The hierarchical bishops claim to a divine right, tried at the scripture-bar, or, A consideration of the pleadings for prelacy from pretended Scriptural arguments, presented and offered by Dr. Scott, in his book intituled, The Christian life, part II, A.M., D.D. in his Enquiry into the New Opinions, &c., and by the author of the second part of the Survey of Naphtali ... / by Thomas Forrester ... Forrester, Thomas, 1635?-1706. 1699 Approx. 1133 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 180 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A39998 Wing F1596 ESTC R4954 12269996 ocm 12269996 58203 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A39998) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 58203) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 890:1) The hierarchical bishops claim to a divine right, tried at the scripture-bar, or, A consideration of the pleadings for prelacy from pretended Scriptural arguments, presented and offered by Dr. Scott, in his book intituled, The Christian life, part II, A.M., D.D. in his Enquiry into the New Opinions, &c., and by the author of the second part of the Survey of Naphtali ... / by Thomas Forrester ... Forrester, Thomas, 1635?-1706. Scott, John, 1639-1695. Christian life. Monro, Alexander, d. 1715? Enquiry into the new opinions. [10], 124, 145, [1], 71, [1] p. Printed by James Watson ..., Edinburgh : 1699. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. Table of contents: p. [1] at end. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Episcopacy. 2003-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-03 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-04 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2003-08 SPi Global Rekeyed and resubmitted 2003-09 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2003-09 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Hierarchical Bishops CLAIM TO A Divine Right , TRIED AT The SCRIPTURE-BAR . OR , A CONSIDERATION of the Pleadings for PRELACY , from pretended Scriptural Arguments , Presented and Offered By Dr. SCOTT , in his Book intituled , The Christian Life , Part II. A. M. D. D. in his Enquiry into the New Opinions , &c. And by The Author of the Second Part of the Survey of Naphtali . — Exposing their Bold Pervertings of the Scriptures pleaded by them ; and Vindicating the Sound Sense of the Scriptures brought in Debate , from their Scope , and the Judgment of Protestant Writers . The Whole issuing in a clear Discovery of the Solid Grounds of Presbyterian Government , in opposition to Prelacy . By THOMAS FORRESTER , Minister of the Gospel , and Principal of the New Colledge in St. Andrews . ISAI . 9.6 . — The Government shall be upon his Shoulder — HEB. 3.5.6 . — Moses — Faithful in all his House as a Servant — But CHRIST as a Son over His own House . EDINBURGH , Printed by Iames Watson , on the North-side of the Cross , M. DC.XC.IX . To the Right Honourable , PATRICK Earl of MARCHMOVNT , Viscount of BLASONBERRY , Lord POLWARTH of POLWARTH , REDBRAES , and GREENLAW , &c. LORD HIGH CHANCELOR Of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND . MY NOBLE LORD , THAT these Sheets do appear in publick , under the Patrociny of Your Lordships Honourable Name , Flows from the same Motives offered in the late Dedication of this Nature . Not to insist upon the Proofs of your Lordships undeserved Respect to me , or my more , immediat and Personal Knowledge , than many others of my Capacity , of your Lordships Christian Fortitude , and Unbyassed Stayedness in such a Tryal of your Faith and Patience , and Juncture of searching Tryals , as may Justly be called the Persecutionis turbo ▪ The Affinity of the Subject , and Scope of this Work , doth Justly Plead for the same Patrociny . As Pastors are set for the Defence of the Gospel , have a special Concern in the Vindication of Opposed Truth , so the Magistrate according to his Capacity , being a Keeper of both Tables , hath by his Office an unexceptionable interest in this Important and Honourable Employment . It is an additional Argument , in point of Equity and True Honour , that the Writings Examined , do highly asperse , and cast a base Imputation upon the Nations Authority and Laws , as if Erecting and Maintaining , yea , and engaging His Majesty in the Maintenance of a Government of the Church , cross to Apostolick Institution , and the Churches Universal Practice , such as is eversive of True Unity and Order , a Nursery of Novel Bigotrie , tending to Revive the late Bloody Broils , infesting these Kingdoms . None will doubt , when the Honour of the Nation is thus Wounded , Rulers Concern in a Just Vindication ▪ But the Ground appears yet of a Higher Import and Elevation , if it be supposed , that the Government Aspersed , is that Divine Frame , appointed by the Ascended Saviour of the World , Recorded in his perfect Testament , and Sealed with his Blood , and the Exercise of his Kingly Office , as Political Head of His Visible Church . Who will doubt in this Case , that this King of Kings requires of Rulers , a Proof of their Faithfulness to him , in a Suitable Vindication and Assertion of this His Interest ? The High and Honourable Character , wherewith your Lordship is Dignified , hath no doubt made upon your Heart , such an Impression of the preventing Goodness of GOD , as will excite to a due endeavour of the Best improvement thereof , and the Scriptures of GOD presents many strong Arguments to this Scope , in the Instances of such , who have been fitted for the most Eminent pieces of Services to GOD's Church in their Generation , by preparatory Tryals , in His Furnace of Affliction , and sometimes unexpected promotions have had such a Comfortable Issue . We know by whom Hamans Mischievous Plot was defeated , and what Argument Mordecai made use of , to excite to Act for this great Interest , when Carnal Wisdom and Prudence offered a strong Disswasive ; that Glorious 〈◊〉 , who owns Promotion to places of Eminency as his Prerogative , who changes the Times and Seasons , removes and sets up according to his Pleasure , hath told us , that he knows them by Name , Surnames them , hol●● their hand , and hath a special Eye upon them , whom he calls , for his Servant Iacobs sake , to do him Service . It is Considerable , that one of the best of Men , and best of Rulers , had this in a sadly wrong Step , Objected , as an Aggravation of Guilt , that GOD had Raised him up when he was little and low in his own Eyes . There is a time when GOD , not only gathers the Outcasts , but confers Honour upon them , He hath his Fire in Sion , and Furnace in Ierusalem ; at that Furnace He sits as a Refiner , intent upon this Work. To be brought forth out of this Furnace of Affliction , as Gold , in proof of GOD's having Chosen a Man in the same , is a great and pregnant Blessing , but to be brought forth as a polished Instrument of signal and Honourable Services to him , and His Interest , is a double and Crowning Blessing , especially when Tentations upon the right and left Hand , are vigorous and strong . The Promoting of the Glory of this Great and Gracious GOD , in Maintaining and Contending for His Truth and Interest , the true Established Doctrin , Worship , Disciplin , and Government of this Church , is that which in the first place , is to be intended , and all other Concerns in a due subserviency thereunto ▪ It is worthy of Observation , which is Recorded of one of the Wisest Men and Rulers , that his First Care was , the Building the House of GOD , he finished it in Seven Years , but was in Building his own House , Thirteen Years thereafter ; and when this work was wholly perfected , 1 King. 6.37 , 38. 2 Chron. 8.1 . his preparing his Store Cities , his Fenced Cities , and taking Care for his Tribute and Navy , was his Secondary and reserve Work. The Iewish Historian , Iosephus , hath this Remark upon it , and gives us this account , viz : That this First work of Solomons was by GOD's special Assistance , perfected in so short a time , but the Palace though its Magnificence was Inferior to the Temple , yet the Materials thereof , not being so long prepared , and the House being to be Built for the King , and not for GOD , it was the more slowly brought to Perfection . That the whole of your Lordships Walk in this Eminent Station , may Demonstrat , to the Refreshful Observation of all the Lovers of our Sion , that GOD hath Preserved and Polished your Lordship in all preceeding Tryals , to be a Honourable Instrument of Raising of this decayed and desolate Church , a Successful Maintainer of Equity and Justice , and that this your Faithful acquittance may yeild Solid Peace , Embalm and make Savoury your Name in after-Generations , and be found a Successful mean of entailing the Choisest Family-Blessings upon Your Lordships Posterity , is the Serious Prayer of , MY NOBLE LORD , Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant , T. E. The PREFACE . WHAT the Israel of GOD had to Complain of , many times from my Youth have they Afflicted me , hath been the Lot of the Gospel Church from its Infancy , and of GOD's Church in this Nation in special , since the Rising Light of Reformation ( that day-spring from on High ) hath Shined upon her ; And as the Gospel Church , so Ours in special , hath been Entitled to that Ancient Ground of Boasting in GOD , That they have not prevailed against her , though the Gates of Hell , in order to this prevalency , hath taken Crafty Counsel , and Satan hath Acted , both as the Old Serpent , and Roaring Lyon ; Intermixing , in his Agents and Instruments , Policy and Barbarous Violence , Craft and Cruelty , to Compass this Design of her Ruine . Her true Gospel-Government , as well as her Doctrin and Worship , have been frequently assaulted : But the First , as the Hedge of the other , hath been , in a peculiar way , the Eye sore of the Ungodly and Licentious ; and in various and subtile Methods opposed , both in the Principles and Practice thereof ; and notwithstanding that other Reformed Churches have shared with her , in this piece of Trial ( this Point of Church Government having for a Considerable time exercised the Pens of Contending Parties ) yet , as our Church hath beyond several others , arrived at Gospel Simplicity and Purity herein , and tasted of the Sweet Fruits of this Government , in preservation both of Unity and Purity , in Point of Doctrin and Worship ; so the Maintaining and Contending for this Point of Truth , appears to have been the work and Testimony , in His Infinitly wise Providence , in a singular way Assigned to her , by her Head and Lord , that Faithful Witness and great Testator : Which is a Testimony so much the more Honourable , because of its special affinity with his own , singularly attested in his Death and Sufferings , whose Confession of his Kingly Office , and consequently his being the Political Head and Governour of his Church visible , was his special Martyr-Witness , Sealed with his Blood , the ground of his Accusation and Sentence , whereof his Triumphing Cross bore the Honourable Title and Superscription . And as all Truths have in all Ages , gained by Opposition , the apparent bruising of them by Debates causing the Savour , like that of Sweet Spices , to be the more Fragrant , so the true Frame of GOD's Tabernacle , in Point of Government , the Principles and Rights of a True Gospel Ministry , have from the Lively Oracles of GOD's Word Shined more Clearly in the solid Defences thereof , exhibit by many Godly and Learned Divines , against opposers on all hands , as is very well known to such as have sincerely inquired into this Controversy . What Reproaches our Churches Government and Reformation hath been Loaded with since the late erection of Prelacy , and particularly , since the Representatives of our Nation , wearied of this heavy and Bloody Yoke , shoke it off , Restoring and Asserting , together with our National , this our Spiritual and Church Liberty , is Apparent to all Observers : So that the LORD's Servants , in their Endeavours to Advance this Building and Restoration of our Churches True Government , have been called , as the Builders of Jerusalems Walls , to hold the Weapon and the Tool ; yet ( for which He that Inhabits Israels Praises , is to be for ever Blessed ) the Defence hath been attended with such Glorious Success , that , in the Iudgment of the truely knowing and impartial , the Adversaries have found that they have been in this opposition , Kicking against the Pricks , and that the Truth and Cause of God , which we own , is such a Burdensome Stone , as hath quite born down and broken their Strength . I do not mean it , as if every one of that Parties lying Pamphlets hath had a particular Return ; this were an unsuitable and endless Work , and but too much to Honour these empty Squibs and Crackets ( as a Learned Man called such Writings ) but sure I am , whatever in the Writings of our Antagonists , and of our late Scots Episcopalians in Special , hath any shew of Argument against our Cause and Principles , either from Scripture , from Divine Reason , or History , hath had a full and Evident Confutation . That I have thus appeared , while many of our Church are in this Respect silent , of whom , in Point of Ability , it may be truely said , that their Gleaning is beyond my Vintage , hath proceeded from no such Disposition and Inclination this way , as influences some to shew themselves , but as from a sincere Love to Truth , and the Cause of GOD ; So by the influence of such a preventing Series of Providential Excitments , as have some way cleared my Call , and Issued in this Appearance . Dr. Scots Writings upon this Head , which I understand to be much Current and Esteemed by disaffected Persons , and those of most considerable note in this Corner of the Nation , having been brought to my Hands ; I was moved by the desires of some , to offer Animadversions upon the same , which I Judged might have their own use and advantage with such Persons ; and while Writing them , I had put into my hand two other later Pieces ; the one bearing the Title of The Fundamental Charter of Presbytrie Examined and disproved ▪ The other written by A. M. D. D. and bearing the Tittle of An inquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propated by the Presbyterians in Scotland . The first I found to be merely Historical , with a long and bitter Preface against the Reverend Principal of the Colledge of Edinburgh ; the Authors Choller , it seems , being awakened by the smart of the many Baffles which that Party have had from his Pen. The other of a more Arguing Strain , but of such a virulent tincture and Popish Composure , that the Author might seem rather a Person in some of the Popish Orders , than any bearing the Character of a Protestant Minister , if the General Designation of A. M. D. D. had not led the common , and ( as far as I could Learn ) the right Conjecture , to fix upon Dr. Monro , Sometime Principal of the Colledge of Edinburgh . This Piece I found to be directed against the same Reverend Persons Writings , but in such a superficial and trivial Method that there seemed little or nothing of weight in it , but that which the Wise Man tells us , is weightier than the Sand , the Fools Anger . However , I found , because of the connection of Purposes , some ground to bestow a few spare times in examining his Scripture Arguings in Point of Episcopacy , which after the Finishing my Animadversions upon Dr. Scott , I set about ; not knowing at that time , of any other so employed ( though I much desired it ) but shortly after , came out Mr. Rules Iudicious and full Confutation of this Piece ; as also a little before , of the Preface of the other Pamphlet intituled The Fundamental Charter &c. And about the same time , Mr. Jamison's Learned and Elaborate Piece entitaled Nazianzeni Querela , &c. containing a Review and Confutation of what is considerable in both Pamphlets ; so , that what I might further attempt upon any of these Pieces appeared Fruitless , and but actum agere ; yet considering , that according to the Principal 's Compendious way of Writing , he touched that Authors Scripture Arguments , in Point of Episcopacy , more briefly , I resolved the 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 i● 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 Churche●● 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 be of the highest Office in the Church , telling us , That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office : And he gives this Reason of his Judgment , That since the Sacramental Actions , are the highest of Sacred Performances , he cannot but acknowledg , that such as are impowered for them , must be of the highest Office in the Church : And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter , as a meer groundless Notion , and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading . Secondly , Our Scots Episcopalians , and many of the English , plead for such an Episcopal Power , as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters , and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors , in Government , as allows them a Share and Interest therein , and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts , That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government . Let any peruse Bp. Honyman , part 2. Survey of Naph . Bp. Burnet ubi supra , Bp. Lightons Two Letters , in reference to the Case of Accommodation ; yea Bp. Hall himself , in the Defence of his Remonstrance , presented to the Parliament of England , against Smectymnuus , printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident , the Bishop , in that Defence , is so angry at the Word Sole , in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government , that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists , to keep their Sole , for the use of their Shoes . It is then clear , that in the State of the Question , or Ground of this Debate , the Dr. is not one with his Fellows , which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon . The Divine Right of Episcopacy , he endeavours , First , to prove by the Institution of our Saviour : And his great Argument is , That Christ in His Lifetime , institut two Orders of Ministers , viz. That of the Apostles , and the Seventy Disciples , whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles , from this Ground , That they are mentioned a part as Distinct , and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue . Eph : 4.11 . 1 Cor. 12.28 . That the Scripture mentions the Twelve , and the other Disciples distinctly , and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples , and by this Call and Ordination of Christ , separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples ; that the Apostles immediate Successors , were chosen out from the seventy Disciples , for most part : Thus sayes he , Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip Paul at Caesarea ; Clement Peter at Rome , by the Testimony of Dorotheus , Eusebius ; And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius , together with Epiphanius and Ierem , Matthias was one of the Seventy , that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles , to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate , Acts 1.16 . And a Succession saith be , in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person , in whose place another succeeds , and that the person succeeding , had not that Power and Office before his Succession . That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority , he proves from Luk 10.16 . compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face , but shews that such as heard them , did hear him , &c. As also from this , That Ananias one of them , Baptized Paul. Acts 9.18 . Philip , another of them , the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel . Answer . This Discours and Argument , with reference to the Drs. Scope , with a very ordinary Attention , will appear , to be but a beating of the Air , and to consist of Magisterial Dictates , instead of proof : For First , it is evident , That the generality of all Protestant Divines , and Churches , yea many Episcopalians themselves , do hold that the Office , of Apostles and Evangelists is expired , and died with their Persons , so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession : And indeed the thing it self is evident , and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission , unconfined Inspection , extraordinary Gifts , &c. And that the Evangelists Office , did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate , and did consist in a planetary Motion , to Water where they Planted , and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles , and Commissions from the Apostles to the Churches ; as they make evident in the many Journies , up and down , of Timothy and Titus , in order to this end . So that upon this Supposition , tho a Subordination were granted ; yet if both Offices are expired , it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers , or essentially distinct Orders , in the Pastoral Office , which is the Point he has to prove . This will be convincingly clear , upon Two Grounds . ( 1. ) That the body of all Protestant Divines , do hold , That neither Apostle nor Evangelist , had any fixed Posts or Charges , and so consequently , the one could not Succeed the other therein , nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them , in this their Function . And ( 2. ) That the Office , as well of the one , as the other , was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church ; the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World , to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein ; and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations , as is above exprest . And therefore , that State and Exigence of the Church , being gone off , so are these Offices , suted thereunto . And among many other Proofs , I would fain know , what he , or any of his Perswasion , will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture , viz. Their Gifts of Tongues , Gifts of Healing , raising the Dead , striking with Death , and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat , as Peter , Ananias and Saphira ; Paul , Elim●s the Sorcerer , &c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office. If sutab●e Gifts be the Badg of an Office , as , to be apt to Teach , is of the Pastoral Office , ( it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one to another , and the Office has a relation to both ) then certainly , Extraordinary Gifts & Works , must be the Badg of that Office , which is Extraordinary : So that the Drs. Proof of fixed , standing , distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers , from this Instance , is quite overturned , if the Office , either of the Apostles , or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary . Next , the weakness of the Drs. Proof , further appears , in that , instead of Proving , he takes for Granted without Proof . First , That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission , from that of the Seventy ; for nothing of his pretended Proofs , give the least shadow of this . The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach , as the Apostles themselves were , and for what appears from Scripture , with the same Authoritative Mission , since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve , and superadded to them , Luk. 9.1 , 2. &c. and 10.1 , 2 , 3. &c. And for the Point of Succession ( of which afterwards ) the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof , of either of these Two. ( 1. ) That there were Successors to the Apostles , in their formal Office of Apostolate . ( 2. ) That these his supposed Successors , were of the number of the Seventy Disciples , for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof , or he says nothing . Again ( in the 3d. place ) Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles ; yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading , that even upon this Supposition , it is utterly lost and ruined , unless he can make it appear , that these Seventy had in their Commission , the Doctrinal Key only , but no interest in the Government , which is his Supposition all along , as to the Pastoral Office. Now , it is evident , beyond contradiction , that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument , amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point , viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government , had both the Keys committed unto them only , and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest , having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them : And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion , viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers , as are called Bishops , in a superior order to Pastors , as specifically distinct from them , intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First , as well as the Power of Order , and nothing at all thereof to the Second , but the Doctrinal Key only . Before I proceed , let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection , taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office : His Answer is , That this is a begging of the question , since we allow that Christ institut the Office , but gave no signification , that it was but for a Season . But First , How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question , in supposing , that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification ? He should know that we own , and can make good the contrary : And the current of all Protestant Divines , owning the Apostolick Office , to be extraordinary and expired , must and do by necessary consequence hold , That the Temporary Nature of the Office , hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof , our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation , that the Office was not to Continue , but to Expire with the Persons who carried it . The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet , if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession , which is not ours , but by him falsly imputed to us . Next , the Office it self , in its Nature and End , being , as is said , Temporary ( and owned so , by the Body of all our Divines ) It necessarly follows , that our Lords Institution , terminat upon and relative to the Office , was likewise thus Temporary , and determined to a certain Season : As under the Law , Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances , being to represent Christs Death , the very Nature of the Institution , did determin the Continuance till Christs coming , and offering Himself , and no longer : As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited , did expire at his Death . Nay , our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations , to every Creature , and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church , in actu exercito , both planted and to be planted , to which they had an immediat Relation , and instructing them , with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues , of Miracles , &c. did thus ex natura rei , and from the Nature of the Institution it self , discover His design , as to the transient Office , thus institut , and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church , it was to pass off with the same . Sure , should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction , because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl , or for the continuance of such Gifts , as the Dr. will acknowledg expired , because of our Lords Institution , and giving the Gifts , and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season , and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office ; he would answer , That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self , now comprobat by the Event , discovers the temporary Design thereof , and that it was not to Continue ; and that therefore , there was no need , that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator , in the Institution , or Collation of the Gift : Which Answer , he may bestow for us , upon himself , as to the Point in hand . Again , to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head , let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles . If he mean a Succession to their Office , in its Nature and Extent , as delineat in Scripture , then he runs himself into gross Absurdities : For , 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut , and that de facto , there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs , with an universal , unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church , to be continued therein , with a Collateral and Equal Power . 2. If he say this ( as he needs must , if he speak to the Point , and consequentialy ) he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors , from among the 70 Disciples , viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas , his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip , St. Paul at Cesarea ; Clement , St. Peter at Rome . For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World , where Churches were planted , or to be planted ; how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem , Cesarea , and Rome ? If their Ministry was confined to these Posts , how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection ? And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office ? To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts , succeeds the Apostolick Office , which was of this universal Extent , makes as good Sense and Harmony , as to say , that the Person , who is installed Dean of Canterburry , succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof , and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat , and his Primacy over England . 3. I would know , whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession , doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances , viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas , with these other Instances of Simeon , Philip and Clement , at Ierusalem , Cesarea , and Rome ? If he do not , then his paralel Argument , as to the Point of Succession , is by his own Confession , like the Legs of the Lame , not equal ; it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances , while the Persons instanced , as succeeding , are not of the same and equal Power and Authority : If he say , That he understands Successors , in the same Apostolick Power ; then I would fain know , how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon , with a fixed Post at Ierusalem , Philip at Cesarea , Clement at Rome , with the Succession of Matthias , in the Apostolick Office , by the Divine Appointment , without the least hint of any fixed Station , but with an universal Inspection , as the other Apostles had . But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma : If he mean by Successors to the Apostles , a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters , in a certain Precinct , not unto their Office and Authority every way , or with reference either to their Gifts , their immediat Mission , their extensive Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches ( as some Episcopalians , who speak more cautiously than the Dr. do express and limit this Succession ) then it is easy , to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of the Answer , is as much in a Premunire , and that his Answer may be easily broken with a Wedg of his own setting , and that his Adversary may easily pull his Spear out of his Hand and Kill him with it ▪ For , 1. His Answer to those who alledg the Apostolick Office and Power , to be Temporary as suted to the Necessity and Exigence of that Time , and Case of the Church , without intention of deriving it into a Succession , is , First , That this is said without so much as a plausible colour of Reason : And if there be no plausible colour of Reason , in denying a Succession to the Apostolick Office , the Dr. in embracing this Answer , is without all colour of Reason . 2. He tells us , That we acknowledg our Saviour institut the Apostolick Office , and that in His Institution He gave no Intimation , that it was but for a Season , and that thus in calling the Apostolick Office such , we presum to make Christs Institutions Temporary , without producing the Intimations of His Will , and that upon this Ground , we may repeal all Institutions of Christianity . &c. But I pray , whether doth not the Dr. in this Answer , make our Lords Institution of the Apostolick Office Temporary , as in its Nature suited to that Exigence of the Time , and Infant State of the Church ? And whether , he is not upon his own Ground , obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords Will hereanent ? And if he cannot produce it , or rather doth hold it clearly intimat in the Nature of the Office it self , then the Dr. must either confess our Exception and Answer to his premised Argument , about a Succession to the Apostles , to be valid and sound , or this his Answer and Evasion to be nought , and that he is therein contradictory to himself , and liable to that Absurdity , wherewith he charges us , viz. Of making temporary , and cassing all our Lords Institutions , and over-ruling the Will of God by arrogant Presumption : Which is the high-flown Imputation , the Dr. puts upon our Answer . But to bring this Matter to a short Issue , and to strick out the Bottom of his great Notion and Topick . The Power of the Keys , or the Power of Order and Jurisdiction , lying in authoritative Dispensing of Gospel Ordinances , viz. The Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments , together with the appendent Power of Disciplin and Government , which was the substantial & main Piece of the Apostolick Authority and Office , and to be derived in a Succession , as necessary for the Churches Preservation , in all times ; we hold to be seated properly in the Pastoral Office , which succeeds to that of the Apostles , in the respect , and for the end mentioned , and in point of this Authority and Power , we hold , that any Pastor is equal to an Apostle ; which , beside many other Reasons , that might be adduced , appears demonstratively , by this Scripture Ground , viz. That it is evident in Scripture , that the Apostles in the first Constitution of Churches , planted Presbyters or Pastors therein , as the highest Ordinary Officers , to feed with the Word and Government , Acts 14.23 . Tit. 1.5 . with Act. 20.17 . 1 Cor. 5.4 , 12. v. compared with 2 Cor. 2.6 . &c. And not only so , but left these Presbyters or Pastors , as their immediat Successors , committing the whole Government to them , in their last Farewels to the Churches , without the least hint of a Super-institution of any Officers of an higher Order , Act. 20.17.18.28 . 1 Pet. 5.2 , 3 , 4. compared with 1 Thess. 5.12 , 13. &c. Hence it may be thus Argued , These , whom the Apostles placed as Chief , in the first Constitution of the Churches , and left as their immediat Successors , in their last Farewels , which they gave to the Churches , these have no ordinary Officers , superior to them , in the Church , by Divine or Apostolick Warrant : But the Apostles placed first , Presbyters or Pastors , feeding immediatly with the Word , Doctrin and Government , as their proper immediat Successors , and to these they committed the Churches , in their last Farewels : Therefore , the Pastor hath no ordinary superior Officer to him , in Church Government , by Divine or Apostolick Warrant . Thus , we see the utter Insufficiency of the Drs. Proof , from this Argument , anent the Seventy Disciples , which may save us the labour of pursuing such Advantages , as the Exact and Critical Disputant might have against him , in his way of handling this Argument . It is not clear from his Discourse , whether he place these Seventy Disciples in the Office of Evangelists , or of ordinary Ministers : If he suppose and assert the First , the Strength of his Argument , is sufficiently Refuted , by what is said above : it being palpably absurd , to infer different Degrees of the Pastoral Office , from the Superiority of Apostles to Evangelists . If the Second , the Consequence is as absurd ; the many Prerogatives of Apostles above ordinary Pastors , making such an Inference , palpably ridiculous . His Proof of the Succession of these Seventy to Apostles , in their Office , upon which he founds his Assertion of the Subordination of the one to the other , is drawn from the Succession of Simeon to Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip to Paul at Cesarea ; Clemens to Peter at Rome : In which he palpably falls short , as to two essential Points thereof . 1. He offers no Divine , but an Human Testimony , as to this Matter of Fact , viz. of Dorotheus , Eusebius . 2. He offers no Proof from Scripture , that the Persons instanced , were of those Seventy , mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord sent forth after the Twelve Apostles . That the Apostles were chosen from among the Disciples , or that they are first named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Ephes. 