for the Dr's First Prerogative of a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter in the Power Legislative and of making Canons The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters the Dr. tells us is To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices Thereafter the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles as the Father sent him including a Power of Ordination of others which he Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36 Mark 16.14 Matth. 28.16 Which Commission he tells us was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order So that Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of these First Apostles or by such Secondary Apostles as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders and these Secondary Apostles were the same with Bishops Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already in Answer to this There 's no doubt but our Lord gave a Power of Mission and of Ordaining Ministers to His Twelve Apostles A Power to Plant Churches through the World and a Gospel Ministry and Ordinances in them But that by vertue of this their Mission they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority to ordinary Succeeding Officers is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quaesitum or Question which the Dr. still beggs and supposes but will never be able to prove from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers whom they Ordained as we have above evinced The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant he tells us That tho the whole Disciples were present the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons Act. 6. And why not The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers not to the People but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here who had solely this Power tho Ministers were present The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch Iconium and Lystra A mighty proof The Apostles in planting Churches ordained Ministers in them Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining derived to them solely as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors This Consequence is denyed If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors it should seem they had an Ordaining Power else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame and lame posture and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops with Power of Ordination set up by the Apostles since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors And if he deny it he is liable also to the same absurdity and that mentioned above and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre upon these Pastors or Elders and make them Bishops in his Sense it is very odd that among these little new gathered Churches such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up before any Pastors for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters Or if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof to ly in this that these Officers were Ordained by Apostles solely he should know that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles in Churches not yet Constitut not competent to Ordinary Officers so his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles as he calls them as sole and singular in Ordination But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch Act. 13.1 2. To which he makes this Return That these Prophets and Teachers had no doubt received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria For otherwise saith he how could they have derived it And this Notion the Dr. reposes such Confidence in that he tells us There is no doubt but they had this Character But truly whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection or of the Return here made unto it be greater is a Question to me First That Paul and Barnabas were at this time and in this Action ordained Apostles of the Gentiles I believe few if ever any except the Dr did imagin I had always thought that it is evident to any who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion and Call to the Apostleship by the Lord from Heaven that when
Scandals as also the proper Subject of the Keyes and Iurisdictional Power and of that Power in special which is called Critick The Dr. holds That Christ here established a Iurisdiction in the Church he also acknowledges That the Church here meant hath Power of Authoritative Admonition and the Binding and Loosing Power since he holds it to be the same with that Binding and Loosing Authority which our Lord promises to Ratifie in Heaven Iohn 20.23 Matth. 16.19 He understands by this Jurisdiction this Authority and Exercise of the Keyes pointed at in these Paralells Nay he acknowledges P. 443. That in the Forecited Passage Matth. 18. our Lord institut the Power of Censuring And I need not tell him that Words of Institution of any Ordinance are the proper Standart and Measure thereof and the Pattern shewed upon the Mount Now what is meant by the Church the proper Subject of the Keyes in the Dr's Sense and Pleading is the Question The Dr. will not say it is the Political Magistrat as some have alledged for he holds That our Lord spoke this to his Church as a distinct Society and having distinct Officers from the Kingdoms of the World And whereas some have alledged that we are to understand this Church of a Iewish Sanehedrin the Dr in the whole Strain and Scope of his Discourse disownes this for he asserts That in this Text our Lord is speaking to the Christian Church and establishing a Spiritual Jurisdiction therein Neither can he understand by the Church the whole Collective Body according to the general Notion of the Word for the Dr in the Strain of his Discourse makes this Power and Authority peculiar and proper to Church Officers as is evident in his Paralells above-rehearsed and the Church Representative to be the proper Subject of that Jurisdictional Power here enjoyned Now all this being evident in his own Pleading since the proper Subject of this Power is by our Lord exprest who knew best how to express it by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church I would fain know by what Warrand the Dr. can can make this Term peculiar to one single Person viz. a Bishop so as it must be holden to express his sole Prerogative Or where will he shew or make it appear that in any Greek Author Sacred or Prophane the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes one single Person If he say that by the Church the Community of Church Rulers or Bishops is to be understood viz. that all Bishops in common and every Bishop apart hath this Power and Authority I Answer this understood of Scripture Bishops or Church Officers in general and of such Church Officers of particular Collegiat Churches is easily accorded But if he mean of his Hierarchical Bishops in Bulk and of every one of such a part he both Beggs the Question and Crosses the Scope of the Place For 1. Howsoever we take the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church whether for the Church Universal to whom Officers and a Government is given immediatly or for particular Churches to whom in a mediat Sense the same Government and Charge is given we must of necessity understand it to be given to such parts of this whole as do come under the Denomination and partake of the Nature of a Church and according to the Dr's Sense above-evinced an Imbodied Society or Juridical Court must in that Statute be understood which can never be applicable to a single Person And besides this would invert our Lords Method of Procedure and the Gradation here held out and enjoyned which is as the Dr. himself acknowledges from one to two or more and the last Result and ultimat Appeal is to the Church or the Imbodied Court of Officers with whom the Jurisdictional and Critical Power is lodged 2 ly Granting that this Jurisdictional Power in Order to the first Planting of Churches was for this end at first lodged with the Apostles yet the fore-mentioned great Rule and Fundamental Law as above Sensed and in a great Measure by the Dr. himself will still evince that the Apostles were not to Exercise it to the prejudice of the Authority given thereby to the standing Officers and ordinary Authorized Courts of the Christian Church unless they can be supposed to have had a Power Paramount thereunto For wherever a Christian Organick Chuch was gathered by vertue of this Precept tell the Church the Scandals were to be delated to the Officers thereof who consequently according to the Nature and Tenor of the foresaid Law are supposed to have the Binding and Loosing Power whatever Apostolical Authority might reach in Churches not Constitut or in way of Apostolical Direction to Churches Constitut as in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian yet this was not Privative of but Cumulative to the ordinary Power of Collegiat Organick Churches as is often told him I might further urge the Dr. with this that that Passage Iohn 20.23 cannot but be extended to a Doctrinal as well as Iurisdictional Remitting or Retaining Binding or Loosing the Doctrinal Key as well as Jurisdictional being Primarly given to Apostles to be by them derived to Successors Our Lord in his Gift to Apostles divided them not And therefore neither were the Apostles to divide them in Devolving this Power upon and Committing this Authority to Successors And since the Dr. acknowledges that the Apostles by virtue of our Lords Commission Devolved upon Pastors the Doctrinal Authority and Committed to them that Key thus P. 427 428. why not I pray the Jurisdictional also both being inseparably tyed together Nay the Dr. himself upon the Matter yields this for he tells us ubi supra That the Command Go Teach all Nations Math. 28.19 did reach Pastors as the Apostles Successors in this Ministerial Duty and that Preaching was one of the principal Imployments belonging to the Apostolical Office And if the Apostles were to commit to Pastors one principal part of their Office why not also the less principal Besides that the Command Go Teach or Disciple all Nations will clearly includ the Jurisdictional as well as Doctrinal Key The Dr. adds ibid. That yet this Command of Preaching was not restrained to their Office since inferior Officers Preacht as the seventy Yet he adds That none Preacht but either by immediat Commission from Christ or Apostolical Ordination But I pray were any in his Sense otherwise allowed to exercise Disciplin but in this method Why will not the Dr. allow the exercise of Disciplin to the Seventy and such a Mission of Rulers consequently For Timothy whom together with the Seventy he probably Judges to have held an Evangelistick Office he pleads had Authority both to Teach and Rule And the Teachers Act. 13. he holds to be Bishops So that in his Sense Government being annexed in these instances thereunto the Lord did extraordinarly call in these times of the Church some persons who were not Apostles Therefore his Reason is insufficient to prove that the
Power of Government and Preaching being Eminenter contained in the Apostolick Office they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such to whom the Preaching work was intrusted Once more to reflect upon the Passage tell the Church we will find our Sense and Pleading correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae is coram multis inquit liber Musar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many 2 Cor. 2.6 and the rebuke may be before all 1 Tim. 5.20 And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him So Grotius who shews us that it was the practice among the Jews after the more privat admonition to bring the Matter to the Multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Court of Judges who have the Power of binding and loosing as distinct from the multitude Thus Camero Simmachus Beza To the Presbytrie representing the Church whereof mention is made 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator Beza Camero And these whom Paul cal's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2.6 But to proceed with the Dr he tells us next That none but such as are of the Aopostolick Order can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power since it was First lodged in the Apostles and by them immediatly exercised or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicat their Authority and Order But one should think that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office as they did to Pastors by the Dr's Confession to such they did commit their Order in so far as unto ordinary succeeding Officers and that together with this the other subservient part of Ruling was also committed both Keyes being in their Nature as above hinted so inseparably connected And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors without the Second Nay the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus are entrusted by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to Feed and Rule as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost over that Church which command is by the Apostle laid upon them when taking his last farewell of the same and not a word is dropt by the Apostle of either the one or the other to Timothy their alledged Bishop The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders as their Fellow-Elder to Feed and Rule and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks A clear Demonstration compared with the preceeding Instances that these Elders and Ministers were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors in both Offices of Teaching and Ruling So that the Dr. may here see in this Scripture-Glass the Portraiture the clear Image of the Scripture Bishop and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters Shall I add a Caution and acknowledg to the Dr they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords because in these simple times of Christianity the Apostles themselves were rude and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships in the House of God But least the Dr do think this odd that I do hold the Work of Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments an higher Point of Episcopal Authority than Ruling at least if I may add only Ruling which he knows the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely not medling much with the first and that I hold the Governing Power to be appendant upon and consequent unto the Power of Order in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant I must tell him that if this be an Errour A great one has led me into it and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops who I am sure had a Divine Authority for his Office and an Infallibility in Teaching besides It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles who gives to Timothy this Precept The Elders that Rule well count them worthy of double Honour especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin wherein it is evident the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin the higher Honour above Ruling yea and Ruling well But to prove that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he as present in Spirit had Judged i. e. saith the Dr pronunced Sentence concerning him who had done that Deed And v. 4 5. he orders them to declare and and execute his Sentence But that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading is several ways evident For 1. The Apostle blames this Church that this Sentence was not passed before and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment in performing their Duty Antecedaneously thereunto It is evident he checks them that this Person was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure of such a Nature as is here intimat put away and taken from among them v. 2. 2 ly He writes to them to do it and this as an Act of their ordinary Authority proper to them as Church Officers viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan and that when by the Authority of our Lord they were mett together the Body of Professoâ—s being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection And therefore they were not to meet merely to Declare or Witness what the Apostle had done before 3 ly He thus expostulats v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within A convincing Proof that they had Power to Censure all that were within that Church by an Intrinsick Authority proper to them as Officers thereof 4 ly He calls this Act or Sentence 2 Cor. 2.6 A Censure or Punishment inflicted of many viz. the Church Officers not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit as to make one and the same the Declaration of a Sentence passed by another and the formal Passing of a Sentence or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment which if done warrantably as is here supposed doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting Inflicted of many says the Apostle i. e. Not by all the Multitude as Independents Judge nor by one Person or Bishop as the Dr. Dreams As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable to be his Pronuncing Sentence it is a very gross Distortion For Paul as an Apostle infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority and in special as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him 2 Cor. 11.28 had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches And therefore if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority he draws upon
himself two gross Absurdities 1. That Paul had and Exemplified a standing lawful Episcopal Authority wherever such Prescriptions were exercised and to whomsoever they could reach And this Reaching over all Churches his Care being thus extended as is above cleared the Dr. makes him a standing Primat and Patriarch over them Exemplifying a sort of Patriarchal Primacy to be Transmitted in the Church 2 ly That his Apostolick Prescription of the Duties of Church Officers was not Cumulative unto but Privative of whatever Authority and Interest in Government they might acclaim or in the Exercise of the Power of Order And thus suppose the Bishop of the Dr's Mould set over the Church of Corinth had neglected his Duty as these Officers are here found faulty in this point Pauls Apostolick Direction in the Dr's Sense and Pleading nullifies his Power and proves he had none Or supposing an Archippus or negligent Minister had needed his Apostolical Direction to perform such Acts of the Power of Order as were proper to his Function Pauls Prescription of Duty by the same Reason swallows it up and makes it null Certain it is that neither could the Apostles divest themselves of this directing Power of Judging upon neglect of Duty which had been a divesting themselves of their Office nor can they be supposed without the grossest Consequences striking at the Root of all Church Authority to have by their directing or judging Power exauctorat such to whom the Direction was given of their Power and Interest in their respective Duties whether as Members or Officers of the Churches Pool Anot Vol. 2. Expound this 4 th v. of the Power and Authority of Christ concurring with them while gathered together And upon v. 5. Expounding the delivering to Satan of Excommunication and casting out of the Church They give this Reason because the Apostle speaks of an Action which might be and ought to have been done by the Church of Corinth when they mett together and for not doing of which the Apostle blames them Thus clearly Asserting the Intrinsick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth herein and upon the same Grounds which we have Asigned To the same Scope do the Belgick Divines Expound this whole Passage paralelling it with the great Precept Matth. 18.15 Both upon v. 4 5. and upon 2 Cor. 2.6 touching the Subject of this Jurisdictional Act viz. That it was Inflicted of many they Expound of Church Governours or Officers Diodat upon Chap. 5. v. 4. thus Senses the Words That they were to perform this as the Lords Ministers by Authority received from Christ and that the Command is directed to the Pastors and Conductors of the Church being gathered together in Ecclesiastical Judgment having the Apostles Declaration instead of his Voice and Vote And to obviat such a Notion and Fancy as that of our Dr. upon this he adds That this was without doing any prejudice to the ordinary Ministry of the Church of Corinth And that Paul uses his Apostolical Power Modestly only to excite the other viz. the ordinary Power of Pastors and to strengthen it And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this Incestuous Man but all such Scandalous Kind of People who by their Infection might plunge again into the Ancient Corruption c. And upon v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within He says That it is certain that a Judge cannot exercise his Jurisdiction but only over those that are within his Precinct and subject to his Tribunal Clearly Asserting a Spiritual Tribunal in this Representative Church To the same Scope he Expounds the last verse The English Annot. upon v. 2. of this Chap. in Correspondence to the Exposition and Answer premised and in Opposition to the Dr's Reasoning do shew That the Apostle finds fault with the Corinthians for that they had not Excommunicat this Incestuous Person before he had Wrote unto them and Charged them so to do because the Fact was Notorious and the Church Scandalized And upon v. 4. which mentions the Power of Christ they shew That the Power of Excommunication and Absolving is Christs and the Ministry thereof only Committed to the Governours of the Church And the delivering to Satan mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel Matth. 18.17 We need not spend time in multiplying Instances of Sound Expositors in opposition to the Dr's Sense of this place That there is here an Allusion to the Iewish Synagogue is the Consentient Judgment of the learned viz. in their Way of Excluding and casting out the Scandalous Thus Grotius Estius Hammond Simplicius Piscotor Beza c. Pareus Paralelling v. 5. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. shews that the same Persons are Authorized to Comfort and forgive him who inflicted the Censure viz. the Church Officers What we have said might be further improven from the end of the Action which was the purging out the Old Leaven and taking the Scandalous Person from among them and the Character of the Censure it self called a Punishment inflicted of Many in Opposition to the Dr's Design and Argument But the thing it self is obvious And therefore we proceed The Dr. Adduces next Paul's Threatning not to spare 2. Cor. 13. But to proceed with Ecclesiastick Censures And his mentioning Two or Three Witnesses to establish every word according to the Words of our Lord when he Institute this Power of Censuring Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity according to the Power given him to Edification And to come with a Rod He must needs saith the Dr mean Apostolical Censures and Excommunication to be Execute and Performed in his own Person in which Respect he delivered Hereticks of the Church of Ephesus to Satan 1 Tim. 1.20 It is Answered First all this is easily removed by the often Adduced Distinction of the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Authority and of a Cumulative and Privative Exercise thereof Altho the extraordinary Power upon fit Emergents such as either the supine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers or the more endangering spread of Offences or obstinacy of Offenders or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers in whom this Power was Lodged and Seated was alwise in readiness and to be Exercised for the Churches good and Edification yet nevertheless this Exercise as we have often told him was never exclusive of nor derogatory unto the Churches ordinary Intrinsick Authority nor except in Cases mentioned or Extraordinary Emergents without the actual Concurrence of the ordinary Church Officers And if as the Dr. says the Apostle here insinuats a method of procedure suitable to our Lords Institution Matth. 18. It could not be otherwise Besides he Threatens this severity as a proof of his Apostolick Power 2 Cor. 13.3 which some understand of his Miraculous Power to inflict Bodily Afflictions Others of his Power to cut off from the Communion of the Gospel Churches thus Pool Annot. And if the Dr. will allow that by mentioning Two or Three Witnesses he ties himself to
the Dr's Strained Exposition of such a Ceremony or Ordinance peculiar to a Bishop in the Sense he has offered is evident beyond all contradiction For taking it to import the Spirits Work in a Figurative Allusion to this Imposition or for Ministerial Imposition I mean in the Ordination of Pastors In both Senses it quite rejects the Dr's Gloss And even taking it in the most favourable Sense to his Scope viz. To import an Imposing Hands upon and Praying for the Baptized either at Baptism it self generally or upon the Adult who were Baptized it is beyond all contradiction that in this case it was joyned with that Sacrament and consequently performed by the Admistrator of that Ordinance Or admit that it was an Imposing of Hands upon Baptized Children sometime after their Baptism when grown up to give an Account of their Faith before their Admission to the Lords Supper the very Nature of the Action it self doth evince that in its purer and Primitive Practice and before Clogged with Additional Corruptions the thing was performed by the Elders and Ministers of the Church And the Dr. cannot shew either from Scripture or pure Antiquity that this was peculiar to a Bishop of his Cut and Mould Again it is a strange and most unaccountable Notion to assert that such as have Authority to Preach the Word and Administrat the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant and in special Baptism whereby Persons are to be Discipled and brought to Christ which was the great Commission of the Apostles themselves should notwithstanding have no Authority to Administrat such an Appendix of Baptism and Confirming Rite as this is supposed to be That such as have Authority to lay the Foundation can put no Hand to such a supposed Superstructure Nay that such as have Authority to dispense the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that great Sealing Faith-Confirming Ordinance have no Interest in the Administration of such a Confirming Ritual as this is Besides in the 3 d. place it is easie to destroy the Dr's Argument with his own Notion and Pleading He pleads That tho the extraordinary effects of Gospel Administrations be ceased yet such Functions and administrations continue as are means of the Spirits ordinary influences Gifts and Graces since our Saviour has promised to the Church a continual Communication of his Spirit Now dare the Dr. deny a continual Communication of the Spirit in and by the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments If these be to continue and for the great ends of Conversion Confirmation and grouth in Grace and in the Hands of Pastors as the proper Authorized Dispensers of these Ordinances which are the Ministration of the Spirit by what Shadow of Ground can the Dr. seclud them from any interest in this his Ministration of the Spirit He tells us that Christ now Communicats ordinary Operations in the same way that he did the extraordinary And he will not deny that he did Communicat the Extraordinary by the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers I mean in the external Administration and why not also the ordinary by the same Persons and Dispensers Again 4 ly The Dr. adds this his supposed strong proof and corroborating Argument especially saith he considering that this laying on of Hands is placed by the Apostle in the same Class with Baptism Hence I subsume if in the same Class it must be so as a Principle of the Doctrin of Christ as Baptism is so he calls it and as having the same Authority with Baptism as an Ordinance of Christ and a mean of dispensing the same influence of the Spirit And if so how will the Dr. Assign a Shadow of Distinction as to the Administrators and make it appear that two Ordinances of so near a Cognation and both Acts of the Power of Order of such an Affinity in their nature and scope should so vastly differ in the Instruments of Administration that the one is peculiar to the Office of Apostolat and a Succeedaneous Prelat Forsooth the other not but may be Administat by a Pastor He tells us The Apostle put both Ordinances in one Class but the Dr. in this crosses the Apostle and sets up in this respect Confirmation in the higher Class Here I would offer to the Dr. or those of his Perswasion Amesius's Answer to Bellarmin's Argument for this Right of Bishops One of his Arguments for the Divine Right of Episcopacy and of Bishops above Presbyters is Soli Episcopi ut Ordinarii Ministri c. Bishops only as Ordinary Ministers can Confirm the Baptized as also Consecrat Temples and Altars Citing Act. 8. Amesius returns him thus the Protestant Answer De Consecratione Templorum non laboramus c We value not the Consecration of Temples and Altars whited Walls may be the sole Consecraters of Walls and stones but for Confirmation of the Baptized in so far as it seems to have any thing of Divine Right in it and is thus lookt upon it doth equally agree to Presbyters and Bishops This saith he may be sufficiently proved from the Canon Law it self Dist. 95. and is evinced by this Reason of Ierom what is greater than Christ or what may be preferred to his Body and Blood He adds in Answer to that of Act. 8. that â—he Apostles were no Bishops nor sent unto an Ordinary Confirmation Bellarmin enerv Tom. 2. P. mihi 110 I need not inlarge upon any deductions from this Passage nor insist in shewing the Dr. the Correspondence of this Answer with what is above offered We may adduce another Venerable Countryman of his Cartwright Answering the Rhemists Pleading for this Sacrament of Confirmation from this Text tells the Iesuitâ— That the Apostle means no Sacrament much less Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope or borrowed Speech a Metonymia adjunctis as he calls it the Ministry of the Church upon which Hands were laid which appears saith he in that whosoever believes not that there ought to be a Ministry by Order to Teach and Govern the Church overthrows Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a Man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved Upon this Testimony of Cartwright we may very probably Conceive that the Sense he gives of that Passage is the General Sentiment and Judgment of Protestant Divines in his Day And to this Scope we find many of the later Protestant Divines expound it as might be easily made appear I need not add how obvious it is that the Drs. Opinion and Gloss hath no small influence upon the hardning the Papists who make Confirmation a Sacrament See for Cartwrights Sense of this place Gomarus Simplicius Pareus Mr. Dickson c. Among whom Gomarus shews that the Imposing Hands upon the Baptized is a Practice later than the Apostles But to proceed The Dr. in Confirmation of this his Gloss and Conceit adduces the Instances of the Holy Ghost comming upon these of Ephesus Act.