4. is a pitiful hungry Proof : For the Dr. will not say , that the Seventy were not also taken from among the number of Disciples , or that all coming under this general Denomination , were Church Officers . And as to the other point of the Nomination of the Apostles first in the Catalogue of Church Officers , even supposing it will import some special Prerogatives of these Twelve , it is utterly remote from proving either , First , that these Seventy might not have been in the character of Evangelists , and consequently had a correspondent Authority , eo nomine : Or Secondly , That supposing them by their Mission , to have had the same extensive Authority with the Twelve Apostles , that the foresaid Prerogatives of Apostles did enervat this their Authority and Commission , which was immediatly from our Lord , as well as that of the Apostles , and in its Nature and Extent , never retracted or limited , for any thing can be seen in Scripture . For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy , as being in Office , not in Power and Jurisdiction : To which he answers , That the Office including the Power , must import a Superiority 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 ●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 , th● 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 , or where , or by whom , another Iames , than either of the two mentioned by the Evangelist , was Constitut a Thirteenth Apostle , is a Point , I am sure , far surcharging the Drs Ability to prove , and his proofs here adduced are such , as the simplest may Laugh at : Whereof this is one . That the Scripture makes it evident , that this Iames had the great Preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem : And next , That in the Council Act. 15. he gave the Decisive Sentence , calling it his Sentence . v. 19. and determined the Controversie , after that Peter , Paul and Barnabas had declared their Judgment : Which Argues , saith the Dr. that he had great Authority and Preheminence in that place . An odd proof , I must confess . Behold the Visag of this Argument ! The Apostle Iames spoke last in the Council of Ierusalem , he called the Judgment he delivered upon the Question , his Sentence , after others had spoken , the Controversie came then to an Issue : Ergo , he was of Special and Eminent Authority in Ierusalem , beyond any of the Apostles ; And this , as a supernumerary Thirteenth Apostle Constitut by the rest to succeed in that Office , and derive the Office of Apostolat to after Generations . It is indeed a Question to me , whether this Assertion and Conclusion it self , or the Dr's Method of deducing it , be more absurd ; But sure I am , both are , and that in an eminent degree . The Dr. has so wonderful a value for Prelacy , that he will needs have this new supposed Bishop of Ierusalem , preferred upon that account , by all the Apostles , to themselves , and set up in the Chair to presid in the Council , as the Worthiest , yea , and that his very Judgement , upon the account of his high Prelatick Office , outweighed all the Apostles Sentiments , and ended the Controversie , as he expresses it . Such a conceit this is , and Phantastick account of that Scripture , as I dare challenge the Dr. to show if it ever came in the mind of any Protestant Writers . It would have suted the Drs. serious Thoughts to ponder , whether that which was delivered by others , in this meeting , and in special by the Apostle Peter , was not their Sentence , as well as that delivered by James , and whether both these Sentences of Peter and James , were not the same , and delivered upon the same Scripture Grounds ; and whether the delivering of a Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory , which the Meeting finds equitable , and do accord to , upon Grounds offered by him , and some others , speaking before him , can conclud an Episcopal Authority over the Meeting . But to proceed , the Dr. ( ibid ) Argues further , from the Apostle Paul his going in to James , mentioned Gal. 2.9 . Upon the account of his supposed Episcopacy at Jerusalem , altho none of the Twelve , & that he is upon this account preferred to Peter & John , & had the Priority of them both , in the Church of Jerusalem . A conceit sufficiently refuted by a recitation . What! The Apostle Paul , become so high a Prelatist , that a New Constitut Bishop at Jerusalem , is by him preferred to Pillar-Apostles , as having a Priority above them in that Church . I had thought that our Blessed Lord , recommended and Authorized his Apostles , as the Universal Doctors of the whole Church , before this time , as the Foundation and Pillars thereof ; So they are called by the Apostle Paul , Eph. 2.20 . And that the Lord , in Sealing them solemnly by the Spirit , the day of Pentecost , at Jerusalem , from whence the Law was to go forth , had recommended them as his highest Doctors and Apostles , both to Jerusalem , and to all the Churches ; and that Peter and John's Ministry had the First and Eminent Seals there ; yea and that the Apostleship of the Circumcision , was especially committed to Peter , and consequently his Apostolical Authority at Jerusalem singularly conspicuous , weighty , and acknowledged , where his Ministry was chiefly exercised , and this by the Apostle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 . And that he paid so great deference to this Apostle , that he went up to Jerusalem , to see and visit him , Gal. 1.18 . Besides that , the Dr. supposing this James not to be one of the Twelve , is cross to the current of Protestant Writers and Commentators , as we have said . As for Paul's going into James , with the Elders Act. 21.18 . Which the Dr. saith will prove , that James was of greatest note and Figure in that Church ; If the Dr. mean his exercising his Ministry there at that time , and that he was of eminent Note among the Elders , or ordinary Ministers : As who can doubt of this in respect of his Apostolick Office ? This is easily accorded ; But the Drs. Inference from this , that he was of greatest Note and Figure among the Apostles , yea and , eo nomine , as Bishop of Ierusalem , and moreover , as in the Capacity of a Supernumerary Apostle and Bishop , added to the Twelve , he will as soon squeeze Water from a Flint , as draw it from this Scripture . The Dr. tells us P. 395.396 . That , as what he has said , renders it highly probable , that Iames was Apostle at Ierusalem peculiarly , and had the Priority of Peter and Iohn therein , so the Testimmonyes of early Antiquity , advances this probability to a Demonstration . Whereupon , he Cites Hegesip . and Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. Clement . Lib. 2. Cap. 1. and some others . That Iames , whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apostle , till constitut Apostle and Bishop of Ierusalem , appears to the Dr. upon the pretended premised Scripture Grounds , upon this account , preferred to both Peter and Iohn , tho Pillars , hath so exposed his Understanding of the Scriptures , as doth much save the Labour of an Adversaries discovering his Nakedness in this Point . Besides , it seems with the Dr. that Human Testimonies of Antiquity , and of Human Writers , puts the Cape-stone upon , and compleats Scripture-proof ; So that , what was upon the Scripture proof , but probable , upon the high accession of Human Testimonies , is with him advanced to a Demonstration : But the Dr must be minded , that if his pretended Divine Proof , which must be both of the Factum and the Ius , as to Iames's Episcopacy , obliges him to draw his Demonstration of both from Scripture , and if by his acknouledgment , all his Scripture Proof , amounts but to a probability , his pretended Demonstration , made up by the patchment of Human Testimony , added to the Divine , as giving the Demonstrative evidence and Strength thereunto , is a Demonstration like to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron , which could never make one intire piece , and cleave together . Next , For his Testimonies , the Dr. cannot but know , that in the Judgment of Famous Protestant Divines , this Proof , from the Testimonies of Fathers , and the Denomination of Bishops by them , put upon Eminent Ministers , and even some in the Apostolick times , is a very slippery and uncertain Proof . The learned Scaliger will tell him ( Prolegom . in Chro. Euseb. ) That , ●tervallum illud ab ultimo capite Actorum , &c. The Interval from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the Reign of Trajan , in which Tract , Quadratus & Ignatius flourished ( let the Dr. observe this , as to Ignatius here Cited by him ) may be truely called with Varro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscure , wherein nothing that is certain , has come to our Hands , concerning the Affairs of Christians , except some very few things , which the Enemies of GOD , has catched up by the way , such as Suetonius and Corn. Tacitus : Which gap , that Eusebius might fill up , he drew somethings without Discretion , and choise out of the Hypotyposis or Examples of , I know not what Clement ( for he is not that Learned Clement that wrote the Strommata ) and out of the Five Books of Hegesippus , a Writer no better . Let the Dr. observe this , as to Hegesippus and Clement here Cited by him ; Yea and Hegisipus himself , as he shews , lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the Apostolick Age was gone , tunc impii erroris conspiratio , per seductionem eorum qui alienam Doctrinam tradebant , initium caepit ; Error began to Spring and advance . The Learned Iunius , controv . 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Mentions and proves an equivocal acceptation of the Word Bishop , in the Writings of the Ancients . The Learned Whittaker also will Inform the Dr. ( De Pont. Quest. 2. Cap. 15. ) That , Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant , &c. The Fathers , when they call Iames , Bishop , or Peter , take not the Name of Bishop properly , but they call them Bishops of those Churches , wherein they stayed for a time . He adds , That it is absurd to say , that the Apostles were Bishops , since he that is properly a Bishop , cannot be an Apostle , the Bishop being set over one Church , and the Apostles , Founders and overseers of many Churches . Yea , he is so Bold , as to add further , ( without craving Pardon of such as are of our Drs. Judgment ) That , non procul ▪ distat ab insania , &c. It differs little from madness to say , That Peter , or any other Apostles were Bishops . And to this purpose he speaks at large , Cap. 3. Sect. 9. making good his Assertion from the unfixed extraordinary Nature of their Office , who were to follow the Spirits conduct , towards all places , wherever they were called . The Dr. might have also learned from Fran. Iunius ( Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. 5 ) the cause of the Error and mistake of the Ancients , in terming the Apostles or Evangelists Bishops , and drawing from them Supposititious patcht Catalogues of Bishops , which are found contradictory to one another , Viz. That such Ministers , as they found in the Church Records , more famous , such they cull'd out , to make up their Catalogues , even tho they were contemporary , and those they named Bishops , in conformity to their own times ; whereas , saith he , there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appointed by the Apostles in the Churches . Hence has proceeded this Confusion in the Catalogues ; for instance . they make Peter Bishop of Rome , and having a Seat there ( a Fable contradicted by many of the Learned . and proved by them , to be such ) but whether Clement was First or Third , and who , or in what Order , next after Succeeded them , whether Linus , or Anacletus is never yet cleared . Some make Titus Bishop of Crete ; some Arch-Bishop ; some Bishop of Dalmatia . Timothy and Iohn , are made , by many Bishops , in the same Post , at the same time . Some say , Polycarpus was First Bishop of Smyrna ; some make him to Succeed one Bucolus ; some make Aristo ▪ First . Some give Alexandria one Bishop ; some Two at once . See Append. ad jus Divinum Minist . Evang. Clearing this at large . The Dr. also should have done well , to have considered the important difficulty offered by Iosephus Scaliger , about the Succession of the Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem ( related by Didoclav . Cap. 4. P. 123. ) wherein he proves Eusebius Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophesie anent the Destruction of Ierusalem , and to Iosephus's History . As likewise , what this Learned Author , hath observed and written , to invalidat the Credit of Eusebius's History , and the discovery he has made of his many gross Errors therein , as well as in other Points . So that our Dr. and his Fellow-pleaders , might have observed this their grand Magazin , to be but a corrupt Treasure , and Poisoned Fountain . How Fabulous is the Epistle of Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa , related by him ? That which Philo the Iew wrote of the Esseans , a Sect among the Iews , Eusebius affirms that he Wrote it of Christian Monks , which Scaliger ( in his Elencho tri Haeresii ) hath convict of falsehood , out of Philo himself . He proves Peters Crucifixion at Rome , by a Tomb-proof . In the Computation of Times , Scaliger , observes his gross Errors . Nay , which is more considerable , he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture , in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul , was not the Apostle Peter , but another of the Number of the Seventy Disciples . To which might be added , many things in his personal Carriag and Qualities , which doth weaken the Credit of his History , as his presiding in the Council of Tyre , against Athanasius , and standing upon the Arrian side . Scaliger in his Thesaurus temporum ( Animad . P. 268 ) Sets down the Testimonies of the Ancients , concerning his Errors , and Arrianism , wherein some affirm that he died . When he Wrote the History , he was in the Judgment of some an Arrian . And even admitting the unexceptionableness of his History , when first Written , yet that it hath been corrupted by some ignorant Impostor , is by Didoclav . Cap. 4. P. 111. Demonstrat from this , that he makes mention of Sozomen , who was born an Hundred Years after his time . Had the Doctor also Perused the Learned Reynolds , he might have found that in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls , he proves at large , from Chrysostom , Ierom , Ambrose , Augustin , Theodoret , and many others , both Ancient and Modern Authors , that in Scripture Presbyter and Bishop are all one . The Epistles of Clement , of the first Century , are very pregnant against the Divine Right of Prelacy ; particularly his Epistle to the Philippians , wherein he makes but Two Orders of Ministry , Bishops and Deacons , which he says , the Apostles set up to propogat the Ordinances to Believers . But I am too prolix , in a Matter of it self , clear and plain , and which , we may probably have occasion again to touch : Only before I part with the Drs. First Instance , I cannot but in this place observe , and again leave it to the Readers consideration , that the Dr. affirms this Apostleship , which Iames did derive from the Twelve , was only an Episcopal Inspection of the Church in Ierusalem : A strang Apostleship indeed ! and so very far unlike and disproportioned to the Apostolick Office , that he might as well affirm , that any Curat of the Church of England , when set over a Flock or Cure , has an Episcopal Authority committed to him . The Drs. Second Instance , to prove the Apostles committing their Apostolick Authority to Successors , is taken from Epaphroditus Philip. 2.25 . Who is Styled the Apostle of the Philippians , Citing Ierom on Gal. 1.19 . Who shews , that others were Ordained Apostles , as Epaphroditus ; And 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 P●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 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 ti● . By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection , from these prescriptions to Titus , unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned , or any interest therein , in Churches Constitut ? For , as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches , in fieri , is not to the purpose ( I mean in respect of the Organick being ) especially , since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination , and the Authority thereof , is in Scripture held out , to be competent to a Presbytrie , which they exercised upon Timothy himself , one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops , and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim : 4.14 . 2 Tim. 1.6 . So that it is evident , that neither Timothy nor Titus , were instructed with any singular Episcopal Authority in this Matter , among Churches Constitut in their Organick Beeing . In the 4 th place , the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power , to Reform and Correct , drawn from this Passage , doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection : For , 1. The Apostles themselves , arrogat no absolut or supreme Power ; Paul disowns a Dominion , and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him , 1 Cor. 4.1 . 2 Cor. 1.24 . I had alwise thought , that in the Judgment of all Protestants , yea of all Men of Sense , who ever read the Scriptures , there is none hath a supreme Iudgment , or absolut Power over the Church of God , but He who is the Churches Head and Husband , there being but one Lord , and all Ministers being Brethren , one Master of the House of God , who hath Dominion over the Ordinances , under whom , even Apostles , are but Stewards and Servants , which I suppose , none , if not this Dr. will deny . 2. It s strang , that in reading this Passage , the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts , could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words , viz , [ As I had appointed thee ] which doth very clearly suppose and import , both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus , and his restricting him to his Rules , and authorizing Information in this Matter : And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein , and absolut Power , will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat . In a word , this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus , is disowned by all sound Interpreters , as might be easily made appear : And in special , the Belgick Divines , tells us , upon this Passage , That Titus . was not to perform this by his own Authority , and good Pleasure only , ( as the Dr. holds , ) but according to the Order , which the Apostle prescribed , and did observe himself ; paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14 . where it appears , that the Elders concurred with Paul , in Timothy's Ordination : And this last Clause of the Verse , they render [ As I commanded thee ] The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority , is , ( P. 399 ) That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City : And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete , left by the Apostle , before Titus was left there , who yet had no power to Ordain , else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain , and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry : Therefore , this power of Ordination , was competent to Titus only , not to Presbyters ; especially , since it is extended , not only to Ordination of Elders , but also to Rebuking with Authority , to the Correction of Offenders , with the Rod of Excommunication , chap. 2.15 . To Admonish Hereticks , and to Reject them from Communion of the Church , if obstinat , chap. 3.10 . From all which , the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete , to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had , in the several Churches planted by them . I Answer , 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question , and argue ex ignoratione elenchi , and this one point being but supposed , That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary , ( and we may justly suppose it , having above made it good ) this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry . But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing : As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination , we have told him , That it is a Presbyterian Act , competent to mere Presbyters : And therefore , neither Timothy nor Titus , could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein , unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self . Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures , supposed in these Directions . I answer , That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative : For , either it is meant of a private Rebuke , and this every Christian hath Authority in , [ — thou shalt in any wise , Rebuke thy Neighbour , and not suffer Sin upon him . Levit. 19.17 . ] or of a Ministerial Rebuke , and this is competent to every Minister of the Word , Isa. 58.1 . 2 Tim. 4.1 , 2. Tit. 1.13 . 2 Sam. 12.7 . And besides , Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers , will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power . Prophets Rebuked , but had no Jurisdiction over Priests ; nor Paul over Peter , tho he reproved him . Moreover , we find the Authority , to receive Accusations , and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures , competent to the Juridical Courts and Church , Mat. 18.16 , 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 , 5. Gal. 6.1 , 2. 1 Thess. 5.12 . In which places , a judicial Rebuke and Admonition , is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors , not to one Prelat , not , uni , but unitati . 3. As for the Drs. Notion , of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church , who had no power of Ordination , else this Prescription , which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain , had been fruitless , and an Invasion of their Power , in the Drs. Judgment . I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection : For ( 1. ) Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices , Pauls instructing Titus , and his Authority in Ordination thereupon , was a power and Authority , Cumulative unto , but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing , and ordinary Authority herein : It being certain , that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists , as is above described , could not bevoided , whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches , these extraordinary Officers , had still their Authority and Inspection vigent . I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus ( the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense ) ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church , will he own the consequence , that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein , as Bishop ? Surely not : And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear , as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships , notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced . ( 2. ) Elders once ordained , its true , have power to ordain Elders ; yet the bene esse , did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists , and their interposed Authority in that infant-state of the Church , wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules , in reference to Government , were to be delivered to the Churches , and practised accordingly . And in a word , the Dr. neither hath , nor can prove , that Titus did ordain here alone , or solely perform any other authoritative Act , where Elders were present , and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form ; which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines . Judicious Calvin upon the place , will tell him , That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator , which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture . And we may retort upon the Dr. thus ; If neither Apostles nor Evangelists ( extraordinary and highly gifted Officers ) did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships , or juridical Courts of Pastors , much less ought any ordinary Church Officer , arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ , and Judicatories of His Church , when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased . I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of Excommunication , is by the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 5. supposed to be competent to a Presbytry . And therefore , Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein . For what the Dr. adds of the Testimonies of the Ancients , touching Titus's Episcopacy at Crete , such as Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. &c. it is sufficiently Answered already , and we need not repeat . The Drs. Fourth and last instance , to prove the Divine Right of Episcpacy , from the Apostles practice is of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Timothy over Ephesus , and that not only over the Laity to Command and Teach . 1 Tim. 4.11 . to receive or reject Widdows . 1 Tim. 5.9 . &c. But also over the Clergy , to take care for their Provision 1 Tim. 5.17 . Not to admit Deacons , but upon tryal , nor Ordain the Elder , till a good acquittance in the Deaconship . 1 Tim. 3.10.13 . to receive accusations , put the Guilty to shame , 1 Tim. 5.19.20 . And to exercise this Jurisdiction , without Preferring one before another , v. 21. which could not be without a Jurisdiction over them . He has also ascribed unto him , an Ordaining Power , as to the laying on of Hands . 1 Tim. 5.22 . All which Authority , that it was given him by Paul , for a standing Form of Government , the Dr. proves from this Ground , because it was after the Presbytrie was formed and settled there , and after Paul's great Labours in that large Church for Three Years ; And therefore , he may be supposed , not only to have Planted a Presbytrie there , as in other Churches . Acts 14.23 . but also to have reduced it to much g●eater perfection , than any other ; And by consequence Establishing this Authority in a single Person , is such a Form of Government , as the Apostle must needs have understood and intended to be of of that Nature , as was to continue as a Pattern to other Churches . It is Answered . 1. There is nothing here of a New Argument , but a Repitition of the former , and a New Begging of the Question , Viz. The ●tanding ordinary Office of Apostles and Evangelists ; which we have above convict of Falsehood . But 2. ( To come a little closer to the Drs. New Instance ) since he presents here some Actings of the Power of Order , which he acknowledges , tho performed by Timothy , and enjoyned to him by Paul in that Church , yet are likewise Competent to Presbyters or Pastors , Viz : Teaching , &c. which together with other Actings of the Power of Order , he makes common to Pastors , and at large discourses this . P. 427 428.429 . &c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diversifie these in this Instance , and shew , that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place , such an exercise of the Power of Order , as is above exprest , will give him no peculiar Interest therein , but joyntly with the Presbyters ; and yet that the Commands in point of Jurisdiction , are delivered to him peculiarly , and not to them . Where will the Dr. shew this distinction and difference in the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy ? It should seem the ordinary Rule will take place here , non est distinguendum , ubi Lex non distinguit ; since the Precepts are equally delivered , and without the least Intimation of such a difference or distinction : The person who makes the distinction , seems Chargable with arrogant Anti-scriptural Boldness . The Dr. pleads , that the Apostolick Precept . 1 Tim. 5.22 . [ Lay Hands suddenly on no man ] prescribes a standing Rule in Point of Jurisdiction . Viz : that the Prelat has a sole interest therein , secluding Presbyters wholly from any Authority in this Matter : For this he makes the Bishops peculiar prerogatiue . P. 436.437 . &c. And he draws his great Proof in this place , from the Apostles addressing this Precept to Timothy , not to Pastors or Presbyters . Now , what if any shall lash the Dr. with his own Argument , and Plead from the Apostles Solemn Charge to Timothy , 2 Tim. 4.1.2 . [ Preach the Word , be instant in Season , cut of Season ] and several such Precepts , relative to General Ministerial Duties , or Actings of the Power of Order , such as a Right behaving in the House of GOD , 1 Tim. 3.15 . To be a growing Minister in the Words of Faith 1 Tim. 4.6 . To exercise himself to Godliness . v. 7. To be examplary to Believers in word and Conversation , &c. V. 12. To give attendance to Reading , Exhortation and Doctrin ; not to neglect , but to stir up his Gift ; to Meditat upon the things of God , and give himself wholly thereunto ; to take heed unto himself , and to the Doctrin , and continue in them , v. 13.14.15.16 . with 2 Tim. 1.6 . That such Actings of the Power of Order , are proper only to the Bishop , and such Ministerial Duties peculiar to him ; So that Presbyters or Pastors have no Interest or concern therein , because these Precepts are pecu●iarly addressed to Timothy , not to them : What Answer and evasion can he have to save him , from a Contradiction and inconsistency with himself ? If his own Argument be good against us , upon the forementioned Ground , why not the very same Argument in this Case against himself ? The Drs. only Answer and evasion , which he can have , is , That these Commands , as to the Exercise of the Power of Order , or respecting Pastoral Duties in general , tho peculiarly addressed to Timothy , yet could give him no peculiar or sole Interest therein , because Presbyters are elsewhere in Scripture Instructed with the same Power . But 1. In this Answer , he breaks his Argument all in pieces , the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addressing these Precepts to Timothy ; But here he acknowledges that the peculiar Address will bear no such conclusion of Timothy's sole Interest in the Duty enjoyned . And 2. If he say , that the Bishops peculiar Interest and Jurisdiction , is elsewhere evident in Scripture , who sees not , that he but pityfully beggs the Question , and baffls his own General Argument : And further he should know , that the Presbyterians stand upon an advantagious Ground with him in this Point ; For we hold , and can prove that the Power of Jurisdiction is prescribed and competent to Presbyters , since the Scripture shews the Power of Ordination , to be seated in a Presbytrie , 1 Tim. 4.14 . with Act ▪ 22.5 . Luk. 22.66 . Matth. 18.17 . Consequently , correspondent Actings of a Jurisdictional Power . All that watch for the Peoples Souls , are in Scripture , held out to have a joint Rule over them , Heb. 13.17 . In the Church of Thessalonica , the Labourers in the Word and Doctrin , jointly fed and laboured , jointly censured , and as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers , were to be submittted to and obeyed . 1 Thess. 5.12 . So it was in the same Church of Ephesus , Act. 20. So with these Elders or Bishops . 1 Pet ▪ 5. And I would fain know , why the Drs. Notion and Argument , from the peculiar addressing of Precepts , will not hold good in our Case against him , upon the ground of these and such like Scriptures , where the Power of Order and Jurisdiction , is jointly ascribed to Presbyters , without the least hint of a Superior Authority herein , or their Precarious dependence upon any Officer , of an higher order ? Moreover , will the Dr. be bold to affirm● that what was prescribed to Timothy , in Point of Order and Jurisdiction , was confined within the Church of Ephesus , and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches , as the Apostle enjoined him ? And if this last must needs be asserted , upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches , as is above , from Scrpture evinced and delineat , it follows by inevitable consequence , that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him , while at Ephesus , can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church , but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches , as well as there ; especially since the Apostle here enjoins him , to do the Work of an Evangelist . i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister , as is above described , not the work of a Prelat , over this Church ; If the Dr. deny this , he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches ; or else must quite his plea. But finally , to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument , which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus , and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches , before Timothy had these Prescriptions , in point of Government , Adddressed unto him therein ; From whence the Dr. concludes , that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person , presiding over Clergy and Laity . Besides the exceptions above touched , to which this is lvable , I would , First know of him , whether this P●esbytrie or Presbytries , so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment , had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order , as himself acknowledges competent to them , such as Teaching and the like ? And if so , as himself doth hold and suppose , notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent , why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy ? Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie , and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him ? ( Especially since it s known , the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties , exprest in the Precepts abovementioned ) And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent , was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy , in the Power of Order , and such Ministerial Duties , as are contained in the forementioned Precepts , nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein , why I pray , shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction ? What will the Dr. Answer , if one should improve his own Argument thus ? Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie ( to use his own term ) and that there were many Pastors , gifted to Preach and admonish , yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy , gave this Commandment to him , not to them : Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only . And sure I am , whatever Answer he can give to this , which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture , will loose and Answer his own Argument against us . In a word , its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time , and shew that when pertinently improven , it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows . Which retortion , I thus offer ; After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus , with reference to the Clergy and Laity , ( as he speaks ) the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus , as to both Order and Jurisdiction , without the least hint of any Interest , that Timothy had in or over them herein , or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers , upon him , in the exercise of this their Power , notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them , when the Apostle gave this Charge , and that it was his last farewell-Charge , when never to see their Faces more . Now , if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before , and Constitut him their Bishop , what a pityful inconsistency , retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice , in the Instalment of Timothy , to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders , Commanding them as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed and Rule ? Surely if the Argument from Priority of time , be valid , it must be signally so in this Case , wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text , and ( to use the Drs. expression , and Address him in his own words ) ibid. [ this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches , and to be sure , the Government , now at last Established , at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue . ] The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour , consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers , since the Apostles ordained other Apostles , and Bishops to presid over the Churches . But sure , looking to his Scope and Pleading , nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould : For , he cannot but acknowledg , That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office , in its whole Nature and Extent , as above delineat , viz. To found and plant Churches through the World , to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them , and this with extraordinary Gifts , and infallible directive Authority , as Christs , immediatly sent and first Ambassadors : Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution , he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches , with an ordinary and limited Power ( for I hope , he will not make them all universal Patriarchs ) Now , how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles , any may judg ; yet he will have them , not only Bishops , but Apostles , properly so called , such as were the first Apostles , and as succeeding them , in their formal Office : Besides , in speaking of this Divine Right , he tells us , His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers : Which is a General , easily accorded by us , as is said , and no way will come home , to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge . The Dr. tells us , ( ibid ) That if the ordaining of Presbyters , be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office , as we hold , why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops , as good an Argument , for the perpetuity of that Office ? I answer , when the Dr. shall make it good , that the Apostles ordained Bishops of his Mould 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church by Church , as we can prove , and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders ; or make it appear , that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus , any Rules , for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop , or for his Qualifications , as in that Capacity , as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor , in both these Epistles ; then , and not till then , the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted : But till then , we must send it back to the Dr. with a Censure of Impertinency , till it be returned with a Testimonial of a better proof , than of his bare Assertion , and ipse dixit . The Dr. enquires , how we can argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church , from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus , ( citing Ius divinum Minist . Evang. p. 159.167 . ) if the Office they were ordained to , were not perpetual ? And if perpetual , then so is Episcopacy nothing different therefrom . Answ. We hold the Ordination instanced , to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination , as well as in General a Power of Ordination in the Church : Timothy's Ordination , having this Scripture account , that it was by Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie ; which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie , the Apostle Paul's presence , and his Imposition of Hands , tho supposed , doth rather Strengthen than invalidat , since neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy , nor his designment for such an Eminent Office , nor Paul's Imposition of Hands , the Great Apostle of the Gentiles , did Swallow up , or exclud the Presbytries Ordinary Power and Authority , but Timothy must pass through this Door of a Presbytries Authoritative Ordination and Imposition of Hands , in order to the Exercise of his Office ; therefore , much more doth this Authority belong to the Presbytrie now , when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased . And for Titus's Ordination in an active Sense , or his Ordination of Elders , the Apostle tells him expresly , Chap. 1.5 . ( the Passage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength ) that it was to be performed [ according to the Apostles appointment ] which appointment in the Sense of our Divines , is none other else , than that which himself examplified , and is Intimat . 1 Tim. 4.14 . 2 Tim. 1.6 . i. e. with Authoritative concurrence of the Presbytrie or Eldership ; So that Titus had no Episcopal Authority therein , notwithstanding of his Evangelistick extraordinary Office ; And this is invincibly made good in opposition to the Drs Design , and pleading , in that the Apostle , in the same very Text , wherein he enjoins Titus to ordain Elders , doth identify and make one and the same , the Office of the Bishop and Elder , which were a mere implicantia in terminis , if the Apostle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoyn the Drs. supposed Prelatical Power in Ordination , as Competent to an higher Order of Bishops , Superior to Prerbyters . For the Drs. asserting the Office of Episcopacy , and that of Timothy , to be one and the same ; he therein beggs th● Question , and supposes what he has to prove : The Office of the Prelat and Evangelist , being so vastly different , as we have already made appear ; And therefore , his Reason and Argument is pitifully absurd from our assertting the Power of Ordination , as inherent to the Church , upon the Ground of the Apostles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelists , to conclud the standing Office of Prelatical inspection or Ordination . The Dr. should also know , that the asserting that a Church Officer , such as an Apostle , hath an extraordinary Authority conversant about Ordination , can neither infer , that the Power of Ordination , it self , is extraordinary and expired , nor that every Person Ordained , hath an ordinary standing Function ; Which , the ●postles extraordinary Authority in the first Planting of Presbyters , while the Churches were in fieri , as to their Organick Being , their Ordaining Evangelists extraordinary Officers , together with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority , as well in their Actings of the Power of Order , and Preaching with Miraculous Gifts of Tongues , and Confirming their Doctrins with Miracles , as in Point of Jurisdiction , their Extraordinary Censures above exprest , doth evince and make evident . The extraordinary Mission of the Twelve Apostles , hath derived from it a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Authority diffused and spread among all the ' Church Officers in the World , none of which doth Succeed them , into the same formal Office ; So Timothy's Evangelistick , extraordinary Authority , is derived , handed down into , and seated in a Presbytrie , tho the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary , and as such , not Succeeded unto . The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing , to continue in all Ages , and in all times , doth not render the Apostolick Mission or Commission ordinary , nor infer their being Succeeded in idem Officium & eundem Ministerii gradum , the ordinary Power being Institut and settled in the Hands of ordinary Officers , by a New warrand and Commission , according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination . The Office of Moses , was not rendered ordinary , because many Works of Government exercised by him , were recommitted to the Elders of Israel ; and so the Case is here . The Evangelists extraordinary Office and Commission ( necessary , as that of the Apostles , for the First founding of the Churches , for Watering the Apostles Plantation , Building up the Churches , in their Organick being , and settling all the ordinary Officers thereof ) is changed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction , which we find was in the Apostolick Church exercised , and even in this of Ephesus . For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity , upon this head , and touching Timothies Episcopacy over Ephesus , they are sufficiently obviat by what is said above , and in special , by what we have offered and evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of the Names of Bishop and Apostle . The Dr. brings an Anonymous Author , to prove that Timothy was Enthroned ( forsooth ) Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by Paul : A pityful Proof indeed , and fit only for a nameless Author ! It being evident by the best searchers of Antiquity , that the Office of Metropolitans , had not a Being till several Ages after Timothy . For Chrysostom his asserting that Timothy was intrusted with a Church or whole Nation : If we shall assert that this is applicable to his transient or temporary Evangelistick Trust , in correspondence to the extensive Office of Apostleship , it says nothing to our purpose . And the Dr. should know that Chrysostom upon Tit. 1.5 . makes the Office of Bishop and Presbyter one and the same , and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. design and arguing . For other Authors , who do call Timothy , together with other Bishops , then in being , Apostles , which the Dr. further Pleads , it doth sufficiently evince , what is said above , of their improper , equivocal acceptation of the Term , since no person of Sense , who ever Read the New Testament , can take the Office of Apostle , as delineat in Scripture , to be applicable to Timothy , far less to ordinary Bishops , fixed in certain Posts . Nay , the Dr. himself , and in contradiction to himself , doth unawares bewray this , in his Greek Citation of Theodoret , who asserts that the Twelve Apostles , were more strictly called so , or rather , according to the Truth of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Apostles according to Truth , or in very deed ; Clearly importing , that the Name appropriat to other Officers , was but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly , as any Minister or Messenger of Christ may be thus called ; And if this be Theodorets general Rule , as the Dr calls it , that the Twelve Apostles were only such , 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 , is●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 Cl●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 Ordination , of any higher Officer , than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter . I shall only add , ( 3 ly , ) That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice , that they own the Ministers of the Word , as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge , and in the ordinary Power of Government , their equals , as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut , which is above discribed , doth make evident . And it were strange , that Evangelists should be●instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches , who were inferior to Apostles ; That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie , concurring Authoritatively , tho Paul was present , should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie , tho inferior to an Apostle , and that whereas Presbyters did concurr , pari passu , with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles , in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree , wherein was put forth , both the Diatactick , Critick , and Dogmatick Power , and Authority in Church Government , yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles , should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter . For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head , that we may understand , how well he has laid his Measures , for reaching his Scope and End , let it be remembered what it is , he undertaks to prove , viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature , as a standing necessary Function in the Church , to be transmitted to after Ages , with the same Authority and Commission , as delivered at first to the Twelve : For , this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for , from that passage of Scripture , where Our Lord said to his Apostles , As my Father hath sent Me , so send I you . And according to this Rule , let us examin his Instances . His first proof ( P. 406 ) is from St. Clement who mentions , in his Epistle to the Corinthians , three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers , whom he calls the High Priest , the Priests , and the Levits ; which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood , than of the Bishop , Presbyter , and Deacons . A strange proof , and an odd Explication indeed ! How doth the Doctor prove , that Clement , did any otherewise express himself , than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers , signifying that there are diverse Officers , in the New Testament Ministry , as in the Old ? Again , How comes the Dr. to explain him , of Bishop & Presbyter , in the Singular , and Deacons in the Plural ? And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest , in the singular , and Priests in the plural ? Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest , over the Christian Catholick Church , as of the Church of the Iewes ? Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this ? Moreover , the Drs. Explication of Clement , viz. That he means by the High Priest , the Bishop , by the Priests , the Presbyter , &c. Baffles his Design , and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading : For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors , as holding an Office and Authority , corresponding to that of the Priests , under the Old Testament , then certainly , he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government , such as the Priests had : For the Dr. will not be bold to say , that the Sanehedrin , made up of Priests , had not a governing Power , or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest , as he affirms , it is in the person of the Bishop , secluding the Presbyters . And further , to discover , how the Dr. has abused his Reader , and forefeited his Credit in this Citation , let us take Notice , that Clement , to remove the Sedition , raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 . tells them , how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church , which must not be confounded . In the Iewish Church , he appointed an High Priest , Priests and Levits ; and then tells them , that for the times of the Gospel , Jesus Christ , sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits ( approving them by the Spirit ) for Bishops and Deacons , to those who should afterward believe . From which Words , the learned Authors of the Append. Minist . Evang. Have long since concluded , against the Dr. and his Fellows . 1. That in the first and purest times , the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how small little Apostles these were , I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power , as are many Pastors now in Scotland . 2. That Bishops and Deacons , are the only Orders of Ministry , owned by Clement , as planted by the Apostles , the first Primitive Church ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery , in making Clement to assert three Orders , of Bishops , Presbyters , and Deacons . Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles , by Jesus Christ , knowing that contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop , and being endu'd with perfect knowledg , they appointed the foresaid Orders , Viz : Bishops and Deaeons . Upon which , the Learned Authors of the Apendix , do further note . ( 1. ) That by Name , we are not to understand the bare Name , but the Honour and Dignity , as the word is taken , Philip. 2.9 . Eph. 1.21 . The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy , and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters , p. 57.58 . ( 2. ) That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles , for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy , is , by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons , in Clements Judgement : What ever Remedy of Schism , the Church afterward applyed , in setting up one Bishop over another , Clement tells us , that the Apostles , endued with perfect knowledg of things , Ordained only Bishops and Deacons . Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72 . will find , he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church , to be Governed by Presbyters , without Bishops . Besides , that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously , and supposes them to be one and the same , throughout the whole Epistle . The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field , Whose Six Epistles , written on the way to his Martyrdom , he tells us , are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles ; So that we have no other evasion , but to alledg , they are Counterfeit , from which imputation , they have been Triumphantly vindicat ( so he expresses it ) by a Learned Pen ; And that therefore , no Man of Learning , without exposing his Reputation , can call them in Question . Who this learned Pen is , who thus vindicats them , the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know , and if he mean Dr. Pearson , as probably he doth , he should know that his pretended Vindication , was confuted by a learned French Divine , Dally , and his Proofs convicted of Forgery ; So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion , That the Vindication is Triumphant : And as for the Drs. Re-vindication , this Author should know the learned L'Rooque , a Famous Pastor of the French Church , replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge , in defence of Dally , upon the Point of Ignatius's Epistles , and being again opposed by Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveridge , prepared and had almost finished his Second Defence ; which , by the importunity of the Favourers of Prelacy , was concealed . Of which , see the Learned Mr. Iamison , in his Piece , called Nazianzeni quaerela , &c. Part 2 d. Pag. 112 : So , that the Dr. hath no reason to speak so bigg , and call this vindication Triumphant . None can deny , several , of these Epistles fathered upon him , to be Spurious , as his Epistle to the Blessed Virgin , and his two , to the Apostle Iohn ( not to mention that of the Virgin Mary to him ) and for the Six mentioned by the Dr. he should know , that as Learned Pens as he can mention , have made appear , that they are depraved and Corrupted , if the Dr. will allow Usher , Arch Bishop of Armagh , and the Learned Rivet , Videlius and Cook , in his Censura patrum , to be reckoned among that Number . Yea , Baronius himself , the great Popish Historian , who ( as Causabon holds ) presents from these Epistles , the Papists refuges , for several of their Errours yet acknowledges that somethings therein are defective , in curia librariorum : The Man was not so happy , as to light upon the more polit Coppies , found out by our Dr. and his Fellows . In the forementioned Appendix , the Dr. might have seen several Reasons , adduced , to prove these Epistles not to be genuine : Such as ( 1. ) That diverse things quoted out of these Epistles by Athanasius , Gelasius and Theodoret , are either not found in them at all , or found altered and Changed . ( 2 ly . ) That they Charge the Holy Martyr , with supercilious Pride , in extolling his own knowledg ( Epistle to the Trallians ) as reaching the Orders of Angels , Arch-Angels , differences of Powers and Dominations , Thrones and Powers , Cherubims and Seraphims , &c. Which none will believe , to have fallen from the Pen of so Humble a Martyr ; nor can any but acknowledg , that it is as far from the Simplicity of his times , in an arrogant self-boasting , as East from West . And ( 3 ly , ) His strange and anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy , wherein he ( these forged Epistles rather ) goes beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty . The Learned Authors of the foresaid Appendix , have given several instances hereof , which do palpably evidence , such ●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 ● Yet he is bold to cite s●me of these Passages , particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians and Magnesians , altho he is forc't ( I suppose for very shame ) to smooth the expressions , and curtail them : For instance , in stead of that Expression in the Epistle to the Trallians , wherein he asserts the Bishop to be Possest of all Principalitie and Authority beyond all , as much , as it is possible for Men to be Possest of ( as it is truely translated out of the Greek ) The Dr. Represents only this . what is the Bishop , but he who hath all Authority and Power ? Which , altho it be much the same , with what is above rehearsed , yet is far short in extent and Expression . But if the Dr. hath so high a veneration for these spurious Epistles , I would fain know , how he will reconcile this and such like Expressions , with that one Scripture , Rom. 13.1 . Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers , & c. ? Unless the Dr. will deny the Bishop to have a Soul , he cannot exeem him from the obligation of this Command . And if he be thus subject , how is he Possest of all Principality and Authority , beyond all , as much , as is possible for Men to be Possest of ? Or how will the Dr. make this accord , with that Interest and Authority of the Civil Magistrat , not only in Civils , over all his Subjects , but also in the Church and Kingdom of Christ , which the Dr. in the same Book , owns and asserts ? He also Cites the Epistle to the Magnesians , wherein , Obedience to the Bishop is enjoyned , and contradicting him in any thing discharged : which the Dr. will not deny to be cross to that limited Obedience , which the Scripture enjoins to be given , even to Parents by Children ; Who are Commanded to Obey them in the Lord only . Moreover , he Cites the Epistle to the Philadelphians , wherein , it is affirmed , that such as belong to Christ , are united to the Bishop , such as are not , are cursed : And what censure this puts upon the Reformed Churches , and how it Anathematizes , them , as not United to the Bishop , I need not tell the Dr. nor what a black Theta , he marks himself with , in the Judgment of the Reformed Churches , if owning such an absurd assertion . I cannot stand upon many things , that might be further noticed , to evince the impertinency and Fooleries of these Citations : Only , it is very worthy of our observation , that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epistle to the Magnesians , obliges us , in a piece of Ingenuity , in expressing Ignatius's commending [ Obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytrie , &c , ] which seems to allow the Presbytrie , a Commanding Authority , together with the Bishop , ( as several of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause , smooth the Episcopal Power ) but this I am sure , is cross to the Drs. Scope and pleading , who enhances all the Power of Government , in the person of the Bishop , excluding wholly , all Presbyters , from any Interest therein . So , that the Dr. in this unwary Citation , contradicts Ignatius and himself , and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself . In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians , wherein , Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop , as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family , to be his Steward : He hath again Wounded himself ; For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry , under the Authority of the Master , and tyed up to his Orders , is point blanck , contrare unto , and toto coelo different , from that Principality of the highest Degree , before ascribed to the Bishop , and owned by the Dr. as his , and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office. Sure , to be a Prince , and a Steward in Government , are distinct things , and entirely and wholly opposit , if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it , who disowns a Dominion , and in stead thereof , and in opposition thereunto , owns a Stewardship in God's Family , and humble Sevice or Ministry . 1 Cor. 4.1 . 2 Cor. 1. Ult. But now , the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations ; Whereof the first is , That these Epistles were Written , not above Eight or Nine years , after the Decease of St. Iohn , and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches , appointed by Christ and his Apostles , and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church , who were not Subject to them ; That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches , so that they were not within the Altar , but without it , who were not subject to them : And therefore , it may be concluded , there were no Churches without them . I Answer , that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early , no body will doubt , but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries , as are above rehearsed , was written by Ignatius , and was his Sense of Church Government , no Man of Sense , or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr , will believe : And we find the contrair is asserted , and made good by several of the Godly Learned . Not to stand upon a more critical Answer , and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time , from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author , tho admitted , unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts , the Judgment of the whole Church , to be correspondent thereunto , and that none , who either wrot not , or whose Writings may be lost , were of contrary Judgment , which he neither attempts to prove , nor will ever be able . The Drs. next Inference is , That since , there were Bishops so early in this Age , presiding over the Churches , they behoved to receive ( several of them , at least ) their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles , since Ignatius , at the writing of these Epistles , had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch , an eminent Church , planted immediatly by St. Peter ; It being the constant practice of the Apostles , to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted , &c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies , that there were , de facto , and de jure , such Prelats , as he pleads for : Nor can he , from this Ground , perswad any rational Man of this , unless he could evince two Things , which he will do ad Calendas Graecas . 1. Not only , that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed , was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius , but likewise the Sense and Judgment , as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time . 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer , as the Bishop , is correspondent to the Scripture Account , and Sense of the Church Officers , mentioned in the New Testament , and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government , and the Institution of the Officers thereof , which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty . Again , his Reason here , is very odd , whereby he fortifies this Inference , viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted : For , if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops , ( as he needs must , if he speak consequentially ) I would fain know , First , What shadow of Proof , he can give for this , and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such ? For , if this be asserted , then it follows , that Bishops were set up , when there were no Elders to presid over , contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows , except Dr. Hammond . And next , I would know , how the Dr. upon this Supposition , will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction , and that both to himself , and Ignatius ? Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders , and himself holds , that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem , when the Apostle Paul , went in to them , were mere Presbyters or Pastors . Again , if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders , to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop , as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion ( who takes still the Elders for Prelats ) so , he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church , not to suppose it only , else in his principles , these Churches , where , mere Elders , were placed , were manck , and wanted the power of Jurisdiction . And since , he has produced nothing from Scripture , that proves such an institution of Bishops , or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses , his Dream of Ignatius , is as easily rejected by us , as affirmed by him . We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul , and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there , who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas , when sent out among the Gentiles , and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government : But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat , of the Drs. Mould , in either of the Antiochs , the Scripture is utterly silent : And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon , viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government , sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion . As for Chrysostom ( Tom. 5. edit . Savil. p. 99. ) his admiring of Ignatius Dignity , obtained by the Hands of Apostles , laid upon him . It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity , which the Dr. alledges : For , doth not the Dr. think , that the Office of the Scripture Bishop , is a great Dignity ? And he should prove , not suppose only , that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould , or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense , which , as he offers not to do ; so , if attempting it , he could not chuse , but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself , who ( as is above cleared ) asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter . The same I repone , to what the Dr. alledgeth ( P. 410 ) of Polycarp , his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna ; as also , what is made good by many Protestant Divines , viz. That the Fathers and Ancients , used the Name of Bishops , in a general Sense , that the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Moderators , had no Authority , over the Presbytrie , tho ordinarly thus termed . And which clears this to Conviction , Polycarp , himself , in his Epistle to the Philippians , makes but two Orders of Ministry , viz. Elders and Deacons , as the Apostle Paul doth , in his Epistle to the same Church , and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter , as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice : so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould , much more a derived Apostolat , from these blind Testimonies . The Dr. adds , That it cannot be imagined , that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time , the Apostles being alive , had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly . But , 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof , for this universal Reception : For I pray , what proof is this ? Such and such Authors say , there were Bishops in such and such Posts , or rather put this general name upon such Persons ; Therefore , the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally , or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction , as an Officer of Divine Institution . For besides , that the Dr. will never prove , from the bare Assertion anent Bishops , that they were of his Cutt and Mould ( the contrary being apparent , especially in these early Times ) And many Fathers asserting the Identity , of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter , he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches , as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop , of his Mould , before this Assertion can be made good . 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances , of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church , both under the Law , and Gospel . As , in the times of the Old Testament , he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf , by the Church of Israel , together with Aaron himself , but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai : And besides , many such Instances in the Old Testament , we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares , early in the Church of the New Testament , such as the Error about the Resurrection , the worshipping of Angels , Justification by the works of the Law , the necessity of Circumcision , and other Ceremonies , the Error of the Nicolaitans , &c. And look a little forward , in the early times of the Church , we will find Errors & Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles , and owned by some of the Fathers themselves , which notwithstanding , the Dr , cannot but acknowledg to be Errors ; Such as the Mill●nary Error , the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper , &c. whereof afterward . The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn , that they should receive a new Order of Men , without his Authority . But this Universal reception of such an Order , as the Dr. supposes , is not yet proved : Besides , that the Dr's . supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption , early creeping in , because of some Apostles ( or even of Iohn ) yet alive , he will find not to be solid , when he ponders duely , the working of the Mystrie of iniquity , and the Seeds of a Papacy , even in Paul's time , and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence , even in Iohn's time , yea , and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle . The Dr. should know , that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature , while the Apostles were alive , that we must found our Perswasion upon , but the lively Oracles , and living Doctrin of the Apostles , is our Rule ; and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto , tho all the Church should receive it , yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it , we ought to reject it , and might call that Angel accursed . For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor , of Episcopacy , Sect. 18. That de facto , the Apostles with their own Hands , Ordained several Bishops over Churches , Viz : Dion . Areop . Bishop of Athens , Caius , of Thessalonica , Archippus of Coloss , Onesimus of Ephesus , Epaphroditus of Phillippi , Titus of Corinth , &c. I Answer , the Dr. does well to add the Caution [ if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History ] And truely this History , must be of mighty force , that must be believed against clear Scripture , and the Credit and belief founded thereupon , must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows ; Nay , the Drs. Credit of such History , must needs set him at odds with himself : For as to the First , we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica , Obedience to their Pastors jointly , as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours , without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat , and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock . 1 Thess. 5.12.14 . And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction , upon the Apostle Paul , as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church , with Authority to Rule and Govern , while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop , or to take it afterward from them , and put it in the Bishops Hands ? How , I pray , shall we believe such History , against such plain Scripture ? And whether I pray , deserves most our Credit , the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle , enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica , jointly , as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids , or an after - Apocryphal History , declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment , monopolized in one Bishop , either at that time , or thereafter , set up , and Ordained by Paul ? Whether , are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus , as entrusted by Paul , in his last farewel , to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly , as the Bishops thereof , Authorized by the Holy Ghost , or an Historical account of Onesimus , as their sole Bishop , who had this Power Monopolized in him , in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church , either at that time or thereafter : I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it ; And whether upon such ground as this , we might not cast off all Divine Institutions , and receive all fopperies and Superstitions , which Man 's wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest ? The like might be said of Philippi , the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church , saluting the Bishops , as their Pastors in common , calling all the Ministers , Bishops , and thus applying to them that Name and Office , which the Dr. and his Fellows , will needs appropriat to a Prelat : And sure , Paul , writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God , gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops , but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church , as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof . And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God , to suppose that either now , or afterwards , such a pretended Prelat , as the Dr. maintains , either had , or was to have by Divine appointment , all this Authority of the Pastors , enhansed and monopolized in him : And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature , opposit to Scripture , we may make them , ( as some Papists blaspheme them ) a Nose of Wax . Again , If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick Apocryphal History , he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture , and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands ; For , we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument , as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops , in correspondence to Christs Institution , lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy , Bishop of Ephesus , and Titus , Bishop of Crete , and that the instructions addrest to them , in Point of Government , in these Epistles , are a clear indication yea , and Demonstration , ( in the Drs ▪ Sense and Pleading ) of this supposed instalment of the one and the other , by the Apostles , in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete , and we know , how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent . Now , if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor , that the Apostles with their own hands , installed , not Timothy , but Onesimus , Bishop of Ephesus , and Titus , not Bishop of Crete , but of Corinth , what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture , for their installment elsewhere ? The Dr. says , The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus , at Ephesus and Corinth , and that by the Apostles own Hands , is most certain , if we believe Ecclesiastical History . And if most certain upon this Ground , then most certain it is . 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete , is most false , and all his pretended Scripture Proofs , by his own Confession mere wind and lies . And 2 ly . That all the Dr's . Testimonies of Fathers , and pretended Historical accounts hereanent , are Fabulous Dreams . I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath , but to alledge their after-instalment in these places , by the Apostles : But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account , as well as Historical , of this matter , ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge . But to proceed . The Dr's Third Inference is , that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on , as a Superior Order to Presbyters , Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them , according to Christs Institution . Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles , and consequently what a sandy Foundation , the Dr. builds this inference upon . Again , if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself , he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him ; For , in his Epistle to the Trallians , he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie , as the Apostles of Christ , and calls the Presbytrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ ; And in the same Epistle , he call the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Bishop , thus their Fellows in the Government , and nothing else . And how far this is from the Dr's . supposition of Ignatius Judgment , about the Hierarchy , and the Practice of the Church , in this Point , let any Judg. The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs , from the next Age , further , as he tells us , from the Scripture Antiquity : And no doubt the more Dark in this Point . He tells us of Iustin Martyr , in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius , who speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President in the Church , who Consecrat the Bread and Wine , gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present , and to be carryed to the absent : And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop , he tells us , appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth , his Contemporary , who used the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop promiscuously . A sorry Proof , no doubt ! The Churches had a President , or these called by Iustin so ; Therefore , Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction , and holding the entire Apostolick Office : Again , these Presidents , are called sometimes Bishops , and gets that general Name ; Therefore , they were such Bishops , and of such a Mould , as the Dr. pleads for . What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain ? But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets , as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed , what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture , his Denominating Pasters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. as we have above cleared . One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority , as this of the supposed Bishops , drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius . I might further Argue , and press the Dr. thus ; If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue , an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government , competent to Pastors , they do by necessary consequence , overturn the Peculiarity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop , as set over Pastors , and enhancing all this Authority , and do by further consequence inferr , either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture , if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops , in the Dr's . Sense ; or , that , if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word , they must needs mean the Pastor only , and not his imaginary Prelat : And so , whatever Sense , the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius , his Cause and Pleading here is lost , and falls to the Ground . Moreover , if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office , offered by Iustin , he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper , peculiar to him , against the Dr's . own Sense and Pleading , who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word , and Administration of the Sacraments , are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function , whereas , here , it is made peculiar to the Bishop , to Consecrat the Bread and Wine . Besides , that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent ; a seed of gross Popish Superstitions . But I am weary of this pityful trash . As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus ( the Fragments whereof , he says , are in Eusebius's History ) anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome ; Anicetus , Soter , Eleutherius , succeeding Sucessively ; and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem , succeeded by Simon Cleophae , Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter , that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth , in his Epistles , mentions Publius and Quadratus , Successive , Bishops of Athens , and several other Bishops , in their Respective Sees . It is Answered , this is abundantly obviat and removed , by what is premised . First , Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers , whom ( as we have heard ) the learned does Censure and disown ; which has no small confirmation from this , that Eusebius himself , in the Proaem of his History , Professes , that he is entred into a dark Desert , having no footsteps of Historians , going before him , but only some petty Narrations , which certain persons , in certain times and places , have left . And for Hegesippus ( whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses , is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point ) he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous , and unworthy of Credit ; besides , that , no parts of him are now Extent . As for the Catalogues of Succession , which the Dr. mentions , we have heard how shattered they are , and inconsistent with themselves , and Censured consequently by the Learned , as deserving no Credit . Next , as we have heard out of Iunius , the Ground of this fancied Succession , Viz : That the most Eminent Ministers , for Moral Respects , found in Church Records , were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues , and termed Bishops , in conformity to the times , wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained , tho they were mere Presbyters , and for most part contemporary , one with another , So , we have from the same Iunius , made appear , what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers ▪ Viz. To prove against Hereticks , that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin , and the traduces Apostolici Seminis , as it was called , but not to point out or assert , a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats . And therefore , in the Third place , the Dr. says nothing to the purpose , unless he can prove that by Bishops , they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould , with such an absolute Apostolick Authority , as he suggests , which , untill he make good , he does but ●ea● the Air , and ●egg the Question ▪ For , since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter , indifferently ( as the Prelatis●● themselves acknowledg ) it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning , to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop , which the Fathers make use of , their assertion of the Prelatical Office , which the Dr. pretends . The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason , that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters , whom he imagins Bishops in his Sense . Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor ( Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. ) calls Anicetus , Pius , Higinus , Telesphorus , Xistus , Presbyters of the Church of Rome , Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt , the Presbyters that went before thee . Thus also he expresses himself , Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit , ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat , consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat : Tertullian also , Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores , or Presbyters , when he saith , Praesident probati quique Seniores . For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus , his seeing Polycarp , and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle , who affirms , he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times , reckoning Eleven from Linus , to whom , he says Peter ●and Paul , delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church . It is Answered , That this is abundantly obviat , by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter , and the intendment of the Fathers , in such recitations . Yea , and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly , in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters , lib : 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis , qui in Ecclesia sunt , Presbyteris obedire opportet , his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis , sicut ostendimus , qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum , secundum placitum patris acceperunt . Reliquos vero , qui absistunt a principali successione , & quocunque loco colliguntur , suspectos habere , vel quasi haereticos & malae sententiae , vel quasi scindentes & elatos , & sibi placentes , &c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap : 44. he expresseth himself , ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet , adhaerere vero his qui & Apostolorum , sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt ▪ & eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum , & conversationem sine offensa praestant , ad Informationem & correctionem aliorum . From which Passages of Irenaeus , the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned , do infer . 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles : And I may add , that if called so by the Fathers , the terming of Prelats , Successors of the Apostles , is of no weight to prove the Dr's design . 2 dly . That they are also called Bishops . 3 dly . That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession . 4 ly . That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus , which is not said of Presbyters ; and therefore , such places cannot prove , that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches , Bishops , distinct from Presbyters . The Dr's two Countreymen , Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest . 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him , of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop , when applyed to Apostles , and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them . In a word , in the forementioned Appendix , the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles , is fully baffled , from several Grounds . 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop , these of the first and later times , being of a different Mould , as to their Office and Power ; the later being Diocesian , the first not so , since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters , and the Succession being drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the First Ordained Minister , as among the Athenians , there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers , equal in Power and Authority , yet the Succession of Governours there , was derived from one who was the Chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio ( as Iunius expresses it ) and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister , or the present Moderator and President . 2 ly . That the Catalogues , the nearer they come to the Apostles times , runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty , and contradicts one another ; some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter , some the third , and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus , Anacletus , Clemens , and another called Cletus , are inextricable . Some ( as we have above made appear ) calling Titus Bishop , some Archbishop of Crete , some Bishop of Dalmatia ; Timothy and the Apostle Iohn , are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus , at the same time . Thus also Polycarp , is said by some , to be the First Bishop of Smyrna , by others to Succeed one Bucolus , and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both . Some say , that Alexandria had but one Bishop , and other Cities Two ; others , that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time . What uncertainty and contradiction is here ? Iunius resolves the doubt , Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5 , Not. 15. viz. That these , or some of these , were Presbyters , Ruling the Church in common ; but the following Ages , fancying to themselves , such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church , fell into the Snares of Tradition , — supposing , according to the custome of their own times , that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once , which , saith he , is quite cross to the Apostolical times . 