19.5 After Paul laid his Hands upon them And of the Samaritans Act. 8. who altho Preacht unto and Baptized by Philip and Converted by his Ministry yet St. Peter and St. Iohn were sent to lay Hands on them upon which they received the Holy Ghost v. 17. From whence he inferrs that therefore this Ministry of Confirmation appertained to Apostles since Philip a Preacher a worker of Miracles a prime Deacon and if we may believe Cyprian an Evangelist and one of the Seventy Two would not presume to assume it but left it to the Apostles I Answer in general these Texts are by the current of all Protestant Divines and Interpreters understood of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and the apparent extraordinary signs thereof attending the imposing of the Apostles Hands which in that time and Case of the Church was a proper Badge of the Apostolick Office and therefore can have no force to prove an ordinary standing Ordinance appropriat to ordinary Pastors Since in this Case the proper sole end of this Action was the forementioned special effect which is not now to be expected and also the persons acting did therein exercise an extraordinary function and Authority as Apostles Hence this singular Gift at this time exercised can no more be pleaded as laying a ground for the standing duty of ordinary Officers than Anointing with Oil by the Apostles which had the Miraculous effect of healing at that time Upon the First Text mentioned by him the Belgick Divines do shew that the comming of the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands is to be understood of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost presently after exprest And their Prophecying is by Diodat exponed accordingly of a supernatural evident Divine inspiration To the same Scope it is exponed by the English Annotators And indeed the Text it self makes it so evident that none can call it into question and considerable it is that they all paralel this place with that Act. 8. Grotius upon the place tells us that Baptizati erant ab alio Christiano sed Deus ad commendandum munus Apostolicum non ante iis Spiritus sui dona communicare voluit quam Apostolica manus eos tetigisset Thus also Simplicius Camero and Piscator Epones this effect of the Imposing of the Apostles Hands with reference to the extraordinary influences of the Spirit Again in the fourfold premised Division of the laying on of Hands mentioned in the New Testiment we find only that the Imposition of Hands in the Ordination of Pastors is that which hath a clear standing Warrand and design the other three mentioned having an extraordinary end not to be now expected But further to urge this the Dr. says That tho the extraordinary effects are ceased yet the ordinary institut means of the Spirits influences remain Now as to this Point of the Apostles imposing Hands upon the Samaritans the Passage which the Dr. mainly insists upon and improves I would fain know if he will deny that these Samaritans Baptized by Philip upon their professed Faith and Conversion which in many of them no doubt was real had not received the Spirit in his ordinary gracious influences If they had then the the Apostles imposing Hands thereafter he must grant was either with a special respect to the forementioned Miraculous evidences of the Spirits Seal or it was useless and to no purpose at all The Belgick Divines upon v. 14. of this Chap. Do shew That the Apostles were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church and strengthen them And therefore not merely for the end of Imposing Hands as the Dr. alledges and upon v. 15. mentioning the Apostles praying that they might receive the Holy Ghost they do thus Paraphrase it namely in a visible and Miraculous manner as often happened in this Church Act. 10.45 and 19.6 1 Cor. 14.27 for otherwise they had already received the Holy Ghost seeing no man can believe without the Holy Ghost Rom. 8.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Diodat to the same Sense understands the Holy Ghost here of the external and Miraculous evidences of his Grace Pool Annot. vol. 2. thus Paraphrases v. 14. as pointing out the Apostles Confirming the Doctrin and constituting a Church in Samaria by Apostolical Authority And the Clause of receiving the Holy Ghost v. 15. they expound of these extraordinary Gifts of Tongues Prophecie working of Miracles as Chap. 10.45 And upon that Clause v. 16. for as yet he was fallen upon none of them They shew that it is plain the Holy Ghost is not here meant as the Author of saving Graces For so he was fallen upon all that did believe Faith being the Gift of God but he was not yet bestowed as the Author of these extraordinary Gifts mentioned Chap. 2.38 Piscator upon this 15. v. Shews That the Spirit given here does not denote Sanctification or Confirmation in Grace but the extraordinary Gifts of Tongues and Prophesie c. as appears from the use of this Phrase Act. 10.45 and 19.6 As also from this that these Gifts were conspicuous to Simon The Imposing Hands mentioned v. 17. Dr. Lightfoot understands in the same Sense non Denatat saith he dona interna Gratiae Sanctificantis atque confirmantis omnibus piis collata sed dona extraordinaria aliquibus duntaxat exhibita And v. 18. which mentions Simons seeing this conferring the Holy Ghost is Interpreted of his seeing by this visible sign of the Gift of Tongues pointing out the Spirits inward Operation So Chrysostom and out of him Corn. a Lapide From all which it is evident in opposition to the Dr's Pleading 1. That this Imposition of Hands was not the sole end for which the Apostles were sent to Samaria 2 ly that there was no need of it in order to common Gifts of the Spirit or an ordinary Confirmation in the Faith thereby 3 ly That this Action of Imposing Hands was a special Badg of the Apostolick Office and that therein was put forth an extraordinary Apostolick Official Power competent to no Ordinary Officer 4 ly That it was put forth and exerced at this time in order to such a transient extraordinary effect as is not now to be expected since in that Infant state of the Church it did respect the Confirmation of the Doctrin of the Gospel the Confirmation of Believers and was to be a Divine attestation of the Apostles Mission and Authority in this extraordinary manner All which cuts off the Dr's design and Pleadings from this Scripture And whereas he alledges that an Extraordinary effect at that time will not prove the Ordinance it self to be ceased no more than Preaching sometimes attended with such effects I Answer when the Ordinance or mean is in Scripture held out with respect to ordinary standing Effects as Preaching has for its great end the Faith Conversion and Edification of Hearers till all the Elect are brought in this is true But when the mean or Action is in its Circumstances
Holy Ghost And such a Church they profess the Protestant Church in this Realm to be From this Account of the Confession it is evident 1. That in the Sense of our first Reformers Church Government and Disciplin rightly Administred is an Essential Mark of the Church 2. That it must not be according to Mens Invention or Rules of Worldly Policy but according to the Prescription of the Word of God Thus clearly asserting that the Word of God prescribes the Rules and Measures of it and consequently determines what Government and Disciplin it is else there could be no Appeal to that Rule And look as they make the Word of God the Standart and Rule of the true Doctrine in the first Note so of Discipline and Government in this third Hence as none can without extremest Impudence assert that the Word leaves us to Waver and at an Uncertainty as to the true or false Doctrine or that it is not perfectly contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles Appealed to in that first Note so without the same Impudence neither can this be alledged of the Discipline or Government anent the Rectitude whereof and its Divine Measures the same Appeal is made 3. When exhibiting Scripture Instances they mention a Ministry established by Paul in the Churches and in special such a Ministry or Eldership as had the Government established and lodged with them in a Parity of Pastors as the Church of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge to Feed and Govern joyntly as the Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost they clearly assert the Divine Warrands of Presbyterian Parity Next for that Passage which the Dr. takes hold of in Art 21. which he durst not point his Reader to as knowing that the very Reading would discover his Forgery that which they affirm is thus expressed Not that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places c. It s evident that it utterly rejects his absurd gloss and impertinent groundless inference For 1. They are not speaking of the Species and form of Government but of these things which Councils has a Power to determin in yea peremptorly affirm that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word or the true interpretation thereof which was not so before by his Holy Will and by clear Consequence that no Councils can alter or change that Ministry and Government which in Art 19. They affirm the Apostles established 2. Having mentioned the Confutation of Heresies and giving a publick Confession of Faith according to the Word as one great design of General Councils they assign the Second which is to Constitut good Order and Policy to be observed in the Kirk that all things be done decently and in Order citing 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order Wherein Paul prescribs this general Rule to be applyed to the particular circumstances of that Church Then they add Not that we think any Policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages Times and places Adding That when Ceremonies foster Superstition they ought to be removed Wherein it is evident as the Meridian Light that that Policy which they hold alterable is not the Government of the Church appointed by the Apostles in the Word or that Ecclesiastick Disciplin therein prescribed For this they make a Note of the true Church and to call this alterable according to the difference of Times and Places were so gross a contradiction as no Men of Sense could fall into much less the Godly and Learned Compilers of that Confession But by this alterable Policy they mean such as Relâ—tes to the variable Circumstances of particular Churches and such appointments thereanent as God has left to the Regulation of the Christian Prudence of Church Governours according to the general Rules of the Word of which Rules that instance they exhibit 1 Cor. 14.40 hath the prime place So that the Dr's Inference that therefore the Authors of the Confession held not an indispensible Divine Right of Parity of Pastors or Presbyters has no dependence upon that Passage which he Cites nor has any Subsistence but in his own imagination The Dr. adds P. 13 That the First Presbyterians pleaded only that their New Form was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament Church and Primitive Institution that it came nearer to the Original Model of Churches But never affirmed that the Christian Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters and that no Officer in the Church higher than a Presbyter could pretend to any share in Ecclesiastick Government I Answer the Dr. hath not exhibit to us these Presbyterians whom he calls First and who thus pleaded We heard that our very First Reformers Pleads for that Government they were settling as a Divine Ministry and Government according to the Word and deriving its Original Pattern from the Apostles Plantation of Churches such as Ephesus had when Paul gave his last directions to that Church To which Original Pattern they hold that all Churches ought to be squared and Subordinat And if we advance a step further to our Books of Disciplin we will find the Divine Right of our Government Asserted in most Material Points thereof The Peoples interest in the Election of Pastors in their Call and in their Admission is Asserted in the First Book of Disciplin Head 1. with the Explication In the 7 Head of Ecclesiastick Disciplin the highest Censure of Excommunication is attributed to the Ministry as their Duty and Priviledge not to the Prelat and all Preachers without exception are declared Subject to Disciplin and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets in their Doctrin is Asserted in the 9. Head of Church Policy upon that special Point of Propesying and interpreting the Scriptures All which cutts the Sinnews of the Prelats Exercising Power over Pastors Establishing their Essential Divine Right of Government In 2 Book of Discipl Chap. 1. The Divine Right of Church Government and Policy is Asserted and its distinction from the Civil The unlawfulness of Ministers assuming Name or Thing of Lordship Again The extraordinary expired Function of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists is Asserted The identity of the Pastor and Bishops Office as the highest ordinary Function together with the Relation thereof to a particular Flock is Asserted Chap. 2. Moreover Ch. 7. initio the Ruling Elders Office and Congregational Eldership are Asserted Ibid. Our Church Judicatories Congregational Provincial and National are Asserted Chap. 11. The Unwarrantableness of the Office of Bishops Assuming Authority over Pastors and a Lordship over them and over Christs Inheritance is Asserted And such Bishops as refuse Subjection to the Established Disciplin and Government of Pastors are appointed to be deposed from all Function in this Kirk Likewise Patronages as crossing the Peoples Right in Election of Pastors are condemned
Lordships but Humble Faithful Serving for the Salvation of Souls And that our Lord discharges Worldly Greatness as inconsistent with his Spiritual Kingdom in that passage of Matth. is asserted by the Authors of Pool's Annot. part 2. who also upon Luke 22. do assert That our Lord discharges Ministers to Exercise a Dominion or Lordship such as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Not as being Lords over Gods Heritage citing also 2 Cor. 1.24 where Paul disownes a Dominion Pareus upon that place of Mat. shews That it is not a Civil only but Ecclesiastick Dominion which is here forbidden or a Lording over the Church as Peter saith he commands the Presbyters not to Lord over the Flocks committed to them Joyning as paralell to this 2 Cor. 1.24 where Paul useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest we apprehend its only Tyranny that is discharged He shews that our Lord Reasons from the Condition of the Apostles who were not to be Lords but to Teach to be Subject to Serve the Church 2. From the Dignity of the Ministry which consists in a Faithful Service 3. From his own Example who had Humbled himself to Minister to all c. Whittaker Answering Bellarmins Glossings upon this Text to save the Popes Supremacy tells him That comparing Matthew and Luke together and considering that Luke uses the Simple not the Compound Word in expressing the Dominion which is discharged would have his Disciples understand that they have nothing to do with Dominion Thus he de Ponsificatu quest 1. Turret part 3. quest 16. thes 4. cites Luk. 22. with the paralell 1 Pet. 5. as enjoyning a Ministry and discharging all Dominion in the Church Thes. 5. he shews It was not the Ambitious Affectation but the Power and Dominion it self which the Lord discharged opposing to it and commending in its place a Simple Service and Ministry And Thes. 6. He shews That the Question among the Disciples was not about a violent Domination or violent Ways of obtaining it but the Lordship and Dominion it self which he simplely discharged proving it from Lukes using the simple Verb. And that passage he that will be great he shews is to be understood not of a Real but Imaginary Affected Greatness He also shews that Christs Reasoning from his own Example Non argumentatur a pari sed a majore ad minus argues not from a sameness but from the greater to the less If I your Lord do minister and serve much more ought you who are indeed Servants who have no Iurisdiction over one another to lay aside all Thoughts of Domination as when he said if I your Lord have washed your feet you much more Ioh. 13.14 He after reasons this same point from Christs discharging them to assume Masterly Imperious Titles shewing them that there is but one Master in the Church c. Shall I add what Iunius has upon this Text against Bellarmins Glosses de Pontificat Lib. 1. Our Lord said of the thing it self they Exercised Dominion He spoke not of the manner after this or that manner but not so ye saith he it s a simple denyal of the thing proposed Bernard Writing to Eugenius expones this passage and of 1 Pet. 5. as striking against all Dominion and enjoyning a Ministerial Care in Opposition thereunto And Whittaker on the passage tells Bellarmin that it s not Humility in Dominion that is here enjoyned but Dominion it self is forbidden Let us add Cartwright against the Rhemists upon these passages who reasons at large that it s not Ambition nor Tyranny but the Dominion of great Ones over their Vassals and Inferiors which is here forbidden shewing that in this the Ecclesiastick Office differs from the Civil that it admits not of Dominion and Principality as the Civil Government nor the outward Pomp and Superiority thereof And the Argument from Christs Example he thus expones in Opposition to the Iesuits Glossings and Scope It doth not follow saith he that because Christ their Lord and Master had Rule over them therefore they being Fellow-Servants should have Rule one over another but it follows rather that for as much as he their Lord and Master humbled himself to the basest Service therefore they should be ashamed to be Lords and Masters over one another Thus saith he Cyprian alledged by Gratian Distinct. 10 quoniam id vid. expones this place Not of Pride and Ambition but of the several Acts and distinct Honours betwixt both the Powers And upon the paralell Luk. 22.24 he asserts against the Iesuits that Majority and Superiority among the Apostles was reproved simplely not a Tyrannous Affectation of Rule We might multiply Protestant Writers to a Voluminous Bulk upon this Head For Calvin and Beza's Sense upon the place I need not mention them these are the Dr's Adversaries Only I must notice their Correspondence with the Body of Protestant Divines in this Sense and Account of the place exhibit Yet I must add one Novelist more Chamier de Oecum Pont. lib. 10. cap. 3. who upon this passage represents the Popish Glosses anent our Lords discharging only the Manner of Aspiring to Greatness not the Dominion it self which he refutes in the same manner and from the same grounds as Iunius and Whittaker But now it is time to return to the Dr. From what is premised it is no hard Matter to discover the Vanity of his Evasions First He tells us p. 17. That our Lord supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as in other Societies And therefore directs Ecclesiasticks who would climb to the highest places o◠the Church to take other Methods than these used by the Grandees of the World he that deserves Preferment in the Church is to be Servants of all So that this refers to the Method of Promotion not to the Extirpation of their Iurisdiction They were not to aspire to Dignity and Honour by Force and Violence and the Arts fashionable in Secular Courts but by Acts of Modesty Humility and Self-Denyal Ans. 1. For what he says of Christs supposing Degrees of Subordination If he mean it in general among Church Officers it s admitted If among the Disciples or these here Addrest in this Speech of our Saviour he Beggs the Question and Contradicts the Sense and Pleading of Protestant Divines upon this passage who as we have heard do hold that Majority and Superiority among them was here discharged and a compleat Parity of Official Authority enjoyned The Clause Not so among you we heard that Turretin with others do hold absolutly to discharge this supposed Inequality of Power and Dominion which he proves from the Nature of the Phrase collated with Paralells And we have also found that Pareus as might be cleared in others do extend this even to an Ecclesiastick Superiority 2. If the Dr. draw this Supposition of degrees of Subordination from that Clause He that will be great and chief as is evident he doth Then I Charge him First With Crossing the Sense of
Sound Divines upon that Text who in Pleading against the Papists tell them that our Lord said not He that by my Allowance is great but he that will be great I confess some do understand here a true Greatness viz. in Vertue and Reward a true Ministerial Greatness And this Sense also baffles the Dr's Gloss of an External Greatness the Unsoundness whereof further appears when we ponder what our Saviour enjoyned in Opposition to the Worldly Grandure discharged viz. to be their Servant over whom this is affected which is further evident in the Alternative Branch of the Paralell 1 Pet. 5. whereby Sound Divines do clear and expone this Text For that which the Apostle opposes to being Lords the thing prohibited he expresses by being Examples to the Flock importing an Holy Humble Ministerial Service Again I do Appeal to all Men of Sense who understand this Controversy whether the Dr. doth not in this Answer stand upon the same ground with Bellarmin de Pontif. cap 1. in Defence of the Papacy His Answer is that a Primacy is not here discharged but rather supposed since our Lord says he that will be chief c. And that therefore an Ambitious Lust of Over-ruling is here only prohibited such as is among the Kings of the Gentiles Whittaker Answering Bellarmin quarrels him as Abusing and Wresting the Text since instead of admitting Dominion it self to be discharged as he makes evident and even out of Bernard the Iesuit holds that Ambitious Affectation only is forbidden the Modus Rei not the Object the Manner of Seeking not the Thing it self and that he admits the prohibited Lordship with the supposed or pretended Qualification of Modesty and Humility And if the Dr. sayes not here the same let any Judge by his Words For he tells us that such as would climb up to the highest places in the Church and who knows how high these highest places mounts in the Dr's Fancy None will doubt to a Metropolitan's Office at least over a whole Nation For this he ownes must not take Methods of Force and Violence as usually Worldly Grandees but advance by Acts of Modesty c. So that in the Dr's Sense and Bellarmin's the Popes Mitre is never touched by this Text it being the Modus Rei the Manner of Seeking and Affecting not the Object of highest Places and greatest Dignities which our Saviour here discharged Nay the Dr. in this Pleading stands so Antipode to Protestant Arguments that he fixes the Popes Mitre faster which I prove thus If that which the Contest was about and the desire of it was Lawful in the Object then a Primacy was Lawful in the Object and only the Method of Seeking Discharged The debate among the Disciples was who should be the Chief and have the highest place in the Church under Christ And the Dr. says This Climbing up to highest places in the Church is in it self a Lawful practice flowing from a Lawful desire and emulation so that a Man set his Steps right and climb regularly And will any Papist deny this who knows not that their Writers Condemn many Popes violent and bad Methods to get into the Chair The Dr. tells us expresly P. 17 that the Text refers only to the Method of Promotion And if so then by infallible consequence not to the Promotion it self tho even extended to a National yea or Oecumenick Primacy as is said If any object that the Dr. holds that this preferment was to be in the Church and that the person aspiring is enjoined to be Servant of all so that it is neither a Civil nor Ambitious Grandure which he allows I Answer Papists will allow the First and Popes pretends the Second even to be Servus servorum Dei while he Possesses his Primacy And the Dr. holds it s such a Service of all as can consist with the Metropolitans Mitre or a National Primacy overall And upon this supposition I would whisper the Dr in the Ear what if in the disposal of Supreme Providence the whole Christian Church should be confined to that Nation or the Nation extended to the Limits of the whole Church what is then become of poor simple Protestants Pleadings from this Text against an Universal Patriarch or Primacy over the Christian Church The Dr must expugne and disown these as Novel Glosses and New Opinions of Presbyterians One reflection more I add upon the Dr's Answer and do Charge him with Sophistical Shuffling and Confounding the Terms and State of the Question When the Controversie was Stated among the Apostles which of them should be Chief and greatest and have a Primacy over all the rest in Christs Church and Kingdom and when our Saviour bespoke them in the terms above exprest the Question is what that was which our Lord in this reprehension did Discharge and what in the positive Injunction he allowed In Answer to this the Dr. holds that that which the Lord Discharged and prohibit referrs only to the Method and Manner of Seeking and affecting not to the Object it self For he tells us The Text referrs to the Method of Promotiâ—n even to the highest places Now this is exclusive it referrs not then to the Object And what was that Object I pray The Text says it was who should be Chief But when the Dr. Represents what this prohibition reaches not unto and is allowed for he holds that our Lords words contain a negative Prohibition and positive Precept he thus Represents it That our Lords words refers not to the extirpation of their Iurisdiction which is as far a leap from the Point as any can be Their Apostolick Jurisdiction was never the Question but an absolute Primacy and none were ever so brutish as to imagin that the Prohibition did in the least reach far less tended to extirpat the same But the Dr. behoved to hide the other Branch of the Question in the Clouds and was ashamed to speak it out which yet the sequel of his reasoning doth viz. that this Negative precept reaches only to the manner of Promotion to a Primacy or Supremacy over the Church not to the Primacy or Supremacy it self The Dr's next Answer P. 18. resolves in a Question If the Apostles understood the Lords Precept in our sense how came they to exercise Iurisdiction over all subordinat Ecclesiasticks during their Life in all the Churches they planted Did they cross our Lords Institution who perfectly understood his meaning Ans. I might here retort his Question and Answer in a Counter-query If the Apostles understood our Lords Precept in his Sense as prohibiting only an ambitious violent manner of aspiring to Principality or Chief places in the Church but not the Thing it self how came it that none of them in such Modest Method as he prescribs sought that Greatness or Chief Power Were they Frighted from the Lawful use of their Jurisdiction which the Lords prohibition touched not Were they so Brutish as not to reach his meaning yea whence was it that in
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
Pomp and absolut Dominion of the Prelats whom the Dr. pleads for And if any of them held this Notion of their pretended Dignity when their Power came to the length of incroaching upon that of Pastors in Government they held but an empty Chimerical Notion Contradictory to their Practice As the Popes Notion of his being Servus Servorum Dei The Dr. ibid. returns again to his Post telling us That it appears from what he has said we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Doctrine from the Texts above instanced Thus the Protestant Pleadings therefrom against the Papacy has no Shadow of Argument with him But whether our Arguments or his Answers be most Substantial is left to the Reader to Judge from what is said He tells us That Wallo Missalinus Glances at this Text but lays no great Stress upon it But the Dr. has not exhibit either his Words or Argument as neither Beza's Reflection upon the Passage in his larger Notes Tho he tells us as some great Discovery forsooth that Beza holds That all kind of Iurisdiction is not here forbidden but such as is joyned with Imperious Bitterness and Domination And what he would make of this I would fain know Did ever any imagine that all kind of Jurisdiction is here forbidden Did our Lord discharge all Government in his Church by this Precept and Prohibition As for Beza's expressing thus that which is forbidden it is evident to any who are acquaint with his Writings that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurisdiction which is joyned with Domination or Lordly Rule of one Pastor over another to be a Sinful Abuse of Jurisdiction and consequently to fall within the Compass of what is prohibited in these Texts I proceed to another Notion and Answer of the Dr's We are told next ibid. That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was establisht by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church If our Saviour had pulled down that Ancient Policy and commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between the Mosaick Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament Here the Dr. obliges us in affording still more Light in taking up his Judgment and Principles in Point of Church Government viz. in his Sense the Iewish Policy by our Lords Warrand was at this time standing as the exact Standart and Plat-Form for the Gospel Church Government And therefore we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places and Dignities and Honours in the Church and that he holds that our Saviour did not forbid but supposed the Lawfulness of a Chief Rule and Principality of one Disciple over the rest in the Church Nay P. 27. he is clear and positive in this That that Hierarchy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof was divided in a Supreme and Subordinat Priests was never abrogated consequently stands imitable and imitated in the New Testament I think the Dr. will find the clearest Pattern at Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy In Answer whereunto I need only say That the standing Policy of the Jewish Church never abrogat but continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Testament Church Government is so notoriously known to be the great Popish Argument for the Papal Hierarchy pleaded by all the Antichristian Rabble and Locusts who stand up for this Monster and Mystery of Iniquity and so Universally condemned by all Protestant Churches and Divines that there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man as of that Number in their Judgment than such an Assertion That all our Divines do hold the Abrogation of the Iewish Church Policy is so clear that it would Load much Paper but to Recite their Names Rivet Cath. Orth. Tract 2. Quest. 4. brings in his Iesuit Ballaeus with this Argument in his Mouth That because one High Priest under the Old Testament had the Chief Government therefore it ought to be so in the New And tells him that there is Multiplex Abusus or a manifold Abuse and Corruption in this Pleading He shews him further that every thing in that Dispensation reaches not us that the High Priest was Typical of Christ as the Apostle shews Heb. 7. That if a Parity of Government were pleaded there should be a Dedication of one Family for the Ministry as there was for Priests and Levites c. Turret Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 15.16 After he has set dâ—wn the Judgment of the Ancients against a Primacy in the Church he brings in the Solution of the Popish Objection and Argument taken from the Government of the Church under the Old Testament which he Baffles from several Grounds such as 1. The Extent of the Christian beyond that of the Iewish Church 2. That the High Priest had no absolute Authority over that Church being subject to the Jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin Deut. 17.11 3. That what Authority he had was Typical of Christs the High Priest of the New Testament Wallaeus de Function Ecclesiast P. mihi 470. brings in this Objection against Parity of Pastors taken from the High Priest under the Old Testament and the twenty four Orders of Priests over whom there were Presidents And thus Answers That these things were partly Typical partly Political that there was a Priority of Order here not an Essential Difference of Power and Authority that they all Governed the Church by Common Counsel But for the Abrogation of this Ministry and that it was to be no Standart for the Gospel Church I will produce and offer again to the Dr's Consideration that one Text Heb. 7.12 The Priesthood being changed there is made of Necessity a Change of the Law viz. The Policy suted to the State of that Church must be changed also The Text asserts that the Priesthood or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed or abrogat there is therefore a Change or Abrogation of the Law i. e. the Legal Ordinances respecting both their Worship and Government Pool Part. 2. tells us That this Change referrs to the Expiration of the Aaronical Order to which the Hebrews were not bound for that a better Priesthood and Law were to fill up its Room That the Mutation of the Priesthood required a Change of the Law That God determined that both Priesthood and Law should expire together English Annot. on v. 11. assert the Abrogation of the Legal Priesthood together with the Covenant viz. the Legal and by clear Consequence that Policy The Belgick Divines upon the place do shew That the Levitical Priesthood was many ways involved with the Legal Dispensation of the Covenant aâ—d therefore abolished with it Diodate shews That the Priesthood and all the Ceremonial Worship of the Tribe of Levi was to give place to Christs in whom was accomplished all the Reality and Truth and he is now both Priest and Law-Giver Bilson an English Bishop shews the Reason why that Policy cannot stand under the New
he adds in the other Branch in expressing what is enjoyned being examples to the Flock enjoining thus to Feed by Example and an Humble Ministry And this is opposit to all Dominion whatsoever and doth not discriminat one Dominion from another as is also evident in the positive part of the Paralel Precepts abovementioned We have also told him that the instance and Illustration drawn from such Princes of the Gentiles as were accounted Gracious Lords and the simple word of Rule used by Luke in the paralel confutes this Gloss and doth demonstrat that it is not proud insolent Dominion or a Dominion secundum quid and thus qualified which is only here forbidden but Lordship and Dominion simpliciter the desire whereof did notwithstanding proceed in the Apostles from some remainders of Pride and in their Case could not be exercised or assumed without a fastuous insolency it being Diametrically opposit to the Nature of their Holy Office and Function So then I argue against the Dr. from his own Principle and Gloss If Peter thus understood our Lords Precept Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. in this Sense that Pride was the Principle of their desire and of that greatness they sought and that the exercise of this greatness was prohibit as the very emanation of insolent Pride and if with all he coppied out this his Precept to Ministers from that great Command of his Lord and took his Measures therefrom he could not but look upon Pastors Lording over the Flâ—cks as proceeding from Pride and the very practice and exercise of a Domineering Tyranny yea he could not but put under this Character whatever exercise of pretended Ministerial Authority goes beyond the Limits of that humble exemplary Ministry that Ministerial diligence and service of the Lords Flocks which is enjoyned in the positive part of his Masters Command exactly coppied out in this his Apostolick Precept I further remark that the Dr. holding out the Sense of the Apostle as terminating only in this General discharging Pride and Insolency in Government without condescending upon the extent of the Negative and positive explication of the Precept and the Nature of that Power here specified and Discharged as Flowing from this Pride and Insolent Disposition and but only shewing that it is a Pride unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat and the setting up of such a Dominion in the Church as may be supposed in an abstracted Sense and in its general Nature Lawful and thus still saves the Popes Mitre from the Touch of this prohibition The Dr. holds That our exposition of those Texts was never heard of till these latter days Thus with him the Papists only have hit upon the true Ancient Exposition and Protestants have missed it Amongst many other confuting Instances he might have minded the abovementioned Passages of Bernard to Eugenius lib. 2. Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus Ergo tu tibi usurpare aude ut Dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus Dominatum CHAP. II. A Confutation of what the Dr. offers in Answer to the Presbyterians Argument for Parity of Pastors taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in the Scripture Account of the Pastoral Office THe Dr. by this time has finisht his first easie Task of Discussing our Argument from Christs Institution He will next fall upon our Argument from Scripture Consequences And that his Work here may be as easie as the first and least he should break his Word to his Friend in giving him a large History of our Arguments on this Head Of them all he is pleased to Single out one taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter which he says fills all our Books Citing Smectym Ius Divin Minist Ang. Unbishopping Tim. and Tit. Altare Damasc. Durh. Dissert But surely any who have Seriously and Impartially perused these Authors and compares what they have written with that which this Man pretends to Answer may Laugh at his Prodigious Folly in Boasting of an Answer to Books which he appears never to have read or understood It were good for him that the Authors he paints his Margine with were out of the World that the Ignorant or such as never saw them might believe that this Personat Champion had made a mighty Baffling Assault upon them But all such as are acquaint with their Writings will easily discover that he is here Acting a Pedantick Nomenclator of these Authors and no more The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter I mean an Official Identity I acknowledge is improven by these Authors and other Presbyterian Writers and am content to try Issue with him upon this Head but the Dr I find is so Loose and Perverse a Disputer that he doth not so much as offer to propose one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope He alledges We Argue from the Homonomy of Names of Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament to prove the Sameness of the Office and that the Clergy of the New Testament are Dichotomised into Bishops and Deacons only in some Texts And thus in some Ancient Writers That we thus exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter tho the Offices themselves be as much distinguished in several Texts of the New Testament as is possible He holds P. 22 23. That we found the Solidity of our Demonstration of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter merely upon the Confusio Nominum which he represents in a distinct Character as our only Topick To which purpose he tells us we cite Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.6 7. and several other places There needs no more than the Reciting of this to discover this Mans Precarious Vanity and Ignorance of this Controversie since all that are acquaint with it do know that it is not the Sameness ef Names simplely and in its self considered which the Presbyterians ground upon tho this have its own Secondary Weight but the Sameness and Identity of the Qualifications Ordination Work Duties and every other Essential of the Office Which is an Argument with more Demonstrative Nerves than that of the Sameness of Names Presbyters being in Scripture called and owned as Rulers Governors Overseers Bishops And both Ordination and Iurisdiction appropriat to them without the least Hint of Imparity among them in the Exercise thereof Tit. 1.5 Act. 20.17 28. 1 Pet. 5.2.2 1 Thess. 5.12 14. Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Cor. 5.12 1 Tim. 4.14 Now if it be thus sure the Conclusion of the Identity of the Office clearly follows And had this Man perused these Authors he might have discovered that their Arguments run to this Issue and are not merely Bottomed upon so slight a Ground as he would make such believe whose Knowledge is of a like Size and Measure with his own Yet so weak is his Cause that his Answer cannot stand before this very Argument as he propounds it at least with a due Respect to the Scope of the Places Cited which will
Bishops therein and by clear Consequence the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines upon these Passages correspondent to our Sense and Pleading it were a large Work The Belgick Divines upon Act. 20.28 from that Clause the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers do plead as above For having told us that in the Greek it is Bishops and that from this the Word Bishop is derived they add That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church from whence it appears that in the Holy Scriptures there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops pointing to Philip. 1.1 upon which Passage they shew that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church referring again to Act. 20.17 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3 Where they shew That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus not as Bishop but as Evangelist for a time to Confirm the Church Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew That the Word Bishop is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference as appears in the following Description compared with other places citing Act. 20.17 28. Philip. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 7. Diodat on Act. 20.17 shews That by the Elders we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse he shews That the Word signifies Overseer Guardian c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church without any absolute Dominion only for the Profit and Good of the Flock Philip. 1.1 he paralells with Act. 20 17 28. 1 Tim. 5.17 Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat 1 Tim. 3.1 he understands of the Bishop or Pastor who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church On Tit. 1.5 the Elders who are immediatly after called Bishops he understands of such Pastors and Conductors as were to be placed in Churches where was a Competent Number of Believers Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands Act. 20.17 as speaking of such Elders as are Governours and Pastors of the Church And shews that the Term and Title respects not their Age but their place And upon v. 28. they shew That the Overseers there mentioned are the same who are called Elders v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them Upon Philip. 1.1 By Bishops they understand Pastors and Teachers asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one in the Apostles days and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28 1 Cor. 4.1.2 1 Thes. 5.12.13 1. Tim. 3.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Tit. 1.5 Heb. 13.17 Iam. 5.14 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of shewing that this is the Sense both of Ancient and modern Interpreters Thereafter they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters who takes them for Diocesan Bishops Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 They shew That the Term Bishop is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment and Paralels this with the Title of Angel mentioned Rev. 2.1 Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach they shew That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem mentioned Chap. 11 30. Upon v. 28. they shew That the term Episcopus or Bishop is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church and Minister of the Word as elsewhere Also upon Philip. 1.1 on that Clause the Bishops and Deacons they shew That the Synod of Nice did forbid Two or more Bishops to have their Seats in one City And before that Cornelius Bishop of Rome upbraids Novatus with Ignorance as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes that he knew not there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church in which he could no be Ignorant there were Forty Six Presbyters And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi In one City it cannot be supposed say they there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense as the word was afterward taken Here therefore by Episcopi and Diaconi we are to understand the whole Ministry at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the Government of the Church was Committed And Deacons who not only had the Care of the Poor but also Assisted Ministers in their Ecclesiastical Function Upon 1 Tim. 3.1 they shew That the Term Bishop doth properly relate to the Flock referring to Philip. 1.1 And having shewed that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats and consequently as it relates to Pastors But that they Disowne this as not being the Scripture Acceptation is evident not only from that Reference to Philip. 1.1 but also from this that the Clause of Desiring a good Work they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13 where after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such as Laboured among them viz. In the Word and Doctrine he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake asserting thus the Bishops good Work to be one and the same with that of the Pastor and consequently the Office By the Elders mentioned Tit. 1.5 to be Ordained in every Church they understand the Pastors to be Ordained where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful And the Apostles Reason v. 7. For a Bishop must be Blameless c. they paralell with Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.1 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office from these places The Professors of Leyden Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and that the Pastors Dâ—ctors Elders and Deacons are the only standing ordinary Church Officers Thus Thes. 17.18 19 20. c. Ascribing to Pastors the Authority of Government as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament Thes. 25.26 Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28 they shew that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2 where they tell us the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Adding that in the Epistle to the Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops for whom the Apostle prays for Grace he understands such qui Philippi Verbo Gubernationi praeerant who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government distinguishing them from the Deacons who were set over the Churches Treasure Adding that Tit. 1.5 such whom the Apostle Named Presbyters v. 7. he calls Bishops non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios sibique Subordinatos Praesules sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae
the Preaching the Word for all are Pastors and Teachers or in thâ— administration of the Sacraments Matth. 28.19 1. Cor. 11.23 or in the exercise of Disciplin 1. Cor. 5.4 c. 2 Cor. 2.7 Or in the Governing the Church Act. 20.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. Heb. 13.17 Obey those that are set over you He adds quare Apostoli in Epistolarum suarum inscriptionibus seribunt Sanctis item Ministris Nunquam soli alicui Episcopo Regulas Prescribunt 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.5.7 1 Pet. 5.2 Omnibus Pastoribus communes nullas singulares Episcoporum That upon this Ground the Apostles in the Inscriptions of their Epistles do write unto the Saints and also to Ministers but never to any one Bishop 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6 1 Pet. 5.2 Do prescrbe such Rules as are common to all Pastors but none that are peculiar to Bishops Here is a bold new Novelist with a whole Congeries of New Notions upon Texts pleaded by the Scots Presbyterians suting no doubt the Consideration of our Profound Antiquary I am verily of Opinion that this grave Inquirer into the new dangerous Notions of the Scots Presbyterians should either have perused the premised grounds of their New Opinion or Written to his Friend at Edinburgh to make inquiry in his behalf for some more of these dangerous Books that they might be sent up to him in order to his Doctorships perusal and confutation For it seems he has never seen them I need not mention Chamier and other conceited Novelists who has fallen into the same dottage De aecumenico Pont. lib. 10. Cap. 3. Arnoldus in his Lux in tenebris on Act. 20.17 he called the Elders presents the Orthodox opinion thus That Bishops and Presbyters are not Names of diverse Gifts in the Church but of one and the same Office because those who are called Presbyters v. 17. are called Bishops v. 28. This Man it seems had got the new Notion in his Head too He adds The Papists Object had he enjoyed the time and opportunity of seeing our Antique Drs Enquiry into the New dangerous Notions of Scots Presbyterians he had not been so ill manner'd as to term the Reasons of our Venerable Dr. an Objection of Papists Well what do they Object ' That in these times the Names were Common but yet the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters diverse Now let us hear Arnoldus answers to our profound Enquirers great argument wherewith he has filled up so great a part of his Pamphlet 1. This is saith he to affirm not to prove 2. When Offices are distinct there also the Names are diverse 3. There was one Office both of Bishops and Presbyters viz. the Office of Teaching 4. Saith he upon the Papists supposition beware of the Venerable Dr. again what could this Blind Novelist see none who maintained this Ancient Doctrin but Papists there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one City but so it is that there were here many Therefore Bishops signify Presbyters After the premised account of these doting Presbyterians who notwithstanding are judged by many to be men of very Venerable Name may I presume to trouble our profound enquiring Dr in giving him a view of some bigot Confessions of the Reformed Protestant Churches who its like have asserted this New Notion and Opinion of Scots Presbyterians The Confession of the French Church upon this head runs thus credimus veram Ecclesiam c. We believe that the true Church ought to be Governed by that Policy which Christ hath ordained Mr. Dr. will no doubt acknowledge this is sound Well what next They add That there be Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons This is fair But is there no distinction of Bishops and Pastors in their Sense The enquiring Dr. will tell them that the two Classes of Elders and Deacons admits of a subdivision But the unmannerly froward Confession is bold to contradict his Reverence proceeding thus And again we believe that all true Pastors wherever they be are indued with equal and the same Power under one Head and Bishop Christ Jesus Here is the Scots Presbyterians New Notion in grain Shall we try the Dr's Patience with another such Instance The Belgick Confession is no better natur'd to our Dr. but are as bold to contradict him in this point and it seems do hold the same New Scots Notion For thus they assert Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the Word of God have the same and equal Power and Authority as being all Ministers of that only Universal Head and Bishop Christ. In the Point of Ordination which the Dr. appropriats to the Bishop the latter Confession of Helvetia Harm Confes. Chap. 11. P. 232. do assert ' That the Holy Function of the Ministry is given by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters No word of Prelats Hands So Chap 18. P. 236. they are to be Ordained by publick Prayer and laying on of Hands Which Power they say is the same and alike in all Citing that Passage Luke 22. He that will be great among you let him be your Servant Thus crossing the Dr's Sense of this and other paralel Passages They also Cite Act. 15. And Ierom on Tit. 1. Concluding thus Therefore let no Man forbid that we return to the old Appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of Ordination and rather receive it than the custom devised by Men so they call the Episcopal Method Thus the Confession of Boheme Cha. 9. Harm Confes. Sect. 11. P. 246.247 after setting down the qualifications of Ministers as to Ordination they say that after Prayer and Fasting they are to be Confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying one of their Hands So The Confession of Saxony Chap. 12. Harm Confes. Part. 2. affirms That it belongs to the Ministers of the Word to Ordain Ministers Lawfully Elected and Called Where we have asserted at once both the Presbyters Power in Ordination and the Peoples Interest in the Call of Pastors in opposition to Prelacy But as to this Point of the Equality of Pastors and their joint Interest in Ordination it is long since Dr. Reynolds hath told the Dr. and his Fellows that this is the Common Judgment of the Reformed Churches Viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary Polland the Low Countries Citing the Harmony of Confessions Well Whoever own these Opinions of the Parity of Pastors and their joynt Interest in Government The Dr. tells his Friend he Charges them with Error and Novelty tho a Current Opinion among his Country-Men whom the enquiring Dr. Labours to undeceive and he assures his Friend a sure Demonstration no doubt if it admit no other Measures but his Assertion That they are altogether New and were never propagat in any part of the Christian Church till these last days of Separation and Singularity I could wish he had Condescended upon the measures of these last days wherein this Separation Reigns as also of these New Opinions We know the Scripture calls