3 ly . Upon the former grounds , and in correspondence , to this account of Iunius , they do inferr , That these Authors make the Catalogues speak , according to the language of their own times , in which , there was a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyters : And therefore , do call such as were before them , Bishops , whereas they were not so properly — And the after - Bishops succeeded these supposed First , no otherways than Cesar did the Roman Consuls . 4 ly , The Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists , do appear absurd , viz : That of Rome , into Peter , that of Alexandria , into Mark , that of Ephesus , into Timothy , that of Crete , into Titus , since neither Apostles nor Evangelists , were Bishops in a formal Sense , and having an Universal Commission , and extraordinary Office , could be Succeeded in neither the one , nor the other , tho in some part of their work they might , by ordinary Officers , as by Men of another Order , but not as one Brother Succeeds another in the Inheritance . And this doth fully remove what the Dr alledges out of Clem. Alexand. Strom. 6. And the Passage Cited by Eusebius out of him , and from his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touching a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters , and anent Presbyters not having the First Seat or Class in Ecclesiastick orders , and that the Apostle Iohn returning from Patmos to Ephesus , Visited the Province , partly to Ordain Bishops , and partly to set a part such for the Clergy , as were pointed out by the Spirit . For , granting some distinction to to have crept in while these things were Written , and ( as Augustin expresses it ) secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit ; the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter , Episcopus Presbytero Major , yet this will never prove either . 1. That this distinction was from the beginning , which we find Augustin in this way of expressing himself , contradicts . Or , 2 ly , That there were Bishops of the Drs. Mould , in a continued Line from the beginning ; and far less , that the Apostle Iohn set up such Prelats , since the Ancients : ( as we have heard the Learned Iunius observe ) spoke of the Apostolick times , in the Mould , and after the manner of their own . And surely , if we acknowledg the late distinction of Clergy and Laity ▪ ( as we needs must ) to be far remote from Iohn's time , we must consequently acknowledg that this Author spoke his own Sense , and the Language of his time , rather than the Sense or practice of the Apostle Iohn . The Dr. next Generally Cites Tertullian , Origen , Cyprian , for this continuance ( as he calls it ) of Apostolick Superiority from the Apostles themselves , whose words , he tells us , he needs not Recit , since Presbyterians acknowledg Episcopacy received about the year 140. Ans. As for the continuance and derivation of the Apostolick Office , in a Succedaneous Episcopacy , which the Dr. has been fencing for , we deny it , and have found his proofs utterly insufficient , and that nothing he has adduced from the Fathers or Scripture , can give the least shaddow of a sound Proof of this Point . As for our acknowledgment of the Episcopacy introduced , about the middle of the Second Century , the Dr. should know that ▪ we acknowledg that Beza's Episcopus humanus , or Episcopus praeces , was about this time set up , and obtained in the Churches , and that ( as we have heard ) the First ordained Minister , in a sort of Prostasie , or fixed Moderatorship had some deference eo nomine , and the next in order , was set up to moderat in the Meetings , when he was removed by Death , or otherwise , and had the Tittle of Bishop given to him ; and this was ( as Ambrose Phrases it ) multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum , or by the Judgment and appointment of the Presbytrie ; Presbytri saith he , unum ex se electum in excelsiore gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant . So , that in Ambrose's . Sense , he had this fixed Prostasie , or new Name , as their Mouth and Moderator for Orders sake , and this by the free choice of the Presbytrie ; which shews the folly of the Dr's . inference of a supposed existent Hierarchy , of his mould , from the nominal distinction of Bishop and Presbyter , in the Passages of Clemens and Eusebius , and others generally mentioned , or from these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being set in a higher Seat than Presbyter●s For , upon the Constitution above rehearsed , and confirmed by Ambrose , both these might be ; Yet without any Impeachment of Pastors or Presbyters , decisive Authority in Judicatories , unless the Dr. will say , that because the Moderator of an Assembly , hath a peculiar Name and seat , and a deference upon that Account , He has therefore an Office and Authority paramount to that of the Assembly , and such as inhances their decisive suffrage . Besides , the Dr. odly inferrs from our acknowledgment of this first human Prostasie , our granting a derivation , or continuance , or even introductiion at that time , of his pretended Office of Apostolat , as he calls it , and in the Nature and extent he pleads for ; who sees not , that these are toto Caelo different ? Tho in the next Passage , the Dr. seems to retract this , telling his Reader , That tho we acknowledg an Apostolick Superiority , yet we deny that they left any to Succeed them in that Power . But , since he gives this our acknowledgment of the First Episcopacy , as the reason , why he needs not Cite his Authors Particularly , to prove the derivation and continuance of Apostolick Superiority at that time , he clearly supposes this ; and therefore , speaks confusedly and inconsistently , in the premised account of our Judgment and concession . Well , what further aocount gives the Dr. of Presbyterians Judgment in this Matter ? He adds , We hold that the Church was every where governed by the common Council of Presbyters , but this form of Government , being found inconvenient , as giving too much occasion for Schisms and divisions , it was at last Universally agreed upon , that one Presbyter should be chosen out , to presid over all the rest : and that this was the beginning of Episcopacy , for which , he says , we Cite the famous Testimony of Ierom , antequam Diaboli instinctu , &c. Where I find the Dr. either willfully , or ignorantly misrepresenting our Cause and Principles . First , in alledging , that we hold , that this Form of Government , by common Council of Pastors or Presbyters , was found inconvenient , or not suited to the ends of Government , because it gave occasion for Schisms and Divisions . A gross and lying imputation : For , all do know , that we hold this Form of Government to be of Divine appointment , and the Government established by the Apostles : And it were a strange inconsistency and contradiction to the Scriptures of Truth , to hold , that this Divine Government , appointed by God , in the Scriptures of the New Testament , and enjoined unto the Gospel Church , was not suited to all the times thereof , and to the great ends of Government , and could of it self , give a rise to Schisms and divisions : What a gross imputation were this , upon the Divine Institutions , and opening a Door , to lay them all aside , upon pretence of eventual inconveniencies ? I dare challeng this Dr. or any of his mind , to instance any Presbyterian Writer , who ever asserted this . For , if he say , we homologat Ierom , and approve his Testimony , who affirms , that upon occason of Divisions , the Government was altered , and immutata ratio , as he speaks , it is a pityful and palpably absurd inference , to argue upon this , that either Ierom , or we , do impute this providential issue , and Mans sinful abuse and miscarriage , to the Divine Institution it self ; And if the Dr. own such a consequence , he will justify all such abuses , and Ieroboams Plea , for setting up his Calves at Dan and Bethel , because he judged it could not consist with the safety of the Kingdom , which God had given him over Israel , that the Ten Tribes , should go up to Ierusalem to worship , after the Kingdoms were divided . Secondly , He says , We hold that upon this occasion , it was universally agreed upon , that one Presbyter should preside over all the rest , which was the beginning of Episcopacy . And this appears as dark and confused an Account as the former : For , 1. As to the Office of a President or Moderator , whose Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting , to gather the Votes , and moderat the Procedures , we hold , that the very nature of all Government , essentially requires this , and consequently Church Government , and that this was alwise and necessarly practised , as in all Church Government , so , since the beginning , and is examplified in that first Christian Council Act. 15. wherein we judg it probable , that the Person presiding , was the Apostle Iames : And therefore , its gross Non-sense to say , we hold this Presidency , to have been first introduced upon occasion of Schism . But next , if the Dr. by [ by a President over the rest ] mean such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is either advitam , or who has such a Presidency as encroaches upon , or inhances the Decisive Votes of Pastors , this indeed we acknowledg with Ierom , came in Paulatim , and by peice-meal , tho at first , he was but a mere President , advitam , and had some Honour and deference upon this account . And this , we hold was the rise of that Prelacie , which in Process of time swallowed up all the decisive Power of Pastors , and their exercise of Government . But the Dr. badly represents the Matter , ( P. 415. ) when he calls this [ a Chusing of one to preside over the rest ] which is applicable to any President of a Judicatory , or mouth of a meeting , or unto a speaker in Parliament . Thirdly , The Dr. says we hold [ that this remedy was Universally agreed upon ] If he means , that upon occasion of Schisms , we hold that this custom of the fixed President , with Authority and deference , as above exprest , came in by degrees , and became Universal , in Process of time , ( as additional corruptions ordinarly do ) this is easily accorded . But if he mean , that we hold , there was a Formal General Council decreeing this ( as the Dr. with his Fellow-Pleaders , fasten this gloss upon that Passage of Ierom [ prospiciente concilio — & — toto orbe decretum ] he should know , that we disown such an Opinion , and have sufficiently made it appear , that Ierom intended no such thing , since in collating his two Testimonies , viz : his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus , and his Epistle to Evagrius , the contrary is evident ; For , Ierom makes this a Consuetudo , or Custom , and says it came in Paulatim , or by Degrees . And no man of Sense , can but distinguish betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice spreading it self , and growing up to a custom , and a practice taking its rise and Original from a formal joint Decree of a General Council . The Dr. having set down some part of one of these Testimonies of Ierom , alledges , that we hold or guess ( as he expresses it , ) that this Universal Decree , was about the Year 140. We hold indeed with Blondel , that about this time , the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took place , but that we hold or guess , it was by an Universal Decree , is the Drs. groundless imputation , which he can Justify from none of our Writers . Let any Peruse the Learned Iunius his account and explication of this Testimony de Clericis Cap. 15. Not. 16. ) together with the Authors of the Ius Divinum Minist . Evang. ( Part. 2 d. P. 56.57 . ) and the Appendix thereto ( P. 102. 103. ) and this will be convincingly apparent . Well , what says the Dr. to this Testimony ? Having given out our Sense of Ierom's words ( wherein he contradicts his former Gloss ) his First exception is , That Ierom being Born but about the Year 330 , is a Witness far short in Antiquity to these early Witnesses which he has adduced : That he is a Hundred Years after Origen , three Hundred after Cl●ment , and one Witness , must not stand against so many early Harmonious Witnesses . We have made it appear , that none of the Drs. early Witnesses , give a Relevant Testimony to the Point , and These , he undertakes to prove , viz. the derivation of the Apostolick Office , in its proper formal Sense , to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to Pastors , and inhancing their whole Authority in Government : We have made appear , that all that his Testimonies amounts to prove , is only a General designation of Bishops , made use of by the Ancients , and at most a supposal of some deference , and fixed Presidency , which they had in Judicatories : And who sees not , that this is utterly short of proving what he intends ? So , that his Witnesses are mute in our Cause , and speaks not to the Question and I●●errogatur . The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. asserts , and endeavours to prove that the Bishop , hath for his peculiar prerogative , annexed to his person and Office as Bishop . 1. The Legislative Power , which he calls the Essence of Government , in the very same manner , as he supposes , the Apostles possest and exercised it . 2 dly . The sole Authority to Consecrat and Ordain . 3 ly . The whole Authority of Spirituall Iurisdiction , to Cite , Examin Judg , Censure , and absolve Delinquents . 4 ly . To Confirm the Baptized . From all which , he , as intirly excluds all Pastors in Meetings , never so frequent and formal , and allows them no more Interest in any of these , than if they were no Church Officers at all , So , that their medling in the least , with these his supposed sole prerogatives of the Bishop , is in his Judgment as gross Antiscriptural encroachment , and stepping beyond the Duties and limits of their Function and Office , as if they should invade the Kings Authority and prerogative . Now , the Office of the Bishop being of this Nature and extent , in the Dr's Judgment , let any Person of Candor or Conscience , give sentence upon it , what the Witnesses before adduced by him , do say to prove this , and what strength there is in their Testimoneis , to reach this conclusion . Again , 2 ly . As the Drs. pretended early Witnesses , are but general and ambiguous in their Testimonies , and consequently can make no Faith in this Matter , so , they are so far from being unanimous , as he calls them , that upon the contrary , several of them ( as is above cleared ) do give Witness against him : Particularly , Clemens and Ignatius , two of his most Ancient Witnesses ; 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 ●utweighs his Human Testimonies , else he is obliged to examin his Pro●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 anne●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 Com●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 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 ●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 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 [ which he says is as clear , as any thing in Ecclesiastick History ] he therein crosses the Judgment of Learned Protestants , who have made the contrary appear , as is above evinced . The Accounts of this supposed Succession , being Contradictory one to another , and sometimes Persons Contemporary , made Succedaneous therein , yea , and the very Name and Office of Persons designed , being of a various and different Nature and Signification , some of these pretended succeeding Bishops , being mere Presbyters . But says the Doctor , who will question an ancient Monarchy , because of some Defect of the Historical Accounts of its Succession . I answer , The Original of the Monarchy , being clear in History , and also the Successors of the first , in Point of an Historical Faith , this will not be questioned : And when the Dr. shal let us see the Bishops of his Mould , set up by the Apostles , and present to us the Scripture Escutchions of their Power , together with clear Historical Accounts of their first Successors accordingly , we shal admit his paralell Argument , else it is a mere non sequitur . The Dr. in the next place , tells us , That the Story of Jerom's Universal Decree , being Unattested , and Contradictory to all Antiquity , it must needs be lookt upon , as a mere Figment of his Fancy . But from what is said , its evident , that the Dr. instead of Impugning the Decree , which Jeroms Testimony speaks of , has been , in all that is premised , but Fighting with his own Shadow , and a Figment of his o●n Fancy , and has never touched his Meaning and Scope , nor has shown any , much less all Antiquity , against what Jerom asserts . The Dr. demands an Instance of any Church of another Form of Government , than Episcopacy . Which Demand he might have found sufficiently answered by Presbyterian Writers , who have made appear , that the first Apostolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially . The Authors of the Jus Divinum Regim . Eccles. have long since exhibit clear Scripture Proofs of this , which the Dr. should have Answered , before he had made such a Challenge . Besides , the Multitud of Fathers , who maintain the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters , will go far in this Proof . And if Blondels Demonstration from Antiquity , ( Apol. Sect. 3. P. 308. &c. ) that Bishops came not in till the year 140. hold good , surely all the existent Churches in that Period of Time , are so many Instances of such a Government . And for this Church of Scotland , we have its first Presbyterian Government , attested by Iohan. Major . de gest . Scot. Lib : 2 : Fordons Scotochron : Lib : 3 : cap : 8 : Blond . Sect 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Governed by Presbyters without Bishops , and that in that year , the Bishop of Rome sent Palladius , as our first Bishop ; So , that we had our Union to the See of Rome , together with Prelacy . We come now , to the Dr's last Exception to this Testimony of Ierom , wherein he reposes great Confidence , Ushering it in with an especially Considering : Well , what is that under his Consideration , the Dr. will Amuse us with , and Arrest our Thoughts upon ? This Conceit , saith he , reflects odiously upon the Wisdom of our Saviour , and his Apostles , in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters common Counsel , which was the Occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions , for Removal of which , the Church found it needful to dissolve those Presbytries , and introduce Episcopacy in their Room . But the Doctor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long since removed , and that his supposed Reflection , depends not upon any Words of Ierom. Ierom says , That [ Diaboli Instinctu ] by the Devils Instinct , there fell Divisions and Factions , one saying , I am of Paul , and another , I am of Apollo , and that thereupon , this Remedy of setting up fixed Presidents , was fallen upon . Which the Learned Whittaker has told the Dr , was a Remedy worse than the Disease : And Ierom himself , distinguishes this Humane Custom , from the Divine Institution . Now , where is the Dr's Consequence ? Because Jerom says , that for preventing Schisms at that time , the Government was changed , doth he therefore charge this , upon the Apostles Government , or Christs Institution ? He may as well say , that a Mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church , will inferr his imputing them to the Ordinances . Was there not Discord among the Apostles , under Christs own immediat Government ? But did this Discord , or the Record thereof in Scripture , reflect on His Holy Government ? Paul and Barnabas divided and parted asunder , but doth Luke , in Recording this , charge it upon the Apostolick Government ? To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference , yet further to appear , let these three things be considered . 1. He confesses that Jerom asserts , that the Apostolick Government of Presbyterian Parity , was the Occasion only of these Schisms . Therefore , say I , he makes it not the Cause : If the Dr. assert this , he will pitifully expose his Learning , in not distinguishing these things , which are so obviously distinguishable , and reflect upon our Saviour , in saying , he came not to send Peace , but a Sword and Division , to kindle Fire upon the Earth , to set a Man at Variance against his Father , and to make those of a Man 's own House , his Enemies ; as if His Holy Doctrin , were the Cause of these Evils . Paul tells us , that his Corruption and Sin , took Occasion from the Commandment , and was irritat by the Law ; but prevents so gross a Mistake , as to suppose any Imputation upon the Holy Law thereby . Is the Law sin ? saith he , God forbid . He abhorrs the Consequence as absurd and blasphemous . 2. The Dr. holds , that Jerom asserts , The Church found it necessary upon this Occasion , to change the first Government , by the Common Counsel of Presbyters , and ( as he expresses it ) to Dissolve Presbytries , and Introduce Episcopacy . Wherein he abuses Ierom , and pitifully Wire-draws his Words , offering a mere Distortion of them : For , [ 1. ] Ierom speaks only , as is above cleared , of an Innovating Custom , growing up by Degrees , not of a Government introduced by the whole Church , upon Ground of Necessity . [ 2. ] He makes Ierom assert , that upon the first Introduction of this Custom , Presbytries were wholly dissolved , which is most cross to Ieroms Meaning ; For , even in his own time , long after the first Origine of this Custom , he says [ quid facit , &c. ] what doth the Bishop , except Ordination , which the Presbytrie doth not ? So , that in the first Introduction of this Episcopus Praeses , Ierom could far less suppose a Dissolution of Presbytries , or total Abolishing of their Authority , as the Dr. foolishly suggests , but only such a fixed President or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who , as in that Capacity , had a Deference , and the Care committed to him , but not so , as wholly to exclud Presbyters Decisive Suffrage . Again , in the 3 d. place , what ever may be said of this after-Practice and Frame of Government , Ierom expresly denies a Divine Right , or Ius to it , and distinguishes it , from the Truth of the Divine Appointment , which first took place : So , that , tho we should grant to the Dr , that in Ierom's Sense , the whole Church , by joynt Determination , had simul & semel made this Alteration , it is evident , that he charges the Error upon the Church , as a Recess from the Divine Path , but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it self , which he diligently distinguishes from , and sets in Opposition to this Custom and Practice of the Church . So , that the absurd Reflection upon the Apostles Government , and the Wisdom of our Saviour , the Dr. may see to be lodged nearer home , viz. not only upon these , who first brought in this Human Prostasie , ( especially such , as Scrued it up to an Hierarchical Primacy , which is so cross to the Apostolick Parity ) but also , and in a singular manner , to be chargeable upon these , who uphold it , after its many Evils are discovered . Ierom asserts only the Matter of Fact , viz. That this Imparity , was brought in for Remedy of Schism , but leaves the charg● of Reflecting upon the Apostolick Government , upon the Authors of this Innovation ; And upon the Promotters thereof , it must still ly . The Dr. alledges , That Iorom approves of this , as a Wise a●d Prudent Action . An odd Approbation indeed ! To approv● a Custom or Action , as Wise and Prudent , which he holds to be opposit to the Divine Appointment . For his proof , viz. That Ierom asserts the Safety of the Church to depend upon the Authority of the High Priest or Bishop , to whom , if Supreme Authority be not given , there would be as many Schisms as Priests . As the Dr. has pointed us to none of Ieroms Writings for Proof of this , so ( as we have cleared above ) Ierom and the Ancients , in such Allusive Expressions , intend nothing else , but a Distinction of Offices in the Gospel Ministry , and to assert the Authority thereof . Blond . Sect. 3. P. 135. shews out of diverse Councils , their expressing the Gospel Ministry , under the Character of Priests and Levites . And I dare referr it to this Dr , or any Man of Sense , if a grosser Contradiction or Non-sense , could ever fall into any Mans Thought , than to hold the Necessity of an Hierarchical Bishop , with Supreme Authority , and yet the Necessity of a Divine Appointment to the contrary . That which the Dr. calls the Unavoidable Consequence of Jerom 's Hypothesis , viz. That the Church had gone to Ruine , if a Wiser Form of Government , than that of Apostles , had not been taken up , to supply its Defect . We have made appear , to be a very easily avoided Consequence , and by no Twist of Reason , to be deducible from Ierom's Hypothesis , and that the Dr , in drawing such a Consequence , has , in stead of Ierom , involved himself , in absurd Deductions . He calls this Testimony of Jerom , the only considerable Objection , against the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Episcopal Government ; And therein discovers his small and slender Reading in this Controversie , since he might have seen in Blondel , Salmasius , and many others , many more considerable Objections ; And this one , we have found so very considerable , that it hath quit baffled , and born down the Dr's mean and inconsiderable Answers . But to proceed . In the close of this Section . ( P. 421. ) the Dr. flies high in these his supposed victorious Answers to Jerom's Testimony , telling us , that the Apostolick Superiority of Bishops , being handed down by Testimonies , from Age to Age , it s as unreasonable to reject the same , as the Canon of the Scriptures , thence derived . The Dr. here discovers , what Spirit he is of . I had alwise thought , that the Divine Impression of the Scripture Canon , the intrinsick infallible evidences of a Divine inspiration , had been the great ground of the Churches reception , not its being handed down to us , from former generations , or the First receivers ; And that our Divines , had alwise distinguished , the Church and former Generations Testimony and recommendation , from the innate , Essential evidences of its Divine Authority , as to the Ground of our Faith and reception . But however , I shall tell him , that he should have exhibited , as full and Divine proof and unanimous recommendation of all the Churches , for his hierarchical Prelacy , as there is for the Scripture Canon , before he had offered such an high flown notion . Before I part with the Dr. upon this head , I must needs ( tho I have a little before , touched it ) take notice of two pieces of signal unsoundnness and unfair dealing in this Matter of Jerom's Testimony . First , That in all his Animadversions , and muster of Episcopal strength against it , he doth not in the least , take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs , of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter : in correspondence to our Sense and Pleading . Upon Philip 1.1 . He argues , That many Bishops are saluted by Paul in that Church ; and that it could not have many of the Diocesian stamp ; That therefore , the Apostle speaks indifferently of Bishops and Presbyters , as one and the same . That Act. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephesus , Bishops , set up by the Holy Ghost ; and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City , as Bishops . That in the Epistle to the Hebrews , the care of the Churches is divided among many — obey them that have the Rule over you , for they watch for your Souls . That Peter , called so from the firmness of his Faith , exhorts thus the Elders — the Elders which are among you , I exhort , who am also an Elder , and Witness , of the sufferings of Christ , Feed the Flock of God , which is among you , not by constraint , but willingly , &c. These things I write , saith Ierom , to shew , that among the Ancients , Bishops and Presbyters , were one and the same , and that by little and little , the care was devolved upon one . Now , what says the Dr. to these his Arguings upon the Apostles Doctrin ? If they are not found , why doth he not discover his mistake ? If they hold good , the Dr's exceptions evanish unto Wind. As for instance , That Ierom is too late a Witness ; that he is a Witness in his own Cause ; that he talks otherwise , when not byassed with partiality , &c. For , if these Reasonings be sound , his Witness , is both a most early and Divine Witness , and in the cause of God and Truth ; And whatever other Testimony he may be supposed to give , this Divine Testimony ought to be preferred , wherein there can be no partiality , unless the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles , and the Decision of the Holy GOD of Truth , in this Point . This also , answers the Drs quible , about a Decree Apostolick , as the Ground of the Change of Government , and that Ierom could mean no such thing , since none can be so brutish , as to impute to the Apostles , a contradictory Decree to their own Doctrin . As also , that other exception of his , evanishes , upon this Ground , Viz. That no such Decree of the Church was Recorded ; And that therefore , there was none such : For , say , it was either a Decree , or gradual Custom , if cross to the Apostolick Doctrin , it ought to be rejected . Thus , also appears the Folly of his last exception , That he imputes to the Apostolick 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 Multitud● ; Fear none of these things , which thou shalt suffer : Behold the Devil shall cast 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 Di●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 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 . A●d it being supposible , that in these Churches , especially at Ephesus , there was at this time , a Colledge of Pastors . How come the Dr. when he supposes the Address to overstretch the person of the Bishop , and to includ more , to assert That it reaches the People only , and not to the Pastors also ? This , I must confess , is odd Sense in Divinity ; in these great Evangelistick Precepts and Reprensions , the Lord Addresses not solely the Bishop , but the People under him , yet not one word to Pastors . I had thought , that the Clergy and Laity being distinguished by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other , in his Sense , under the Bishops Government and inspection , when he makes the Plural Address , to go beyond the Bishop , he would have cast an Eye , upon the under-Clergy , or Ministry , before the People , as concerned before them , in these important duties , or supposed Transgressions . But , we may easily discover the knack of the Dr's policy in this ; For Pleading in his Second Argument , That an Authority , in reference to Church Government , is clearly imported , in several of these directions or reprehensions , particularly , those addressed , to the Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira , in reference to Juridical Tryal , conviction and Censures : He was afraid , least by this means , he should have opened a door for Ministers claim , to the Bishop's incommunicable prerogatives , had he extended the plural Address to them , as well as to the People . Thirdly , The Dr. having told us , That in such plural Addresses , the people under the Bishop's Government , are included , gives for instance , that Passage , Rev. 2.10 . The Devil shall cast some of you into prison . I should verrily think , he was here concerned to specifie the Clergy and Laity , and include both : For , it seems in his Sense , all the Pastors were safe , from the Thunder-clap of this warning ( I know not by what shield , except that of the Drs. fancy ) and there were no prisons there for Pastors , this being only spoke to the People . This charge of gross folly , upon his Mould of Reasoning ( and it is gross enough , at all will ) is the more evident , in that Answer to the Objection , taken from that phrase , Chap. 2.25 . — unto you , and unto the rest in Thyatira ; from which passage , we plead for a plural diversifying Ministers and people , under distinct Comma's . The Dr. will admit it by no means , to to be meant of any , but the People , making the term , you and the rest in Thyatria , one and the same , as distinguishing only the sound from the unsound part . in that Church . So , that it is evident , the D , . appropriats the Plural Phrases to the People only , and consequently , is exposed to the forementioned absurdities , in his way and method of pleading . That , that Passage Chap. 2.10 . doth reach the Pastors , is upon several important grounds , made good by Mr. Durham , upon the place , as 1. from the remarkable change of the singular number , to the Plural . 2 ly . That his was a searching tryal to the Church , whereof , it was her concern to be warned . 3 ly . That the preservation of Some , was as signal a consolation in such a Tryal , as Isai. 30.20.21 . See others cited by Pool Critic . upon the place . The Dr. enquires , If Angels had not been single Persons , why are they not mentioned Plurally , as well as the People ? This Querie , confirms what is now imputed to him : That they are mentioned Plurally , we have already made good , in the premised Instances . Yea the Dr. himself , answers himself , acknowledging that there is a Plurality , bespoken , in the Person of the Angels , so , that he is not , only Personally Addressed . But the Dr's strange Fetch , is , that he will allow a Plurality of the People , to be Addrest and spoken to , in one singular Bishop or Angel , but none of the Pastors at all : For which Notion ( I had almost said Non-sense ) no imaginable ground can be given , but the Dr's good Will to his Hierarchical Bishop , whom he would fain shape out of this Scripture , which we see , so rejects and baffles his Endeavours , that instead of any evident ground of Answer from the Text , he must needs embrace an Airy Notion of his own Brain . Thus to that pregnant Passage , Chap. 2.24 . which we adduce to prove the Angel , to be Addrest Plurally , viz. To you , I say , and unto the rest in Thyatira : Where there is a clear Distinction made betwixt the Plural you , viz. the Pastors , and the rest in Thyatira , viz. the People . The Dr. has no other Shift , but that pitiful one , viz. That the Ancient Greek Manuscripts , leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Read it , To you the rest in Thyatira , distinguishing the Seduced , from the not Seduced ; And therefore , cannot be meant of the Angel , who is always Addrest in the Singular Number . But , 1. This Shift baffles most of all the old Greek Copies ; the Reading he embraces , being supposed Mantytecla's Manuscript , baffles all the Episcopal English Clergy , concerned in our last Translation , who , notwithstanding all their Zeal for Episcopacy , as appears in their various and unsound Translation of the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet durst not make this Adventure with the Dr , but with the Current of Ancient Copies , Read the Text , with the Conjunction : Notwithstanding , that in their Preface to the Reader , they assert their Diligence , in Searching the Original Text. I need not stand here to recount , the large Testimony and Cloud of Witnesses , the Body of Protestant Divines , Translators and Interpreters , all concurring in this our Sense and Reading , in Contradiction to the Dr's Conceit and Exception . See Paraeus , Arethas , Ribera , Dr. More , who expresly taketh the you , to import the Pastors ; Beza , &c. But , 2 ly , This Conjecture and Answer , is clearly Cross to the Text : For , ( 1. ) The Adversative , but , in the beginning of v. 24. clearly limits the you here , and distinguishes it from the you , meant of the People , in the close of v. 23. ( 2. ) The Conclusion of this verse , clears this to Conviction — I will put upon you , none other burden — hold fast — Pray , by what Logick , will the Dr. exclud Ministers , and includ the People only , in this Plural Phrase ? Were no Ministers kept unpolluted ? Or , were there some other burdens , to be put upon them , than what they had already ? And are they excluded from holding fast ' till Christ come , what is received from him , and only the People concerned herein , as contradistinct from the Bishop ? Sure I am , such absurd Consequeuces , might cover with Blushes , the Asserters of this Opinion . I might add , that even granting the Dr , the Advantage of this Gloss , and leaving out the Conjunction , and admitting with Grotius , that thus the Sound are distinguished from the Unsound in this Church , the Dr. would be pitifully puzzl'd to prove , that none of the Clergy , as he calls them , is in both these Classes , and consequently , that the Plural Phrase , doth not stand for us , even in this Discriminating Sense : But this , we insist not upon . To proceed to the Dr's second Proof , ( p. 423. ) of our Lords Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles , viz. That they were Persons of great Authority : This he proves from the Title of Angel , shewing them to be Persons of Office and Eminency ; Christ also , Directing to them the Epistles , to be communicat to their Churches . To which , he adds another Proof , taken from the Authority , which is supposed to be exercised by some of these Angels , and competent to others ; He gives Instance , of the Angel of Ephesus , trying the false Apostles , which imports a Juridical Tryal ; the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus , for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam , and of the Nicolaitans , which shews his Power to have cast him out ; upon the Angel of Thyatira , for suffering Iezabel to Teach , which shews , that it was in his Power , and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers . Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches , in reference to Government , are good and sound , and accorded to by all Divines . But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof , in reference to his Scope , which are ( to use our Scottish Proverb ) the Tongue of the Trump , and without which , all his Discourse , is but like Sand without Lime . 1. He says , " They were single Persons of great Authority : But he has not yet made good , that they were single Persons , nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines , to prove the contrary , and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel , is most suteable to the Scripture , and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles . 2 ly , Supposing them single Persons , he has not proved , either from the Title of Angel , or their Authority imported in these Epistles , that it reached any further , than that of Presidents ; or that the Authority here Instanced , was Monopolized , and so inhanced in them , as to exclud intirely , all the Pastors therefrom . The contrary whereof ( besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning ) we heard the Belgick Divines make out , and give Instance , particularly , with reference to Ephesus ; to the Elders or Ministers of which Church , Paul committed the whole Government , as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof , Act. 20.28 . And therefore , even supposing the Angel , a single Person , he cannot be supposed , in Contradiction to that Scripture , to have had such Authority and Power , as did Inhance , or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus , so clearly therein asserted and held out . The Dr. acknowledges , That what our Lord writes , is not to this Angel personally , but also to the People , P. 422. But I pray , how will the Dr. set up his March-stone , and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions , in Point of Government , distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors , since , neither the Supposition , that the Bishop is a single Person , will prove this , nor the Honourable Title of Angel , ( as the Dr. calls it ) a Title suteable to all Pastors , who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts , by their Office ; Nor , can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions , without a palpable begging of the Question . And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches , as Directed to them ; This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses , or to any President , or Mouth of a Meeting , that it hath no imaginable Strength , to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion . The Dr's . Third and last proof , of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles , and that the Angels , were Bishops of these Churches , and Presidents thereof , is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity ( as he calls it ) for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned , Bibleotheca patrum , N. 244. Shewing that Iohn , Two or Three years after his return from Patmos , assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province , he assumed to himself ; the Government of it ; which Seven , were the Angels here here Addrest ; these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia , of which Ephesus was Metropolis : And therefore , these Seven Bishops , by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus , are the Seven Angels , all within that Province . He adds ; That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus , praepositos Ecclesiae , Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels , praepositi Ecclesiarum , Comment . in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels , tells us , that by Angels , are meant the Bishops . Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels , Bishops and Presidents over these Churches , in propounding this Proof , if he intend only Presidents , he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power , which he ascribs to them ; a President , and one , who has all Authority , Monopolized in him , being quite distinct things : If he intend by Presidents of the Churches , such as are set over it in a general Sense ; Are not all Pastors in Scripture , called such , as are set over God's People , and have the Tittles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches , as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons , all Authority of Government , a President being of far larger extent , and surely with a relation to a Church , it is not all one , to say , such a person is President of a Church , and a Sole President : As it it is not all one to say , such a man , is Minister of London , and the Sole Minister . For , all Ministers in the Scripture Sense , are Presidents over the Churches . But 2 ly . since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels , addrest by our Lord , in these Epistles , and of the nature and extent of that Office , which is indigitat by the term Angel , and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions , given to them , from Primitive Antiquity ( as he calls it ) I would know ▪ whether the Dr. will own this Principle , that Antiquity , or even that which he calls Primitive ( or the First human Testimony , secluding the Scriptures , or of the First Ages , after the Canon of the Scriptures ) is the infallible Rule and Commentarie , for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers , mentioned in Scripture . If the Dr. will not own this Principle , his evidence by his own confession ; is no evidence ; For , an evidence , which will fail and not reach the conclusion , is no evidence at all ; and in the best construction , no proper evidence without restriction , s and limitations added . If the Dr. hold the Affirmative , then I would urge him thus . First , If Mens Testimony , or the Churches Primitive practice , tho never so early , must be the Key and Comment in this Case , of the Scripture Sense , of the Character and description of Church Officers , and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent , why may not also , human practice and profession of the Church , simply considered , determin our Faith and prectice , as to every Scripture Truth , and duty therein held out ? For , the Dr. can assign no difference , nor upon admitting the antecedent , shew the least shaddow of a ground , which will limit and enervat the consequence . Secondly , If this be admitted , I would know , whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal , than the Scriptures , as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice , and in opposition to the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. 2.4 . make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom , not in the Wisdom of God and his Power ; and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter , 2 Pet 1.20.21 . make the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation , as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man : For , if I must believe no otherwise , anent the Office of these Angels , and the Scriptures pointing out the same , than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers , or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops , their pretended Successors ; then the custom and practice of fallible Men , becomes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the ratio , and demonstration , a priori , the great and chief ground , why I believe Scriptures , to have such a Sense , and no other . And thus we will give Men , a Dominion over our Faith , which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men : A Principle , which no sound Protestant will own . Besides , that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument , and to instruct this Matter of Fact , and that all Primitive Antiquity , ( as he calls it ) doth testify for the Bishop , which he has shapen out , would inextricably baffle his indeavours , as is above cleared : It being evident , that as , the Writings of many of the First Writers , are lost , and not a f●w corrupted ; So , many , Eminent for Piety and Learning , have written nothing in the First Ages , which are therefore generally acknowledged , to be very dark , in the Matter of Fact. The Affirmative proof , lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear , that neither the one , nor the other , has contradicted his supposed Testimonies , else he but beats the Air , and has said nothing to the purpose . Thirdly , The Scripture ( as hath been proved ) ascribing to Pastors , the Power of Order and Jurisdiction , and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus , ( the Angel whereof , is First here addrest , ) Act. 20.28 . Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14 . 1. Pet. 5.2.3 . 1 Cor. 5.4.5 . When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors ( which , surely is Antiquity , prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity , and of far greater veneration ) stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops ▪ Power , and both are laid in even Ballances together , which of the two , will preponderat ? The Dr. for shame , will not say the Second ; Hence I inferr , that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture , or quite this Plea. And next , he must acknowledg , that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office , and our Arguments drawn therefrom , before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice . Again , Fourthly , We may here ply ●he Dr , with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould , The Dr. thinks it strange , how we can suppose the Church , to have so suddenly altered the Government , from Presbytrie to Episcopacy , if Presbytrie was her first Government . But I would ask the Dr , since its evident in Scripture , that Pastors and Presbyters , have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop , and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them , yea , and in the premised Scriptures , several such paralells , its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in , and competent to them : And in special , since the Elders and Pastors of the Church of Ephesus , are enjoyned by Paul , in his last Farewel , to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church , without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them , and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy , and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there ; whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time , that all this Episcopal Authority , competent before , to Pastors of Churches , and particularly of Ephesus , is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop ? How came all the Churches of Asia , to be so suddenly cast in this Mould ? And to press the Querie a little further , if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time , and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity , as the Dr. pretends , yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself , as well as by Augustin and Ambrose , how comes Ierom to say , that even in his time , the Elders were subject to the Bishop , by Custom , not Divine Dispensation ( Comment on Tit. ) and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time [ Caetus Presbyterorum ) a Meeting or Court of Presbyters , which he calls an Apostolick Senat ? How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra , Canon 18 ? How comes Ambrose ( or , a Father , Coetaneous to him ) upon Eph. 4. to assert , that after the Church was enlarged [ caepit alio modo gubernari ] it began to be Governed after another manner ; than at first ; and — that [ non per omnia conveniunt , &c. ] the Government of the Church , in his time , was not every way suteable and square , to the Apostolick Appointment ? How comes Augustin ( Epist. 10. ) to assert with Ierom , that by Custom of the Church , Episcopatus was major Presbyterio ? How comes Firmili●nus ( apud Cyprian . Epist. 78. ) to assert , that the Pastors or Presbyters [ possident ordinandi potestatem ) possesses the Power of Ordination ; And these Presbyters , he calls [ Praepositi ] Presidents or Rulers , using that very Term , from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels ? Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts , that [ inter Presbyterum & Episcopum inter est ferme nihil ] there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter ; and that which is spoken by Paul to the one , agrees also to the other . Now , if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients , in point of the Bishops Power , as the Dr. pretends , I would fain know , what means this immusical Jarring , and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion , and even by these very Fathers , whom he brings for his Vouchers ? Hence , Fifthly , it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies , and his pretended Argument , from all Primitive Antiquity , is pitifully Lame , and short of his Design , upon two important Grounds . 1. That his Witnesses , are not Harmonious , several of them , giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him . 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops , and that absolute Inhanced Power , which he alledges : For , no Man of Sense , can draw this Consequence , from the general Name of Bishops , used by him , or from a simple calling of them Presidents , will conclud them to be such , as he pretends , yea , and not such de Facto , far less Iure Divino , since in other places , they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion : And therefore , unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers , whom he mentions , as the most Arrant , Self-contradicting , Non-sensical Fools , that ever Spoke or Wrote , he must needs acknowledg , with us , that they use the Term Bishop , in a general Sense , and as common both to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presidents , as had then obtained , and to other Pastors . So that in such Characters , appropriat to such Persons , they could neither understand , an Episcopal Presidency , founded upon a Divine Right , and Apostolical Institution , as the Dr. pretends , nor such an absolute Power , as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government , which he also asserts . This considered , with what is above offered , doth so fully 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 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 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 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 thus called , he was called , in a special manner , to the Apostleship of the Gentiles — I have appeared unto thee , saith our Lord — to make thee a Minister , and a Witness — delivering thee from the People , and from the Gentiles , unto whom I send thee , to open their Eyes , &c. Upon which , the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them , Act. 26.17 , 18 , 19. The Apostle also tells us , ( Gal. 1.15 , 16 , 17. ) that when it pleased God , who separated me from my Mothers Womb , and called me by his grace , to reveal his Son in me , that I might preach among the Heathen , or Gentiles ; immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood : Neither went I up to Jerusalem , to them , which were Apostles before me . Compare this with Ephes. 3.8 . Hence , its odd to suppose , that either he or Barnabas , were at this time ordained Apostles . For , Barnabas , that he was an Apostle , looking strictly to the Description of Apostles , some may doubt ; but supposing him such ( he being joyned with Paul , under that Character , Act. 14.14 . ) we read of his Officiating , and for what can be understood from Scripture , in the same manner , and by virtue of the same Office , as the Apostle Paul , to the Gentiles , before this time : For ( Act. 11.22 . ) he is sent to Antioch , by the Church at Ierusalem , for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there ; And v. 25 , 26. he goes to Tarsus , to seek Paul , and brings him to Antioch , and Taught there a year with Paul , where the Christian Name first took place . Next , the Dr. finding himself puzzled , with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas , to their Apostolick Office , by mere Prophets and Teachers , has no Shift , but to alledge , they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria , since they could not else , have derived the Office of Apostolat . A pretty Evasion indeed , from a Phantastick Objection ! First , these Prophets and Teachers , are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers , who had also the Gift of Prophecy , Vigent at that time . So , Pool . 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat . upon the place , says , they were such , as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith , by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29 , 32. who , the Dr. will not doubt , are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established : And with these , spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 . Ephes. 4.11 . He adds , that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office , and singular for these times , yet inferior to that of Apostles , and in many , accompanied with Divine Predictions . The Belgick Divines upon the place , do shew , That some , take the two Words , Prophets and Teachers , for one and the same thing : Others , distinguish them thus , that Prophets were those , who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost , had extraordinary Gifts , to foretell things to come , and to expound the Holy Scriptures : But Teachers , were such , who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts , to Instruct and Govern the Church , in the Worship of God. And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost , mentioned Act. 13.2 . viz. [ Separat me Barnabas and Saul ] they Paraphrase thus , That they were separat from the Service of this Church , where there were other Teachers enough , to send them to the Gentiles , whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning , citing Act. 26.16 . And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them , they Paraphrase thus , Not thereby , to chuse them to be Apostles , whereunto they were before chosen , v. 1. and Act. 9.15 . but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles , by Prayer and Imposition of Hands . Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus . So Cornel. a Lapide , to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy ; paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such , as by the Influence of the Spirit , foretold things to come : So Menochius , That they were Expounders of the Scripture , by the Spirits Revelation : So Lorinus , A Lapide , Piscator : The last of whom , takes them to be the same with Teachers . All which , how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers , and the Persons , upon whom Hands were Imposed , together with the end of this Action , is obvious to the meanest Reflection . In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat . and the Belgick Divines , we may further notice this particular Account of Pool . Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already , the Laying on of Hands did signify , 1. Their being set apart to this particular Imploymentt , hey were now sent about . 2 ly , The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had . 3 ly , Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them , and Success upon the Work they went for . But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles , and that , as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria , is a Dream , much , if not , only beholden to the Dr. himself . Again , the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer ; For , if these his supposed Bishops of Syria , were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size , how could they derive an Apostolat , of the Primary and first Order , as he calls it ? unless the Dr. make them intirely one , which he sometimes ( tho in this , inconsistent with himself ) disownes , as we heard above , when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power , to make general Canons to the whole Church , to the Bishops , only to their particular Diocesses . But the Dr. finds another Objection , viz. That those Officers , who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas , are called Prophets , not Apostles or Bishops . He Answers , That so was Iudas and Silas , Act. 15.32 . and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren , as he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea . I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent : Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found , appropriat to any Church Officer , straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head. But this Term being appropriat to such Persons , and in such Circumstances , as will not admit this Office and Character , but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters , the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him . His Friends , the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible , smell'd out no Prelacy , nor Ruling in this Term , but Translat the Word , Chief Men , Primarios , Praecipuos , Estimatos , & Honoratos ; thus Erasmus , Vatablus , Beza , Piscator , Camerarius , Drusius . Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes ; so Beza . Chief Men , then , may be understood thus , that they were persons , as , in Ecclesiastick Offices , so , of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety ; which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office , and that such discriminating terms of one from another , will infer no distinction therein . Besides , some might alledg , that if he will allow Members of the Church visible , the Scripture epithet of Brethren , and of the Brotherhood , which Denomination , we find applyed unto them , 1 Pet. 2.17 . That upon this ground , Pastors or Presbyters , who have a Rule appropriat unto them , and are termed as in that capacity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the one and the other , may very well come under the Character of Rulers and Brethren , and by consequence , that the Relation of the one to the other , may well come under this complex ▪ Phrase of Rulers among the Brethren , especially , since in the Council , Act 15. the Elders and Brethren are distinguished , as Church Officers from privat Church Officers from privat Church Members . Again , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and even among Brethren , doth evidently and frequently in Scripture , reject the Dr's Mitr'd Notion : Particularly Heb. 13.7 . where they are spoken of , in the Plural , as over that Church , both in Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin : And v. 17. they are in a Plurality , supposed both to Rule and watch for Souls ; And v. 24 , they are distinguished from the Saints , under this Denomination : And consequently , in all the Three Passages , put under the Character of , Rulers among the Brethren , but as having all a Relation to this Church , and actually and jointly Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin : Consequently , they are such Rulers among the Brethren , as are all Faithful Pastors ; And therefore , of a quite distinct Character , from his supposed Ruling Prelats . The Dr. affirms , That Ordination was confined to such as were admitted to the Apostolat ; as the laying on of Hands in Ephesus , was by Paul committed to Timothy , upon whom , he himself imposed Hands ; And unto Titus at Crete , whom he left to Ordain Elders 2 Tim. 1.6 . Tit. 1.5 . To this we have spoken at large , and need not here stand upon a prolix resuming of what hath been offered in Answer thereunto . Only in a word , we may see , that the Dr. Shoots short of his proofs , which is obviously evident to any that considers , that he neither proves , nor can prove , these his groundless Postulata and suppositions ( without which he misses his mark , and his Argument has no imaginable Foundation ) such as 1. That , the Offices of Timothy and Titus , were ordinary , and the same with his described Hierarchical Prelat . This , we have already disproved , and by clear Scripture evidence , made the contrary appear . 2 ly . That the Apostles Precepts , in point of Ordination , to Timothy and Titus , did import their sole Authority therein , in Churches constitut , so , as to seclud all Authority of Pastors or Presbyters in the same , even where they were settled , and could concurr . The contrary whereof , we have also made evident . Again , whereas the Dr. thinks to strengthen his Plea , in telling us , That the Apostle by Imposing Hands on Timothy , Ordained him , an Apostle or Bishop of that Church . We have evinced the folly of this alledgeance , and that the Apostles imposing Hands upon Timothy , rather strengthens , than impugns the Presbyterian Cause . Since , 1. It is evident , that the Presbytrie , ( and consequently , Ordinary Pastors , whom the Dr. wholly excluds from Ordination ) laid Hands upon Timothy . 1 Tim. 4.14 . and had an Authoritative interest therein . And 2 ly . That the Text mentions Paul's Laying on of Hands , in order to Gifts ; but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie , in another Mould and Phrase . Hence , its easie , to cut the Sinews of the Dr's Arguing with a Notion of hii own , set down , but a few Lines above . He enquires , how could the Prophets at Antioch , derive an Apostolat to Paul and Barnabas , if they had not been of that Character ? Now , I would ply the Dr. with this Counter-query , how could Imposition of Hands , and Authoritative Imposition , be performed by Pastors , and Ministerial or Evangelistick Authority , be derived by them , together with Paul , to Timothy , if Pastors were not of such a Character , as had an Ordaining Power ? Here is a Query , founded upon the Dr's own medium , and his Answering satisfyingly the second , will clear him in Answering the First . Hence , what he adds , ( P. 438 , 439. ) viz. That through the whole Scripture History , Ordination is performed by those of the Apostolick Order , or by secondary Apostles , as he calls them● doth in this appear groundless : For , here we find the Power of Ordination , seated in , and exercised by a Presbytrie . And we have told him and above evinced , that tho we suppose Paul present , and imposing Hands with them , it rather confirms , than invalidats our Argument from this place , for Pastors and Presbyters Power in Ordination . Not to insist upon the Dr's recent instance of Prophets and Teachers Authoritatively Imposing Hands upon Paul and Barnabas ; which ( tho not importing a formal Ordination ) yet , considering the circumstances and context , viz. The Persons Imposing hands , scil . Pastors and Teachers , the Persons upon whom they imposed Hands , scil . Apostles , together with the end and design , i. e. their being solemnly set a part and Blest , and thus sent out upon a special Legation , it s an Instance strongly pleading ( and as we use to say a majori ad minus ) for a Power of Ordination in Pastors , in relation to Ordinary Church Officers . And whatever may be said of instances , as to Ordinary Pastors , in these Infant-times of the Church , rare , when extraordinary Officers , such as Apostles and Evangelists , were existent , and their Offices vigent , the Episcopal Authority , so clearly and frequently , ( as we have proved ) ascribed and apropriat to Pastors , doth certainly includ this Authority of Ordination , as essential thereunto . The Dr. adds , That if we Consult Primitive Antiquity , the best Interpreters of Scripture , in Matters of Fact at least , we will alwise find , the Power of giving Orders , confined & Limited to Bishops . I need not much digress to tell him , that the after-practice of Churches , is acknowledged in matters of Fact ( and even by Eusebius himself ) in a great measure dark and uncertain , and is also acknowledged , and found much opposit to Scripture : And therefore , a slippery and unsound ground and Comment , as to Scripture Matter of Fact , and in order to such a conclusion . I might add , that if the Dr's Reasoning hold good , it is in point of Right , as well as in matter of Fact , the sure and sole Comment upon Scripture . But for this bold and Universal assertion of the Dr's , it is easily convict of falsehood , by what is above offered . The 4 th . Council of Carth. Canon 22. Decrees , That the Bishops Ordain not without the Clergy . And if we suppose this Canon obeyed , there wanted not abundance of conformable instances . In Cyprians time . the Pastors had the Power [ manum imponendi ] of Ordaining , Ep. 78. And in Aegypt , in absence of the Bishop , Ordained alone , as Ambrose on Eph. 4. asserts . Besides , what is at large made out to this scope , by our Writers , in reference to the Chorepiscopi , and this for a very considerable extent , both of time and place . Cyprian Ep. 33. Writing to his Charge , certifies them , That Aurelius was Ordained by him and his Collegues , who were present with him . And least the Dr. start at a supposition , that Cyprian , called Presbyters his Collegues , let any peruse Ep. 33. and this will convincingly appear . We have told him before , that Firmilianus saith of them , that Rule in the Church [ quod Baptisandi , manum imponendi & Ordinandi possident potestatem ] and who these are , he shews a little before , viz. [ Seniores & praepositi , ] We have also told him , that Chrysostom himself , was found accused ( in Synod ad Quaercum Ann. 403. ) that he had made Ordinations , with the Sentence and company of the Clergy . And in the forecited Council of Carthage ( Canon 21. ) it is enacted , " That the Bishop Ordain not without the Clergy . And Canon . 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impose hands with the Bishop . The Authors of Ius Divinum Minist . Evan. in the Appendix , together with Smectymnus , and several other Presbyterian Writers , have exhibit so many clear instances of this , that we need only refer the Reader to their Learned Labours , for the discovery of the Drs. folly , in this Assertion . In the close of his discourse , upon this point , he tells us , That this is so undenyable , that tho Ierom equalize Presbyters with Bishops , yet he is forc't to do it with an [ excepta Ordinatione ] Ans. If we should suppose Ierom to speak of the general custom of that time and place , and neither absolutely nor Universally , as to the practice or Matter of Fact , far less of of a Divine Right , the Dr's . undenyable proof is soon overturned ; but especially it s Razed , when we tell him , that Ierom's [ excepta Ordinatione ] is well enough understood of the Bishops ordinarly assumed Chief interest , in the rituals of Ordination , tho Presbyters ( as is above cleared ) did intrust this to him , as having a joint and essential interest in the thing it self . The next peculiar Ministry of the Bishop , which the Dr. assigns , is , The execution of Spiritual Iurisdiction , viz. to Cite , examin Offences before their Tribunals , to admonish the Offender , exclud from Church Communion , or receive upon Repentance . The Dr. discourses at large , in proof of a Spiritual jurisdiction Established in the Church , and proves it soundly from Matth. 18.16.17.18 . Expounding that Clause , tell it unto the Church , of a Delation , in Order to an Authoritative admonition , and from those Passages in the context , If he neglect to hear the Church , let him be as a heathen , &c. and that other , whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth , shall be bound in Heaven , &c. Concluds well a Power in the Church of excluding from , and admission into Fellowship ; Citing that Paralell , Math. 16.19 . I will give unto thee , the Keyes , &c. which he also well explains by what is said . Isai. 22.21 , 22. anent the Key of the H●use of David i. e. the Government of his Church , committed to our Lord , in the Type of Eliakim's substituting to Shebna , who was over the Household . He expounds well , the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven , of the Government of the Church , and the Power of Binding and loosing , of admission to , or exclusion from Church Fellowship . All this is easily accorded . But now comes the main Point , and the Cardo questionis , This Power , saith the Dr , is wholly deposited , in the Episcopal Order . This is soon said , but to prove it , hoc opus , hic labor est . It were superfluous , here , to remind the Reader , how the Dr. understands the Episcopal Order , or how far , in a sound Scripture Sense , of the Episcopal order , this assertion might be admitted . But to the Point , the Dr. proves his Assertion , from this ground , that in all the forecited places , it was only to Apostles , that our Lord derived this Iurisdiction , they alone being the Stewards , to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Family , to whom , alone he promised Twelve Thrones , to Rule and Govern his Spiritual Israel , as the Chief of the Trib●s Governed the Natural Israel , Math. 19.28 . Upon which ground he tells us , that the Heavenly Jerusalem , has the Names of the Twelve Apostles upon its Gates , Rev. 21.14 . &c. And the Twelve pretious Stones , v. 19.20 . Do in his Sense , denote the Power and dignity of the Church . As also , the 144 Cubits of the Walls Measure , amounting to Twelve times twelve , he takes to denote the Apostles equal Government of the Church . From all which , the Dr. thrusts out , as his project of the whole , his former Notion and Topick of [ our Lords lodging this Jurisdiction , in those of the Apostoliek Order , derived , from the Apostles ] which , saith he , was administrat accordingly , either by the Apostles immediatly , or by the Bishops of the several Churches , to whom they communicat their Order . Ans. All this ( in so far , as relates to the Dr's scope ) is nothing but a repetition of what is already Answered . I shall easily accord with him in this , that , as our Lord placed and left in his Church , a Spiritual Jurisdiction , so , his Apostles , were the First and immediat Recipients of this , from himself . I do likewise consent to the Dr. in this , that this Spiritual Authority , was to be continued in the Church , and Transmitted to fit Administrators , and was not to die with the Apostles . As also , there is no doubt , that they were to deliver our Lords mind , and the Standart , and continuing measures and Rules of all the Ordinances of the House of God , the Doctrin , Worship , Disciplin and Government thereof , in which Respect , they are called the Churches Foundation . But in all this , the Dr. has not laid one Ground-Stone of his proof , which ( as we have often told him ) lyes Chiefly in these two Points . 1. That the Office of Apostolat , in its entire nature and extent , and as exercised by the Twelve , was by our Lord , intended for an ordinary Function and Office , to be thus continued in , and transmitted to the Church , and devolved on Successors , who were accordingly to exercise the same Office and Power . 2 ly . That these Successors were so invested with this Apostolick Power and Office , as they had the whole Government , the Power of Order and Jurisdiction , monopolized in them , in so far as the Pastors and Presbyters , appointed and set up by Apostles , in the Churches , had only the Doctrinal Key , entrusted to them , but not that of Government ; whereas , both the one and the other , were committed to these supposed succedaneous Apostles . Now , its evident , that if the Dr. prove not these , he says nothing ; And that both these , are unsound and Antiscriptural Suppositions , we have already made appear . ( 1. ) From the many evidences , and clear Scripture discoveries , of the extraordinarie expired nature of the Apostolick , and Evangelistick Office. And ( 2. ) From the Apostles intrusting and transmitting to Pastors or Presbyters , and devolving upon them , both the Keyes of Doctrin and Government , as their proper and imediat Successors ; as also from clear Scripture Grounds and instances , which do evince their actual exercise of the same . But next , to examin a little more closely , the Dr's Proofs , I would gladly know of him , or any of his Perswasion , whether they do not look upon , and understand that Text , Math. 18. as containing a constant Fundamental Law and Rule , given to the Christian Church , to prescrib the Method of removing 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 Professo●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 Method of procedure , which our Lord Institute , Matth. 18. he must by Parity of Reason , allow the other part of the Institution , touching the Juridical or Censuring Church , to have its own place therein : And that Consequently , the Apostle was to take along the Authoritative concurrence of the Church Officers of Corinth , in this procedure . But the truth is , he quite mistakes the Passage ; For , in that Clause of Two or Three Witnesses , the Apostle Intimats only , the certainty of his coming the Third time : He had taken up thoughts of , and was preparing for his Journey , and giving them previous warning of his coming , he alludes to that of Deut. 19.15 . to ascertain them thereof accordingly ; Thus Pool Annot. and Interpreters generally : He had been at Corinth once Act. 18. Afterward , he had twice purposed and promised to come ; once , in the 1 Ep. Chap. 16.5 . And now again here ; And then he adds , in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses , &c. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat . thus senses this Clause , in the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses , &c. The meaning is , saith he , these Three warnings of my coming shal be , as so many Witnesses , by which ( if ye do not amend , ) you shall be sufficiently convinced of incorrigible Rebellion , to proceed to a sentence , already penned 2 Cor. 10.6 . [ cum jam bis terve id dixerim , tandem ratum erit ] thus Grotius . As for the Apostles threatning sharpness of Censure , v. 10. And his Apostolical Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 . It receives the same Answer , by the forementioned distinction of the Apostles ordinary and Extraordinary Power , and the cumulative and privative exercise thereof . And if the Dr. will not take this from me , may I hope , he will from a far greater : The Learned Iunius , in Answer to Bellarmin , pleading much to the Dr's Scope and Sense , from this Passage of the Apostle — Shall I come unto you with a Rod ? offers the same distinction ( De Concil . lib. 2. Cap. 16. ) of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rod [ secundum illam , &c. ] According to the common ordinary Rod , saith he , Peter was a fellow Presbyter , 1 Pet. 5. but according to the singular and extraordinary , he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira . He adds , in respect of this common Rod , Paul saith , 1 Cor. 5. You being gathered together , and my Spirit , in the Name of the Lord Iesus ; But , as to this singular one , he saith , Shall I come unto you with a Rod ? 1 Cor. 4.21 . This common Rod , he denyes , to have been , in the Hand of any one Man , whether Apostle or other , or that they had any sole or singular Prerogative , in Churches constitute . Grotius and others , do here take in the same , which Iunius mentions of the extraordinary stroke , either the inflicting of Death , as upon Ananias and Sapphira , or Blindness , as upon Elymas ; or Diseases . The Belgick Divines , joyn together , the Exercise of punishment and Discipline , in this Clause . While I have been mentioning Iunius , I must upon this occasion , shew , that in opposition to the Dr's . Pleading , in Relation to Successor - Bishops to Apostles , by Testimony of the Fathers , Iunius will tell him ( De Clericis Cap. 14. Not. 15. ) that this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs Institution [ quia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in Ecclesia Succederetur ] Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles , according to Degree : And that the Fathers understood it of a Succession [ ex simili , non ex pari ] of similitud , not Parity ; And a similitud Secundum quid , or imaginary , according as Bishops , were then Moulded . The same Answer and distinction above Rehearsed , serves for what he Adduces of Pauls delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan . 1 Tim. 1.20 . And that this is the Sense of Sound Divines , appears , in that this is made Paralel with 1 Cor. 5. wherein the Apostles Extraordinary Authority , is by them distinguished from the Churches Ordinary Power . As for his further Proof , from the Apostles deriving this Spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus , the pretended Bishops of Ephesus and Crete , and their supposed singular Authority and Censures , and Judicially Cognoscing upon Ecclesiastical Causes , which he draws from these Passages . 1 Tim. 5.19 , 20. Tit. 3.10 . We have above spoken to it at length , and provenfully , that the Evangelistick Function of them both , who were fixed to no particular Posts , together with the clearly supposed Power of Church Judicatories , when Established ( as is evident in several Paralells ) and of the supposed Concurrence , consequently of ordinary Officers with them , in the Nature and Scope of these very Instructions themselves , doth clearly eve●t his Pleading . For what he adds of the Censuring Power of the Angels of Ephesus and Thyatira , Rev. 2. What we have made already good of the Collective Sense of the word Angel , and the Insufficiency of admitting him , to be a single person or President , to bear the weight of his Conclusion , discovers the Vanity of this his Repeated Notion , in this place . The Dr. adds , that the Bishops of the Primitive Ages , were the sole Administrators of Spiritual Iurisdiction . This we have above , convict of untruth . And whereas he tells us further , that they ordinarly admitted their Presbyters Concurrence for Advice ; we have made appear , that their Concurrence , after Bishops were set up , yea , and by Confession of Bishops themselves , was Authoritative , not for Advice only . The Dr. will needs have Cyprian to challenge a singular Authority of Excommunication ( Ep. 38 , 39. ) But , if he will not set him by the Ears with himself ( Ep. 6 , 18 , 28. ) where he professes , he neither could , nor would do any thing , without the Clergy , and ( Ep. 78. ) where he shews , that Presbyters , had the Power of Imposing Hands , and of Ordaining ; and unless also , he can disprove what is made good anent their Ordaining alone , especially in Aegypt , in absence of the Bishop , what we have touched anent the Chorepiscopi , their Authority and Power herein , which is at large made good by our Writers , the Dr. must acknowledg , that he misses his Mark , in this Citation . Cyprian also is so far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of sole Censuring ( as the Dr. wou●d make him ) that ( Epist. 