this Great Divine was as to the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter both the Name and Office and their Interest and Authority in Church Government yea and in Councils both de Facto and de Iure Franc. Gomarus Explic. Epist. ad Gal. Cap. 2. P. mihi 487. having asserted the extraordinary Ecclesiastick Function of Timothie and Titus and upon the common Ground of their various Travels with the Apostle Paul proved their Evangelistick Office to be inconsistent with the Function of a Bishop who is tyed to a certain Post He adds deinde illa Episcopi significatio quae post Apostolorum tempora introducta in Sacris literis omnino insolens est in quibus idem quod Presbyterum notat ut Paulus Tit. 1.6 ostendit quos enim v. 5. Presbyteros Ecclesiae eosdem v. 7. Episcopos vocat c. That the signification or designation of Bishop introduced after the Apostles times is unknown to the Scriptures wherein it signifies the same thing with the Presbyter and Pastor as the Apostle Tit. 1.6 shews for whom in the 5 v. he Calls the Presbyters of the Church the same he calls the Bishops in the 7. v. as also the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus so termed by Luke Act. 20.17 Paul calls the Bishops v. 28. and Philip. 1.1 he writes to the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons Where by Bishops he understands the Presbyters not the Prelats set over Presbyters otherwise which were absurd in one and the same Church of Ephesus and Philippi there had been a plurality of such ordinary Bishops of which every one had been set over many Pastors Finally where Paul recites the several kinds of the Gospel Ministers he acknowledges no such Bishops distinct from Presbyters and superior unto them as Eph. 4.11 To which purpose Ierom's Judgment is memorable which is extant Comment in Ep. to Tit. 1.1 where comparing the 5. and 7. v. he infers that the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same which Point he doth likewise in the same manner as we have done demonstrat from Philip 1.1 and Act. 20.28.29 and other Passages adjoined thereunto concluding all with this weighty assertion that with the Ancients the Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same untill by Degrees the care and inspection was put upon one and that the Bishops were set over Presbyters rather by Custom than by Truth of Divine appointment which Custom saith the Author did at last bring upon the Church the mischievous dominion of Bishops contrary to the Apostles Command 1 Pet. 5. Thereafter he reasons the Ruling Elders Office from these Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 5.17 Rom. 12.8 1 Thes. 5.12 P. 526. explic Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1. Consect 1. Cum Paulus hic alibi ut Act. 20. Uni Ecclesiae plures Episcopos tribuat nec ullum inter Episeopos ordinarios Pastores statuat discrimen sequitur adversus pontificios Episcopum non significare Pastorem praefectum Pastorum sed Ecclesiae Pastorem ut docet Hieron in Ep. ad Evag. Comment ad Titum probat v. 1. Since Paul both here and elsewhere as Act. 20. ascribes unto one Church a Plurality of Bishops neither places any difference betwixt the ordinary Bishops and the Pastors it follows against the Papists and thus against this Dr. in Gomarus Sense that the Word Bishop doth not signifie both the Pastor and Prelatical Inspector over Pastors or a Pastor of Pastors but a Pastor of the Church as Ierom learnedly proves in Epist ad Evag. P. 704. Explicat in 1 Pet. 5. Consect 8. Quandoquidem Presbyterorum officium hic statuitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quemadmodum Paulus Presbyteros Ephesinos dictos Act. 20.17 vocat deinde Episcopos v. 28. Philip. 1.1 Ecclesiae unius Urbis Philippensis tribuit Paulus Episcopos Diaconos Neque ullibi in Sacris Literis Episcopus Presbyteris praefertur Inde sequitur non ex Divina Institutione sed Humana Traditione cui deinde accessit superbia Episcopos a Presbyteris fuisse distinctos iisque Potestate Authoritate praelatis That is since the Office of Presbyters is here held out to be an Episcopal Inspection as Paul doth accordingly call the Pastors and Presbyters of Ephesus Bishops Act. 20.28 who are likewise termed Presbyters v. 17. and Philip. 1.1 mentions the Bishops and Deacons of that one City Philippi neither is there a Bishop found set over Presbyters in any place of Holy Writ It hence follows that the distinguishing of Bishops from Presbyters and setting them over Presbyters in a Potestative and Authoritative Prelacy had its Rise from no Divine Institution but from Humane Tradition which was the Foundation of Pride Well shall I weary our Profound Dr with another of the same Stamp with the Scots Presbyterians Antonius Sadael Operum Theol. Tom. 1. De Legitima Vocatione Pastorem Ecclesiae In the beginning of that Dispute he professes to deal with such as profest to owne the Reformed Doctrine but studied to evert the chief part of Discipline rejectis iis quibus ex officio incumbit ipsius Disciplinae Administratio rejecting such who by their Office have the Administration of Government committed to them P. mihi 65 66 67. He thus proceeds having Answered an Argument of one of the Sorbon Doctors he proposes his Second which is this objicit primos nostros Doctores fuisse quidem Presbyteros sed non Episcopos itaque non potuisse alios Ecclesiae Doctores constituere cum soli Episcopi Ius Ordinandi habeant That our first Doctors were Presbyters and not Bishops and thus could not Ordain other Ministers of the Church since only Bishops have a Right to Ordain Quae Sententia saith Sadael quam falsa sit jam videndum est The Falshood of which Opinion he undertakes to discover And thus he confutes it Patet ex Verbo Dei Episcopum Presbyterum qui quidem Ecclesiam docent reipsa atque munere eundem esse Atque ita variis nominibus rem eandem fuisse significatam sic enim Paulus ad Titum Cap. 1.5 hujus rei causa inquit reliqui te in Creta ut constituas oppidatim Presbyteros sicut tibi mandavi si quis est inculpatus opportet enim Episcopum inculpatum esse It is evident from the Word of God that the Bishop and Presbyter such as Teach the Church of God are upon the Matter and in Office one and the same and that by these Names one and the same thing is signified For thus the Apostle to Titus Cap. 1. v. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City If any be blameless For a Bishop must be blameless c. He adds idem Apostolus ad Presbyteros Ephesinos Act. 20. attendite vos ipsos totum gregem in quo Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos ad pascendam Ecclesiam Dei. Et in Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1 v. 1. Salutat Sanctos qui erant Philippis una cum
jacebat the Ordaining Power at Ephesus lay dead in his Absence He shews that his Transient Unfixed Ministry could not Consist with a Fixed Episcopal Station And that this Razeth Câ—mmentum illud de Timothei Episcopatu that Fable concerning Timothy's Episcopacy He after improves the Argument from Paul's Farewel Sermon to the Elders and Church of Ephesus in Timothy's Presence and Committing the Episcopal Charge over that Church to them and not to him Ecquando potius elucere debuit saith he Splendor Episcopatus Ephesinae quam cum Paulus tam pie de Ecclesiae salute disserebat tam fancte Praefectos omnes cohortabatur ad intercludendum Lupis viam alioquin totum Gregem dissipaturis When was there a fitter Season for Illustrating the Splendor and Authority of the Episcopacy a Ephesus than when Paul was so Piously Discoursing of that Churches Safety and so Holily Exhorting all the Governours thereof to Stop the Way against the Wolves who were otherwise ready to Scatter that Flock He adds Huie Disputationi he means anent Timothy's Episcopacy Paulus ipse modum imponit cum expressis verbis Timotheum vocat Evangelistam 2 Tim. 4. qui gradus tantum ad aliquod tempus in Ecclesia locum habuit alios autem fuisse Evangelistas ab ordinariis Ecclesiae Pastoribus aperâ—e docâ—t Ap. in Epist. ad Eph. Cap. 4. That the Apostle Paul himself put an end to this Dispute in Calling Timothy expresly an Evangelist which Degree and Office was to continue for a time only in the Church The Apostle also shewing evidently Eph. 4. that Evangelists were distinct from the ordinary Pastors of the Church He adds thereafter that the Sorbon Dr. commits a Twofold Error in Arguing from Timothy's Imposing Hands to an Episcopal Prerogative in this Matter First In that this is Sophistically made Exclusive of Presbyters Interest which can no more be said than this can be inferred from the Command of Exhorting Reading delivered to him which he Confirms by the Scripture Instances of a Plurality of Church Officers Imposing Hands As upon the Deacons by all the Apostles upon Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch upon Timothy by the Presbytrie Secondly In that tho it were granted that he Imposed Hands solely he did this as an Evangelist in Paul's Absence not as a Bishop But saith he Si absque contentionis studiorem ipsam intueamur facile videbimus in unius Timothei persona omnes Ecclesiae Praefectos sui officii admoneri That to such as are not Contentious but considers the thing it self all Church Rulers in the Person of Timothy are Admonished of their Duty He after Cites several of the Ancients to Confirm this his Sense and Exposition such as Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 43. where he sheweth that Presbyters have the Successio Episcopatus Succession of Episcopacy So ibid. Cap. 44. Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in justitia That the Church has such Presbyters of whom the Prophet said I will give you Rulers and Bishops in Peace and Righteousness Ecce saith our Author eosdem vocat Episcopos quos antea Presbyteros appellavit Presbyteris tribuit Episcopatum That he calls the same Persons Bishops whom before he Named Presbyters and Ascribes to Presbyters an Episcopacy Afterwards he Cites Ambrose on Eph. 4. shewing that the Pâ—esbyters were called Bishops and in Egypt Ordained if the Bishop were not present So Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. shewing that the same Persons were called Bishops and Presbyters that the one is the Name of Dignity the other of Age. And Epist. ad Oceanum where he asserts that Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos So Epist. ad Evagrium Likewise his Famous Testimony upon Tit. 1. Presbyter idem est qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Instinctu c. So also Augustin Ep. 19. Quanuqam secundum Honorum Vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit c. Where Augustin asserts that his Episcopal Distinction from Ierom and of a Bishop from a Presbyter was only in some Titles of Respect which the Churches use had obtained Likewise that Passage in Alexandria per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter That in Alexandria and through all Egypt Presbyters did Ordain in Absence of the Bishop These he tells his Popish Adversary he Cites quia pluris faciunt Autoritatem Veterum quam ipsos plane Scripturae Locos Because they esteem more the Authority of the Ancients than plain Places of Scripture I cannot but add what he has further If saith he we all allow to Presbyters the Authority of Preaching the Gospel the Administration of Baptism the Celebration of the Lords Supper and if by their Judgment Ecclesiastical Elections are to be made Ecquid erit Causae quam ob rem non possunt Electum Sanctis Praecibus Manuum Impositione Deo Consecrare Upon what imaginable Ground can we suppose they cannot Consecrat and set apart to God the Person thus Elected by Prayer and Imposition of Hands when the other parts of this Work are brought tanquam ad Fastigium to the Accomplishment or Copestone as it were Wherefore are they ut Indigni Inutiles as Useless and Unworthy Forbidden Manum Operi Imponere to set the last Hand to this Work in its Accomplishment He adds that we oft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching of the Gospel which is the Pastor or Presbyters Function Magnifying his own Authority therein Cur non ille potius summum hoc Ius Ordinationis in medium proponit Wherefore presents he not rather his chief Interest in Ordination He afterwards Cites Ieroms Notable Saying Ad quorum Preces Corpus Sanguis Christi conficitur atque interim Ius Ordinandi ipsis Presbyteris denegant That Presbyters are absurdly denyed the Right of Ordination by whose Prayers notwithstanding the Sacramental Elements are Consecrat to Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. The Author adds Obsecro utrum majus est Manus Imponere an Christi Corpus Sanguinem Precibus conficere Itaque qui Presbyteros a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excludunt ipsi profecto Vim ac Naturam ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod sit ipsum Presbyterii Munus penitus ignorant Whether is greater I pray to Impose Hands in Ordination or in Prayer to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore such as exclude Presbyters from this Imposition of Hands do shew themselves to be grosly ignorant both of the Nature of Ordination and the Pastoral Office And thus we dismiss Sadael whom we have found sufficiently to Combat and Worst our Dr. But to proceed Dr. Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle after Citing several Fathers for this Identity of Bishop and Presbyter such as Ierom Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact Occumenius 1 Tim. 3. Yea Gregory Pellic. Lib. 2. Tit. 19 39. Grat. Cap. Legimus Dist. 39.
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
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
subsistence required the same in all times And besides these succeeding Officers when invested with this ordinary Power were still subordinat to them as Apostles and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority I know that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers the Dr. excluds the Bishops in the Series of his Reasoning that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors But how absurdly and inconsequentially as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines in this Point is already evident and shall yet further appear To proceed the Dr. tells us That by the second i. e. their extrinsick extraordinary priviledges suted to the First Plantation of Churches they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success in the Conversion of Infidels in the Government of Churches Wherein I differ from him in tâ—is that he makes their Extraordinary Apostolical priviledges necessary only for the bene esse which were necessary Simpliciter for the Planting and Government of the Churches in that infant State thereof The very exercise of their Apostolical Authority as such did consist in exerting these extraordinary priviledges For thus their Mission their Gifts their extensive Power essential to the Apostolick Office taken in a formal sense Respected the founding and watering of the Churches in that Infant-state of Christianity the Establishing the Gospel Ordinances therein and all its ordinary standing Officers I must then mind the Dr. that when he speaks of the Apostles ordinary permanent essential Power by Essential he must not nay cannnot understand that Power which is Essential to them as Apostles strictly or under that reduplication qua Apostles For then their Office were not extraordinary but a standing Office to be succeeded to in its intire Nature formally as they were invested with it and did exercise it which is cross to that Sense of the Apostolick Office exhibit by Protestant Divines as I shall further make appear The Dr. will needs distinguish their Essential Apostolick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives their transient temporary Priviledges who were the first Apostles and were Limited in the exigences of the First Christian Mission Wherein he speaks confusedly For 1. These Prerogatives suted to the Churches First exigence were in such manner suted as was the very Office it self and consequently were Essential ingredients thereof for this end Hence 2. The Essential Office of the Apostolat as such or taken in a proper formal Sense could admit of no such spliting and distinction unless the Dr. will split and distinguish the Essence which he should know consists in indivisibili The Essential Apostolick Office the Dr. tells us P. 96. is necessary peramanent perpetual citing Matth. 28. Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World Hence in his Sense the Command and Promise in that place imports the standing Essential Office of Apostolat to the end What Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Interpreters let all judg Pool tells us The Promise imports his presence to the end with his Ministers Preaching Baptizing Teaching to observe what he has Commanded That it relates to Gospel Ministers in their Ministrations as the Apostles successors thus the English Notes and Belgick Divines But that it imports a standing Apostolick Office to the end no sound Protestant ever dreamed To proceed to make this appear the more saith the Dr. ibid. The Apostles as such were formally and essentially distinguished from all other Ecclesiastick subordinat Officers This indeed makes it appear more if one contradictory Proposition will prove another For if the Apostles were Formally and Essentially i. e. in respect of their essential formal Office distinguished from all inferior Officers all Officers who were not in a proper formal Sense Apostles How could any succeed them in this proper formal Office And consequently How could that Office be permanent It being certain that such Functions wherein they were to be succeeded could not be their Characteristick as Apostles and their mark of distinction from succeeding Officers For instance the Function of Preaching and Baptizing with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Government was a Work and Office wherein they were to be succeeded The Apostles were at first enjoyned go Teach Baptize and Disciple the Nations Paul enjoyned to the Elders of Ephesus to Feed and Rule by the Word and Discipline within their Percinct Hence these Duties simplely considered could not be that wherein they were distinguished from inferior Officers For 1. In respect of this Pastoral Work both the Apostle Peter and Iohn owned themselves as Co-presbyters which could have no good Sense if in this they were distinguished from all others 2. Hence this distinguishing Criterion had then evanished when inferior Officers had it So that the Dr. in his Series of Reasoning is driven upon this Scylla or Charybdis either to say that their Essential Office perished with themselves and consequently was not permanent in opposition to what he asserts P. 95. or else in respect thereof they were not formally and essentially distinguished from inferior Officers in contradiction to what he asserts P. 96. I know the Dr's tacite Evasion is that he supposes the Bishops not to be Subordinat Officers which how cross it is to the Series and Contexture of his Reasoning as well as the Sense of sound Divines we shall further mâ—ke appear The difference of their Office from that which is properly and formally Apostolick being so palpable that himself is forced to place a Distinction betwixt the Function of the one and the other yea and calls them a sort of secondary Apostles Thus distinguishing them from those he would have to be Primary But the Dr. will now enquire ibid. What distinguished the Apostles from the Seventy two from Presbyters in the Modern Notion as he speaks I could wish he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion from Deacons and other Offieers of the New Testament He undertakes 1. To exhibite the Presbyterian's Account of the Apostolick Office and tells us That the Presbyteriand and Socinians contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity affirm that the Apostolick Office is ceased as extraordinary that the Apostles were distinguished from Subordinat Ecclesiasticks by infallibility in Preaching their power of Miracles their being immediatly called by our Saviour to the Apostolat by their unlimited and unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations This is such Stuff as I dare challenge and appeal all Protestant Churches and Divines to give Judgment and Character upon the person who presents it which I am sure will be such as will fasten upon him an infamous Stigma Nor shall I here much medle with or stand upon the shameless Man his comparing us to and ranking us with the blasphemous Socinians in this point citing their Racovian Catechism Sect. 9. Chap. 2. But to convince all that are but acquaint in the least with the Protestant Doctrine in this point I shall exhibit in some
few Instances their Sense of the Apostolick and Pastoral Office And of a vast Number shall instance but a few First The Professors of Leyden Synops. Pur. Theol. Disput. 42. Thes. 17. They reckon among extraordinary Officers that of the Apostolat adding Prophets and Evangelists quorum vocatio say they fuit temporaria sub novo faedere ad Ecclesiae Dilatandae propagationem ordinata whose Vocation was temporary or transient as being ordained and appointed for the Propagation of the Church of the New Testament Thes. 18. They shew the ordinary Vocation to be that whereby Officers with ordinary Gifts performs the ordinary and Common Service of the Church such as that of Pastors and Doctors who promot the Edification of the Church through all Nations according to Christs Promise a temporibus Apostolorum per totum terrarum orbem dispersi edificationem quibus libet in locis promovendam usque ad finem mundi locum habebit juxta Christi promissionem Matth. 28.20 Ite Docete c. As being sent from the times of the Apostles for the Edification of the Church in every place to the end of the World according to Christs Promise Go teach all Nations Where it 's evident that the Apostolick Office as such in universum is by them held to be Extraordinary and that the Pastors and Doctors are their Successors as ordinary Ministers appointed for propagating the Church and promotting its Edification to the end of the World and that upon the Ground of and according to that same very Promise which this Pamphleter pleads to prove the standing Office of Apostolat to the End Thereafter having noticed Thes. 19. That the Apostle having Eph. 4.11 12. placed the three Extraordinary Officers in the first Rank they add Thes. 20. hos duos tantum extraordinariorum ac perpetuorum verbi Divini administratorum ordines ibidem conjunctim subjicit cum addit eundem Christum alios praeterea dedisse Pastores Doctores That the Apostle doth thereafter subjoyn in a Conjunction the Pastors and Doctors as the only perpetual Ministers given for the Edification of the Church Thes. 21. They thus describ the Apostolick Office Apostoli erant praecones Evangelii universales ad Ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum quod est Christus ubique terrarum ponendum ab ipso Christâ— immediate atque extra ordinem missii dono absque errore alios docendi Doctrineque suae veritatem miraculis confirmandi a Deo instructi Citing Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 3.10.11 Matth. 10.1 Ioh. 16.13 Act. 2.2 c. That the Apostles were universal Preachers of the Gospel sâ—nt by Christ for laying every where the Foundation of the Gospel Church instructed and furnished with the Gift of Teaching infallibly and confirming their Doctrine by Miracles having also an immediat and extraordinary Mission from him Which Sense is confirmed by the Passages above cited And here I appeal to all Men whether the learned Professors offer not the same Description and Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office which this Man makes the Opinion of the Scots Presbyterians and Socinians Further after the Description of the Extraordinary Office of Evangelists Thes. 23. The ordinary Pastoral Office is thus described Thes. 25. Pastores erant verbi divini dispensatores certis Ecclesiis docendis ac regendis ab Apostolis Evangelistis praefecti That the Pastors were Dispensers of the Word appointed for Governing and Teaching particular Churches by the Apostles and Evangelists Adding that their Office is described Act. 20. Viz to feed and Rule as Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost as also 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. where their Office is clearly Identified with that of the Bishop Likewise 1 Pet. 5. where the same is evident The parts of the Pastoral Office common with the extraordinary Officers they hold to be 1. Populum Dei ex verbo Dei docere To Teach Gods People from his Word 2. eidem juxta Christi institutionem Sacramenta administrare To Administer Sacraments to them according to Christs Institution 3. pro eodem preces ad Deum fundere To Pour out Prayers for the People 4. â—um fraeno disciplinae Ecclesiasticae intra limites obedientiae Deo secundum verbum ipsius debitae contineri To keep them within the limits of Gospel obedience by the restraints of Ecclesiastick Discipline Citing Matth. 28. anent the grand Commission of Teaching and making Disciples c. and Mat. 18.17 where our Lord enjoins the ultimat appeal to be to the Collegiat Body of Church Officers So Act. 20.28 anent the Teaching and Governing Power entrusted to Pastors and Elders of Ephesus c. Now whether our Sense of the Apostolick Office of its extraordinary Nature and proper marks and essentials As also our Sense of the Pastoral Office be not the same with that of the Leyden Professors let any Judge And whether these Professors or we do in this strike hands with the Blasphemous Socinians as this Man has the Fore-head to affirm the Appeal is also made to all Men to judge Nay if he has not in this point blotted himself with the Stain of an infamous Calumniator especially it being evident that the Socinians in the place Cited by him do absolutly deny a Ministerial Mission and Authority whom the Learned Professors in that same Passage Cite for this together with some other places of Socinus and refute the same Thes. 6.7 8 9 10 c. Let us hear next the Professors of Saumâ—r whom we will find Fully to accord with us in this Point in contradiction to our Calumnious Dr. de divers Minist grad Thes. 7. extraordinariorum Ministrorum tres fuerunt gradus seu ordines Apostoli Prophetae Evangelistae De Apostolis planum eos supremum inter Evangelii Ministros constituere gradum quorum hae supra reliquos preregativae c. That the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists were the three degrees of extraordinary Ministers of whom the Apostles had the first place Having these Prerogatives beyond others which they thus recite 1. Quod a Domino nostro Iesu Christo immediate vocati c. That they were called immediatly by Jesus Christ to the Office of Preaching the Gospel to all Nations citing Matth. 28.18.19 2. Quod ita a Spiritu sancto instructi c. That they were so furnished by the Spirit of GOD and lead into all Truth that they were infallible in Teaching since otherwayes their Function and Mission had been in vain had it been Lawful to disbelieve them in their Teaching 3. Quod nulli loco vel Ecclesiae singulari addicti That they were fixt to no place or particular Church but were to preach the Gospel and govern the Churches through all places of the World according to the Spirits Conduct 4. Quod pluribus majoribus c. That they were beyond all other Ministers endued with more excellent and various Gifts of the Spirit according to 1 Cor. 14.18 where Paul magnifies his gift of Tongues above all others And mentioning the conferring the miraculous
every approven Presbyter as he expresses it Apol. Cap. 39. presided over the Collegiat Meeting of Pastors and was called Bishop The same he tells the Iesuit may be applyed to Ignatius's Epistles and what is Cited from them to this Scope si sicuti jam se habent fidem mererentur upon condition that they deserved to be credited as they are now presented But then subjoins sed omnibus notum est eas additionibus ac dimunitionibus fuisse corruptas But it is known to all that they have been corrupted with additions and Dimunitions Referring upon the Margin to his Crit. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Cooks Censure Vedel Not. Wallaeus de past P. mihi 473 ascribs also to Apostles the extraordinary call and Function upon Grounds of their immediat vocation citing Gal. 1 1. Paul's calling himself an Apostle not of Men nor by Man their infallibility in Doctrin c. The ordinary Officers and Successors of Apostles he holds to be the Pastors as being first planted by them in the Churches for which he Cites and improves these places Act. 14.23 where we find the Apostles Ordaining Ministers or Elders Church by Church as their proper immediat Successors in an ordinary Ministry Tit. 1.5.7 where the Office of Bishop and Presbyter is identified in Name and thing 2 Tim. 2.2 where he is enjoyned to commit what he had heard of Paul to faithful Men able to Teach others So Act. 20.28 where the Episcopal Office is enjoined to Elders by Paul in his last farewell to the Church of Ephesus So also Eph. 4.11 with Rev. 2.3 In which places the Pastors power and Jurisdiction is to this Scope asserted Iunius Cont. 5th Lib. 1. Chap. 14. Not. 15. hath these notable words nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis Secundum gradum succederetur quae res si fuisset jam Apostolatus functio ordinaria dicenda esset hoc autem veritati rationi adversatur omnes Dei servi in Doctrinam Apostolorum suecesserunt in gradum eorum neminem adoptavit Deus God never appointed or allowed any succession to the Office and degree of Apostolat which had it been the Office of the Apostles might be called ordinary but this is contrary to the Truth and sound Reason All the servants of God have succeeded into the Doctrin of the Apostles but God hath adopted none of them into the Apostles degree and Office None succeeded to Apostles and Evangelists as to the degree and Office saith Baynes since it was extraordinary and temporary The Pastors and Presbyters because ordinary Officers succeed them from another Line but not as one Brother succeeding to another in the Right of inheritance As the Laws of Moses during that Oeconomy were to be kept tho Moses who delivered them had none Succeeding him in his Office and degree So neither were the Rules in Government presented in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus delivered to any succeeding them in their Office Ecclesiastical Authority saith Gerson de potest Eccles. considerat 6 ta may be considered either formally absolutely or respectively as applyed to this or that person and executively Altho the Authority absolutely considered continues the same yet in the application it is various and that which was in Apostles and Evangelists remained not alwise with such Apostles and Evangelists As in Point of Right none could succeed to the degree of Apostles and Evangelists so in Matter of Fact none did succeed Causabon exercit 14. P. 314. makes this the quarta Nota of the Apostolat Potestas longe major Augustior quam ulli unquam alii functioni Spirituali fuerit attributa The fourth discriminating mark of an Apostle is with Causabon their greater and more Venerable Authority and Power than was competent or allowed to any other Spiritual Function or Office Which he illustrats from Chrysostom 1 Cor. 12.29 asserting the Apostles to be above all other Spiritual Functions Quis nescit saith August lib. 2 de Baptismo cap. 1. illum Apostolatus Episcpatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who knows not that the Episcopacy of Apostles is set above all other Episcopacy whatsomever Now I supose from what is said it is evident that this Man in stead of exposing the Presbyterians in this account of their Judgement anent the Apostolick Office hath opposed himself to Protestant Divines and hath blotted himself as a Calumniator of the true Protestant Doctrine in this point espousing therein the Popish Cause and Interest But let us hear what is our Dr's Account of the Apostolick Office It is thus In opposition to which saith the Dr. P. 96. i. e. the premised Presbyterian or rather Protestant Account of the Apostolick Office We affirm had he added we Catholicks and Iesuits some would alledge the Epithet had been suteable to his Doctrine Well What affirms he That the true Characteristick formal and distinguishing Mark of an Apostle was his Constant Supreme Spiritual Perpetual Power Authority and Iurisdiction over all subordinat Officers and all others believing in Christ and his Power to transmit this Authority to his Successors according to the Command of our Saviour Here we have it in his own Words Upon which 1. Let it be considered that he presents this Description and Account of the Apostolick Office in opposition to that which he premiseth as ours We hold as well as he that the Apostles had a Supreme though collateral and equal and Spiritual Power and Authority over Officers and Members of the Church Only we add these further Characteristicks of their Office viz Their extraordinary Gifts their immediat Call including and having connected therewith an unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations as himself words our Tenet and which is also proved from that Passage he cites Matth. 28. Now since in opposition to our Description he holds that his not ours are the proper discriminating Marks whereby Apostles were distinguished from other Officers he must of necessity hold that these Characters are proper to other Officers as well as them For there is no Mids Either these Prerogatives were peculiar to Apostles or proper to others also and thus common to both and it being so not to mention other properties since their unconfined Commission to Preach to all Nations And he cannot but acknowledge as immediat Officers of all the Churches in actu exerciso and in order to the founding them and planting Gospel Ordinances and Officers therein according to our Saviours Commission Matth. 28. is our great Mark and Characteristick of an Apostle I challenge him to shew me what succeeding ordinary Officer had this applicable to him whether of his supposed Episâ—opal Mould or any other The Dâ— will not deny that upon this Ground the Churches are said to be built upon the Apostles Foundation and this in an exclusive Sense not the Foundation of any succeeding Officers whether the Dr. call them Subordinat or otherwise And he knows the Churches Foundation is not to be twice laid So that he is obliged either
to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power or acknowledge this his Description naught which he so vainly offers in opposition to the Account of this Office offered by Protestant Divines 2. He sayes That this power was constant perpetual and to be transmitted to Successors Here I ask him whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President or to devolve their Collateral Universal Power over all Believers and all subordinat Officers to respective Successors coming after every one of them If the Dr. adhere to the first he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal And indeed his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy does much oblige him thereunto If he assert that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor then his Descripâ—â—on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor has transmited unto him A Perpetual Spiritual Constant Universal Inspection over all Churches both Ministers and Believers For this essential Authority of Apostles he affirms they were to transmitt to Successors and that according to the Command of our Saviour But to proceed Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication P. 97. The Apostles Permanent Successive Power was to Preach the Gospel Govern the Churches they Planted give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks Inflict Censures Communicat this Authority to others Hear Complaints Decide Controversies Settle Church Discipline Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Necessity of the Faithful requires He tells us He understands the Gifts that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things This being Essentially the Apostolick Office it remains for ever in the Church the ordinary Necessities thereof requiring it should continue till Christs coming Here First I would enquire again since the Power thus described is in the Dr's Sense Permanent and Successive and necessary to the Church whether is it so as devolved upon every Person Succeeding and in the same Extent and for the same Eâ—ds as the Apostles Exercised it If it be not then every Body of Common Sense knows that this Apostolick Power and Office cannot be called Permanent and Successive and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize will prove this and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office which he describes If this Apostolick Power and Office be devolved in its entire extent and to every Person Succeeding then every Person thus Succeeding has an Entire Unconfined Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches all Ecclesiasticks and Believers to use his own Terms and are obliged by their Office to Preach unto and Govern them all as the Apostles did to give Rules Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers If he say that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern I Answer even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches and their Relation in Actu Exercito as immediat Catholick Officers thereof And the Dr in saying That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers without Exception which very Power he affirms they were to Transmit to Successors confirms what I said and cuts him off from this Evasion To clear this further in the second place it may be asked whether these supposed Successors are Authorized to Plant Churches give Rules to them Decide Controversies Conferr the Holy Ghost as the Apostles did with Respect to the End Manner and Extent foresaid If not then sure this Power is Transient not Permanent and Successive as the Dr. calls it If they have this Power of Apostles as above exprest Then first there lyes upon every such Successor an Obligation to Plant Churches where they were not For he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant to Govern the Churches Planted and to give Rules and Directions thereanent The Absurdity of which Assertion is sufficiently apparent and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts no less evident But while we speak of Successors giving Rules the Dr. would do well to inform us what Rules he means whether the Apostles Rules or others If the same then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules this Work being already done If others then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules as no Church can now acclaim in the Sense of all Protestant Divines If he say he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules in particular Cases Then I Answer This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules as all Men know but is toto coelo different from it both in its Nature and Extent So that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars But in the next place the Dr. has told us of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors and in the Sequel of his Reasoning must atribute it to every one of them And here I would enquire of him how did the Apostles Decide Controversies The Dr. will not deny that any one of the Apostles by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility could decide Controversies infallibly as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ And what Bishop or Succeeding Church Officer I pray has this Power and Authority We know General Councils have erred in their Decisions But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop by this his New Notion Or if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision either as to Extent or Authority then he is still in the Briars and baffles his own definition and explication Further the Dr. has told us the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof by imposition of Hands and we have heard that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion he restricts it to such Gifts as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things Be it so but will he say that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost This he cannot assert Then I say 1. He must acknowledge that here is a defective maimed not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession rather than the rest Finally the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles Supreme and no doubt since it is with him one Criterion of the Apostolick Office and competent
to all their Successors the Bishops in this Apostolick extent For he affirms that this Power of the Apostles is perpetual and necessary in the Church and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein And here the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould in Point of Power these Bishops are whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office For that de facto there is a great variety in the extent of their Power he will not deny Whether doth he hold that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor or the Arch Bishop or only Primats If every Bishop does thus succeed which the Series of his Arguing seems to import then I would know how a Bishop with a derived subaltern subordinat Power limit to a certain and may be not a very great Precinct or district can be said to succeed the Apostles in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks Let him make Sense of this if he can If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district Then 1. They no more succeed the Apostles in the Power by him described than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne 2. If he once break square thus and infringe his own Rule his measures and description he must consequently acknowledge that a Government in the smallest precinct yea even of a Pastor over his Flock is eaten us a Succesion to the Apostles If he say the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks and consequently no Apostolick Succession in his Sense I Answer neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession If he own that only Arch Bishops are such Successors Then 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops in universum as succeeding the Apostles in a Rectoral Power 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks Preach if their Lordships please give Rules of Disciplin hear complaints decide Controversies c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist how can he deny even to Diocesan Bishops this Succession 3. Suppose but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government there according to his Pattern and Principles But to proceed if the Dr. hold that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession I would know upon what ground he can defend this in his Principles I know none except that of the extent of their Power be alledged But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself For the Apostolick Power which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent extended to all Churches to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers And besides suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled the Dr. will not assert that he has an Authority paramount to it by his Office and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he existent whose Power may be paramount to his in the Council or otherwise Thus we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto has involved himself and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone which still returns upon him and renews his Labour But in the next place the Dr. P. 97.98 tells us That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Power of Miracles Languages other Spiritual Furniture were temporary extrinsick advantages necessary for first forming the Christian Church and when this Fabrick is erected Scaffoldings are removed But I should think if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts as necessary advantages and furniture for the same then they were intrinsick not extrinsick to the Office it self Which I will prove to the Dr by a paralel Argument the Topick whereof he must needs owne To be apt to Teach to have Spiritual knowledge and the Gift of utterance in a competent Measure prudence a competent knowledge of the Scriptures and Languages thereof he will acknowledg are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin Therefore say I they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office For 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts in order to admission to that Office And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office with the Gifts for it and the one in an ordinary way must be made Appear by the other I hope the Dr and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning Now let me subsum upon this Conclusion In like manner the Apostolick Office required these works or duties whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame 1. They were to teach all Nations this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues wherefore on the day of Penticost they were thus sealled Yea were Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal 2. Another piece of their work was to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles then new and unknown thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world as also to the Iews as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand This Work required the Gift of Miracles 3. They were to form the Christian Church and lay the ground plott of its Government and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship This required an infallible directive Power and Authority in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation in actu secundo to all Churches so that they were while alive solely such Officers thereof Hence their very Office being of this Nature and supposing the Christian Church a forming erecting it is certain that taken in a proper formal Sense with these its Ingredients iâ— is the Scaffolding which is removed when this Fabrick is erected since now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission Commission and Authority Further The Command Go teach all Nations he must hold still vigent as essentially included in the Apostolick Office for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power from their extraordinary expired Priviledges P. 96. so that he must needs acknowledge that this requiring the Gift of Tongues it was essential thereunto Again he holds there is a Supreme Power of Government constant and transmitted to the Church And this Supreme Power necessarly requires 1. Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government For that upon the ground of such a Supremacy the Apostles had an Infallibility in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government delivered to the Churches the Dr. will not deny 2. He cannot deny this necessary Consequence That therefore they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power And this in his Principles he must needs hold to be transmitted For if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two surely nothing will And the Dr. will not say that Supremacy over all Church
Officers and Members are temporary expired Priviledges For this he clearly distinguishes from them And it being thus the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this Whether to some of them who are of Special Character or to all If to all then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another as being all Infallible and Supreme in the Exercise of their Government If to some only under what Character are they Primats Arch-bishops or Patriarchs And whether are they subject to one Head If to one Head then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist Yet it will be hard to say that they were not subject to a General Council as to their Doctrine and Administration And sure I am the Dr. will assert that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory and this their Supreme Authority he asserts to be Constant and Permanent still necessary for the Church and died not with their Persons So that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies But further to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him two things are again considerable First He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat but to be still vigent as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest who was an OEcumenick President over that Church over all inferior Priests and all their Courts For he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge Hence iâ— inevitably follows that this Supremacy is in his Sense applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President that the Christian Church may come up to its Pattern And it being thus let us in the next place see how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points 1. In making this Constant Supreme Spiritual Power over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles and by them derived to their respective Successors 2. In holding in discriminatim and without any note of distinction of one from another that the Bishops yea all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles he means in a proper formal Sense For this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as is said Further I would gladly know whether our Dr. ownes any Church-Power to have been transmitted to Presbyters or Pastors and to be asserted Act. 20 28. 1 Pet 5.2 Heb. 13.7.17 and many such places pleaded by the Presbyterians It is probable he will acknowledge this so that it be within their Precincts insubordination to the Bishops Now I pray why will he deny them the Priviledge of Succession to Apostles in point of Church Power He hath no Shadow of Ground unless upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bishop So that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power as he defines that of the Bishops as succeeding Apostles therein And I beseech him why are not the Bishops upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior Bishops equally cut off from this Priviledge If he say the Bishops Power reaches to Church Officers under them not that of Presbyters I have already told him what an Insignificant Evasion this is and that he cuts himself off from this Answer in that he makes this Apostolick Power which is Transmitted to Successors to be a Jurisdiction and Authority over all Subordinat Officers all Ecclesiasticks and all others Believing in Christ. And he tells us That the Apostles were to give Directions to their Suceessors in the same Office So that if it be not thus understood who can reconcile his Words to Sense For he distinguishes the Successors to their Office from such as he calls Subordinat Ecclesiasticks who have no such Authority And to say the Office is perpetual and permanent that the Office imports Essentially a Supreme Power over all Church Officers and Members and is thus distinguished from all Inferior Offices that this very Office is derived to Successors as being Essential and necessary to the Church Government in all Ages and yet that these Successors one or more have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of Ground or District is such a palpable Contradiction and Non-Sense as none can be more evident We are told P. 98. That the Essence of the Apostolick Office consisted not in the forementioned extraordinary Priviledges but in the Rectoral Power Transmitted to their Successors in all Ages I have told him and made it appear that their Rectoral-Power necessarly included these Priviledges and since he acknowledges that the Essence of their Office consisted in their Rectoral Power it does necessarly follow that these being of the Essence of that Power they were Essential to the Office We acknowledge with him that they were by their Office distinguished from Subordinat Officers The Dr. infers That therefore this Distinction must consist in something so peculiar to them as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this Character Before I come to a direct Answer I will here cleave all his Reasoning asunder with a Wedge of his own Setting The Apostles Universal Unconfined Inspection over all Churches Planted and to be Planted and as Catholick Universal Ministers thereof in Actu Exercito is that whereby they are distinguished from other Officers who are not of that Character And being thus distinguished this must of necessity be the Essence of their Office for it is the Essence from which Essential Distinctions flows Yet we will find the Dr. Disowning and Denying this P. 96. Next from hence its easie to infer that to give Successors the true Apostolick Character and Power it must be of this Nature and Extent else its Hetrogeneous unto and comes short of its Pattern Will any Rational Man deny that the Rectoral Power derived to Apostles by our Saviour wherein he says the Essence of their Office did consist was of this Nature and Extent Now let him produce if he can any one Officer or Successor with this Character Again that whereby they were distinguished or what was peculiar to them may be understood two ways 1. Materially or Simplely 2. Formally or as making up their Complex Office with its other Ingredients and as properly subservient to the proper formal immediat Ends thereof In the first Sense there were several things whereby they were not properly distinguished from other Officers at that time considering them materially and remotely such as Gifts of Tongues Miracles c. which others had in their own Sphere and Degree But formally they were proper to Apostles considering their Degree Circumstances and proper immediat End Others had Gifts of Tongues and of Miracles but these Gifts were distinguished from those of Apostles upon the Ground above exprest I would make it evident by a Scripture Instance Our Saviour shews what Miraculous Signs shall follow
them that believe And in these first times gives Instance viz. their Casting out Devils Speaking with Tongues Taking up Serpents without Hurt this we read of Paul Act. 28. their Drinking Deadly Things without Prejudice yet Paul says speaking of these extraordinary Gifts truely the Signs Wonders and Mighty Deeds of an Apostle are wrought among you But notwithstanding this we know that Stephen tho no Apostle did Wonders among the People But who knows not that in the Apostles these Actings of the Divine Power were of another Nature and for another immediat End viz. To Confirm and Ratifie an Apostolick Authority as the Churches Infallible Universal First Messengers upon whose Doctrine the Foundation of the Church was to be laid Thus according to the Sense of the Judicious and Learned Professors of Leyden their Office consisted in this That they were Christs Universal Ambassadours to lay every where the Foundation of the Gospel Church and were sent immediatly and extraordinarly by him instructed with Infallibility in Doctrine and Power to Confirm it with Miracles So that in their Sense and in the Sense of Sound Divines already exhibit when we speak of the Apostolick Office somethings were more remotely and less principally Ingredients therein somethings more immediatly and properly to which the other was subservient Their Office lay in that Universal Legation mentioned and as Levelled at that great End of Founding the Gospel Church which necessarly included their immediat Mission as is said other things as Correspondent to this End were Ingredients in their Office in the remote Sense above cleared such as the Gifts of Tongues Miracles c. This serves to Unravel our Dr's Foolish Notion which he has P. 98 99. to disprove our Sense of the Apostolick Office Such as First That the Laity many of them had Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost I Answer not to stand upon his Expression the Laity or upon an Enquiry who of them had these Extraordinary Ministerial Gifts by denying they were either of that Nature Measure or for such an immediat End as those of the Apostles None certainly had such a clear comprehensive immediat infallible Light in Divine things as they And many things may convince the Dr. of this his Error For First What meant else their Solemn Extraordinary Seal of the Spirit Act. 2. striking the World with such Admiration What need the Promise of the Spirit to lead them unto all Truth and endue them with Power from on High Again the Dr. will acknowledge that the Apostolick Office was to Plant the Christian Church and Gospel Ordinances through the World And therefore he must by necessary Consequence acknowledge that their Gifts behoved to be of such a Nature and Measure as were suted to this End and in special to the immediat infallible Government of the Churches and the Direction of both Members and Officers thereof in their respective Duties Hence our Lord spent fourty Days after his Resurrection in instructing them in the things pertaining to his Kingdom that they might be thus immediatly fitted for this Work The Dr. will not deny that the Pastoral Gifts before Instanced of Scriptural Knowledge Skill in the Languages Prudence c. are proper Ingredients in that Office and Characteristicks thereof as suted to the Ends of the same and the Evidences of the Divine Call all other things concurring notwithstanding that some of the Laity may have these Gifts Next for their Infallibility the Dr. tells us That the Evangelists and Seventy Disciples were such I Answer supposing the Seventy to be Evangelists I deny this Infallibility competent to them understanding it of such a Nature and Extent as competent unto Apostles and an Ingredient of their Office else I beseech him why was Timothy after his Inauguration instructed by the Apostle in reference to so many Points of his Office and Duty and so many things pointed out to him to beware of As for Lukes Writing from the Testimony of Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word Any with half an Eye may see that this falls utterly short of proving an Apostolick Infallibility in its Nature and Extent and with respect to its Ends Altho the Spirit of GODs infallible Guidance in what he wrote is necessarly supposed What he means by Under-Ministers I understand not If the Spirit of GOD made use of his Information by Apostles or others in order to His End of this infallible Writing can any imagine that this will prove an Apostolick Infalibility properly and formally such As for Stephens doing Miracles and being endued with such Wisdom as Adversaries could not resist him I deny the Consequence that therefore he had Infallibility or Gifts of Miracles of that Nature and Extent or to such a proper immediat End as was competent to the Apostles upon the Ground already exhibite Next He tells us That Matthias was not immediatly called but by the Apostles yet had power to continue that Succession to the End I deny his Assertion which is among the rest of his gratis dicta It is evident to any that but reads the History that Matthias was by GODs immediat choice and Declaration by a Lot the Disposal whereof is of the LORD set a part for his Work and Office and GOD was sought unto by Prayer to shew His Mind as touching this Choice Which therefore was immediatly his own It is true the Apostles who had the Mind of CHRIST did with the consent of the Church present the two to the LORD but the Choice and Call was GODs And the presenting of these Eminent Persons to GOD by the Church will no more prove that Matthias was called and authorized by them than the Peoples presenting the seven Deacons to the Apostles to be ordained will prove that they not the Apostles ordained them The Dr. tells us That the first Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection yet this did not make them Apostles What does he drive at None sayes that merely to witness this made any of them Apostles or that to be an immediat Witness of it was indispensably needful in order to the Apostolick Office For so was not the Apostle Paul Altho there is no doubt but that the Testimony of CHRISTs Resurrection was a great Point of the Apostolick Doctrine and Testimony But the Dr. will needs add his Proof Or else saith he Matthias had been an Apostle before he was Invested Who would not pitty such impertinent triffâ—â—gs I know none who asserts that to be a Witness of CHRISTs Resurrection made an Apostle Who knows not that several Women incapable of a Ministry were among the early and first Witnesses of our LORDs Resurrection Besides that the Dr. has not proved that Matthiaâ— was such an immediat Witness The Dr's Conclusion ibid. is That the Essence of the Apostolick Office consisted not in extraordinary Priviledges so plentifully poured out on the first Ministers and Converts We have told him in what Sense the Apostolick Office included these Ingredients thereof And even