33. ) he ownes the Presbyters , as his Collegues , even in the Point of Ordination , and disownes any such usurped Authority . In the Ordination of the Confessor Aurelius , he thus expresses himself [ hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi , a m● & a Collegis qui presentes aderant ordinatum sci●tis ] Thus also ( Ep. 58. speaking of the Pastors ) he expresses himself [ Ego & Collegae & Fraternitas omnis ] And ( Ep. 6. ) shewing his earnest desire to meet with the Pastors , while absent from them , he gives this Reason [ ut ea quae circa Ecclesiae gubernacula utilitas communis exposcit , tractare simul & plurimorum examinata limare possemus ] And speaking there , of the turbulency of some persons , he says , they were such , as [ nec a Diaconis nec a Presbyteris regi posse , &c. ] Upon which , Pamelius has this Note [ hinc non obscure colligitur ad huc Carthagini — prerogativam illam Presbyterorum & Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae , qua communi totius Presbyterii . i. e. Presbyterorum & Diaconorum collegii , consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis ] Citing thereafter , Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians , wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pastors or Presbyters , as to the Apostle of Christ. And least the Dr. alledge , this imports no more than a Consultive Power , Cyprian ( Ep. 18. ) having mentioned what was written by Lucian , in name of the Confessors , which they desired to be communicat to the Presbyters ; and ( as he expresses it ) [ per me collegis omnibus innotescere ] to be by him made known to his Collegue-Presbyters , he adds [ quae res , cum omnium nostrum concilium & Sententiam spectat , praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo ] Thereafter , he shews that having sent Letters of Copies to many Collegues , he had an acquiescing Answer in this his purpose . To which we may add , what is above touched of Cyprians Judgment in receiving the Lapsed ( Ep. 12. ) and several other places ) that the Pastors or Presbyters had a necessary interest therein , doth by necessary consequence , inferr , that they had the same interest in the Sentence , as in the Absolution . As for the 38 Epistle , which the Dr. Cites , I find nothing in it , that will conclud what he asserts , having perused that Epistle : That which he seems to take hold of , is , that expression of Cyprian [ accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit , ut abstentum se a nobis sciat ] upon which Passage , the Annotator upon Cyprian , doubts whether he means Excommunication properly and strictly so called , or not ; or rather , that which we term the Lesser , of a Suspension from Ordinances for some little time [ quo elapso , saith he , Presbyterium de Contumacia vel Paenitentia eorundum judicabat , &c. ] Moreover , speaking of Felicissimus , he says to the Presbyters [ cum post haec omnia — nec vestra autoritate & presentia fractus , &c. ] clearly pointing at the Authoritative Interposing of the Pastors , in this Matter . And that he does not mean the stricter Excommunication , seems by this probable , that speaking of several Delations of his Crimes , which the Delators had offered to prove , he adds [ quae omnia tunc cognoscemus , quando in un●m cum Collegis pluribus permittente Deo , convenerimus ] which speaks his reserving a further Censure , to a more full Enquiry into the Cause ; yea , and this Enquiry , he will not undertake , but with the Authoritative Concurrence of Presbyters , called by him his Collegues . And in the Matter of Augendus , his Corresponding Guilt with this Felicissimus , he says [ sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum , non esse Communicaturum ] — and [ Sententiam ferat si ultra cum co perseveraverit ] i. e. upon Supposition of his continued Contumacy : Wherein , it is evident , that no Sentence is passed upon this Person , as the Dr. alledges ; and that in the Censuring of both , Cyprian supposes a necessary Interest of the Pastors or Presbyters . And the ensuing Epistle , pointing out the actual Censuring of these two , with several others , not mentioned in the preceeding Epistle , confirms what we have said . The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the first Council of Nice , to suppose a Power of Excommunication , to be solely in the Person of the Bishop . But , besides , that the Words he cites , are remote from proving it , the Presence of Presbyters , being therein presupposed , it is evident , by several Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , as well as by that Act of the fourth Council of Carthage mentioned , that Presbyters did Authoritatively concur , in Ordination and Censures ( for which , see Smectym . Sect. 8. and Ruffin . Hist. Lib. 10. ) See Council Antioch , Canon 10. Council Ancyr . Canon 13. And determined against this sole Usurped Authority of the Bishop , either in Censuring Presbyters , or in Judging the Conversation and Crimes of Church Members , or in Excommunication or Receiving Penitents . We have also heard , that the fourth Council of Carthage , Canon 23. condemns the Bishops Decision , unless fortified by the Sentence of the Clergy . This is so evident , that the Dr. is forc'd to clap his Wings closer , and Correct himself , adding , That afterward , to prevent Abuses , in the fourth Council of Carthage , it was Decreed , that the Bishop , should hear no Mans Cause , but in Presence of the Clergy , and that his Sentence should be void , unless Confirmed by their Presence . Well then , to Correct Abuses , issuing from his supposed Canon of Nice , here is , by his own Confession , a Counter-canon , Decreeing the contrary : And where is now his bold Assertion , of the Universal Practice of the Church , founded upon a Divine Institution , which Patronizes this supposed Power , of the Hierarchical Bishop ? And if we may ply the Dr , with his own Weapon and Argument , and present to him , a Dish of his own Preparing , how doth he here make a Divine Institution Comprobat by the Churches Universal Practice , a Seminary of such Abuses , as this Council found necessary to remove ? Likewise , how doth this Council , by its Censure , Lash the supposed Practice of Cyprian , and puts among the fore-mentioned Abuses , to be necessarly removed ? Ay , but says the Dr , The Sentence in this Case , was the Bishops , not the Clergies . I Answer , if they were sine quibus non , in the Sentence , by what Shadow of Ground , can he assert , that it was solely the Bishops ? And we heard above , Cyprian in Express Contradiction to the Dr , Assert , that not the Concurrence only , but the Sentence , is properly the Clergies , as well as his . Moreover , if a Paralel Argument , in Point of Ordination , which the Dr. also doth appropriat to the Bishop , may be Judged valid in this Case , as no doubt it is , we have made appear from Canon 2. of the Fourth Council of Carthage , that they Decree in this Case , that ( omnes Presbyteri presentes manus suas Iuxta manus Episcopi super caput teneant cum Presbyter ordinatur ) And the Dr. cannot deny , that ex natura rei , and in the Scripture Sense , Imposition of Hands , in this Action of Ordination , is Authoritative , not Consentient only , and supposes the Actors to have this Badge of the Ordaining Power , I mean it , in a Ministerial Sense , as it is competent to all Church Officers . We have also told him , that Dr. Forbes , as Learned an Episcopalian , as our Dr. in his Iraen . lib. 2. Cap. 11. holds , that ( Non tantum duntaxat ut consentientes ( ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia , & plebs etiam consentit nec tamen est ejus manum imponere ) sed tanquam ordinantes , seu ordinem conferentes , & ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes ) That not only as Consenting , which is proper to the Vulgar , who cannot Impose Hands , but as Ordaining or Conferring Orders , and by a Divine Authority , they do in this Action or Rite , pray for Grace to the Ordained . Which contrary Testimony of our Scottish Episcopalian , not only , in Point of Fact , contradicts the Dr , but from this Rite of Imposing of Hands , concludes upon solid Grounds , Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination . So that , comparing our Dr's Concession , with Dr. Forbes his Sense , in Point of Ordination , and with what we have evinced of Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Government , in the Sense of the Primitive Church , the Dr's Pleadings for the Prelates sole Interest therein , is sufficiently overturned , yea , and the Inconsistency thereof , with it self , discovered . For what he adds of Cyprian his Asserting , that a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church , might ( pro Episcopatus vigore & Cathedrae autoritate ) have Chastised a Deacon , without Appealing to the Synod : The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of Cyprian , where this is found : And upon Supposition of what is clearly supposible in Cyprians time , anent the Presbytrie their Deference , and Entrusting the Execution of some Censures , to the President-Bishop , who had then obtained , such a Minut-Matter , as the Chastising of a Deacon , might well fall within the Compass of the then Bishops Deputed Authority , which will abundantly Salve this Expression , from Wounding Pastors or Presbyters Essential Interest , in Censures and Government . Besides , that Cyprian owning so clearly , Presbyters Essential Interest . both in Ordination and Censures , in the above-mentioned Epistles , viz. 33.58.75 . compared with 12. and 46. doth clearly evince , he owned no such sole Authority of the Prelat , as the Dr. alledges ; Which is correspondent to the Testimony cited of Tert. Apol. advers . Gentes , cap. 39. Ambrose Epistola ad Siagrium . Considering further , the Smallness of the Charge of Prelats , in the first Rise of the Episcopus Praeses , who had their Charge , confined oft to little Dorps or Villages , and that the Pronunciation , or Execution of Censures or Sentences , was , in a Deference to the then Bishops , appropriat unto them , by the Presbytrie , who still retained an Essential Interest in Cognoscing upon the Cause . The forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice , which mentions the Separation from Communion by Bishops of the Province , and by the Bishop from the Congregation , and the Convention of Bishops of the Province , for Cognoscing upon the Cause , if Dubious , doth no Whit favour the Dr's Conclusion , of a Spiritual Iurisdiction , wholly Seated in the Bishops , the Radical Authority , being still , in the Presbyters , or Consistorial Meetings of Pastors . The fourth Peculiar of the Bishop , as distinct from a Presbyter , the Dr. tells us , is ; To Confirm the Baptized , which , after their Instruction in Christian Faith , was always performed by Prayer , and Laying on of Hands , upon which , the Party Confirmed , received the Gift of the Holy Ghost . Tho , upon the first Institution of this Imposition , extraordinary Gifts followed , as of Tongues , &c. Yet , saith he , it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Ministry , to cease with those extraordinary Gifts , no more than Preaching , attended with those extraordinary Miraculous Operations . The Function it self , cannot cease , no more than that of Preaching ; Because the extraordinary Gifts and Effects are gone , and Christ promising a continual Communication of the Spirit to his Church , he must be supposed to continue it , by this Ministry of Prayer , and Imposition of Hands , and the ordinary Operations , the same way , that extraordinary were . Hence the Apostle puts the Laying on of Hands , in the same Class , with Baptism , Heb. 6.1 , 2. and makes it one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ : Therefore , it must be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church . Ans. I shall easily grant to the Dr , that in the beginning of the Gospel , and in the first Apostolical Times of the Christian Church , there were sometimes extraordinary Effects , and Efficacy of Gifts , attending the standing Offices and Functions , which are to be continued in the Church , and the Duties of Prayer and Preaching : As also , that we have in Scripture , Exemplified the Gifts of the Spirit , attending the Imposition of Hands ; As likewise , that there is an ordinary Communication of the Spirits Gifts and Graces , in and by Christs Instituted Ordinances . But all this is far remote from the Point in Question , and reaching the Dr's Assertion and Conclusion , viz. That Christ hath Institute Confirmation of the Baptized , after Instruction , by Imposition of the Hands of a Bishop , as his sole Prerogative , and in the Capacity of an Officer , superior to a Pastor , in Order to the Persons further Confirmation in the Faith. Any , with half an Eye , may discover , that this has no imaginable Connection , with what the Dr. here offers . As for that Text , Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Proof of what he brings it for . It s true , there has been several Comments given of that Clause of [ Imposition of Hands ] but none of them , favours the Dr's Fancy and imagined Sense . Some have taken it , to be meant of a Ceremony adjoyned to Baptism it self , for a Sign of Blessing and Consecration to God. Some have taken it , saith Diodat , for Laying Hands on such Catechumeni as had been Baptized , for Confirmation of their Faith , or as a Badge of Renewing their Covenant , in Order to Partaking of the Lords Supper : See Pool . 2. Vol. on the place . Certain it is , the Laying on of Hands , was either for Healing Diseases , Mark 6.5 . Luke 4.4 . Act. 28.8 . Or Communication of Blessings , Matth. 19.13 , 15. Or Communication of the Gifts of the Spirit , to such , as were separat to Gods Service , in the Church , Act. 6.6 . and 17.6 . and 13.3 . So 19.5 , 6. Hence , some under this Expression , take in all the Spirits Gifts , whereby we are Renewed , Increased , Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal . See Pool . Annot. The Belgick Divines , understand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost , in the Primitive Church , imparted to Believers in general , Act. 8.16 , 17. And especially , in the Institution of Ministers , in the Church , 1 Tim. 4.14 . Where this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Presbytrie . Dr. Owen , takes this Clause of Imposing Hands , to import a Description of Persons , to be instructed , in the other Fundamental Principles , but to be no Principle it self . He also holds , that in those days , it did commonly accompany , or immediatly follow Baptism , Act. 8.14 , 15 , 16. and 19.6 . Withal , he shews , that when Baptized Children , gave an Account of their Faith and Repentance , which others had done before they were Baptized , they were admitted to the Communion of the Church , the Elders thereof , Laying their Hands on them , in Token of their Acceptation , and Praying for their Confirmation in the Faith. ( An Account of this Matter , given also , by many of the Learned ) He distinguishes a fourfold Imposition of Hands . The 1. Peculiar to our Lord , in Way of Authoritative Benediction , as when he owned little Children , to belong to his Covenant , he laid his Hands on them . Mark 10.16 . The 2 d. In Healing of Diseases Miraculously , Luke ▪ 4.4 . Mark 16.18 . The 3 d. In Setting apart , to the Work and Office of the Ministry , 1 Tim. 4.14 . & 5.22 . The 4 th , In Collation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost , Act. 8.17 . and 19.6 . Now , that none of all these , comes home to the 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 ●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 Iesuit● , 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 , found to be solely , with respect to an extraordinary end , not to be now expected , and to be performed by persons in an extraordinary Office , as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Badg thereof , this doth cast the scales , and shews the Action , not to be imitable , nor to found , warrand , or exemplifie an ordinary standing Duty . And whereas the Dr. adds , That tho Philip , was a Worker of Miracles , yet this Action of Imposing Hands upon these Believers , was not performed by him . It is Answered , Suppose he did Work Miracles , yet in this Case and Time , for the greater Honour of the Apostolick Office , and the Glorious Confirmation of the Gospel Testimony by them , who were Honoured to be its first Heraulds , and eminently Sealed with the Spirit , for this great End , God would , upon these grounds , have this reserved to them , who ( as we have heard above ) were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church , further to strengthen Believers , and to give this Church its fit Organick Frame , according to the Gospel Rules . I shall not stand to improve an Argument , some would be apt to bring against the Dr's Pleading , viz. That this Ceremony , as described by him , seems to encroach upon the Rights and Nature of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism : Only , it is worthy of our Observation , which Cartwright brings against the Rhemists , upon Act. 8.17 . Pleading for the Sacrament of Confirmation , he tells them , That they are justly Charged with Incroaching upon the Possession of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism , which Sealing up unto us , not only the Forgiveness of Sins , but also , both the Burial and Mortification of the Old Man , and the Resurrection and Quickning again of the New Man ; And in a Word , the whole Putting on of Christ : It is manifest , that this Sacrament of Confirmation , which Vaunts it self of Strength and Courage given thereby , to the Vanquishing of the Devil , makes Forcible Entry upon the Due and Right of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism . He adds , That our Lord , in his Care , to bring the Gospel Sacraments , to as small a number , as might be , must be supposed , rather to Seal many Promises with one Seal , than one Promise , with many Seals , or one and the same Promise with two Seals . How far this Pleading of Judicious Cartwright , strikes at the Sinews of the Dr's Argument , upon this Head , is obvious enough . To this I shall add a Testimony , or two , which fully confirms our Pleadings , in Opposition to the Dr. on this Head : The one is , of the Professors of Saumer ( De 5. Fals. Dict. Sacrat . Thes. 7. P. ( mihi ) 242. [ Si impositio manuum in eum finem instituta fuit , ut Donorum miraculosorum collationem comitaretur , cessantibus illis Donis cessa re ipsa debuit . Et si soli Apostoli ea virtute praediti fuerunt , ut Spiritum illum miraculosorum Donorum autorem fidelibus communicarent , debuit in eorum personis subsistere manuum imponendarum potestas ] Thus they , in Impugning the Sacrament of Confirmation : Adding , That as the Apostles had no Command in this Point ( as is most probable ) so , if they had , the Scripture is purposely silent of it . For which they , give this Reason [ ne ritum istum cum Sacramentis , quorum institutionem nobis disertissime tradidit , perperam confunderemus ] The next Testimony , is of Turretin , ( part 3. quaest . 31. De 5. fals . Sacram. P. ( mihi ) 615. Par. 5.6 . ) When he is offering Reasons against this Bastard Sacrament ; his First , touches the Action or Ceremony it self , thus [ primo , saith he , quia non habet institutionem Divinam , ne — quidem ut sit , nedum ut Sacramentum dici possit ] that there is no Divine warrand for the Action and Ceremony it self , Viz : of Imposing Hands , upon the Baptized , by a Bishop , as he has formerly discribed it , far less , that it ought to be esteemed a Sacrament . His Fifth Reason is thus . [ Derogat Baptismo : quia juxta Doctrinam Pontificiorum , sequitur Baptismum non efficere nos plane Christianos , cum tamen jam ante Baptizati in nomine Patris , Filii , & Spiritus Sancti , in communionem ejus admissi simus , & per Baptismum Christo inseramur — sequitur in baptismo non dari Spiritum Sanctum ad robur & augumentum gratiae ; quasi baptismo non obsignetur nobis gratia Spiritus Sancti corroborans , aeque ac sanctificans ] Which is in Summ , that Justifying , Sanctifying , corroborating Grace , being Sealed up in Baptism , this Ceremony encroaches upon its Nature , when obtruded as a Sacrament . And thereafter ( Par. 6. ) Asserting , that the very Rite it self , cannot be shown from Scripture , he thus Answers the Objections taken from Act. 8.15 . and 19.6 . which are our Dr's grand proofs [ Apostoli quidem adhibuerunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu manuum impositionem ( Act. 8.15 . & 19.6 . ) Sed cum id factum constet invisibili dispensatione Spiritus Sancti pro Ecclesiae nascentis conditione , & quidem ex promisso Speciali , clarum est ritum extraordinarium , eoque temporarium solum fuisse , cujus usus una cum aliis miraculis desiit ] Adding upon the Text further , in Confirmation of this . 1. That the Spirit , in this extraordinary manner , to those already Baptized , consequently such as were made partakers of his common operations , Act. 8.16 . 2 ly . That the Spirit is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illabi & irruere . v. 9. Which is proper to the Spirit of Prophesie , not of Sanctification ; as also , Act. 10.44.46 . He is said to fall upon them , so that they spoke with Tongues : Adding , that it is not unusual in Scripture to represent extraordinar and invisible Gifts , by the name of the Spirit simplely , as Act. 19. doth prove against Bellarmin . Spalatensis ( de Repub. Lib 5. bap . 5. Num. 10. ) proves from a multiplicity of the Ancient Fathers , that for several Ages , the Ceremony of Confirming , was a Ceremonial Rite of Baptism it self , not distinct from it . Remarkable is that of Ierom adversus Luciferianus , That Confirmation by the Hands of the Bishop , is a Ceremony belonging to Baptism [ Ita tamen , saith he , ut ne que necessaria sit , neque quicquam illa per se spiritualiter efficiat , sed quod ei a quibusdam tribui solet ut det Spiritum Sanctum , id totum perfectissime haberi in solo Baptismo , lege tamen Ecclesiastica eam adhibére propter solum honorem quendam externum Episcopalis Dignitatis ] So , that in stead of any Spiritual use , Ierom makes it an empty Badg of Episcopal vanity . The Learned Bucer , in his Censure of the Book of the English Liturgy , doth at Large shew , the unsuitableness of this Ceremony , to the ends for which it is pretended , or the supposed Primitive Patterns . And we find it largely paralelled , by Didoclavius , with the Popish Confirmation , both in respect of the supposed Grace which it gives , the Sign , and the Words adhibit therein , the Administrator thereof , &c. ( P. ( mihi ) 358.359.360.361 . &c. ) who also gives proofs from Antiquity , that this was not alwise reserved to the Bishop , even when this Ceremony had obtained in the Church ; Thus P. 363. Cyprian Epist ▪ ad Iubajanum , asserts the Custom of offering such , as were Baptized , to such , as he terms Praepositi , in order to their Prayers , and laying on of Hands with Prayer : That by Praepositi , he means in general , the Ministers of the Church , and not the Bishop , is clear by many Passages of Cyprian , particularly Epist. 3. Par. 1. and Epist. 69. Par. 4. where he calls the Successors of the Seventy Disciples , Praepositos , as well , as these of the Apostles : So , likewise Epist. 62. Par. 1. and Epist. 65. Par. 4. Thus also Epist. 21. Par. 3. The Confirmation he speaks of , in the First Passage Cited , is that used in the Apostolick Church , for the giving of the Holy Ghost , for which , he Cites Act. 8.14 . This is further noticeable of Dr. Lightfoot , viz. That he shews , that Imposition of Hands , was not given , but only to such , as were ad Ministerium Ordinandi , and was not given ad Sanctificationem , sed ad Dona extraordinaria . See Answer to the Principles of the Cyprianick Age , P. 53. who also Cites Piscator , Beza , Grotius , as thus Expounding the Passage Controverted . Festus Hommius , Disput. Theolog. 46. Thes. 1. Having shown , that the Apostles used this Ceremony of Imposing Hands , for Confirming their Doctrin , by visible and Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit , adds . [ Haec Dona , quia ad tempus tantum in Ecclesia viguerunt , bodieque ut Ecclesiae non amplius hoc modo necessaria , cessarunt , etiam ritus ille eum in Finem ne●●debet servari , nec potest adhiberi ] And Thes. 2. speaking of the Commendable custom of the Primitive Church , that the Catechumeni , when become Youths , and ineunte adolescentia , were presented to be Confirmed , it was by Exhortation and Prayer ; and for this end , they were presented , says he , Ecclesiae Pastoribus , and dismissed with a Blessing . The Dr. holds this Ministry of Confirmation , ( P. 446. ) to be performed by Prayer , and laying on of Hands ; The Party Confirmed , receiving the Gifts of the Holy Ghost . And what Gifts , I pray , were they , which the Dr. Asserts , were alwise conferred by this Ceremony , and ( as he expresses it ) received thereby ? Sure , not the ordinary Gifts : For , he will acknowledge these received , in the Sacrament of Baptism ; The Extraordinary , he Acknowledges are ceased : And if neither Ordinary , nor extraordinary Gifts , are thereby conferred , I know not what the Dr. can make of it , unless he make it , a sort of adjutory , further Confirming , Symbolical , ritual Accessory to the Sacrament of Baptism , and a renewed Representation and Seal of the same priviledges , as are Sealed thereby ; And then it should seem , it is brought within the stroak and reach of Cartwrights Arguments and Reasons against the Rhemists , above rehearsed ; and that it falls within the compass of such a vain and ludicrous sign of Episeopal vanity , as is above expressed . Ierom , in the forementioned Epistle , adversus Luciferianus , thus lashes this supposed prerogative of the Prelat , That if not by a necessity of Law , but for the Honour of the Episcopal Office , the Spirit is given , their Case is to be Lamented , who in little Villages , or remote places from the Diocess , have been Baptized by Presbyters , and prevented by Death , before the Bishops visit . Beda , expresly upon Psal. 86. ascribs this to vanity . And Calvin ( Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 19. ) thus lashes the Papists , that so many of their Flocks , being deprived of this supposed necessary Confirmation [ patiuntur in suo grege Semi-Christianos , quorum imperfectionem mederi facile erat ] they admit many of their people , to be but half Christians , whose imperfection , they may easily remedy . And how far this is applicable to the Dr's Case , I need not stand to subsum . It s true , the Dr. doth not in express terms , call it a Sacrament , yet seeing P. 447. he holds it is by Divine warrand , placed in the same Class with Baptism , and made one of the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ , and in his sense , appointed still to continue , as a standing Ministry , for Communication of the necessary influences of the Spirit ; It s left to the judicious to consider , whether it fall not clearly , within the compass of Cartwrights Reasons , and of others above rehearsed , as inferring its unlawfulness , and in special , an appeal is made to the Judicious , to ponder , how the appropriating of this Ceremony to a Bishop , for the great ends mentioned , can come within the compass of these Fundamental Principles of the Doctrin of Christ , without the Knowledge and Belief whereof , there can be no Salvation . The Dr. I must needs say , advances not only Prelacy it self , but this supposed priviledge of Prelats , to an high pitch , in this Reasoning . For what he adds of the Character and Quality of Philip , and of Cyprians Opinion , of his being one of the Seventy two Disciples : Whether he he was Deacon or Evangelist , it is all one in this Case , since the Action here performed by the Apostles , was proper to them , upon the Grounds already Assigned ; and the account of their approach to Samaria , after this begun Ministry of Philip , is so represented by Protestant Divines , as wholly overthrows his pleading , and Razes it to the Foundation . For , What the Dr. alledges , anent the constant Exercise of this supposed priviledge of Bishops , in the Primitive Church . As he has produced no Testimony of either Councils or Fathers , in proof of this , but only wraps up the Matter in a Confident general ; So , he is forc't immediatly in the next words , to make a sort of Retraction , telling us , That in later Ages , there are Instances produced , of Presbyters , that Confirmed . But least he should seem to fall foul upon his large Assertion immediatly premised , he must needs lenify this , and mix Water with his Wine , adding , That they Confirmed only in the Bishops absence , and by his delegation ; and that it was in the later Ages . We see these Charitable Lords , became at last , Liberal , in parting with some Prerogatives , admitting such as could only perform the mean Service of Baptizing , to the High Episcopal Dignity of Confirming . But the Account we have given of this Matter , sufficiently discovers his unsoundness , and prevarication in this Point , and that as the Practice he pleads for , had never any warrand from Scripture , or prime Antiquity , so , what Imposition of Hands might have been practised in a supposed conformity to the Apostles Pattern , was performed by the Elders or Ministers of the Church . And therefore , in opposition to the Dr's fair Conclusion ( as he calls it P. 448. ) that this Confirmation , or Imposition of Hands , was Peculiar to the Apostles in the Original , and their Successors , the Bishops , in the continuation of it . We may in the Confidence of Truth , oppose this Antithesis , or Counter-Conclusion ; That the Apostolick Confirmation , which he instances , was so peculiar to the Apostolick Office , and so appropriat to extraordinary expired effects , as therein the Apostles could have no Successors : And that their Successors , in all the necessary duties and Offices of a Gospel Ministry , are the Faithful Pastors , labouring in the Word and Doctrin , to whom , as the Apostles committed , what was in their Office , ordinary and necessary to be continued in the Church , So , upon such Principles and grounds , in such a manner , and for such an end , in their Doctrin , delivered to the Churches , as does quite overthrow , the Hierarchical Prelat he Pleads for , as no Plant of the Lords Plantation . FINIS . A Full REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR MONRO's Scripture-Pleadings , Upon the Point of EPISCOPACY , In his late Book , intituled , An Inquiry into the New Opinions , chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland : CHAP. I. The Dr's ▪ Vnsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers , as to their Iudgment in point of Church-Government , Exposed : Together with his Vnsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy , taken from Mat. 20.25 . And with the paralell Texts . TO Examin in the better Method , what this Dr. produceth , against us , it is fit , that we First view , what he represents as our Assertion , and which he boldly Charges with Error and Novelty , and as one of those Opinions never heard of , for 1400 Years after our Saviours Incarnation : It is thus , That we affirm our Saviour hath appointed his Church , under the New Testament ( whether Provincial , National , or Oecumenick ) to be Governed by the several Classes of Presbyters , acting in a perfect Parity , and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ec●lesiastick Senate , above a Presbyter , in the modern and current Notion of the Word . That which I mainly desiderat here , is . 1. The term of [ several Classes ] appears obscure , not pointing at the Beautyful Order and Subordination of Judicatories , which we maintain according to the Nature of all Government , consequently of Church Government . The Classes and excerpted Classes , is an invidious , independent term : We own the Congregational Church represented by the Pastors one or more , with the Congregational Eldership : The Presbytrie , a Judicatory Superior to this , made up the Pastors of the Congregations , together with Ruling Elders : The Provincial Synod , superior thereunto , consisting of the Ministers of the Several Presbytries , with Ruling Elders , in the Precincts of the Province , to which the proportioned number of Presbytries are subordinat , and wherein they are represented : The National Church , made up of a convenient number of Ministers and Elders , from every Presbytrie therein , to which the Provincial Synods are subordinat . Which Model of Government , has been so fully Cleared from Scripture , by many Learned Pens , that he cannot stand before the evidence of Divine Authority , and Reason , offered for the same ; And which any , who have Read , may see the vanity of his empty Pamphlet . 2 When he tells us of Presbyters , Acting in a perfect parity , he insinuats , as if We held no other Presbyter , than the Pastor , and that all who come under this general Name or Character , have by our Principles , the same interest in Church Government ; which , if he mean of Government in its whole Extent , viz , that Power , which is called the Diatactick , Critick and Dogmatick , it s a gross Falsehood : For , we distinguish an interest in the last , which is proper to Pastors , from that interest in the first two , which we allow to Ruling Elders . 3. When he tells us , We own no higher Officer , in the Ecclesiastick Senate , above a Presbyter in the modern Current Notion of the Word , he speaks in the Clouds , and confusedly , not specifying , what is that Notion of the Word , which he calls Modern and current , and which we own as of the Divine Appointment and Signature . We hold , that the Pastor , labouring in the Word and Doctrin , and to whom is Committed the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key , is termed also in Scripture , the Elder or Presbyter , and that he is the highest ordinary Church Officer of Divine Appointment ; and this with the Body of Protestant Churches and Divines . We also hold , that the Scripture points out an Elder or Presbyter , that Rules only , and is inferior to the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin , as having no interest therein ; and this Notion of the Word we hold , and can make good to be the Scripture , as well as Modern Notion . If this Dr. in calling it the Current Notion of the Word , intend that which is the general Sense of Divines , he seems here to Charge them all with Novelty and Singularity , since all , who hold this Notion of the Word , and understand the Presbyter , in the Sense above exprest , must needs own him to have such interest in Government , and the same Authority , which we Assert : And therefore , Cross to the Dr's Notion , which he is not pleased directly to specifie . The Dr. without distinction , or setting up his discriminating March-stones , as to the extension of time , calls the days , wherein this Notion of the Presbyter is become current , dayes of Separation and Singularity , differing in this from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity ; And the Critick has here much to say , in proof of his Charging with Singularity and Separation , and a dangerous Separation from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity , the whole Body of Reformed Churches and Divines , since in their Confessions , and the Current usage of their Writers , they thus understand and make use of the term Presbyter . As also , that upon other grounds , he Charges them , with Singularity and Separation , since he calls these dayes such , absolutely , abstracting from this particular Cause : And what dangerous Consequence , this Doctrin is of , and how highly reflecting upon the Churches , will sute his serious , second , and more sedat Thoughts , when in a better frame and humour . The Dr. adds , That , in this we differ from the first Presbyterians among our selves , who Declare in their Confession of Faith , that all Church Policy is Variable , so far were they from Asserting an Indispensible and Unalterable Right of Parity . But , in this , he has Abused his Reader , and any that but reads that Confession , may easily discover his Impudent Forgery and Imposings : For , First , In the ninteenth Article of that Confession , Assigning the Notes of the True Church , they present these three , ( 1. ) The true Preaching of the Word of God , as he has revealed himself , in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles . ( 2. ) The right Administration of the Sacraments , annexed to the Word and Promise , to confirm it to our Hearts . ( 3. ) Ecclesiastical Discipline , uprightly Ministred , as Gods Word prescribes , whereby Vice is repressed and Vertue nourished . And giving Instance of this in particular Gospel Churches , they add , Such were in Corinthus , Galatia , Ephesus , and other places , wherein the Ministry was planted by Paul , and were of himself named the Churches of God , citing on the Margine , 1 Cor. 1.2 . 2 Cor. 1.1 . Gal. 1.2 . Ephes. 1.1 . where Paul ownes them , and names them as Churches ; and to prove they had a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Discipline planted therein , they further cite , Act. 16.9 , 10. and 20.17 , &c. pointing us to Pauls last and farewel Charge to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus , wherein he entrusted the Government thereof to them , as the only Bishops thereof , set up and Authorized by the 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 Rel●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 as a Corruption of Popery , Chap 12. Now , the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers , we own , in opposition to Prelacy , being thus Asserted in these Books of Policy , and in the Judgment of the Compilers thereof , drawn forth from the Fountain of the Word ; the Model also , presented and described in these Books , amounting to a specifick form of Government , and eversive of Prelacy , the Compilers , also , as is said , presenting it as the Divine and Scripture Pattern ; they must needs hold it to be a standing Form , appointed by our Lord and his Apostles . Again , if the Dr. hold , that the New Testament Oeconomy , contains a specifick standing Form of Government , and a Standart for all Churches , while time lasts , then such a Form , as with Respect to the main , is asserted to be consonant thereunto , is asserted in so far , to be , not only allowable , but necessary : And this , the Dr. must needs admit , unless with Papists , he will make Scriptures themselves , a Nose of Wax , and the New Testaments Prescriptions , in Point of Government , and its Oeconomy , versatile , and so Lax and General , that it discovers no Species of Government . Besides , if these Reformers affirm , the Pastor , to be the highest Church Officer , Iure Divino , and that he is all one with the Preaching Presbyter , then by necessary Consequence , they must needs hold , that by Original Authority of Christ and his Apostles , all Churches ought to be Governed , by a Parity of Presbyters or Pastors , and that no Ecclesiastick Officer , above a Presbyter , can pretend , to a share in Ecclesiastick Government . These Assertions , are of so close and clear a connection , that if the Dr. attempt to cut this Gordian Knot , he will fall into such a shameful Assertion , as to affirm , that an Officer , not allowed by Christ , but condemned by his own Original Authority , and that of his Apostles , has notwithstanding , a share in Ecclesiastick Government . Besides , the dull inadvertency of this Assertion , appears in this , that he holds our Reformers did plead , that their Form was allowable , and not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy , and yet not such , as was recommended by our Lords Original Authority to all Churches : For , if he hold , that the New Testament Oeconomy , is a clear fixed Standart and Model for all the Churches , then , whatever Frame of Government is not Dissonant or Repugnant , is conform and consonant thereunto , and consequently , not only allowable , but necessary . And if our Lords Original Authority prescribed this Oeconomy , as a Standart and Rule for Church Government , in all Ages , that Model that comes up to this First Standart , in so far as it comes up to it , is that which the Church is to imitat in all Ages , unless he will say , that all Ages are not to imitat this Pattern , shewed upon the Mount. And in special , our Reformers hold , that our Saviour in the Original Prescription of this Pattern , presents the Pastor or Preaching Presbyter , as the highest ordinary Church Officer . And therefore , it is no rashness to affirm , that in all times of the Church , such an Officer as a Prelat , Superior to Pastors , is forbidden and Condemned . The Dr. says , That ; tho our Reformers affirm , their Government was not repugnant to the New Testament Oeconomy , they were not so rash as to affirm the Church ought to be thus Governed in all Ages . So , it s with this Grave cautelous Dr , rashness to affirm , that a Government suted to the Divine Pattern , is for all Ages , consequently a precipitant Assertion to affirm , that our Lords Pattern is the just Standart for all Ages . The Dr. will be satisfied , That we plead for our Iudgment in Government ( which he calls a New Notion ) as probable , but cannot endure , that we plead for an absolut infallible Right , and require obedience to it , as due to infallible Authority ; This , he says , is worse , , than speculative Enthusiasm . I Answer , if we can produce no Scripture Warrand for that Government we own , we shall be satisfied it come under the Character of a New Notion ; But , if we can make it appear , to be the Government recommended in the Scripture-Oeconomy and Pattern , then , as being founded upon Infallible Authority , we justly challenge Obedience to it ; and while this Light is shut out and rejected by the Dr. and his Fellows , they are justly Chargeable , in so far , with Speculative , yea , and Practical Enthusiasm . The Dr's . pretended Rhetorical Florish , whereby he would set off this Charge upon Presbyterians , taken from the similitud and allusion to the person , who should threaten to knock him on the Head , unless he wil affirm , against his Reason and Senses , that he sees such Armies in the Air , as are pointed out to him ; Is but a phantastick Flash of his own Airy Imagination , for we impose nothing Arbitrarly or Imperiously upon his Reason , or any of his way , but challenge the utmost attention , and best Exercise of their Sense and Reason , to that Scripture-Light and demonstration of our Government , which we offer from the Word , which , had he seriously searched and pondered , with an Eye to God , the Father of Lights , he had been otherwise , and better imployed , than in flinging out such Squibs and Crackets into this Countrey , and in writing his folly and ignorance , in such an Airy Childish Pamphlet as this is . He adds ( P. 14. ) " That it were better to fall into High-way-Mens hands , than amongst such Spiritual Robbers . But he commits this Robbery upon himself , while shutting his Eyes against that Scripture-Light , which has been offered upon this Point . And he knows , by what numerous cruel Laws , and Barbarous execution thereof , in the late Reigns , he and his Masters , our Scots Prelats , endeavoured to knock down the reason and Conscience of many Thousands of this Nation , both Godly and knowing , in an Imperious obtrusion of their ungodly Hierarchy upon them , and many wicked Vows and Oaths for upholding it . The Dr. next alledges ; That we vainly boast of a Divine Institution of our Government , and unanswered Writers in its defence , but when put to produce Arguments for it , we have have nothing but perplexed Probabilities , intricat consequences from wrested Scriptures , to offer , contrary to the Uniform suffrage of the Ancients , &c. Ans. what Divine Warrand we plead for the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers we own , is so well known to such as are acquaint with this Controversie , and how solid our Scripture-proofs are , and consonant to the Sense , both of Ancient and Modern Writers , that this Mans flanting boast , can make no other impression upon them , than of his procacious vanity . Had he intended as a Champion indeed for his Cause , to Fight , not to bragg , in this Pamphleting Bragadocio , which any may see to be ad pompam , non ad pugnam , he should have fairly and formally encountred Ius Divin . Reg. Eccles. Ius Divin . Minist . Evang. Smectym . with its Vindication . Mr. Baynes Diocesan Tryal , in Answer to Dounham . Didoclav . Cap. 4. And the Scripture-Pleadings of many Forreign Divines , against the Hierarchy , and for the Parity of Pastors ; and then to have boasted ( having discussed their Arguments ) at the putting off of his Armour . But now , that we are come to the Point , the Dr. ( P. 15. ) tells his Friend , That he can give but a short History of our Arguments , for the Divine Right of Parity : And good Reason ; since he is for little slight Skirmishes , not for the Shock of more close and dangerous Encounters . Our Arguments , he reduces to three Heads . 