granting that some of these extraordinary Priviledges or Gifts might have been in some Sense communicated to other Officers The Dr. is never a white nearer his Conclusion since the Apostles proper Work and Function consisted in this to lay the Foundation of the Gospel Church to plant and water it and as being infallibly inspired to order the Ordinances and Officers thereof as being Immediat and Catholick Officers of the same Herein we have often told him lay their Office as to its main Essentials and unto this their other Prerogatives were Subservient Now in all his Instances he has exhibite none who ever did or could share with them in this Priviledge 2. He alledges P. 96. That we include among the Essentials of their Office their unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations which necessarly includes an Immediat Relation in actu secundo to the whole Church and inferrs their Duty to be of the Nature and Extent as above exprest Yet he neither can nor offers to give the least shadow of any such Officer that did or could share with the Apostles or come up to them in this Prerogative The Dr. Concludes That the Nature and Essence of the Apostolick Office is perpetual His Conclusion is like some Mushroms that Naturalists speaks of as a Miracle of Nature because they grow without a Root His Reason that our Saviour promised to be with them to the end is as far remote from the Conclusion as East is from West taking the essence of the Office in a proper formal Sense as Apostolick For himself will not say that this promise will includ the continuance of all the Apostolick Priviledges or Gifts several of which he holds to be expired And therefore it must still come under trial wherein their Office was succeeded even when this is admitted How he has proven this to be the Nature and Essence of their Office we have seen above Paraeus with the current of Protestant Divines takes the place he cites to import a general promise to the whole Church in specal the Faithful Ministers the Apostles true Succcessors thus he Paraphrases it Nec paucis tantum diebus sed omnibus vobiscum ero nec vobiscum tantum sed vobis mortuis cum vestris successoribus Fidelibus Evangelii Doctoribus Ecclesiarum Pastoribus usque ad consummationem saeculi That the Lord promised to be with his Apostles and when they were gone with all their true Successors the faithful Pastors and Doctors of the Church till the end of the World This derived Power saith the Dr. P. 100 is strictly Jure Divino No doubt that Power which the Apostles derived is such He adds that nothing can more formally distinguish an Apostle from all other Ministers of the Gospel Oeconomy than a supreme Spiritual Power to Govern Ecclesiastick affairs by their Authority of which they are to give account to our Saviour But we have often told him that this Supreme Power most formally includes an immediat Relation unto and Universal inspection over the whole Church and the nature of the Work and consequently the Office as is above exprest And the Dr. when put to let us see the persons who are the Subjects of this conveyed Power what ordinary Church Officers are the proper Recipients thereof must go to Utopia to seek them and in his arguing traverses in an inextricable Labyrinth which besides what is said hâ—s in this late Passage a new proof For he says that the Apostles were to give an account to our Saviour of this Power described by him He will not say they were to give this account merely as all Ministers are in a mediat Sense For thus he would contradict his Scope of delineating their Supreme Power so that his meaning must be that they were to give an account only to our Saviour and were accountable or Subject to no Church Judicatory upon Earth for their Administration Now Mr. Dr. except the Pope of Rome your dear Patron I know no Church Officer whose head this infallible Mitre will sute unless these Supreme Infallibles be multiplied according to the Number of Bishops or Arch-Bishops it must necessarly resolve thus in the Supreme incontrolable Patriarch And what absurdity there is either in the one or the other I need not shew We are told next that the Name with the Office was derived to others besides the Twelve and Epaphroditus must needs be the Philippians Apostle and Bishop because called their Apostle Philip. 2.25 How impertinent this inference is we have heard above The Dr. alledges the word signifies always a Messenger from God to Men. But Mr. Dr. your always is here notably baffled since he is expresly called their Mâ—ssenger sent to Paul to Minister to his wants This looks like a Messenger from Men to Men unless the Dr. will deifie the Philippians and deny them to be Men. P. 101. Our English Translators miss their Mark not only here but in 2 Cor. 8.23 in Translating it thus the Messengers of the Churches and the Glory of Christ. What Glory of Christ was it saith he that these Apostles were imployed from one Church to another but their Authoritative Delegation was his Glory Therefore the Dr. will have them understood to be their Apostles or Bishops I Answer the Translators could not but know that the Sense and context necessarly led them to this Interpretation the Apostle being to commend unto this Church while in treating of this Point of the Colâ—ection the integrity of Titus and the other Brethren who upon his exhortation were come unto them for this end it follows necessarly that their Mission and Message here intimated by this epithet must be the same with that of Titus So that both appear to be sent in the same manner and to the same scope As for the Dr's Reason it s palpably naught the Apostles scope is to stir up this Church to their Duty of Charity by these high Elogies put upon the Messenger sent to them beginning with Titus whom he calls his Partner and Fellow-Labourer and the Argument is strong and lyes Level to the Apostles Scope and Conclusion v. 24. therefore shew ye to them and before the Churches the proof your Love why to them The Reason is I have imployed in this Message to you such eminent and Faithful Ministers who are as in that capacity the Glory of Christ. I must tell him further that as CHRIST Gloried to do the meanest Service to his Saints and Humbled himself to Death for them so such Ministers are likest their Master who esteem the meanest Service to his Elect their Glory and above all worldly Dignity Angels are Ministring Spirits to Gods Elect David esteemed it more Honourable to be a Door-keeper in his House than all worldly Glory His sense of Rom 16.7 Will not help him against the current of the Context and Interpreters The Belgick Divines Translate it Renouned among Apostles i. e. say they them that Preach the Gospel here and there
or well known with the Apostles Diodat and the English Annot. take it to import Excellent Evangelists or Preachers or such as were well known to the Apostles But now our Dr. P. 101.102 〈◊〉 obviat one main Objection taken from the narrow Limits of the secondarie Apostles as he calls them This saith he alters not the Nature of their Apostolical Power within their Bounds no more than Kings of Judah can be denyed the Honour of sitting upon the Throne of David in full Power and Royality after the Apostacy they were as truâ—ly Kings as any of their Predicessors as Solomon tho the number of Subjects was not equal Ans. I pray was not in his Sense the Rectoral Spiritual Power which our LORD conferred upon his Disciples and Apostles of the Nature and Extent above exprest and such as he calls Supremâ— over all Church Officers and all other Believers And sayes he not expresly that this very Power thus described by him is Essential to the Apostolick Office and Permanent and that the Apostolick Office being no other than this remains for ever in the Church How then is it possible that such Officers as derive down this extensive Apostolick Power should crumble into a petty Diocess How are such petty confined Successors Supreme and over all Church Officers 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Reason cutts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument It is true Kings â—â— Iudah sat upon Davids Throne in full Power over Iudah But I pray did they succeed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity as they left it I trow not Now he has told us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles in that same Supreme Authority over Church Officers and all Believers which Christ committed unto them Should England be divided into two Kingdoms or into an Heptarchy will any say that the Man who succeeds to one of these petty Dominions succeeds to the Crown of England or unto the Kings thereof because they possess a part of his Throne and Dominion Surely not And so the Case is here In a word since in the Dr's Sense the narrowing the Limits of the Authority impeaches not the Episcopal Power and since he will no doubt owne the Maxime Majâ—s minus non variant speciem Nazianzen and such Bishops as aâ—e said to have had but little Dorps for their Diocesses had this Apostolick Power What consequence this will bear in reference to Pastors some whereof have a larger District I have already told him P. 102. The Apostles Bounds and Provinces of their Inspection was not as equal as their Power it self wherewith they were vested Who doubts of this Whatever was their Condescension this way and adjusted Measures of Travels for the more commodious spreading of the Gospel yet by vertue of their Commission their Authority reached the whole World and all Churches planted and to be planted and this conjunctly and severally As when the twelve Spies were sent to Canaan whatever wayes they might have separatly gone in a voluntary Condescension yet their Authority and Commission joyntly and a part immediatly and formally reached to a search of the whole Land But I need not labour in proving this For the Dr. is â—o ingenuous as to confess it telling us That the different extent of places to which they went did not alter or change that Rectoral Power and Iurisdiction wherewith they were endued But thus he inferrs ibid. no more did the Apostolick Authority transmitted to Successors differ from that which was lodged in the first Apostles tho confined in its exercise to narrower Limits But good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pittyfully Lame the Original Authority lodged in the Apostles by our LORDs Commission is by your Confession and Description immediatly relative to all Churches and all Believers in them So that this immediat Relation and a Right to Officiat upon Occasion accordingly was still Vigent and Existent with any one of the Apostles tho ordinarly exercising their Ministry in never so narrow a Circle every one of them being Universal Doctors Bishops and Inspectors of the whole Catholick Church planted and to be planted and that ex natura officii as Apostles But I hope ye will not say this of the Bishop he being properly and immediatly related only to his Diocess It had been a gross absurdity to say Paul or Iames are only Apostles of such or such a Province and have a Relation Apostolical to no other Church as it is proper to say this Man as Bishop of such a Diocess has an immediat Relation to it and to no Diocess else How often shall we tell the Dr. whose nauseous Repetitions forces us to repeat that the Apostles were capable of no particular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocess being as Apostles vi natura officii Catholick Doctors of the Church Catholick and constant infallible Inspectors and Directors of its Government and all the Ordinances and Officers thereof And consequently that this their proper formal Office of Apostolat went off and expired with that infant State and Exigence of the Church and could never be succeeded unto by any Church Officer P. 103. We are told That the Apostles by lot divided the places of their Travels and went about what fell to their share None doubts of this in general tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots and who were to go to Asia who to Scythia c. is a piece of Discovery on the back of the Bible which we let pass among the rest of the Dr's profound Notions He adds It s plain that when Matthias was chosen it was to take the lot of his Ministry and Apostleship Who doubts of this either And that every Apostle had a share of this Ministry of Apostolat because all of the same Office But this will noways infer except by the Dr's Logick which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet that they were capable of a fixt Relation to any one Post or Watch Tower of the Church That they Governed the Churches where they resided as the Dr. next tells us we doubt not Tho I add if the Churches were constitute in their Organick Beeing according to Gospel Rules their Apostolick Inspection was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers Constitute therein He adds ibid. They committed their Apostolical Episcopal Inspection to particular Persons who succeeded them even in their Apostolick Authority This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question which the Dr. still Cants over without Proof We have often told him that their Apostolick Rectoral Power as he calls it related immediatly to the Catholick Church And to say that this they committed to particular Persons related to one fixed Post and by Consequence solely Pastors or Bishops thereof in an immediat proper Sense and subject to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judicatories which he must needs hold unless he embrace the Independent Principles and he cannot deny that de Facto the Bishops he pleads for were and
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
his peculiar Charge So that whatever be the particular individual Limits of the Charge which is left to the Churches Prudence to assign yet the persons having such a Limited Charge as is above discribed flows from the Nature of the ordinary Ministry and the State and Case of the Church when the extraordinary Office of Apostolat is expired And to Convince the Dr. of this and of the Folly of this Lax Assertion that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood I would put to him this Querie Whether the Assigning unto one Bishop an Uâ—niversal Inspection and Primacy over the Catholick Church would be any impeachment of the Nature of his Priest-hood or Ministry Assigned to him by Gâ—d yea or not If not then who sees not that he owns the Lawfulness and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy especialy if the Church should Corroborat this by an Universal Constitution If he say that this extension were contrary to the Nature of the Priest-hood Then he Contradicts himself in Asserting that the Priest-hood of its own Nature requires no Confinment as he calls it and in Calling it so he Insinuats some sort of Violence offered to the Nature of this Ministry Besides these Constitutions he mentions Confining Bishops to a certain Charge are either cross or Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel-Ministry expressed in Scripture If cross thereunto then sure they are not Lawful unless he will say God gives the Church Authority to enact Constitutions cross to his Revealed Will and consequently paramount to his own Rules and Authority Which whether it be greater nonsense or Blasphemy is hard to determin If they be Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel Ministry how can he deny that such a Confinment or Constitutions proceed from the Nature thereof His Reason added viz. That the Apostles ordained Bishops for the Spiritual Service of such as should believe is as void of Sense or connection as any can be For so are all Pastors the true Scripture Bishops ordained by Apostles But will he be bold to say or if he say will not all Men of Sense hiss him That the Apostles ordained all and every Bishop or Minister for the actual immediat Service of all Believers of the Catholick Church as their proper peculiar Work and Charge This he must either say or his Reason is nought Nay will he not thus contradict himself in affirming his Secondary Apostles as he calls them to differ in Extension of Power from the first Apostles P. 105. We are told That the Apostles committed their Rectoral Power over subordinat Ecclesiasticks to particular persons succeeding in their Room in particular Churches Another piece of Repeated nonsense The Apostles by their Office had an Universal immediat Inspection over all Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers of the Catholick Church as himself describs their Office Yet this their proper formal Office thus described by him he will needs have them to devolve upon particular persons fixed to particular Churches as good Sense as to say the King Commits his Regal Primacy and Rectoral Power over his Kingdom when dying or leaving it unto the Man whom he hath enstalled in the Office of a Sheriff But the Dr. tells us that he will now propose the true State of the Controversy I am sorry a Doctor has disputed so long upon a Question and has yet the State of the Controversy to propose Common Ingenuity and Rules of Dispute would have prompted him in the first place to propose the true State of the Question and explain the Terms thereof But these Rules are too Pedantick for our Dr. who is more inclined to Pamphleting Harrangues than Systematick Divinitie Well what State of the Question offers he Thus it is Whether the Apostles committed their Apostolick Authority they exercised in particular Churches to such single persons duelie and regularlie chosen Or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs in a perfect Paritie and Equalitie I shall be glad to admit this State of the Question when one Exception is offered by way of Caution Viz That as we grant an Ordinary Authority which the Apostles exercised in particular Churches contained in their Office Eminenter which they transmitted to Successors So we deny that the Authority which they transmitted to these ordinary succeeding Officers was an Authority properly and formally Apostolical or such in a formal Sense as themselves exercised And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Sense and Judgement of sound Divines who distinguish the expired Apostolick Office and Authority from that ordinary Power and Authority which they transmitted to Successors What next We are told ibid. That the Scripture-confusion of Names might I presume to prescribe a better Term to such a Master of Language as our Dr. I should rather to evite an apparent Reflection on the Holy Ghosts Language call it Community or Homonymie will not prove Community of Offices when persons are undenyablie distinguished with regard to their Authoritie If we forget this mighty Caution of our warry Dr. we must not blame him if an unwearied Repetition will help us The Dr. will have this fixed that we fight not in the dark The Presbyterians do hold this as fixed as he What next P. 105.106 The LORD promised a perpetual Duration of the Apostolick Office not in their personal but Spiritual Capacitie he loving his Church as much after as before his withdrawing If then they conveyed their Episcopal Power to single persons in all particular Churches and not to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a Paritie and Equalitie then the Divine Right of Episcopal Government is clearlie Estabilished But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Petitio Principii and take that for the Ground and Topick of his Argument which is in the Question Yea and in the Question by his own Confession viz That the Apostolick Office is perpetual permanent and succeeded unto in a proper formal Sense What strange may I call it Impertinency or Inadvertancy is this Since himself asserts that we deny such a perpetual Office of Apostolat and he opposes above his definition anent their permanent perpetual Office unto Presbyterians assertion of the contrary and their Definition asserting the Apostles Transitorie Function 2. His Proof from Christs promise and constant care of the Church is in the Sense of all Protestants unsound and foolish and he is therein inconsistent with himself For in their Sense yea and by his own Confession there are many expired Prerogatives of Apostles yea Gifts of Officers in the first Apostolick Church which notwithstanding impeaches not either that promise of Christs constant Care of his Church or his constant Love thereunto And therefore it reflects neither upon the one nor the other that this formal Office of Apostolat consisting of such expired Prerogatives is ceased Nay himself confesses that without Impeachment of either of these the Apostles Extensive universal Power
his other transient Imployments therein If the Dr. deny this he will swallow Monstruous absurdities viz. He will assert that in other Churches he had no Authority to rebuke to receive accusations to rebuke such as sin before all to see to the Worship to Charity to the State and Carriage of Widows to the right Instalment of Deacons and all this without partiality c. If Timothy in all these other Churches had this Authority the premised prescriptions together with the express scope thereof were applicable to him as officiating else where then they can infer no particular Relation to this Church more than others If the Dr. say that they are applicable as in this transient Imployment Protunc but not so as in Ephesus where his Relation was fixed the directions consequently in a special manner applicable thereto Who sees not that this is a palpable and shameless begging of the Question supposing these prescriptions to infer a fixed Relation to this Church of Ephesus which is the very Quesitum and Point in question But Secondly to strike out the Bottom of the Dr's Notion and put this to a short Issue since upon the one Hand the Episcopal Charge as to both Order and Jurisdiction was by Paul in his last Farewel committed to the Elders or Ministers of this Church of Ephesus joyntly Which Charge the Apostles are found to intrust likewise unto Pastors in other paralell places And since upon the other Hand Timothies Inspection is found Transient and Relative to several other Churches and therein Exercised it follows necessarly that what Authority he had in this Church and is supposed in these Directions and the Scope thereof was Cumulative unto not Privative of the ordinary standing Authority of the fixed Pastors established or to be established therein and that Timothy had no sole or Episcopal Authority Paramount to that of Pastors intrusted to him Which may be further confirmed upon these Grounds in that 1. The Apostles themselves Exercised no such Authority in Churches constitute as is evident in the Presbytries Concurrence with Paul in Timothies Ordination and Presbyters Authoritative Excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian 2. This Supposition of such a Paramount Authority would make the Apostles in Cloathing Single Persons therewith to contradict their Previous Doctrine and Practice in the Instalment of Pastors with the Episcopal Authority To make which convincingly apparant one thing further I would propose to the Dr Whether will he deny that several Prescriptions delivered to Timothy were Relative to such Authority such an Exercise of the Power of Order as is incontrovertibly Applicable to Pastors I shall take the Dr's own Instance of Rebuking such as Sin before all Seeing to Widows and the Objects of Charity I add To give himself to Reading Exhortation to take Heed to himself and the Doctrine to Preach the Word to be Instant in Season and out of Season c. All which the Apostle doth with the same Emphasis of an Explicit Special Address to Timothy prescribe And to the same Scope of Directing him how to behave in the House of God Charging him as Solemnly to observe the same as these that relate to the Power of Jurisdiction But will the Dr's Inference â—old good That therefore Timothy had a sole Interest therein and such as was Exclusive of that of Pastors If his Answer be Negative why shall his Argument hold good in the Point of Jurisdiction and the Precepts relative thereunto I know nothing he can Answer except that either Pastors had this Authority in a Dependance upon Timothy or that the Power of Order is attribute to Pastors elsewhere not that of Jurisdiction Both which Evasions are a mere Petitio Principii and a Baffling of the great Topick and Ground of his Argument taken from the Address of these Precepts to Timothy especially since the same Precepts and equally supposing Authority in Church Government are attribute to Pastors Who knows not that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 20.24 the Authoritative Rebuke of the Highest Degree even to Excommunication is ascribed to the Colledge of Pastors 1 Cor. 5 As lâ—â—ewise the Authoritative Admonition is held out to be their joynt Priviledge Gal. 6.1 2 Thes. 3.14 15. Likewise the Laying on of Hands in Ordination is ascribed to the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 And they are thus found clearly Judges of Scandals as being Impowered to receive Delations Mat. 18.16 17. And none can deny that these Authoritative Precepts are directed to them upon the constant standing Grounds exhibit in Scripture and to the same Scope viz. the Preciousness of Souls their Account to Christ the great Shepherd at his Appearing Act. 20.24 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Old Whittaker in Answer to Bellarmin long since told our Dr Controv. 4. Quest. 1. Chap. 2. That Timothy here is supposed to have no such Dominion over Elderships or Pastors as Prelats afterward assumed And that Receiving the Accusation imports according to the Apostles Mind bringing a Crime or Scandal to the Church That the Ecclesiastick Synod had the Chief Interest in Censures though even Appeals were made to the Metropolitan See Bucer de Vi. Usu. Sacr. Ministerii Willet Sinops Papismi Controv. 5. Quest. 3. Part. 3. in the Appendix Bucer de Gub. P. 398. Before I pass this I cannot but add a Remark or two further 1. That the Dr. will needs have Timothy Directed to Order the Publick Worship and Liturgies of the Church That he is Directed 1 Tim. 2.1 and elsewhere anent Publick Worship is certain But for Liturgies which the Dr. thrusts in he must be told they were not yet sprung up if we may believe Tertullian and others It is palpably evident that in all these Precepts there 's altum silentium of Liturgies whatever the Dr's Love to them might Buzze in his Ears 2. He tells us That Timothy and with Emphasis he alone in the Church of Ephesus is Charged before the Lord to observe these things c. Thus in the Dr's Sense it seems that no Pastor had any thing to do with Rebuking Sinners either by Doctrine or Censure or the Oversight of Widows and the Objects of Charity c. These being peculiar to the Episcopal Function An Assertion no doubt peculiar to the Dr. But proceed we We are next told P. 109. That in those Apostolical Directions and Injunctions addressed personally to Timothy are contained the Nature Extent and Authority of the Episcopal Power But why calls he it not an Apostolical Power Since in his Sense the Office derived is of this Nature and Character Again if this be the Nature of the Episcopal Power and if thus one and the same with that of Timothy then sure it is not paramount to the Collegiat Power of Pastors For such we have proved Timothies to be Next as for the Extent thereof we have made appear that his Evangelistick Authority is found extended to several other Churches And therefore if the Dr.
that his Restricted Sense thereof above expressed is foolish and impertinent or prove the Exception thereof out of that Precept and the Service and Ministry therein enjoyned him by the Apostle when he is thus exhorted to do the Work of an Evangelist and make fall Proof of his Ministry But now the Dr. will Answer the Objection taken from this Precept enjoyning the Exercise of an Evangelistick Office And First He tells us There was Good Reason for it No doubt of that Good Reason a Church Officer be enjoyned Diligence in his Office But why Good Reason in the Dr's Sense Because saith he Many among the Ephesians were Infidels Here is a Reason of this Precept rare to be found elsewhere But even granting this to be one Partial Ground that this was the only or main Ground of the Precept and that his Work as an Evangelist was only of this Nature is among the rest of the Dr's Magisterial Dictats and gratis supposita He adds That it is no where insinuated that he was only invested with that Authority that agrees to the Notion of an Evangelist separated and distinguished from either Bishop or Presbyter Here the Dr. speaks of an Evangelists Office separated and distinguished from that of Bishop or Presbyter Whereof he hath given us no distinct Account As for that Sense in Reference to Preaching which he hints as that of Eusebius and his own we have made appear how cross it is to the Sense exhibit by Sound Divines and that Timothy had an Office distinct from Bishop or Presbyter which consequently this Precept enjoyns so that it is enough for us that he was invested and in that Precept is supposed invested with such an Evangelistick Office as is inconsistent with the Office of the Bishop whom he pleads for And to this purpose it is observable that the Term Evangelist being thrice only used in the New Testament viz. Act. 21.8 Eph. 4.11 and in this Precept Since in the other two Places it is taken for the Extraordinary Function above described why not also here Besides tho Extraordinary Functions communicat in General Names with Ordinary as when Apostles are called Presbyters or Elders yet he cannot shew that Extraordinary Names are mâ—de use of at least so Emphatically as in this Precept to point at Ordinary Functions If we Paralell this Complex Phrase or Phraseology as the Dr. speaks with the like in Scripture Language this may be convincingly made good as when we read of Signs of an Apostle 2 Cor 12.12 Commands of Apostles 2 Pet. 3.2 Foundation of Apostles Eph. 2.20 Where the Term designs a peculiar Office And thus it must be when the Work of an Evangelist is enjoyned to Timothy So that if the Office and Work of an Evangelist which is in the Sense of sound Divines extraordinary and expired be ascribed to both these persons and found incompatible with the Work and Office of a Prelat the Dr's Evasions are evidently found nought Suppose a person enjoyned to do the Work of a Parent a Magistrat or a Husband none will doubt that the peculiar Relations and Duties of Parents Magistrats and Husbands are here intimat As likewise if a Pastor be enjoyned to do that Work the same is held out The Dr. will have it no where insinuat That Timothy was invested with that Authority that agrees to the Notion of an Evangelist separated and distinguished from either Bishop or Presbyter If by Separated Distinguished he understand an higher formal Office than that of Bishop or Presbyter the Passage above mentioned clearly proves it admitting the Evangelists Office to be of that Nature State and Rank above exprest If by Separate he understand such as is formally distinct from the Office of Bishop or Presbyter and of another specifick Nature the Precept doth likewise clearly insinuat this If by Only Invested he mean such an Office as cannot exert the Acts or Duties competent to Scripture Bishop or Presbyter this is impertinent to the purpose and there is no need of such Insinuation The Apostles and Evangelists were invested properly and formally with their Apostolical Evangelistick Offices which Eminenter had included therein the Pastors Work and Duties This doth abundantly discover the Dr's empty Quiblings ensuing to be mere impertinent Shifts Such as that one may do the Evangelists Work who is higher Sed quid hoc ad Rhombum the Apostles performed the Duties and Work of Pastors But that therefore there is no peculiar Office of a Pastor distinct from that of Apostle is a palpably weak Consequence And will he say that when a Pastor is commanded and enjoyned his Work there is no peculiar Office and Duty supposed because his Office is Eminenter contained in that of Apostles and that they performed and were enjoyned the same Duties The Dr's next Instance is as foolish Daniel saith he did the Work of a King yet was no King Dan 8.7 He is indeed said to do the Kings Business in a passive Sense That is performed Service to the King as the meanest Servant does his greatest Masters Business in serving him But he that will hold that upon this account he may be said to do the Work of a King That is performed the Royal Acts of his Regal Office and such as are peculiar thereunto or that this phrase hath the same import as Timothy's being enjoyned to the Work of an Evangelist hath a Crack in his Intellectuals We are told next P. 111.112 That Philip was an Evangelist Act. 21.8 yet also one of the seven Deacons mentioned Act. 6. But had no power to confirm the Baptized nor to ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices by imposition of Hands as Timothy Ans. First That Philip continued in the Office of a Deacon when called an Evangelist is more than he offers to prove or will be ever able to do The Belgick Divines with Diodiate others take the Office of Evangelist here for the extraordinary expired Function above described And consequently to be the same with the Office of Timothy Thus also Pool 2 d. Part paralelling this Passage with 2 Tim. 4.5 and Eph. 4.11 And upon the last Clause wherein mention is made of his Diaconate they assert that having discharged the Office of Deacon well he did purchase to himself this Good Degree as 1 Tim. 3.13 Judicious Calvin upon the place offers the same Sense of the Evangelists Office Inter Apostolos Doctores medii erant c. That they had a midle Function betwixt Apostles and Doctors and an Office next to that of the Apostolat that they might every where preach the Gospel and were sett to no fixed Station or Post. Whence he concludes that his Diaconate at Ierusalem was only transient or for some time exercised by him and that thereafter he was assumed to be an Evangelist since otherwise it had not been warrantable to him to leave Ierusalem and reside at Cesarea He further adds That he is not here proposed as a voluntar Deserter of his Office
but as one who had a more excellent Office entrusted unto him so that he held not both Offices joyntly Secondly For the point of Ordination I Answer First It is more than he hath proved or can that Timothy had a sole Interest therein in Churches constitute And what he might do in Churches not constitute is not to the purpose For 1. Ordination is found in Scripture to be the Judicial Act of a Presbytrie which was exercised even upon Timothy himself 2. Paul would not ordain alone tho the great Apostle of the Gentiles but took along the Presbytries Authoritative Concurrence where a Presbytrie was constitute as is evident in the Scripture Accounts of this Evangelists Ordination wherein the Presbytrie Authoritatively laid on Hands together with the Apostle Hence it is evident that far less could Timothy assume a sole Interest in Ordinarion exclusive of that of the Presbytrie when constitute since his Office was inferior to that of Apostolat Next Supposing Philip an Evangelist in the proper Scripture Acceptation above described he was no doubt capable of the same Employment and Exercise thereof when the Churches Case required it as Timothy else the Dr. will say that Evangelists had not all the same Office and Authority For what he adds of Confirming the Baptized we have above spoken to it a large And when he hath described this Confirmation and exhibite the Divine Warrands thereof and proved from Scripture Timothie's Interest therein I doubt not to bring up Philip to the same Priviledge We are told next That to be an Evangelist is very agreeable to all Subordinations of the Christian Hierarchy Thus it seems with him That the Term imports no peculiar Office And thus if he owns Eusebius Notion of Evangelist which is to Preach the Gospel to such as had not heard it or resisted it and were not Converted He appears inconsistent with himself in making it applicable to all Church Officers and consequently appropriating to them the Function of Converting Infidels by Preaching the Gospel as in these first times of Christianity And what Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Divines in Reference both to the Pastoral and Evangelistick Office is obviously evident Not to scann the foulsom Popish Savour of his expression of Christian Hierarchy and the necessary consequence of his absurd ascribing the Office of preaching the Gospel consequently the administration of the Seals of the Covenant to the meanest and lowest of Church Officers He adds That the primitive Bishops were Evangelists and that any Bishop or Presbyter that Converts Infidels are as properly Evangelists as these so called in the Primitive Church He must say as this person of whom our debate is who is by the Apostle Paul called to do the work of an Evangelist This is such a gross absurd Assertion that to recite it is to refute it Will any Man of common Sense imagine that when Timothy is thus enjoyned he is put upon no other work or to exercise no other Function than what the meanest Deacon was capable of Or that the Sense of this Precept do the Work of an Evangelist is only amounting to this Convert Infidels I think indeed the Man who believes this is an Infidel to this Scripture Light The Dr. is now advancing to a Scripture proof from Iames and tells us He will not debate with us whether James was one of the Twelve or not Nor shall I detain him upon this it being spoken to above and shall aknowledge he had the Name and Authority of an Apostle ascribed unto him Gal. 2.9 and 1.19 That he was Bishop of Ierusalem the Dr. tell us is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus What Strength is in this Argument from Human Testimony and what Credit Hegesippus deserves is above touched But we must tell him that he must be set to his task It is Divine Testimony and Scripture proof and Witnesses we are seeking according to his undertaking not that of Clemens or Hegesippus But he tells us he needs not fill Text or Margin with Gitations since all his Adversaries and particularly Salmasius acknowledge that he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem But truely he hath instead of Scripture proof filled his Pamphlet with such stuff that he had done well long since thus to resolve Here is a bold and broad amplifying Assertion which some will be bold to call one of the Dr's broad and splendid Lies What! All his Adversaries acknowledge Iames first Bishop of Ierusalem I know not one nor can he Assign one of this All that acknowledge him Bishop in the Prelatical Sense His Instance of Salmasius which is the only one to evince this All the Dr. Produceth is such a pitiful faint Witness that his adducing of him serves only to render the Dr. the Object of their Laughter who are less Serious For all that he can say is That James continued at Jerusalem when other Apostles withdrew But that he was therefore in his Sense Bishop of Ierusalem is a Consequence which will require other Rules of Logick to make it good than have been heard of Suppose Salmasius acknowledge that the Ancients called him so all do know that he asserts only their expressing the Offices of Apostles and other extraordinary Officers after the Mode of their Times and Denominations which had then obtained as Iunius Whittaker and many other Learned Protestant Divines have observed And the Matter it self is evident to all Unprejudicat Minds So that we need not insist upon this Only we must again enjoyn him his Task of proving a Twofold Consequence and help his Memory in order to his next Undertaking against the Presbyterians 1. Iames stayed at Ierusalem when other Apostles withdrew Ergo he was properly and formally Bishop thereof 2. Salmasius acknowledges that de facto the Ancients call him Bishop and that he abode at Ierusalem Ergo he acknowledges him Bishop of Ierusalem and a Bishop of the Dr's Mould as succeeding the Apostolat therein now it seems laid aside Again the Ancients acknowledge that de facto he was Bishop of Ierusalem and Salmasius relates this Ergo he ownes the Ius of the Hierarchical Bishop When the Dr. hath managed this Task he shall be an Apollo for his Skill But now P. 113. the Dr. tells us That the Account the Scriptures gives us of him is very agreeable to the Testimony of the Ancients I am verrily of the Opinion that the Dr's Veneration for Antiquity is too Venerable I should think that the Dr. should have spoken better Sense and Divinity if expressing it in this Order that the Testimony of the Ancients is agreeable to the Account of the Scripture and to have made the Scripture Account the Leading Testimony Well let us hear this Account of Scripture Only before we hear it let us remember what the Point is which this Account and Testimony must have Reference to viz. That the Apostle James was properly and formally Bishop of
Pools Annot. with several others take to be only the Signification of his Judgement upon the Question in Correspondence to what Peter had before spoken As for Simeons Succession to Iames in Ierusalem and Hegesippus Account of the Succession of Bishops there It is spoken to above and what Credit is to be given to the supposed Catalogue of Bishops in Ierusalem and other pretended Diocesses For what he adds of Calvin's Judgement upon Gal. 2.9 As favouring his Opinion I Answer Calvin takes him indeed to be among Eminent Apostles viz. In Moral Respects prudentia aliis dotibus as he expones the word Pillar and attributs the same Eminency to Peter and Iohn And speaking of his presiding in the Council he doth not positively assert the Ground which the Dr. alledges but problematically with a fortassis id factum c. And even granting his Admission of a Presidency the Consequence of an Official Presidency and as importing a Majority of Power far less eo nomine as formally Bishop there is so very gross and obviously impertinent as any with half an Eye may discover it The Dr. tells us That his Scripture Instances do plainly demonstrat that the Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was conveyed to single persons in the first Plantations of Christianity What Demonstrations these are I refer to the Reader to Judge from what is above replyed such sure as are not adapted to any Rules that hitherto hath been heard of whereof this is a very clear Demonstration that the Dr. in this Peroration and refined Summ and Conclusion of his supposed mighty preceeding Demonstrations hath pronounced as great None-sense as ever was spoken or written Which I demonstrat thus from the Series of his Reasoning In his Sense the Apostolick and Episcopal Office is one and equal and Apostles as such were Superior to all Church Officers except Bishops their proper Successors in Official Authority Now here is a Successor Bishop preferred to all Apostles eo nomine as Successor-Bishop yet deriving in his Sense also an Apostolat only And which is yet odder succeeding to an Apostolick Office who was an Apostle before and by his Confession thus related unto and having an Official Authority respecting the Church Universal Yet when his Charge is Restricted to Jerusalem as his proper Post and Diocess he doth upon this Ground Transcend all the Apostles in Official Authority If any will sodder these Assertions together and reconcile them to sound Sense and Divinity he must be better skilled than all Vulcan's Gimmerers The Dr. will not insist upon the Presbyterians imaginary and superficial Exceptions which they have invented They must be such because he saith it and save him from a Concern in Scanning them No doubt if as Superficial and Imaginary as his Demonstrations their Inventions were very shallow The Dr. brings next P. 114. the Trite Argument taken from the seven Asiatick Angels And first tells us of Salmasius taking the Angels as denoting the Churches the Denomination being taken from the purer Part of these Cities to which Christ wrote To which he replyes from the distinction of the Churches from the Angels Rev. 1.20 And that the Sense would thus be to the Church of the Churches Not to detain him much here we only tell him that whatever Salmasius Sense or Escape might be in this he cannot deny that in the Sense and Judgement of the Body of all Presbyterians the Angels are distinguished from the Churches as the Church Representative is from the Church Collective Besides himself acknowledges P. 115. That the Heavenly Admonitions are first addressed to the Angels and by them were Communicated to the Churches As at the close of every Epistle all are called to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches And he will not doubt that Salmasius distinguisheth Ministers from Church Members in this Point and the Church Members concern in all that is written he can less doubt Besides that Salmasius words will hardly bear his critical and saucy Construction who calls them a silly subterfuge since he may be supposed to compare only the Populi purior pars as he Terms it with the rest of the Inhabitants of these Towns so that the Address distininguisheth them from others And the Angel of the Church in his Sense will import only the Church in such a City not the Church of such a Church But the Dr. will not have the Angel a Multitude but one single Angel presiding over Presbyters and People We have already made appear that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel is most suâ—eable to Scripture and the Scope of this Book But the Dr. will needs loose the Objection taken from the Plural Address of the Angel which he thus propones That some Instructions there are in these Epistles in which others beside the Angels are particularly admonished This is a piece of our Dr's petty Sophistry He must make the knot easie that he may know how to loose it The very proposing of this Objection is a yeelding of the Cause For if in this Plural Address these others addressed be not the Angel then there is no Plural Address of the Angel himself or Representation of the Term Angel in a Plural Mould But had the Dr. intended to Dispute not to triffle in proposing a simple Foppery in stead of a Presbyterian Objection he should have told his Reader that we hold and do exhibit Instances of it that the Angel himself is addressed Plurally and bespoken so in these Epistles as a plurality of Officers appear evidently to be pointed at by thâ— Term Angel As particularly when it is said To you and the rest in Thyatira Rev. 2.24 Thus likewise v. 10. Fear none of these things which thou shall suffer Behold the Devil shalt cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation c. Be thou faithful unto death Well what saith he to this Objection Why The Epistle is no less addressed to the single Angel than that of the Philippians is to the whole Church at Philippi though Paul useth particular Compellations Chap. 4.2.3 I entreat thee also true Yoke-fellow help those Women c. But good Dr. here is both a particular special distinct Precept and under such a Compellation as is in tâ—rminis separat and distinguished from the Body of the Church and those general Precepts addressed thereunto So that there is no shadow of a Paralel when the Angel is plurally Addressed for the Precept and Injunction is the very same Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer There 's a relative pointing at the single Term Angel Then the Devil shall cast you that ye may be tryed Be thou faithful c. There the same persons are addressed and spoken to both singlely as one Angel and plurally as many that in reference to the same very individual Purpose and Duty the Speech running on both to the same Persons and the same Scope So that to use the Dr's
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
even of Purest Times presents unto us must be brought to this Touch-stone and Standard of the Scripture Institution as being thereby Regulable And therefore can make up no part of this Rule In determining this Question the Surveyer in the first place Will not have the Fulness of Ordinary Church Power committed by the Apostles to any single Presbyter as if he had Actual Power of Ordination or Iurisdiction That the Power of Order the Administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed to the Pastor is of it self Evident That the Power of Jurisdiction is committed to him as he is by Office a Member of the Judicatory which is the proper adequat Subject of this Authority of Ordination and Jurisdiction is equally evident The Surveyer challengeth us to shew such Colledges of single Presbyters as had that Plentitude of Church Power committed to them by the Apostles and exercised the same especially taking in Ruling Elders Ans. If by Plentitude of Church Power be understood the ordinary Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times and as abstracted and distinguished from the extensive Power of Apostles Evangelists We say it is found seated in the Colledge of Pastors and Presbyters both in the Acts of the Apostles and else where in the New Testament The Apostles instituted Pastors or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church and sure not to preach only and administrat Sacraments but to Rule seeing they have the Name and Thing of Governors Rulers Overseers Bishops ascribed to them And if they were to Rule sure in Collegiat Meetings We find the Exercise of this Power commanded and commended to Pastors or Presbyters Thus by the Apostle to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus Act. 20. By the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 5. to the Pastors of the Churches to which he wrote We find this Jurisdictional Power accordingly exercised by them both as to Ordination and the highest Censures 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Cor. 5. And the Circumstances of these and such like Texts do cleary evince that this Jurisdictional Power was to continue thus exercised by these Societies or Colledges of Presbyters when the Apostles were gone off the Stage and that consequently they are the Proper Subject of the Power immediatly derived from them As for the Ruling Elder his Institution and Office being found in Scripture he is upon Divine Warrand supposed a Member of these Judicatories when the Churches are fully constituted in their Organick being But the Surveyer tells us We cannot make appear that in these Meetings of Presbyters there was an Equality of Power since Superior Officers were with them Ruling and Ordering their Church Actings Ans. Though de facto it were found that in these Meetings Superior Officers were present yet if they be found Officers of an Extraordinary Authority and whose Power was Cumulative unto not Privative of the ordinary Power and Authority of these Meetings This is utterly remote from speaking any thing to his Purpose and Conclusion 2. Whereas the Surveyer peremptorly poseth us Where such a Meeting of Presbyters is found in the Acts of the Apostles he should have added or else where in the New Testament without Superior Officers ordering their Meeting We peremptorly Pose him what Superior Officer is found set over the Colledge of the Elders of Ephesus when Paul gave them his last Charge touching the Exercise of a Ioynt Episcopal Power over that Church What Superior Officer is found set over the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of Philippi Or over these Pastors and Bishops mentioned 1 Pet. 5. or these Ruling Teachers mentioned 1 Thes. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 Sure these Governing Teachers mett for Government and these Meetings if found thus Constituted and Exercising an Episcopal Power we have therein Convincing Instances of an Episcopal Power in a Colledge of Presbyters without the Inspection of any Superior Ordinary Officers For as for Apostolical Directions hereanent they could no more impeach this Authority than Directions with Reference to the Power of Order could impeach the same The Surveyer P. 196. brings for his third Ground The Apostles committing the Plentitude of Ordinary Church Power to single Persons in a Superiority over other Ministers Instancing the Asiatick Angels Rev. 2.3 And Pauls Directions to Timothy and Titus whom he sent and instructed with a Iudiciary Power into Ephesus and Crete and to ordain Ministers which had been to no purpose had this Power been competent to Pastors Ans. This Trite Argument hath been above at large spoken to Therefore we shall but briefly touch it in this place First For the Asiatick Angels We have made appear First That the Collective Sense of the word Angel stands upon the most probable Foundation and is owned by the greatest part of sound Interpreters as being most suteable to the Style of Prophetick Writings representing many Persons by a singular Typical Term whereof frequent Instances are exhibit to the Style of this very Book in representing many Persons or a Series of Men by one Symbolical Term such as Whore VVoman Beast c. Besides that the Angel is found plurally addressed Chap. 2.24 Next That admitting the Angel to be a single Person will only plead that he is the Angelus praeses or Moderator yea and so pro tempore and addressed as the Parliament is in the Person of the Speaker That no Address is made to him with respect to any Jurisdiction over Pastors nor can any Reason be given wherefore the Commendations and Reprehensions respecting Ministerial Dutys must be fixed in an Exclusive Sense upon one Person c. Next For the Directions to Timothy and Titus It is above made appear that their Office was Extraordinary and passed off like that of the Apostles with that First Infant State and Exigence of the Church since it is made Good they were Evangelists in a proper formal Sense 2. That upon this Ground they could have no Successors in their Formal Office and Inspection which imported a Relation to no particular Church nor can consequently represent the Authority of any ordinary Officer with such a fixed Relation of this Nature and Extent It is likewayes made appear that the Episcopal Pleaders from these Directions must either upon this Ground extend their Power equally with that of Apostles or make it appear that these Directions of this Nature and importing this Authority were applicable to them no where else and in reference to no other Churches where they are found to exercise their Office Either of which are inevitable Absurdities Finally It is made appear that this Inspection was of a Transient Nature did suppose the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office was Cumulative unto not Privative of the Official Authority of Pastors and therefore cannot prove a sole and single Authority of a Prelat over Church Judicatories But sayes the Surveyer What need was there to send them for this End to these Churches if a Iurisdictional Power was competent
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
calling into Question the Uniformity of the Apostolick Church Government The Surveyer next assaults our Argument from the not mentioning of the Bishop in the Catalogue of Church Officers but palpably disguises it as if we argued merely from the non-nomination of the Bishop in Eph 4.11 among the Officers there mentioned as Gifted to the Church The Argument is this That there being several Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Institution as in that Passage Eph. 4. and likewise 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6.7 The Diocesan Hierarchical Bishop is found in none of them and we may add and likewise in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Officers exhibit in Scripture and therefore is no Officer appâ—inted of GOD. He tells us That though not mentioned under that Name they are mentioned under the Name of Pastors and Teachers But as he unjustly supposes that our Argument Concludes from that one place so he deals as unjustly or unskilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers who so little concern themselves in that work and marrs his design in making them Succeed to the Apostles in the plenitude of their ordinary Power as he doth P. 194 195. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apostles or else he must bring up Pastors and Teachers to the same Succession The Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apostolick or Evangelistick Office why then did he assign different Degrees of the Pastoral Office This Consequence the Surveyer calls weak because a Governing Superiority among Apostles and Evangelists was partly impracticable partly unnecessary they seldom living in ordinary Societies because of their Dispersion for speedy spreading of the Gospel and having infallible direction in their Ministry Whereas Pastors living in Society and fixed-upon their Charges their Associations have need of some Governing Superiority among them to be a Nerve and Sinnew of their Union and that the Prudence of some may repress the Levity of others Ans. This Reason is but the ignis fatuus of our Surveyers fancy First as touching Apostles we find them notwithstanding of the infallible conduct of the Spirit joyning Counsel together yea and with concurrence of ordinary Officers as Act. 15. and a Moderator of the Meeting presiding whom his Party will needs make us believe did preside as Bishop of Jerusalem so that this very Colledge of Apostles had the Superintendency of this Episcopal Nerve in their Sense And none can deny that persons managing one work if far dispersed have the greater need of a Corresponding headâ— Next as for Pastors we find their social Government by common Counsel exhibit in Scripture and that their Union was a Presbyterial Classical Union and did not Coalesce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat Besides the Surveyer is a niggardly Dispenser of Governing Prudence when Monopolizing it in one Prelat and denying it to the rest of the Members of the Society of Pastors Or if he allow it to more than one Person he plucks the Hierarchical Bishop from his Seat and disownes the Concentring of this Authority in his Person For what he adds of the Early Reception of this supposed Headship of the Hierarchical Prelat by the whole Church His Confident Assertion is easily Answered by a well grounded Denyal He is bold to say there is nothing in Scripture against this Officer But his palpable Perversion of the Scriptures pleaded against him discovers there is more said against him than he was able to Answer and these Texts pleaded appears the more forcible after all his faint Essays this way He offers in the next place P. 214. a Reply to our Argument from Philip. 1.1 From which we argue That there being here a Plurality in one and the same Church who must need be Pastors and Officers therein Therefore the Scripture Bishop is not the Hierarchical Bishop since the Apostle salutes these Pastors joyntly as Officers of the Highest Rank under this Notion of being Bishops thereof and without the least hint of a respect to any Superior Officer set over them Besides that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior In Answer to this the Surveyer first takes notice that in this Epistle only the Direction is by Paul to the Officers as contradistinct from the Church whereas in the rest of the Epistles he includes them in the Organick Church without express mentioning of them Ans. Not to stand upon this Variety in the Inscription of Epistles wherein sometimes the Apostle Stile himself by his Authority sometimes not sometimes associats with himself Officers of an Inferior Order sometimes not It is noticeable here how this Man in a palpable Contradiction to himself doth quite baffle and run down his first large Answer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5. which concludes the People only to be bespoken because Officers are not Named Whereas here he acknowledges that except in this one Epistle in the rest the Church Officers are included in the Organick Church without the express mentioning of them But to proceed the Surveyer will needs with Ambrose have the Reason of the Difference to be that they were not Bishops and Deacons of that Church but present with Paul and Timothy at Writing of the Epistle and assumed as Consenters with him and this he makes paralel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me He tells us the Apostle calls them not Bishops and Deacons of Philippi but absolutely Bishops and Deacons and the Copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to Paul and Timothy the Writers as well as to the Saints at Philippi Ans. The Surveyer in approving this palpably absurd Gloss discovers how miserably he is put to it to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument For â—not to speak of Ambrose Sentiments wherein the Surveyer cannot make it appear he is followed by any Interpreters it is evident beyond all Contradiction that the Apostles usual Method in the Inscription of all the Epistles is First To describe himself either by his Office of Apostle or otherwayes as the Pen-man of the Epistle together with Others if any such be whom he is pleased to Associat with him in the Inscription And then in a Distinct Clause and Branch to Describe these whether persons or Churches to whom the Epistle is Addresed And we dare confidently Challenge such as embrace this Sense to exhibit a contrary Instance in any of the Epistles or to shew where the persons supposed present with the Apostle are in their Description cast behind his Character of himself and the Description of the Persons to whom he writes Nay this so evident that the Surveyers own Instance Gal. 1. baffles his Answer For after Pauls Description of himself as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man calling himself an Apostle not of Men neither by Man c. He doth in the 2 v. add and all that are with me And next describes those to whom the Epistle is directed viz.