1. The express Command of our Saviour . 2. Consequences from Texts of Scripture . 3. Testimonies of Ancient Writers . I shall not insist in Criticizing upon the Dr's general Partitions : Only , as for what he offers anent our Saviours express Command and Institution of Presbyterian Government and Parity of Pastors , he should have done well , to name the Authors , who assert this , ere he had so confidently ascribed this Assertion to Presbyterians . No doubt , had he dealt fairly , in a particular Condescendance upon our Arguments drawn from Scripture , for Parity of Pastors , and offered clear Scripture Replies to them , Presbyterians would have thanked him , for his Diligence , in endeavouring their further Light and Conviction on this Head. But to prevent his Mistake , or any else of his Perswasion , I must further add , that , as for the Argument from Antiquity , however he and his Party do magnifie it , stuffing their Books and Pamphlets therewith , instead of more solid Scripture Reasoning : And altho , we are not afraid to try their Strength , in this Method of Arguing , yet Antiquity , or the Testimony of Humane Writers , is none of the Foundations , upon which we do build the Ius and Divine Right of the Government we maintain , but the Lively Oracles , the Scriptures of Truth allenarly : And we look upon the Testimony of Antiquity , or of Ancient Writers , as an Accessory Humane Illustration , in some Matters of Fact , but no proper proof , or to be ranked in eodem genere , with the first , and as tending to refute the Charge of Novellism , wherewith the Dr. and his Fellows , are bold to asperse our Principles in this point . The Dr. now falls upon the first Head of Arguments , taken from a supposed express Command of our Saviour , anent the Parity of Pastors , exclusive of the Iurisdiction of a Bishop ( I heartily wish , he had here , specified and defined this Jurisdic●●on ) He tells his Friend , ( p. 16. ) We prove this from Matth. 20.25 . which , he sayes , we insist upon , more than Forreign Presbyterians , and he professes he will hear our Argument from hence , calmly and deliberatly , with Reverence and Attention . He adds the paralells , Luk. 22.25 . Mark 10.42 , 43. Naming in the Margine , the Reverend Mr. Dickson , and the Answer to the Iraenicum by G. R. Our Argument from hence , the Dr. represents thus , That the Officers of Christs House , were by his own express Command , established in a perfect Equality , even in such a Parity , as excludes the Power and Iurisdiction of any higher Order , than that of a Presbyter , in the Modern Notion . Before I come to represent the Dr's Answer to this Text , ( premonishing again , what is before animadverted upon the Term of express Command ) I shall , First , Shew what we plead from it . Secondly , That our Pleading is Consonant to the Sense of Sound Divines . For the first , It is apparent in the premised paralell Texts , that the Tentation of Ambitious Emulation among the Disciples , ha● prompted them to a Sinful Contest about Primacy , or which of them should be greatest , to prevent the Mischievous Effects whereof , our Saviour Cautioned and Rebuked them , Discharging them expresly , the Lordly Grandure of Earthly Rulers , to Exercise Lordship and Dominion one over another , in Opposition thereunto , Commending Humble Ministerial Service , and Spiritual Diligence in their Stewardship ; both which he enforces from his own Exemplary Humility . Hence , we infer , 1. That our Lord discharged Superiority and Inferiority among Officers of the same kind , so , that none are greater than another in their Office , no Apostle , no Evangelist above another ; that a compleat Parity in their Official Power , is commanded : And therefore , by clear Consequence , a compleat and entire Parity among Pastors ; And by further clear evidence , we argue , that superior and inferior Degrees among them are discharged . 2. That whatever Priority of Order , be allowed among Officers of different kinds , we conclude , that our Saviour , in these places , discharged Dominion and Principality , in any of them , of whatever kind , all Masterly Power , such as Civil Governours Exercise ; There being one Master of his Family only , whereof all Ministers are Brethren and Fellow-Servants : Because , in Exemplifying what he discharges , our Saviour gives the Instance , in such Rulers , as are called Benefactors , or Gracious Lords , and in Opposition thereunto , Commands an Humble Ministerial Service , not a sort of warrantable Dominion , as the paralell , 1 Pet. 5. makes it evident . So , that , he gives here , the Lord-Prelat , two Deadly Wounds , ( 1. ) In that he makes himself an Officer of an higher Order and Degree , than the Pastor , holding himself , to be a Pastor , specifically distinct from the Preaching Presbyter : Thus Dividing and Cutting out the Pastoral Office , into Antiscriptural , Distin●t , Official Kinds , whereas , our Saviour discharges this , among Officers of the same kind . ( 2. ) In that he Lords over his Brethren and Fellow-Pastors , and that both , in a pretended Spiritual Capacity , arrogating a sole Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction , a Masterly Power and Principality over Church Judicatories , and likewise , in assuming the Earthly Lordship , Place and Grandure , which is expresly here discharged . Now , if from what is said , it be evident , that such an Office and Officer is discharged , the Prelats Office is unlawful . and an Official Parity in the Pastoral Office , clearly concluded . And that it may appear , that this is no Novel or distorted Exposition , let us In the second place , view what Patrons it hath . To begin with the Belgick Divines upon Matth. 20.21 . they shew , that the Occasion of the Contest , was the Apostles Ignorance of the Condition of Christs Kingdom , to which they were called viz. Not to a Worldly Rule , but to Serve and Suffer . And upon v. 2● they shew , that all who are called to the Ministry of the Church , are discharged a Worldly Rule . Upon Luke 22.25 . they assert a Lordship and Worldly Power to be forbidden ; paralelling this with 1 Pet. 5. which discharges a Lordship over Gods Heritage . The English Annot. on the place of Matth. shew , That the Lord , to appease their Contention , told them , they were not to expect Worldly Greatness and Dominion in following him , and whoever usurps this , affects that which God has not given — that they were to look after a Life of Teaching and Labouring , not Lording , citing 1 Pet. 5.3 . And though , in a general Sense , they assert , there are Orders among Ministers , generally considered , viz. Apostles above Evangelists , Pastors above Elders , yet the Prohibition of all Worldly Power to Ministers , they do here assert , and whatever Power is opposit to a Laborious Service and Ministry . Diodat . on that passage of Matth. shews , That our Saviour bespeaks the Apostles , as Ministers , shewing , that they ought to place their Dignity , not in Worldly 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 Promoti●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 Partu●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 , our Saviours discharging Lordly Dominion in his Church , and inferred from his own exemplary Humility , be bad and fallacious , it has long since deceived the best & ablest of Protestant Divines , in Reasoning against the Papists and Papacy ? And if this his pretended Baffling Answer be so Mighty and Invincible , as he pretends , Bellarmin and the Popish Adversaries , have long since Baffled our Divines Arguments with it ; For all know , it is the very same with theirs ; And I must add , that it seems , the Dr. is so highly in Love with this Popish Notion and evasion , that he has not concerned himself to notice what Baffling Replyes , Protestant Divines have returned to it , wherein they have discovered , what an insipid impertinent evasion it is , to save the Popes Mitre , from the stroak of this our Lords Prohibition and Precept ; and consequently that of Prelats , whereof we have already exhibit some instances . I have told him , that Turretin ( no doubt , one of our Dr's new Minted Novelists ) makes it appear , that the Argument from our Lords Example , is an Argument , non a pari , sed a majore ad minus . If I your Master , be as one that serves , much more you the Servants , ought to eshew all Lordly Dominion : As when he washed the Disciples Feet , and thus recommended Love and Humility towards one another , since he their Lord and Master had done so . I know not if it be true , that this Man rode in the Popes Guards , but sure I am , he fences fiercely for his Mitre . He says , our Saviour did that himself among them , meaning his Exercising a Principality and Supremacy over his Church : For , in the Sentence , he puts the Words [ He ] and [ Them ] in Emphatick distinct Characters , and consequently holds , that what our Lord thus Exemplified , is still to be imitat in his Church . Thus , his Answer and Reasoning , runs clearly to this Issue ; That which I command you , I have done ; And therefore , that which I command you , is consistent with a Supremacy over my Church , which I have Exercised and Exemplified . And here the Popes Holiness , has a fair Plea from the Venerable Dr. If Christ did that himself , which he enjoyned his Disciples here , then the doing of what he enjoyned , was consistent with a Supremacy : The Connection is clear ; Christ as Supreme Head , and in that Capacity , Exercised the same Humility , Self-Denyal , and Meekness , which he here enjoyned . But for more direct Answer , I do again tell him , that our Lords Scope , in proposing his own Example , is to Antidote their inward Pride , the Root of this Desire of Unlawful Dominion , and powerfully to recommend Humility and Self-Denyal , as the most excellent Remedies thereof . So , that his first Argument runs a fortiori , thus , If I your Lord and Master be as one that serves , and am such a Pattern of Self-Denyal and Humility among you , much more ought you to Study Humility , and to Guard against all Usurped Dominion and Authority , one over another , who are Fellow Disciples and Servants : As he Reasoned , Ioh. 13. If I your Lord , have washen your Feet , much more ought ye to wash one anothers Feet . Again , in the Dr's Mould of Answer , I find two gross Points of Inadvertency , which hardly any ordinary Capacity , could fall into , if we suppose the Person serious , and attending to the Matter in hand , and very ill beseeming one , who sets to his Name , a D. D. and Chartells this whole Church . 1. In that he will needs have our Lords Precept and Prohibition , to be levelled against an Ambitious Principle or Design , but not at all to reach ( rather to allow ) that Effect and Expression thereof , which our blessed Lord , in down right Terms doth prohibit , viz. that Dominion mentioned in the Text , and which they were contending about : Thus setting in Opposition , things which are Subordinat , as if the Dr. had forgot the common Maxim , Subordinata non Pugnant ; And , as if a bad Principle , could fall under a Prohibition , and not the bad Practice , the Issue thereof . What a Childish Conception and Weakness is this ? 2. He imagines , that our Lords Argument of Humility ( while Pressing his Apostles , to eshew Unlawful Dominion one over another ) drawn from his Practice , will inferr his Arguing a pari , and a Supposition of his Equality with them , if we shall exclude the Dr's Hypothesis of a Warrantable Supremacy and Dominion ; An Imagination than which , nothing can be more Sottish ; the Argument running clearly a majore ad minus , from the greater to the less , and the very Basis and Topick of it , supposing and inferring the quite contrary Conclusion and Assertion . So , that the Dr's . Arguing that upon this Ground , as above Sensed , we would make Christ and his Apostles equal , has no more Twist of Reason in it , than if one should infer , from our being dehorted from Strife and Vain Glory , and enjoyned Humility and Love , because Christ made himself of no Reputation , and humbled himself to Death , the absurd Conclusion of the Equality of his Disciples and Members with himself . The Dr. gives this Sense of our Lords Words and Argument , in the premised Scriptures ; If I your Lord and Master was your Servant , it becomes the greatest among you , to be Humble towards Subordinat Brethren , which will Qualify you , for Ecclesiastick Promotion . This carries with it , such a clear Supposition of the Warrantableness of a Greatest or Chief among them , as I dare promise him , the Popes Approbation of his Commentary , it being the very same , with that of his great Champion , Bellarmin , who tells our Divines , that a Dominion and Supremacy , is here rather supposed than forbidden , and only Humility in it's Exercise enjoyned . But the Dr's petty Novelists , Protestant Divines , have told him , that if this Gloss were true , then our Lord rather Inflamed than Quenched their Ambitious Desire of Dominion and Greatness , one over another , since , Reprehending only the Unwarrantable Method of Seeking , he thus Tacitly Recommended the Thing it self , as Lawful and Desireable . But once more , I would fain know of this Dr , whether our Lord did not command an Equality or Official Sameness of Authority Apostolical among the Apostles ? Or , if he thinks indeed , that one was allowed to be in this Respect , Prince and Supreme over the rest ? If he hold this last , then I dare Appeal to all Protestants , whether he has not left our Camp , and is in the Tents of the Papists . If he owne , that our Lord here enjoyned an Authoritative Official Equality of Power , among the Apostles , then I would know , what his Sense is , of our Lords Argument , Pressing and Recommending this Equality , from his own Example ; And whether his Assigning this Sense , and giving this Account of our Lords Reasoning , will Blasphemously inferr , that Christ and his Apostles were equal . So , that the Dr , must either quite this Sense of our Lords Words , and consequently the Sense exhibit by Protestant Divines , or acknowledg the Absurdity and Futility of his own Argument and Answer , and that he falls by the Rebound of his own Blow and Weapon . But I am tedious in a Matter of it self plain . To proceed therefore : The Dr. ( P. 19. ) is so taken with the Invincible Strength of this his Answer , that he falls into a Compassionat Regrate , for his Presbyterian Brethren , telling his Reader , That its very sad , that any should be so infatuated , with their new Schemes of Parity , as to alledge such Texts , which if understood , in their Sense , degrades our blessed Saviour , to the Degree of one of his Disciples ; For , what he Commanded to the Apostles , he Practised among them himself . If I were to give Way to such a Retaliating Regrate , as this would tempt some unto , I would Echo it back , in telling him , that its very sad , that a Man , who is bold to Chartell this whole Church , and sets his Name with a D. D. to such a bold Pamphlet as this , should ( in a pretended Pleading for Episcopacy , and Answering a Presbyterian Argument against it , in the premised Scriptures , ) so betray his Cause , and Proclaim his Folly , as to Charge with infatuation the Body of Protestant Divines , in their Pleadings against the Pope , and Support his Mitre , in pretending to plead for Episcopacy . As to our Lords practising himself , what was Commanded to them ; I have already demonstrat the futility of this Notion , and what an Aegyptian Reed it is , to support his Conclusion . Our Saviour practised Humility , and called the Apostles to such an exercise of it , as did sute that Humble Ministry he enjoyned them , and was opposit to that Proud Dominion and inequality they were affecting . And this wise Critical Dr. with this his new Sword , will needs cut the Gordian Knot of the Argument , here made use of by our Lord , when exciting to Humility and Parity , such persons , as are of unquestionable equality , in point of Official Power , denying the Strength of all such reasoning . He tells us , that what our Lord enjoyned , was toto coelo , different from Parity . And thus , must be antipode , and in the highest Line of opposition thereunto , and consequently a Primacy : And this Confirms that which before I Charged upon him , anent his owning a Primacy among the Apostles . He says , They were not to exercise their Iurisdiction , as Lords of the Gentiles , by a Spirit of Pride and Domination , but in an ingaging behaviour of Charity and Humility . Yet still the Dr. supposes , their Jurisdiction included a Supremacy and Chiefness of Power , one over another ; And so here is good sound Popish Pleading : But Protestant Divines have long since Taught his Reverence , that all Earthly Dominion it self , and worldly Pomp is forbidden , all Greatness and Grandure , whether Civil , or pretendedly Ecclesiastick , and this as opposit to the Nature of their Power and vocation , which is a Spiritual Laborious Service and Ministry , for the Salvation of Souls ; And thus stands in contradiction to all sort of Domination and Lordship . Moreover , he apparently falls into a pityful inadvertancy , in identifying Civil Dominion , with a Spirit of Pride , there being a Lawful Commanded Civil Dominion , appointed of God : And if he Object , that the Princes of the Gentiles , whom our Lord instanceth in , thus exercised it : As the Mould of his Phrase , will not admit of that defence , so , our Saviours instancing such Gentile Princes , as were called Benefactors , or Gracious Lords , and in Luke , using the simple , not the Compound verb , which points at a Civil Rule and Dominion simplely considered , intirely excludes this his subterfuge , and shuts up this postern : Whittaker hath long since told him ( De pontif . quest . 1. ) that the word , which Luke makes use of , is applyed to denote Lawful Rule , and that all the Princes of the Gentiles were not such , as did Tyranically Overrule , or Reign unjustly , and that the Clemency and Justice of many of them , is Celebrat . And both he , and Iunius ( ubi sup . ) does shew , that it is the Dominion or Lordship it self , not the unwarrantable Exercise , or manner of attaining , which our Lord here Condemns . For that which the Dr. adds ( ibid. ) of Pauls answering his Episcopal Character , when the Care of all the Churches was upon him , in employing his Episcopal Power to Edification : I have already told him of what Nature that Care was , and how it differed from the pretended Inspection and Dominion of Prelats . His care of the Churches , was an Apostolick directive Inspection , suted to his Extraordinary Office and Gifts , which no ordinary Officer can pretend unto , and in its exercise , so far from Exemplifying a Prelatical Dominion , that both in Doctrin and Practice , he baffles it out of the World , in enjoyning the highest Acts of Jurisdiction to Pastors or Presbyters ; as these of Corinth a , enjoyning the whole Episcopal Authority to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus , in his last farewel to that Church b , ascribing the Power of Ordination to a Presbytrie , though himself was present in the Action c , Identifying in his Epistles to the Philippians , to Titus , the Name , Office and Qualifications of Bishop and Presbyter d , disowning all Dominion in the House of God e , Ascribing to himself , a Ministry and Service only f , so far was he from Arrogating to himself , a Spiritual Lordship in God's House , or a Civil Peerage in the State , such as the Prelats , whom the Dr. Pleads for , do usurp . And , if in all these , he answered his Episcopal Character ( as who will doubt , but he did ) and obeyed this injunction of our Saviour , by consequence , he condemned the Prelatical Character , so many ways opposit thereto . Besides , he pronounced a woe upon himself , if he Preached not the Gospel , 1 Cor. 9.16 . and Preached it in Season and out of Season : Thus enjoyning Timothy , 2 Tim. 4.1.2 . And therefore , pronounced a woe upon non-Preaching Prelats , who look upon this as no part of their work . He preferred the Labourer in the Word and Doctrin , to the Person who Ruled only , 1 Tim. 1.17 . And thus Preaching Pastors , to non-Preaching Prelats , who look upon their pretended spiritual and Civil Rule , as the proper Characteristick of their Office , and Preaching but a little piece of supererogatory . Work , but no exercise of their Prelatick , Office and but obiter to the Actings of their supposed Grandure . He enjoyned Christs Minister and Souldier , to beware of ingadging in Worldy affairs , if they would please Christ , who has Chosen them to be his Souldiers , 2 Tim. 2.4 . And thus condemned Prelats holding Stat Offices , as pleasers of men , of Princes , of themselves , and not of Christ. He tells us next ( P. 20 ) That the Fathers of the Church advanced above their Brethren to Ecclesiastick Power , had this Notion of their dignity , that they were the Servants of others . As for the advancement of Ancient Fathers , we say , that , as the equality of Pastors , is Christs Pattern upon the Mount , and that ( as Ierom expresses it ) the Apostolick Churches , were Governed communi Presbyterorum consilio , so the First Fathers or Bishops , were fixed Moderators only , and had no Jurisdiction above their Brethren , and even when this Usurping Jurisdiction above Pastors was Gradually Advancing , some of the best Bishops , as Cyprian particularly , owned the Pastors as their Collegues in Government , and were far from the fastuous 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 d●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 ; a●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 Testament ( Perpet . Gov. Chap. 2. ) viz. That the Tribe of Levi was not subject to another , and had its special Governours — That the Books ●f Moses containing their Mould of Civil Government , the Levites were on the Benches with the Judges — That the Offices of the Sanctuary , and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof , were various — That all , except the Levites , being restrained therefrom , this required several Degrees ●f Administrators , in this Diversity of Offices and Services — But the Word and Sacraments , Concredited to all Ministers , without Distinction , are of one kind , and admitteth no Difference of Administration : And therefore , no different Degrees of Ministers . Thus , we have seen , what good Harmony , our Dr. keeps in this his Notion of the Iewish Po●icy , with the Sense and Judgment of Protestant Divines ; And how this Famous English Bishop , has Checkt him for the same . But now , to come more closely to his Argument , If that Policy had bee● pulled down , our Lord would , in Commending Parity to Presbyters , have stated the Opposition betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy , and that of the New Testament Church , not betwixt his Disciples , and that of the Gentile Princes . Ans. 1. That this Oeconomy was to end as Typical , with other Typical Ordinances , is made good ; And if the Dr. admit , that it was to be removed in any Measure , and as Typical , he stands in so far , upon the same Grounds with us , and is obliged to Answer this Notion , or acknowledge it nought . 2. The Dr. himself , in his Way of Arguing , Answers himself ; He says , That our Saviour designed to discharge and prohibit , a Violent Secular Way of Aspiring to Greatness , such as is Fashionable in Secular Courts , and that the Disciples were prohibited to Exercise their Power by a Spirit of Pride and Domination . And the Dr. will not say , that this was the Method of Attaining Offices in the Iewish Policy , or their allowed Practice , God having subjected the same to his own Holy Rules and Measures : And that consequently , what our Lord prohibited , and even according to the Dr's Sense and Expressions , was only and fitly represented by the Dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles , which he holds to be of this Nature , and thus Exercised , and who did not understand Gods Law or Measures , either as to the Attaining or Exercise of Government . But 3. I must tell him , that in Commanding Parity among Ministers , ( for otherwise , we owne an Imparity and Subordination , among Church Officers in general ) our Lord could not state an Opposition betwixt them , and the Priests of the Iewish Oeconomy , there being no such Dominion among them , as he here discharged ; As we heard Wallaeus assert ; None of them had an Episcopal Dominion , or a sole Decisive Suffrage in Ecclesiastick Courts , or such a Negative Voice therein , as the Gentile Princes Dominion did import , and Prelats assume and Exercise . The Learned Iunius ( de Cler. Cap. 24. Not. 13. ) makes evident , and will inform the Dr , That par Consortium fuit Honoris , & Potestatis inter Sacerdotes , sed Ordine impari , qua Familiarum , qua Temporis suspectu , penes concessum Sacerdotem , ex Lege fuit ordinaria Iurisdictio Ecclesiastica . — That there was a like Share of Honour and Power among Priests , though in a different Order , partly , in respect of Families , partly , in respect of Times : The ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction , belonged to the Assembly of the Priests , according to the Law. Hence , we may , by clear Consequence , inferr , that it belonged not ( in the Sense of Iunius ) to the High Priest , nor to any of them solely . Now , where there was such a well ordered Parity of Power and Government , among these several Orders of Divine Appointment , it was very unsuteable to Exemplifie such an Arbitrary Dominion thereby , as the Dr. here supposeth , and such a Civil Greatness and Supremacy , as the Apostles affected . Besides , the Dr. and we , doth both hold , a Subordination of Courts and Officers , under the New Testament , wherein both Oeconomies were alike , and there being under the Old Testament Oeconomy , no such Headship and Soveraignity , as is said , the stated Opposition betwixt the two Governments , could not so well correspond to our Lords Scope in this Precept and Prohibition . But finally , the Dr. cannot but acknowledge , that the Distemper , the Apostles now Laboured under , was their Fancy of a Temporal and Earthly Kingdom of our Lord , admitting of Worldly Dignities , and Degrees of State and Honour , as the Kingdoms of the World ; which is the Notion , that the Iews to this day , entertain of the Messias Kingdom , understanding in a Literal Sense , the Magnificent discriptions thereof , exhibit by the Prophets . Hence , the People came to make our Saviour a King , and were mainly Stumbled at his Humble and low Estate , and ( which is to this purpose very considerable ) we find the Disciples themselves propose that Question to him , after his Resurrection , wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel ? So , that its clear , that the Ambitious affectation of Earthly Grandure , Pomp , and the greatness of this Worlds Potentats , was the distempering Principle , leavening the two Brethren , and which prompted them to propose to our Saviour the Sute , which excited their Fellow-Disciples emulation against them , and gave occasion to the Precept under debate . And hence , the opposition was most fitly stated betwixt the Honour and Offices of Christs Kingdom , and that of the Kingdoms of the World , and Earthly Potentats , and it was needful , that our Saviour , should thus shew the Disciples , the Distinction betwixt his Kingdom , and the Kingdoms of this World , as himself asserted to Pilate , Ioh. 18. Besides , the Pomp and Corruptions of the Kingdoms of the World , being to continue in after-Generations , and consequently , the tentation thereof , endangering the inflaming of this Ambition in Church Officers : But not the Iewish Oeconomy , now to be abolished ; the opposition , which our Lord stated , was most fit , and sutable to his Scope . Upon what is here offered , we may see the inconsequence and insufficiency of what the Dr further adds , in Confirmation of this his Notion , P. 21. viz : That our Lord did state the opposition betwixt the current Doctrin and his own , when he would direct in better Morals ; And therefore , if he had forbidden Subordination , and Degrees of Priests , and Established Equality , he would have Stated the opposition , betwixt the Model of the Temple , and that of the Christian Church . This is no Reason . For 1. We deny that our Lord enjoyned an absolute Parity of Church officers , but among those only of the same kind ; he did not forbid all Imparity and Jurisdiction among Church Officers . 2 The opposition betwixt the Tmple-Model , and that of the New Testament , could neither so well sute the Apostles distemper and tentation , nor our Lords design in this prohibition and Precept . There was ( 1 ) A Subordination and jurisdiction required therein , so in the New-Testament dispensation . ( 2 ) Ministers therein , were to attend their Charges diligently , so also , in the New Testament Church . ( 3 ) None of them had an Imperious , arbitrary or Civil Rule over their fellow-Priests , and thus it is with Ministers of the New Testament Church . The Moral Law being the constant Standart of Truth and Duty in all Ages , our Saviour , who came to fulfill all Righteousness , and establish the Law , was therefore concerned to vindicat the same from corrupt glosses ; but this bears no proportion to his Scope in the Case of the Disciples , that old Ministry and Policy , being now ready to evanish . The Dr. proceeds to another Text , and tells his Reader , that we Cite 1 Pet. 5.2.3 . to serve the same design . We have made appear , that our design in pleading this and the preceeding Texts , is the same with that of Protestant Divines , and that the design , the Dr. serves in his Glosses and Answers , is Popish ( as to the intentio operis , at least ) a design to support the Popes Triple Crown , with Bellamin and his other pleaders and Advocats . Our Argument from this Text , against the Prelatical Hierarchy , is this : Looking to the Apostles scope , he , first , dehorts Ministers ( and none will doubt all ordinary Church Officers ) from the evils they are constantly tempted to , viz. Covetousness , Lordship , usurpation and Dominion over Gods Heritage ( evils of a close connection and cognation ) that they do not Act the Diotrephes , seeking Preheminence over their Brethren , or affect a Masterly Dominion over the People ; for that both comes under the Denomination of Gods Heretage , none will doubt . He likewise dehorts from Reluctancy , at their Laborious imployment . Next , there is a positive exhortation presented to Ministers , viz , that they be examples to the Flock , that is , that the Graces they Preach to others , shine in their Walk , and in special that of Meekness and Humility , which most nearly Resembles their Glorious Master , the great Shepherd of the Sheep , that this appear in their conduct and Government , as that of his , who leadeth Gently , and would not have Ministers to Rule with Rigor , as those Reprehended Ezek. 34.4 . Hence from the Scope and contexture , it appears . 1. That the Pastor , Labouring in the Word and Doctrin , being here addressed as the Apostles Co-presbyter and Fellow-elder , is owned by him as the highest ordinary Church Officer , and that this Apostle now shortly to put off his Tabernacle , doth Aaron-like , invest him , in his Robe ●or highest Sphere of an Ordinary Minister . 2 He enjoyns them to exercise Episcopal Authority ; As also Paul did the Elders of Ephesus . Act. 20. which must respect Ordination and Jurisdiction , in the full extent thereof , and their equal interest therein . 3. All of them are discharged to Lord it , or exercise a Dominion over one another , or over the Flock , but to exercise a humble exemplary Ministry . Hence we further inferr against the Hierarchical Prelat . ( 1. ) That the Apostle ascribing this comprehensive Authority to Pastors , which comprehends both the Doctrinal Key , and that of Jurisdiction ; For , I hope , our Episcopal Brethren , will acknowledg that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Episcopal Authority and inspection , includs both , he cuts off the Hierarchical Prelats pretended super-Inspection , paramount thereunto . Hence ( 2 ) The Pastor being found thus discribed , and installed in this comprehensive Scriptural Episcopal Authority , the Hierarchical Prelats Office , which swallows up this Power and Authority of Pastors , and arrogats to it self solely , the Name and thing of a Bishop , is discharged as unlawful . ( 3 ) We argue a minore ad Majus , against that Office from the Text thus ; All Masterly power of Pastors over their Flock is discharged , Ergola Fortiori , much more that of Prelats over Pastors themselves . Now , for the Judgment of Protestant Writers , in corespondence to this our Sense , we might exhibit a great cloud of Witnesses , but of the whole , we offer only these few instances . The Belgick Divines make this , 2. v. paralel with that which is enjoined Act. 20.28 . to the Elders of Ephesus ; as to the Authority and exercise of a joynt Episcopal inspection , competent to Pastors : And the 3. v. they Translate [ not Exercising Dominion ] the very same thing which our Lord prohibit to his Apostles . Pool . Annot. 2. Part. doth also make the Command in this 2 ▪ v. praralel with Act. 20.28 , and Ioh. 21.15.16 . and Paraphrases the Command , as importing both to feed and Rule , and enjoining the exercise of the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key jointly , yea and hold it to be of such a Nature , as to the main designs of the Gospel , as was enjoined to Peter himself , and his Fellow-Apostles . The Clause of [ taking the oversight ] they expone thus , being Bishops , or acting as Bishops over it , superintending , Inspecting and Watching over it ( viz. the Flock ) paralelling this with Act. 20.28.29 . where such Pastoral Episcopal Feeding and Rule , is enjoyned in Pauls farewell to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus . The prohibition or negative part of the Precept , v. 3. [ not as being Lords ] they Expone of not exercising such Lordship and Dominion , as temporal Lords ; paralelling this with Matth. 20.25 , 26. Luk. 22.25 . as also with 2 Cor. 1.24 . where Paul disowns Dominion ; and with 1 Cor. 3.5 . Who then is Paul ? or who is Appllo ? But Ministers : Yea , even Grotius , Comerarius , Menochius , expone the Command of Feeding , v. 2. as importing Government or Rule ; paralelling this with Ioh. 21.15 , 16 , 17. Act. 20.28.29 . The Clause of [ taking the oversight ▪ ] is generally understood of superintending and acting the Bishops , Episcopum agentes . Beza , Piscat , Valla. Erasm. Gerard , says , it s an allusion to their Name , as if the Lord enjoined them to be Answerable to it . The ensuing Verse , is understood of imperious Dominion over GOD's Church : Thus Piscat . Menoch . &c. Turret . ( Institut . Theol. Part. 3. Quest. 16. Thes. 8. ) produces the same Text , collated with 2 Cor. 1.24 . as proving a prohibition of all Lordly Power to Ministers , shewing , that this is the prerogative of Christ the Chief Sheepherd , and that in opposition to such Lordly Power , Pastors , are called Ministers , Messengers , Servants , Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Maccov . from this Passage Collated with Act. 20.28 . concludes the identity of the Episcopal and Pastoral Office. Loc. Commun . Cap. 82. P. 845. The Eng. Annot. upon the place , do shew , " That such a Magisterial carriage is forbidden , as is Taxed , 3 Ioh. v. 9. in Diotrephes Love of Preheminence . But now , What is the Dr's . great Answer to this Text ? He says , It s the Apostles Commentary upon our Saviours Words and Commandment . This is very true : He next adds , That it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence , as a thing very unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church . To which I Answer , it is certain the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is Paralel with Matth. 20. Luk. 22. where Peter learned the prohibition , and imports Dominion , but not Tyranical Dominion properly ; It being made use of by the LXX . to express Lawful Dominion . 2. We have told him , that the positive part of the Precept , refuts his gloss , which the Apostle doth not thus express in the Dr's . Sense [ not proudly or insolently Domineering ] but using Dominion moderatly , as the Apostle would have presented the Precept , if a Lawful Lordship had been allowed , but 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 Fl●cks , as proceeding from Pride , and the very practice and exercise of a Domineering Tyranny ; yea , he could not but put under this Character , whatever exercise of pretended Ministerial Authority , goes beyond the Limits of that humble exemplary Ministry , that Ministerial diligence and service of the Lords Flocks , which is enjoyned in the positive part of his Masters Command , exactly coppied out in this his Apostolick Precept . I further remark , that the Dr. holding out the Sense of the Apostle , as terminating only in this General , discharging Pride and Insolency in Government , without condescending upon the extent of the Negative and positive explication of the Precept , and the Nature of that Power , here specified and Discharged , as Flowing from this Pride and Insolent Disposition , and but only shewing , that it is a Pride unsutable to all Power and Authority in the Church , leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat , and the setting up of such a Dominion in the Church , as may be supposed in an abstracted Sense , and in its general Nature , Lawful ; and thus still saves the Popes Mitre , from the Touch of this prohibition . The Dr. holds , That our exposition of those Texts , was never heard of , till these latter days . Thus with him , the Papists only have hit upon the true Ancient Exposition , and Protestants have missed it . Amongst many other confuting Instances , he might have minded the abovementioned Passages of Bernard to Eugenius , lib. 2. Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus ; Ergo tu tibi usurpare aude ut Dominans Apostolatum , aut Apostolicus Dominatum . CHAP. II. A Confutation of what the Dr. offers in Answer to the Presbyterians Argument , for Parity of Pastors , taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , in the Scripture Account of the Pastoral Office. THe Dr. by this time , has finisht his first easie Task of Discussing our Argument from Christs Institution . He will next fall upon our Argument from Scripture Consequences . And , that his Work here , may be as easie as the first , and least , he should break his Word to his Friend , in giving him a large History of our Arguments , on this Head. Of them all , he is pleased to Single out one , taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter ; which he says , fills all our Books : Citing Smectym . Ius Divin . Minist . Ang. Unbishopping Tim. and Tit. Altare Damasc. Durh. Dissert . But surely , any who have Seriously and Impartially perused these Authors , and compares what they have written , with that which this Man pretends to Answer , may Laugh at his Prodigious Folly , in Boasting of an Answer to Books , which he appears never to have read or understood . It were good for him , that the Authors , he paints his Margine with , were out of the World , that the Ignorant , or such as never saw them , might believe , that this Personat Champion , had made a mighty Baffling Assault upon them ; But , all such as are acquaint with their Writings , will easily discover , that he is here , Acting a Pedantick Nomenclator of these Authors , and no more . The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , ( I mean an Official Identity ) I acknowledge , is improven by these Authors , and other Presbyterian Writers , and am content to try Issue with him upon this Head , but the Dr , I find , is so Loose and Perverse a Disputer , that he doth not so much as offer to propose one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope . He alledges , We Argue from the Homonomy of Names of Bishop and Presbyter , in the New Testament , to prove the Sameness of the Office , and that the Clergy of the New Testament , are Dichotomised into Bishops and Deacons only , in some Texts : And thus in some Ancient Writers . That we thus exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter , tho the Offices themselves be as much distinguished , in several Texts of the New Testament , as is possible . He holds , ( P. 22 , 23. ) That we found the Solidity of our Demonstration of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , merely upon the Confusio Nominum , which he represents in a distinct Character , as our only Topick ; To which purpose , he tells us we cite Act. 20.17 , 28. Philip. 1.1 . Tit. 1.6 , 7. and several other places . There needs no more , than the Reciting of this , to discover this Mans Precarious Vanity , and Ignorance of this Controversie , since , all that are acquaint with it do know , that it is not the Sameness ef Names simplely , and in its self considered , which the Presbyterians ground upon , tho this have its own Secondary Weight , but the Sameness and Identity of the Qualifications , Ordination , Work , Duties , and every other Essential of the Office ; Which is an Argument , with more Demonstrative Nerves , than that of the Sameness of Names . Presbyters , being in Scripture , called and owned , as Rulers , Governors , Overseers , Bishops ; And both Ordination and Iurisdiction appropriat to them , without the least Hint of Imparity among them , in the Exercise thereof , Tit. 1.5 . Act. 20.17 , 28. 