Unto the Churches of Galatia The Surveyer inverts the Order and would make the Words run thus Paul an Apostle c. unto the Churches of Galatia and all the Brethren c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. should thus run and be Sensed Paul an Apostle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Sosthenes our Brother point blank cross to the Scope and Order of the Text. Thus also 2 Cor. 1.1 Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ c. unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth and Timothy our Brother Thus the Sense of this place Philip. 1.1 is with the Surveyer Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Iesus Christ to the Saints in Christ Iesus at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons with Paul What Sense or rather Non-sense is this He could assign no Instance of such a Trajection of the copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he here admitts nor any Reason why Timothy is not ranked with these Bishops The Surveyer P. 215. to strengthen one absurd Notion with another doth in the second place alledge That there was here a casual Muster of other Bishops of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof to consult the good of the Churches And tells us That the Apostle speaks generally as to the Saints at Philippi Ch. 4.21 And not only of that Church so of these Bishops and Deacons taken universally as mett there though not of that particular Church But this fantastical Muster-master of these Extraneous Officers as he can give no shadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact which is the Substratum of his Reason Answer So he doth in asserting Philippi to be the Metropolis of Macedonia either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick Sense contradict the Judgement of several of the Learned And as he still beggs the Question in supposing the Existence of his Diocesan Prelat so there is nothing in this Epistle that might be supposed to have the least respect to the Ends of such a Meeting or can give Ground to extend the Bishops Deacons or Saints beyond the Limits of that Church unless such an Extension be applyed to other Churches in the like case of Epistles addressed to them as Ephesus Rome c. Nay where there is in the Inscription of Epistles such an express Extension in reference to the persons addressed we find it in a distinct Clause Thus 1 Cor. 1.2 after this general Inscription and Designation viz. Unto the Church of GOD which is at Corinth there follows this Extension with all that in every place call upon the Name of Iesus Christ. Thus 2 Cor. 1.1 After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Corinth follows this express Extension with all the Saints that are in all Achaia The Surveyer in his third Answer will admit the Bishops and Deacons to be related to that particular Church But tells us This will not prove they were all Bishops of an equal Degree It is good that the Surveyer will at last admit these Bishops to be the settled Bishops here and will take them off and likewise the Deacons whose work is only to serve Tables from his alledged great and general Consults anent the Case of the Churches of Macedonia But for what is here forged and pretended we have told him that the Scripture Bishops or Pastors are of equal Official Authority and that he would here mind and take home his own Reason viz. that there is no such Notes of Distinction or Discriminating Characters as he stands so much upon in the Apostles Salutation The Surveyer tells us The general Name might be common to the Bishops strictly so called and the Inferior Bishops As in a Letter directed to the Magistrats of a City and terming them Magistrats in general though one only is supposed a Provost and others Bailiffs Thus Saluting the Bishops in cumulo he denyeth not their different Degrees Ans. Besides that the Surveyer is still renewing his Petitio Principii and supposing the Existence of his Hierarchical Prelat he should have pondered the Rule Similitudo ad Pompam c. A Similitude may illustrat a thing proposed or supposed but cannot prove a thing in Question Next this Similitude overthrows his Scope For 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cumulo but under distinct Epithets of Bishops and Deacons diversifying as he acknowledged Church Officers of a distinct Character and Office 2. He makes the Term Bishop to be the Name distinguishing the Diocesan as under that Character from Presbyters and who is supposed to be but one in one Church Thus looking to his Similitude he makes the Apostle speak as improperly as if a Plurality of Provosts or Provosts in the pâ—ural were saluted in a Letter to one City But the Surveyer P. 216. urges That since we own two sorts of Elders the Preaching and Ruling Elder and comprehend them under the Name Bishop we must owne it that there are diverse Ranks of Officers saluted under that Name Or if disowning this it follows that the Apostle did not intend to write to such tho supposed Church Officers Ans. This Dilemma is crocked and pushes us not If we say such Officers were not as yet existent in this Church it only follows that it was not yet fully constitute in all its Officers Or if in the next place we admit them existent the Surveyer hath no Advantage For 1. We admit this Divinely instituted Officer as eminenter included in the Office of the Bishop or Pastor both having the general Notion of Inspection applicable unto them But the Hierarchical Bishop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer by his Confession 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder impeaches not the equal Power of Pastors here saluted in the Plural but the admitting of the Hierarchical Prelat overthrows this and consequently the Apostles Scope But the Surveyer tells us he may upon our ground bring in the Superior and Inferior Degrees of Bishops and Presbyters under this general Name of Bishops Ans. We can comprehend none under this Designation who have not our Lords Institution as all Inspectors and Governours of his House must else they run unsent and cannot be called his Stewards not having a Commission from him We include the Elder as a Divinely instituted Officer whose Divine Institution we make good but do reject the Hierarchical Prelat as an Officer of Mans devising And the Surveyer might under Pretence of this general Name and upon such a Topick advance Cardinals Primats or whom he pleased The Surveyer in the fourth place will needs loose the Objection that the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior To which he gives this Return That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Inferior in respect of some common Dignity Qualifications or Accidents competent to both as the Name of Presbyter both via ascensus and descensus is given to Superior and Inferior Officers as Beza confesses on 1 Pet. 5. Ans. The Surveyer here hath disguised the Strength
Authors after cited as understanding the Term in his Sense It is one thing to say that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been indifferently used by Greek Authors for the Office and Order of a Presbyter it is a far other thing to say that the Scripture Term in these three Passages is so to be understood Since here the signification of the Word is to be drawn from the Scope and Contexture of the place of Scripture where it is which must needs Over-rule and Determin the Signification in this Passage though it were granted that sometimes Greek Authors did use it in another Signification The Language of the Holy Ghost in these three Passages as it doth certainly Over-rule all other Greek Authors so the Term in the three Passages exhibited doth palpably appear to be of one and the same Signification viz. pointing at a Colledge of Presbyters or Elders Besides that there want not Ecclesiastick and Greek Authors thus understanding it Such as Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact. For what the Surveyer adds out of Bilson P. 77. That ordinarly in Ancient Greek Councils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been used indifferently for the Office and Order of a Presbyter Citing Council of Nice Can. 2. Antioch Can. 18. Afric Can. 136. Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 8. It is Answered First It is acknowledged by Bilson that the Councils mentioned use the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is distinct from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next as Camero is clear and positive for our Sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Matth. 18.5 And asserts that the contrary Acceptation for the Office and Dignity of Presbyter contradicts both the Signification of the Word and the Apostles Scope So he shews further that rarely doth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import the Office but where the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood Hen. Stephanus takes the Word here to import Caetum omnium illorum qui in verbo laborabant the Colledge of such as labour in the Word and Doctrine And the other Paralels Luk. 22.66 and Act. 22.5 he expones of the Meeting of Elders Scapula expones the Word in this Passage Caetus Presbyterorum Presbyterium a Presbytrie or Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters The Passage of Euseb. Lib. 6. C. 8. may be taken without any Violence offered to the Words to import the Colledge of Presbyters and in Camero's Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word it is enough to baffle this Exception that as this Term in Greek and Ecclesiastick Authors is ordinarly thus taken for which frequent Instances might be given so it is certain and enough for us that it 's alwayes taken in a Collegiat Sense in the Scriptures of the New Testament And in the Paralels mentioned it were gross Non-sense to take the Word in the Surveyers Sense and to say that the Office of Elders did meet together and the Office of Elders did bear Witness to Paul so it carrieth the same Incongruity and absurd Sense with it to assert that the Office laid Hands upon Timothy The Surveyer next excepts against our Argument drawn from the Paralels That therein the word imports not a Meeting of Christian Presbyters but only of Jewish Elders persecuting Christ and His Apostles That though the Term were taken in this Sense only in this place there wants not Paralel Instances of such an acceptation of words As the word Church is taken but once Matth. 18.17 for a Representative Church so the 1 Cor. 11.10 the word Power in that place of Scripture only signifies the Covering and Vail upon the Womans head as a token of Subjection to her Husband And that it is enough in such Cases that the Strain of the Context requires a Varrying from the Acceptation of the word in other places Ans. The Strength of our Argument is drawn both from the ordinary Acceptation of the Word which hath its own secondary weight and likewise and mainly from this that the Scope and Contexture of this Passage do clearly plead for the Acceptation of the Word in the ordinary Sense and not to varry from it And therefore his Assertion That the Strain of the Context requires a varrying from this ordinary acceptation in this place is but his bold begging of the Question For of this he neither offers nor can offer any solid proof Nay the contrary is the consentient Judgement of Interpreters The Imposition of Hands here signifies Consent and Election whereof it was a Sign saith Vatabulus The whole is signified by a part viz. of the Ordination saith Estius To wit of the whole Ceremony of the Presbytries Ordination Prayer was added with Imposition of Hands saith Grotius I hope he will not say the Office prayed Camero censures the contrary Exposition upon several Grounds 1. Because the Imposing of the hands of the Office is a harsh saying and sounds improperly 2. Because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies the Office wherever it occurs in the new Testament citing the Paralels Luke 22.66 Act. 22 5. As likewise because the Office is signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but here the word signifies a Colledge or embodied Court. 3. Because Timothy's Authority was greater than that it could be called a Presbyterate Bullinger upon the place tells us that this is one motive whereby the Apostle stirrs up Timothy to diligence in his Office that besides the Prophesies that went before of him and his inward impulse accedit praeterea manuum Seniorum impositio quae ista comprobavit publico muneri publice praefeeit That he had the Imposition of the Hands of the Elders or Presbyters sealing and confirming his inward impulse in the Prophesies that went before and which did install him in this publick Office Paraeus upon the place shews that Timothy was thus taken into the Order and Society of Pastors And upon Ch. 1. v. 6. of 2 d Epistle collating together the imposing of Pauls Hands and the Hands of the Presbytrie he shews the Reason thus quia Paulus unus fuit ex Presbyterio vel Presbyterii nomine imposuit Because Paul was one of that Presbytrie or imposed hands in their Name Where it is evident he understands the Prebytrie in a collegiat sense for a Meeting of Pastors Piscator upon the place shews That Timothy is stirred up to diligence first upon the account of his singular vocation to this Function by the Revelation of the Holy Ghost And next by the vocation of the Church obeying this Command of the Holy Ghost in imposing the Hands of the Presbytrie upon him because the Presbyters or Pastors by this Rite ordained the Ministers of the Church Diodat upon the place tels us that by the Presbytrie we are to understand the laying on of the Hands of the Elders shewing that thus the Italian reads the Text and these Elders he
is in this convincingly apparent in that they put the Names of Bishops and Arch-bishops or Metropolitans upon Timothy and Titus We need not here again remind what is above made good touching Ambrose Assertion upon Eph. 4. Non per omnia conveniunt c. That the Practice of the Church then he is speaking in point of Church Government did not sute in every thing the Writings of the Apostles And that of Chrysostom on 1 Tim. 3. Hom. 11. That betwixt the Office of Bishop and Presbyter there is almost no difference As for his Charge of our wresting the Scriptures to patronize Human Devices We let it pass among the rest of this Mans lying Imputations it being evident to the candid Searchers of the Word and into this Controversy whether this person and his Associats in their Pleadings or the Presbyterians be the Perverters and Wresters of the Scriptures The Surveyer P. 219. further adds That if the Ordination of Timothy to be an Evangelist be spoken of here under the Name of Presbytrie may well be comprehended a Meeâ—ing of Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical Men seeing the conjugated word Presbytrie may be of as great a Latitude and Signification as to a Meeting as Presbyter is to a Person Ans. Here is a new flight of our Surveyers fancy Timothy now stepping up to be an Evangelist and the Ordainers Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical-Men But sure if they be either of the first two as he supposeth Paul is put out of his Office of a Sole Ordainer here Yea and in his Sense if any of the three be admitted the Scripture Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he pleaded as importing Pauls single Authority in this Action is expunged that room may be made for other Apostles and Evangelists This Surveyer would be hard put to it to prove that the Ordination of an Evangelist necessarly required such a compacted Meeting But as in the rest of his Comments and Replyes so in this we must take his word for proof as if his new Prelatical Office if such it was indeed as some have supposed had derived an Infallibility into his Magisterial Dictats As for his Latitudinarian Extensions of the word Presbytrie besides that he hath exhibit no Scripture Instance to prove such an Extension or evince that the word is ever taken in such a Sense he still beggs the Question in its Application to this Passage Next We are still in the dark what he means by Apostolick Men If he intend his Hierarchical Prelat here is a new begging of the Question and though the word Presbytrie might reach the comprehending of the higher Officers to the Presbyter who have the Scripture Stamp and Signature it is a stretching of the Term upon Tenter Pins till it crack to make it reach to an Officer of a Human Invention or a half Human Mould as he makes the Bishops It would have also puzzled this Surveyer or these of his mind upon the supposition that Timothy was here ordained an Evangelist to reconcile this with what he and they do plead from Pauls Directions in the first Epistle to him for his Instalment in his Episcopal Function over the Church of Ephesus wherein he is commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist For they must either here degrade him from this Function upon their Supposition of his Episcopal Instalment or if they make his Instalment here Evangelistick they make him to have been twice instaled in that Function CHAP. IV. Wherein is considered the Surveyers Answer to the Presbyterian Charge against the Diocesan Prelat as a new Officer different from those instituted by our Lord and standing in opposition to the Scripture Accounts of the New Testament Church-Government And this upon the Ground of the Perfection of the Scripture Records hereanent and our Lords Faithfulness in the full Institution of the Officers and Government of his Church THE Surveyer now P. 219. tells his Reader He hath presented the Summ of the Presbyterian Strength in these Passages and given fair and just Interpretations of these Scriptures which they plead Whereas he hath presented rather a Farrago of his own fantastick Quiblings and contradictory Notions and Conceits instead of true Interpretations of these places And it is apparent that after all this Mans faint Essays the Presbyterian Bow abids in its Strength Yet after all is done the Surveyer will needs attempt the removal of some more Impediments in his way The one is That the Presbyterians disown Episcopacy as a Human invention as a new Office never appointed by Christ and consequently to be expelled his House In Answer to this the Surveyer having acknowledged that there are Human inventions which proceed from Mens pleasures as Matth. 15.9 adds that there are results of sanctified Reason subservient to the orderly performance of the Worship of God and to the Ruling of his House with respect to the general Rules of the Word Wherein as before he still beggs the Question in supposing Prelacy to be one of these variable Circumstances determinable by Human Prudence and subservient to the Churches good according to the General Rules of the Word which is proved to be Diametrally opposit to Christs Institutions in point of Government and stands in opposition to the great ends of the Churches Edificâ—tion and the true Government thereof Thereafter he runs out into an impertinent discourse anent Ministers use of invention in Preaching the singing of Psalms with Poetical invention of the Composer in Metre who had no infallible inspiration And asks if we account the Confession of Faith Catechism and the Holy Covenant Human Inventions as to their outward frame And enquires further what we will answer to one that should plead thus was not Christ and his Apostles wise enough and could have set down such forms if they had juâ—ged them necessary c. and not left them to Mans inventions Ans. The impertinency of all this evidently appears when we consider that our Question with them is anent an Office and Officer not appointed by the Lord and cross to his Institutions in Point of Government whether Men may set him up in the House of God yea or not His Instances speak only of the Lawfulness of our Reason and Christian Prudence in a clear subserviency to the obedience of Commanded Ordinances for such is Preaching and Ministerial instruction Catechising and Singing of Psalms So that these being Commanded Ordinances and Institutions the proper subservient means thereof do in a Remote Sense fall within the compass of the Divine Commands enjoining the same such are these he mentions viz. a methodical form of Sound words digested into Catechisms for the Peoples instruction and growth of Knowledge the framing of Psalms commended for the use of Singing a Commanded Duty into such a Metrical Composure as is suitable hereunto I mean keeping still close to the Sacred Text and not varying from the true and genuine Sense of the words the Minister making use of Sanctified
Reason in a suitable Methodical invention to digest the Matter he delivereth in the best Mould for the Case and Edification of the People to whom he is the Mouth of God and must divide the Word of Truth aright unto them applying it for Doctrin Reproof Exhortation c. according to their various Conditions For the Covenant which the Surveyer in derision calls Holy it falls under the same Consideration with the preceeding Instances besides the clear Scripture Precedents recommending and warranding the Practice These I say are so far from reaching any Patrociny to the setting up of a Prelat whose Office encroaches upon the Due Rights of a true Gospel Ministry and consequently stands in opposition both to Divine Institutions and ends of Government that this defence appears no defence at all For what he adds of the â—reed and Doxologie it is removed by what is said and we need only to add that the end of such Observances is better reached in the present Practice of our Church in point of Worship than with such Observances But the Surveyer appears very angry at the calling the Diocesan Bishop a New Officer not Instituted by GOD in his House and speâ—ds to this Scope many words P. 222.223 which is this in Summ. First That the Prelatical Function is only a new Dignity and Authority granted for Peace sake to one Minister above others within the bounds of the same Order Ans. First the Surveyer should have considered that his Spliting of a supposed Divinely Instituted Office and dividing the Work and Duties thereof unto different Subjects and Recipients is upon the Matter a devising of New Orders and all one therewith Do not Papists tell us that the Priest is the Highest Order of Ministry and comprises with the Diaconate their whole Hierarchy which is nothing else but an extension of these Suppose the Pastoral Power of Order were thus Split that one Rank or degree of Men were allowed only to Baptize not to Preach others to Preach not at all to Baptize who will disown it that these were Antiscriptural Human Inventions dividing what GOD hath conjoined And once admitting this what limits can be set to Mens inventions in this Point Or how can the Multiplyed Orders in Popery be condemned and all the Swarm of their new invented Officers Sure the solid ground of Condemning them is that they are a Spurious Brood inverting and destroying the End Union and Order of the Divinely appointed Officers of the House of GOD. The Spliting of the Actings of the Power of Order is surely condemned upon this Ground of the Oneness and Identity of this Office of the Pastor And if the Case stands thus with Reference to the Power and Exercise of Order why is not the case the same in the Point of Jurisdiction which is for the same end as the other Moreover if upon pretence of Order and Unity this extension of the exercise were admitted in the Method he pleads this Jurisdictional Power may be extended to the highest degree even of a Patriarchat or Popedome for the Pope doth pretend he is but of the order of Priestood and the lowest Rank of that Hierarchy have by this Principle a fundamental aptitude for the highest Office and extent of their Order The Surveyer will have a Power left to the Church to Rank Ministers with a Respect to Union and here is an Union of the Universal Church resolving in such an Officer and clearly going upon his Principle of the way of uniting particular Churches And who will doubt that the Union of the Church Universal hath the same Ground with that of Particular Churches In a word the Folly of this Discourse appears in this that Ministers who have an unquestionable interest in Ordination and Jurisdiction are charged by the Great Master duely to exercise both as they shall Answer to him and therefore must not but upon their perril denude themselves of any piece of that Work and Authority committed to them this being the Talent whereof they are to give an account to him who hath given to every one of his Servants their Work The distinction of the Diocesan Hierarchical Prelat from the Presbyter as a New Officer is evident whether we consider his New Name of Bishop or Archbishop his New work of Governing the Diocess besides his Trust in the Civil Government his New Ordination or Consecration to his New work his distinct Qualifications in consequence of the whole from the Pastor or Minister So that he appears in all these Respects a Compacted New Officer and supposing the Pastors Divine Authority a New Usurper The Surveyer tells us He is no New Officer since the inferior Officer doing thâ— same Acts it is not a nullity But as this Reason would tend to the former Antiscriptural spliting of Offices so that the Episcopalians will not allow this Concession is by this time evident We all know who have in a late practice condemned the Presbyterial Ordination of the Protestant Church of France For what he adds of the Power of the Commission of Assemblies to Fortifie his Notion the Disparity is palpable and apparent whether we consider the Powers Deputing and giving Commission viz The King in the Case of the Prelats the Churches Representative or Assembly in the Case of the Commission The Prelat receiving a New Ordination The Commissioners not The Commissioners being limited as to their work and continuance by the Assembly and as being Answerable unto them not the Prelats c. But of this above As for his discourse of Superintendents P. 223. The Author of the Vindiciae Epistolae Philadelphi against Spotswoods Calumnies hath at large made good the vast and essential difference betwixt the transient Office of the Superintendents and that of Prelats P. 31.32 in no less than Twelve Instances to which for brevitie we refer the Reader The Surveyer P. 223.224 attempts in the next place to answer the Objection against the Hierarchical Prelat taken from Christs Faithfulness and the Scriptures perfection From the Comparison institut in Scripture betwixt Christ and Moses in point of Faithfulness in the Ordering and Institution of the Government and Ordinances of the House of God The Argument is no doubt very considerable upon both grounds if we shall but suppose the Absolute Perfection of all our Mâ—diators Offices and the Correspondent Exercises thereof for the Edification and Salvation of his Church and especially under the Gospel Dispensation As a Prophet he hath fully revealed the Counsel and Mind of GOD so as nothing is to be added to his Divine Revelations thereof no new Rules Truths or Duties to be superadded beyond the limits he hath revealed As a Priest his Satisfaction his Intercession is so full that no pretended subservient Intercessors or Saviours are to be devised by Men Thus ful and perfect is the Exercise of his Kingly Office in appointing the Officers Censures Laws and Government of his House The Argument appears further invincibly strong when we Ponder