1 Pet. 5.2.2 . 1 Thess. 5.12 , 14. Heb. 13.7 , 17. 1 Cor. 5.12 . 1 Tim. 4.14 . Now , if it be thus , sure the Conclusion of the Identity of the Office , clearly follows : And had this Man perused these Authors , he might have discovered , that their Arguments run to this Issue , and are not merely Bottomed upon so slight a Ground , as he would make such believe , whose Knowledge is of a like Size and Measure with his own : Yet , so weak is his Cause , that his Answer cannot stand before this very Argument , as he propounds it , at least with a due Respect to the Scope of the Places Cited ; which will be evident to any , who will compare their Writings , with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet . To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments , from these Scriptures , cited by him , and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter . From Act. 20. We thus Argue , First , That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus , that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock . Whence we collect , ( 1. ) That the Pastor is the true Scripture - Bishop . ( 2. ) That by his Office , he Feeds and Rules the Flock , and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost . Next , it hence follows , that whatever Authority , Power and Jurisdiction is imported , in the Name , Bishop , falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command , given to these Elders or Pastors , who are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So , that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office , the Diocesan Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretended Paramount Inspection over them , evanisheth as a mere Chimaera , especially , since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors . ( 3. ) It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy , now present with Paul , and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him , for at Writing thereof , the Apostle was at Macedonia ; And the Sacred History informs us , that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy , and gave the Elders this Charge . In a Word , this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge , for , after this , they were to see his Face no more : So , that these being the Apostles last Thoughts ( to speak so ) and Testamentary Instructions , in Point of Church Government , we have here the the Samplare and Pattern , shewed by this great Apostle , upon the Mount , of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions . And since , the Episcopalians , will not call the Gospel-Church , a Speckled Bird , and her Government of diverse Cuts , they must acknowledge , that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions ; As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14 . doth furher clear . From hence , we further Argue , First : These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly , are the Apostolick Bishops , and these only : Ergo , the Hierarchical Prelat , is no Apostolick Bishop , 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors , he is Pastor Pastorum . 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock , as such . We Argue , Secondly , from the Text thus : These Apostolick Bishops , have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them , by God , both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key : And therefore , the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground , 1. As Snatching away the last from Pastors , and Arrogating it solely to himself . 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes ; And this in a double Respect , ( 1. ) In the Case of the Pastor , to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key . ( 2. ) With Respect to himself , who is obliged , ex Natura & Ratione Officii , or from the Nature of his Office , to Preach the Gospel to no Flock , but to Govern only . Thirdly , All this Scriptural , Episcopal Jurisdiction , is by the Apostle , ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost , in Presence of Timothy , while there is Altum Silentium , of any Interest he had over them in this Matter ; Whence , it may be inferred , 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church , having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein . And 2. By clear Consequence , it follows , that nothing here enjoyned them , inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him , in these Duties , or his Supereminent Inspection over them . 3. By further necessary Consequence , this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle , and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy , in the first Epistle written to him , it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors , but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only , to pass off , with that Exigent : It being infallibly clear , that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction , betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church , and his Directions to Timothy , while residing therein . Finally , It is hence infallibly concluded , 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing , as is properly and formally Episcopal , or of the Hierarchical Mould : This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders , as their Essential Right and Priviledge . 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats , or Diocesan Bishops , as their Succedaneous Substitutes , upon their withdrawing , unless we will make the Apostle Paul , to Model this Church , in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches . And in a Word , it hence follows , that whatever may be pleaded , as to Matter of Fact , neither this , nor any Church else , could ever after , Iure , divest themselves of this Authority , ( I mean the Church Representatives , or Officers thereof ) in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat , whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God. From Tit. 1.5 , 7. The Presbyterians Argue , not merely from the Promiscuous Use , or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter , but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning , and the Connecting Particle and Illative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which points at the very Topick and Ground , upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope ; which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , not a Nominal only : For , thus his Argument lyes ; The Presbyter or Elder , must be so and so Qualified , for such must the Bishop be : So , that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two , as different Orders of Ministers , breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument , there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this , Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications , because such are proper to the Superior Office. No doubt , the Holy Ghost , who thus Reasons , ascribes to them , not only the same Name , ( and he knew best , how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words ) but likewise the same Qualifications , Work , and Office. Episcopalians will not disowne it , that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work , from that of the Presbyter or Pastor ; So that , they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words , while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications , Office , and Duties , or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech , and Unsoundness in Reasoning ; And therefore , the Office of the one , and the other , is clearly supposed one and the same . From Philip. 1.1 . Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church : We inferr , 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto . 2. That they could not be Diocesans , ( 1. ) Because the Deacons , the lowest Officers , are immediatly subjoyned to them ; And Prelatists will not say , that there were no Pastors in that Church , but only Diocesans . ( 2. ) It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical 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 , D●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 atque Inspectioni Commissam , non enim alicujus in alios Ministros Autoritatis aut alicujus prae aliis Prerogativae , sed s●lius istius Curae ac Vigilantiae Respectu , Episcoporum Titulo in Sacris Literis Insigniuntur ] That the Bishops are called such , not with Relation to any supposed Subordinat Bishops or Presbyters , but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care , in which Respect alone , they have that Title in Scripture , but not upon the Account of any Prerogative or Authority , which one Minister has over another . Which , how clearly it asserts our Judgment , Principles and Pleading upon these Texts , in Opposition to the Hierarchical Bishop , and for the Parity of Pastors , is convincingly evident . But , let us hear their Inference , Thes. 30. which is thus [ Non ergo ex Divino , sed ex Humano Instituto aliquis post Apostolorum tempora , aliis ex Ordine Presbyterorum fuit Authoritate praepositus , atque , Episcopus dictus ex singulari Prerogativa , sicut post Hieronimum , non-nulli quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim . Lombard . Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Gratian . Dist. 93. c. Legimus & Dist. 25. c. olim . Cusanus de Concord . Cathol . Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Citing first Ierom on Tit. 1. & ad Evag. ] In summ , that the Setting of one Presbyter over another , in a supposed Supereminent Authority and Peculiar Prerogative , under the Character and Designation of a Bishop , is an Humane Invention only , without any Divine Warrand , as not only Hierom , but several Popish School Men , have acknowledged . The Professors of Saumur , speak also our Sense here fully . Syntag. Thes. Theolog. de Divers . Minist . Evang. Grad . Thes. 7. They hold the Office of Apostles , Prophets and Evangelists to be Extraordinary and Expired , making peculiar to them , their immediat Call , Infallibility in Teaching , their Universal Legation to all Churches , their Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts , &c. The Pastors and Doctors Office , they hold Ordinary , and affirm they are the same with Presbyters planted in every Church . Thes. 16.20 . de Episcop . & Presb. Discrimine . Thes. 7.8 . they shew , that the Apostles placed Presbyters , Church by Church , for the Government thereof , citing Act. 14.23 . and 20.17 , 28. where they Collect , that these Presbyters were Commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take heed to the Flock , and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they infer , that it belonged to them to Watch over , Inspect , to see unto , and take Care for such things , as tended to the Conservation , Propagation , and Growth of the Church : Adding [ Quod fieri sine Regiminis Cura & Potestate non potest ] which could not be performed , without the Care and Authority of Government . Thes. 9. They assert , that Pastors being thus in the beginning Constitute by the Apostles , they did according to the Apostles Command , and from the Nature of the Office Intrusted to them [ ex Officio sibi ab Apostolis demandato ] Govern the Church [ Communi Consilio ] by Common Counsel ( according to Hierom's Phrase ) ( Communibus Suffragiis , Communi Solicitudine & Cura ) by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care. Adding ( Nullus tum eorum in reliquos Sym-Presbyteros Autoritatem , Potestatem , Imperium aut Iurisdictionem habuit , sed par & equalis Cura & Solicitudo omnibus & singu●is in totum Gregem competebat ) that in these First times , no Presbyter or Pastor , had Authority , Power , or Jurisdiction over his Fellow-Presbyters , but the same , and alike Care and solicitude over the whole Flock , was competent to every one . Thes. 10. they shew , That tho there was one , who , as in every Colledge , or Juridical Court , was Primus or President , yet that Primatus was ( Ordinis duntaxat non Authoritatis , Potestatis , Dominii , Imperii , Iurisdictionis , sic enim non fuissent Sym-Presbyteri , quomodo passim vocantur in Patrum Scriptis ) of Order only , not of Authority , and not importing a Iurisdictional Power , and Dominion ; For , thus they had not been Collegues , or Co-Presbyters , as they were every where called in the Writings of the Fathers . Thes. 14. they shew , That things being thus Constitute by the Apostles , as every one of these Presbyters had not only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word , and Administration of the Sacraments ( Verum etiam pari Iure , pari Autoritate , ad Ecclesiae Clavum & Gubernaoula sedebant , quam ut dixi , Communi Consilio , Communibus Suffragiis regebant ) That with the same Authority also , and Equal Jurisdiction , Ministers did sit at the Churches Helm , and Governed her by Common Suffrages . Adding ( Quod hinc liquot , quod omnes communiter , & Presbyteri & Episcopi , pariter in Scriptis Apostolicis , adeoque Vetustioribus Scriptoribus , vocantur promiscue ) That Pastors are called both Bishops and Presbyters , promiscuously in the Apostles Writings , makes the preceeding Assertion apparent . Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus ( Id quod sati● manifestum ex loco , Act. 20.28 . Ubi Ephesinae Ecclesiae Presbyteri dicuntur ● Spiritu Sancto constituti Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tam ex Philip. 1.1 . Ubi Apostolus Epistolam suam inscribit Ecclesiae illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulla fact● Presbyterorum mentione , quos Episcoporum nomine isthic procul dubio intelligit ; Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclesia Episcopi , ex quo Episcopus singularem habuit ac praecipuam supra Presbyteros Autoritatem atque Potestatem , ejusque Manus distinctum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine ) That the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter appears from Act. 20.28 . where the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus , are said to be Constitute Bishops of the Church by the Holy Ghost ; As also from Philip. 1.1 . where the Apostle inscribes his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of that Church , making no mention of Presbyters , whom without doubt , he understands by the Name of Bishops : For , there were never more Bishops in the same Church , since the time that the Bishop had a Singular Power and Authority above Presbyters , and his Office was distinguished from the Order and Office of Pastors . Then they add Thes. 15. ( Id ipsum manifestam ex 1 Tim. 3.2 . Opportet Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem , &c. nulla mentione facta Presbyteri : Nam si alias tum fui●set Episcopus alius Presbyter , Paulus isthic Presbyterum non omisisset , sed adjecisset eadem in Presbytero requiri , vel si alia aut pauciora in eo requiri voluisset , id procul dubio monuisset , alioqui ea in parte Officio suo Defuisset ) That the same appears from 1 Tim. 3.2 . A Bishop must be blameless , &c. without mentioning the Presbyter : For , if the Bishop and Presbyter ; had been then distinct , Paul , would not in this place , have omitted the Presbyter , but would have added , that the same things were required in him , or if he would have required either other or fewer things in him , he would , without doubt , have admonished hereof , otherwise , in so far , he had been wanting in his Duty . They add ( Idem liquet ex Tit. 1.5 , 7. Nam ubi dixit Titum se reliquisse in Creta , ut istic constitueret Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docet quales essent illi Presbyteri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5 , 7. where , after the Apostle had said , that he had left Titus in Crete , to place Presbyters in every City , he shews , how these Elders must be Qualified ; A Bishop must be blameless . Asserting , Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church ; They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage ( Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia ) That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church . Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians , so Close and Throng , as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience . Presbyterian Scriptures , Presbyterian Sense , Presbyterian Arguments , Canted over by Dull Novelists , one after another , and which is yet more , by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion . But this that follows , will possibly please worse . Maccovius Redivivus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificorum , Socin . &c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii , or the Popish Cause and Doctrin , which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom , the Dr's . Reverence . It is even thus , [ Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris , tum ordinis potestate , tum jurisdictione ] That the Bishop by Divine Right , is Superior to the Ministers of the Word , both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction . Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher , Bellarmin , lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The ● . ● . 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 . U●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 . Ecc●es . P. ( mihi ) 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminen●●● 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 , 2● . 17.28 . 1 Pet. 5.1.2 . The ( 3 d ) Reason or Argument is thus [ quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos & Presbyteros fuisse plane eosd●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 the Preaching the Word , for all are Pastors and Teachers ; or in th● 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 the whole Gospel times , last times and latter dayes ; And some will alledge there has been Separation and Singularity , Old enough in years : But , if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick New Testament High Priest and Patriarch , and the standing of the Old Testament Oeconomy , as Exemplary to the New , and who has for several Ages , pretended to follow this Copie , and who he is , who has been for some Ages separat from , tho once Universally wondered after , and followed , viz. The Good Old Gentleman with the Triple Crown ; I think Protestant Schismaticks , as well as these their forementioned Opinions , may be supposed to have been in this Assertion , much in the Dr's . View . But that I be not tedious , and may hasten to consider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Answer to the premised Scriptures ; and the New Protestant Glosses upon them , which moves his Spleen to such declamatory anger against his Poor pur-blind Countreymen ; one thing I would suggest to him ( if I may do it without putting him into a Chaff ) which is this ; 'T is known , that there is a certain English Dr. of as great Figure and Reputation ( almost ) in England , as he is in Scotland , and of a great Name to this day , who having got this New Scots Notion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters , into his unwarry head , was bold to exhibit a great many Testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers , for this New Opinion ; his Name is Doctor Reynolds , in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls ; the Dr. would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity , and undeceive his Countriemen and others , in the Point of this dangerous Error , in examining his Citations . It s long since the Epistle was Exhibit to publick view , and is in many hands , and upon a little enquiry , the Dr. may easily have a view of this dangerous Piece . For , if these Citations hold , the Opinion is not so New and Singular , as the Dr. Suggests , but it seems is an Old notion revived again : As the Dr. knows the Waldenses revived Old Points before them , and from them the Protestant Schismaticks , have taken up the same ; and in special , so Learned an Antiquary , as the Dr. cannot be ignorant , that this very Scots Dangerous New Notion , against which his Pamphlet is levelled , was condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff , and the Waldenses , as testifies Michael Medina , lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine & eminentia , Cap 5. But now , that my hand is in , before I come to examin the Dr's . Answers to the premised Scriptures , I must be bold to Exhibit to him some more of the Heretical assertors of Presbyters Power and interest in Government , in correspondence to the New Scots Notion . Festus Hommius Disput. Theol. Adversus Pontificios Disput. 25. De Minist . Eccles . Ordin . Thes. 1. He calls the Office of Apostles and Evangelists Extraordinary , and holds it to be expired : Thes. 2. [ primus itaque ordo Ministrorum Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti ordinariorum est ordo Pastorum , qui etiam Episcopi , Presbyteri , praesides laborantes , Ministri Praedicantes , servi , dispensatcres , praesides & duces in Sacra Scriptura appellantur ] That the First order of the Ordinary Ministers of the New Testament , is that of Pastors , who in Scripture are called Bishops , Presbyters , Labouring Presidents , Dispensing Servants , Leaders Rulers , &c. Thes. 3. [ inter Episcopum & Pastorem seu● Presbyterum in verbo laborantem , Respectu Muneris seu ministerii nullum in sacra Scriptura ; verum & essentiale discrimen reperitur ; haec enim vocibus hisce Promiscue utitur , cum unum eundemque Ministrorum Novi Testamenti ordinem designat : Quia in una Ecclesia & Civitate plures tempore Apostolorum Episcopus fuisse diserte Scriptura Sacra Testatur . That betwixt the Bis●op and Pastor or Presbyter labouring in the Word and Doctrin , there is no essential or Official difference found in Scripture , which uses these words promiscuously , pointing out thereby the same Order of the New Testament Ministers : Since it doth clearly Testify , that in the times of the Apostles , there were many Bishops in one City . From whence he draws this Conclusion [ quare Epsicopi jure Divino Pastoribus , neque gradu , neque dignitate , neque ordinis potestate , neque Iurisdictione majores sunt ] That therefore Bishops by Divine Right are neither in Degree , Dignity , Power of Order nor Jurisdiction greater than Pastors . Here is extensive Scots Bigotry . I cannot but also observe , how Crabbed and unlucky expressions he has Thes. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination , of the Gospel Ministry by the term of Priesthood , because Christs Priesthood is Eternal , and admits of no Successors , he doth upon this ground Reason thus [ quare Ministri Novi Testamenti nusquam in sacra Scriptura Sacerdotes proprie dicti appellantur ] That the Ministers of the New Testament , are no where in Scripture called Priests . Adding [ proinde pontificii Pastores cum nomen & munus sacerdotis sibi arrogant , non tantum palam judaizant , sed etiam blaspheme & sacrilege in Sanctissimum munus Domini — in v●lant ] That therefore the Popish Ministers , in arrogating to themselves , the Name and Office of Priests , do not only palpably Judaize , but also , make a Blasphemous , and sacralegious Invasion upon the most Holy Office of Christ. Musculus ( loc . Commun . de Offic. Minist . ) is Scots Presbyterian in grain , in this Point ( P. mihi . 360 , 361 , 362. ) after he has asserted from Scripture Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office , and the identity of the Pastoral and Doctoral office with Ierom : Because the Apostle Eph. 4. says not , that our Lord gave some Pastors and some Doctors , but Conjunctly Pastors and Doctors , he adds [ eosdem esse Presbyteros & Pastores ex eo patet , quod 1 Pet. 5. Legimus Seniores ab Apostolis admoneri , ut gregem Dei pascant ] That Elders and Ministers , are by the Apostles admonished to feed the Lords Flock [ 3 tio . saith he , eosdem esse Presbyteros quoque & Episcopas & Pastores , ex eo patet , quod Act. 20. Legimus adhunc modum . A Mileto autem missus Ephesum nuntius accersivit Presbyteros Ecclesiae , qui cum venissent , dixit iis ; vos scitis a primo die , &c. Et aliquanto post . Attendite igitur vobis & toto gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos ad pascendum ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) Ecclesiam Dei. Quos Lucas vocat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae , hos Paulus vocat Episcopos , & dixit eos ad hoc esse a Spiritu Sancto positos , ut pascant Ecclesiam Dei , sic palam videmus eosdem esse Presbyteros , Episcopos & Pastores ] He adds for his Third Reason , that it appears from Act. 20. that Presbyters , Bishops and Pastors are the same ; because Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church , who being come to him , he enjoins them to take heed to themselves , and to all the flock , over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops , to Feed ( i. e. to Rule and Govern , as the Original Word imports ) the Church of God. Those whom Luke calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus , those Paul calls the Bishops , for this end constitut by the Holy Ghost , to Feed the Church of God , whence it evidently appears , that Bishops , Presbyters , and Pastors , are the same . He adds [ de inde in una & eadem ecclesiae simul & conjunctim plures fuisse episcopos , &c. ] That it appears , the Spirit of GOD , placed at once and joyntly a Plurality of Bishops , in one and the same Church . [ Quem admodum ex eo quoque videri est , quod Phil : 1.1 . Legimus Paulus ac Timotheus servi Iesu Christi , omnibus sanctis qui sunt Philippi , una cum Episcopis & Diaconis . Ecce & Philippis plures simul erant Episcopi , erant autem illi Seniores Ecclesiae ] That in the Church of Philippi a Plurality of Bishops are saluted by the Apostle , who are supposed to be the same with Pastors . He thus proceeds [ Et ubi in Epistola ad Titum Cap. 1. Legimus , Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta , ut quae desunt pergas corrigere , & constituas oppidatim Presbyteros , sicut ego tibi ordinaram , si quis est incupatus , &c. Opportet enim episcopum inculpatum esse , &c. An non hic quoque videmus eosdem esse Presbyterum & Episcopum . Et 1 Pet : 5. Loco supra citato , tres hae voces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad eosdem ab Apostolis Scriptae leguntur , unde videas Apostolorum tempore in ecclesia Christi eosdem fuisse Presbyteros , Pastores & Episcopos ] That the Apostle in the Epistle to Titus , Chap. 1. shewing that he left him to place Elders in Crete , who must be Blameless , &c. Because a Bishop must be such , doth shew , That the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same . And 1 Pet. 5. the three Original Words , which signifie Presbyters , Feeding , and Overseeing , or Acting the Bishops , are by the Apostle , Written and Ascribed to the same Persons ; Whence , it is evident , that in the Times of the Apostles , Elders , Pastors , and Bishops , were one and the same in Gods Church . He adds [ Est itaque prorsus indubitatum ( Alas ! this Poor Man wanted the Venerable Dr's Instructions , to have Corrected this Bigotrie ) in prima & Apostolica Ecclesia sic fuisse ab Apostolis Dispositum , ut Seniores Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Gregis Dominicae Curam gerentes , Communi Opera Ministeria Docendi ac R●gendi obirent , essentque , ut ita dicam , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Nulli Capiti ac Praesidi subjecti , quales h●die quoque in nonnullis Ecclesiis Verbi Ministri reperiuntur , inter quos nemo caeteris est superior Officio & Potestate , &c. ] That it is beyond all Debate , that the First and Apostolick Church , was by the Apostles so Constitute , that the Elders of the Church , did Exercise a Common Episcopal Care over the Lords Flock , and the same Function of Teaching and Governing the same , and were therein subject to no Head or President : Like unto whom , are found several Ministers now in some Churches , who owne no Superior in either Office or Authority , &c. Afterwards speaking of the Exalting of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the peculiar Name of Bishop , and of Ieroms Account of this Practice , viz. for Eviting of Schism , which he calls Emphatically [ Tentatio illa ] that Tentation . He adds , [ Profuerit ne Consilium hoc Ecclesiae Christi — melius est posterioribus saeculis declaratum , quam cum baec Consuetudo primum introduceretur , cui debemus omnem illam Principalium & Equestrium Episcoporum Insolentiam , Opulentiam , & Tyrannidem , imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi Corruptionem , quam si Hieronimus cerneret , dubio procul Consilium agnosceret , non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata , sicut praetexebatur , sed ipsius Satanae ad Vastanda ac Perdenda prisca Pascendi Dominici Gregis Ministeria , quo fieret , ut haberet Ecclesia , non veros Pastores , Doctores , Presbyteros , & Episcopos , sed sub Nominum istorum Larvis Otiosos Ventres , ac Magnificos Princepes , qui non modo non pascant ipsi Populum Domini Doctrina Sana & Apostolica , sed & Improbissima Violentia vetant , ne id per quenquam alium fiat . Hoc , sciz . Consilio Satanae factum est , ut habeant Ecclesiae pro Episcopis Potentes Dominos ac Princepes magna ex parte , ex Ordine Nobilium ac Satrapum Saeculi Delectos , &c. ] Whether this Counsel or Method of Eviting Schism , was profitable for the Church of Christ , was more apparent to the After-Ages , than when this Custom , was first introduced . For , thereunto is owing all that Grandure , Insolency and Tyrranny of those Knight-like and Princely Bishops , yea , the Corruption of all the Churches of Christ ; which , if Ierom had discerned , he would , no doubt , have acknowledged , that this was not the Counsel of the Holy Ghost , for the Removal of Schisms , as was pretended , but the very Project of the Devil , to Wast and Destroy the Primitive Ministry , appointed for Feeding the Lords Flock , that thus the Church of God , might not have true Pastors , Doctors , Presbyters and Bishops , but under the Disguise of such Names , Idle Bellies , and Magnificent Princes , who , not only , Feed not the People of God themselves , with the Sound and Apostolical Doctrine , but by most Wicked Violence , hinders the same to be performed by any other : And that by this Engyne of Satan , it s come to pass , that the Churches , instead of true Bishops , have Powerful Lords and Princes chosen for the most part , out of the Order of the Nobility and Grandees of this World. Thereafter , he Inveighs against their Gorgeous Stoles , Girdles , &c. which he says , is to them , instead of the Spiritual Armour enjoyned Eph. 6. calling them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Counterfeit Bishops , and the Pastors , the true ones . Thus he P. 362. I must here again present to our Dr , some further Account of the Sentiments of the Learned Iunius upon this Point , in his Animadversions on Bellarmin ad Controver . 4. de Concil . in Cap. 15. Par. 9. Art. 7. [ Non sunt Pastores Laici , nec Ecclesiastici quicunque , sed soli Episcopi ] That the Bishops only are the Pastors , and no Inferior Officers . He thus Animadverts and Answers [ Distinguenda Assumptio haec , nam si anguste Episcopos ex Pontificiorum usu intelligas , falsa est ; sin autem latius Communiterque Presbyteros Operam dantes Administratione Verbi ex Dono & Vocatione Dei , vera est Assumptio : Recte enim Magister Sententiarum , Lib. 4. Disput. 24. Excellenter inquit , Canones duos tanquam Sacros Ordines appellari censent , Diaconatus , sciz . Et Presbyteratus ; quia hos solos Primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse , & de his solis Preceptum Apostoli habemus ; enim vero si soli Episcopi Pastores essent , profecto neque Episcopi faciunt officium qui non pascunt gregem , &c. ] That the premised Assertion , that the Bishops only are Pastors , is rightly understood , if applyed to Presbyters , who Labours in the Administration of the Word , who are thereunto Called of God , and have Correspondent Gifts . That the Master of Sentences , does rightly assert , that the Canons do only owne Two Orders as Sacred , Viz. The Diaconate and Presbyterate : Because we read , that the Primitive Church had these only , and of these alone , we have the Command of the Apostle . Moreover , if Bishops only be Pastors , these Bishops do not their Duty , who Feed not the Flock . He adds after , [ nam illa Episcoporum distinctio a Pastoribus & Presbyterorum ordine , juris Divini non est , sed humani instituti — Nos de Iure solum communi Divinoque agimus : Presbyteris ergo qui dabant operam administrationi verbi jus commune fuit , ut Conciliis interessent , &c. ] That the distinction of Bishops from Pastors , has no Divine Warand , but is of Human Institution only ; That Presbyters who Labour in Dispensing the Word , had an Interest to Sit in Councils . Where its evident , that he calls the Dr's Notion of the Bishop , as its distinct from the Pastor , and Superior to him , Popish and an Human Invention , and Asserts the Identity of Pastor an● Bishop by Divine Right , they being Members of Councils : And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen , as Lombard , &c. ( 10. ibid. ) [ Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei ] That the Holy Ghost set up Bishops to Rule the Church of God. Thus Iunius animadverts [ aequivoce : nam Episcopos dicit Apostolus communi significato , i. e. inspectores & Curatores Ecclesiae esse Presbyteros illius . Agit autem cum Presbyteris unius Ecclesiae , puta Ephesinae , quos accersi ad se curaverat , quod si unus tantum esse debet ( ut volunt Pontificii ) in una Ecclesia Episcopus , & ejus est solius pascere , cur Paulus per omnia plurali numero usus est in hoc suo protreptico ad Presbyteros Ephesi ] Adding [ falsa ex aequivocatione sententia ] that the premised Assertion , anent the Establishing Bishops in the Church by the Holy Ghost , when applyed to the Prelat Bishop , is not found , since the Apostle , according to the common use of the Word , calls the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church , her Inspectors or Bishops : Because , in that place , viz. Act. 20. the Apostles Speech is directed to that one Church of Ephesus , for whose Pastors he had sent ; but if ( as the Papists would have it ) there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church , and it is proper to him alone to Feed , how comes it , that Paul , all along , makes use of the Plural Number , in this his Exhortatory Speech , or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephesus ? After , in Art. 9. [ Passim asserunt Concilia Episcoporum esse ] That Councils were made up of Bishops . Thus Iunius animadverts in his Third Answer [ quod Episcopi plurimum adessent , non ideo factum est quod Episcopi essent , sed quod eruditione & Doctrina praestarent plerumque aliis de Presbyterio , & qui propterea suffragiis Presbyterii praefecti essent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecclesia singuli : Nam qui erant ejusmodi , eos ad Consilia generalia communibus Ecclesiae suffragiis mitti , erat aequius , quam rudiores , &c. ] That the Bishops were for most part present at Councils ; this was not upon the account of their being Bishops or as in that Character , but because they for most part , were beyond others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning , and that for this Reason every such Bishop , was by the suffrages of the Presbytrie , made President of their Collegiat Meeting ; for , such as were in this capacity , it was more equitable they should be sent to General Councils , by the Churches common suffrages , than those , that were less learned , &c. He adds [ tanquam perpetui juris statuae Episcoporum pontificiorum sibi Assumpserunt , sicut & omnem autoritatem Ecclesiae & Presbyterii ] That the Popish Bishops , as if founded upon a standing Right and Tittle , have Usurpt and assum'd to themselves , the whole Authority of the Church , and the Presbytrie . In Art. 10. he Corrects Bellarmin's absurd Gloss , as if Theodosius and Valentinianus had intended only the Bishops to be Received in the Council — And 15. ibid. he shews , that the Chorepiscopi & Presbyteri Subscribed and Voted in the Council of Nice : And in Art. 11. [ inveni●ntur soli Episcopi Subscripsisse ) That Bishops only did Subscribe : He Answers , that this is false ( De Niceno modo Diximus Not. 15. Constantinopolitano p●●no Subscripserunt aliquot Presbyteri , Alpius Presb. pro Philomuso Alexandrino Cappadociae , Paulus Presb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Isauriae , &c. ) That in the First Council of Constantinople , Presbyters Subscribed . Thereafter , he shews , why the Bishops were Chosen to General Councils — ( in singulis Presbyteriis cujuscunque Provinciae , Communibus suffragiis Episcopi eligerentur ii , qui Pietate , Doctrina , Iudicio — praestare viderentur . Adfuerunt autem & Presbyteri juarum Ecclesiarum singuli Communi Synodorum particularium calculo ad actionem illam deputati , tum Ecclesiae suae , tum Provinciae totius nomine ▪ ) That in every Presbytrie of the respective Provinces , these Bishops were Chosen by common suffrage , who were judged more Eminent in Piety and Learning , but Presbyters were also present , being deputed to that Work , both by the Vote of their own Churches , and the common suffrage of Particular Synods , and thus , in the Name , both of their own Church , and of the whole Province . He had said before , that of the whole Province few were laid aside from Councils . Upon 19. ibid. Where it is alledged , that the Interest of any other than Bishops in Councils is [ contra morem omnis Antiquitatis ] Against the Custom of all Antiquity : In Opposition to this , Iunius produces the Pattern of that Council , Act. 15. where it is said , Paul and those with him , were received by the Apostles and Elders ; that the Apostles and Elders met in Council — Citing v. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders , to send Chosen Men — and v. 23. where the Apostles and Elders wrote to the Churches . Adding [ atque ●ita diu in Ecclesia fuisse observatum , demonstrat Exemplum Romanae Synodi , quae contra Novatum fuit habita a 60 Episcopis , Presbyterisque & Diaconis pluribus , qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum , Apostolici illius Concilii Exemplo , ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. Et Ruffin . Cap. 33. Item Alexandrinae Synodi contra Arrium apud Gelasium Cyzicenum ] That it was thus of a long time observed in the Church , is demonstrat by the example of the Roman Synod , which was held against Novatus by 60 Bishops , and many Presbyters and Deacons , who gave Sentence against Novatus , after the Example of that Apostolical Synod , by the Testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus in their Histories : As also , by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria against Arius , according to Gelasius , &c. By this time , its evident , what the Judgment of this Great Divine was , as to the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , both the Name and Office , and their Interest and Authority in Church Government , yea , and in Councils , both de Facto and de Iure . Franc. Gomarus Explic. Epist. ad Gal. Cap. 2. P. ( mihi ) 487. having asserted the extraordinary Ecclesiastick Function of Timothie and Titus , and upon the common Ground of their various Travels with the Apostle Paul , proved , their Evangelistick Office to be inconsistent with the Function of a Bishop , who is tyed to a certain Post : He adds , deinde illa Episcopi significatio , quae post Apostolorum tempora introducta , in Sacris literis omnino insolens est , in quibus idem quod Presbyterum notat , ut Paulus Tit. 1.6 . ostendit : quos enim , v. 5. Presbyteros Ecclesiae , eosdem , v. 7. Episcopos vocat , &c. That the signification or designation of Bishop , introduced after the Apostles times , is unknown to the Scriptures , wherein , it signifies the same thing with the Presbyter , and Pastor , as the Apostle , Tit. 1.6 . shews ; for , whom , in the 5 , v. he Calls the Presbyters of the Church , the same he calls the Bishops in the 7. v. as also the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus , so termed by Luke , Act. 20.17 . Paul calls , the Bishops . v. 28. and Philip. 1.1 . he writes to the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons ; Where , by Bishops , he understands the Presbyters , not the Prelats set over Presbyters , otherwise , which were absurd , in one and the same Church , of Ephesus , and Philippi , there had been a plurality of such ordinary Bishops , of which every one had been set over many Pastors . Finally , where Paul recites the several kinds of the Gospel Ministers , he acknowledges no such Bishops , distinct from Presbyters , and superior unto them , as Eph. 4.11 . To which purpose Ierom's Judgment is memorable , which is extant , Comment . in Ep. to Tit. 1.1 . where comparing the 5. and 7. v. he infers , that the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same ; which Point he doth likewise ( in the same manner as we have done ) demonstrat from Philip 1.1 . and Act. 20.28.29 . and other Passages adjoined thereunto ; concluding all with this weighty assertion , that with the Ancients , the Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same , untill by Degrees , the care and inspection was put upon one — and that the Bishops were set over Presbyters , rather by Custom than by Truth of Divine appointment ; which Custom ( saith the Author ] did at last bring upon the Church , the mischievous dominion of Bishops , contrary to the Apostles Command , 1 Pet. 5. Thereafter he reasons the Ruling Elders Office from these Scriptures , 1 Cor. 12.28 . 1 Tim. 5.17 . Rom. 12.8 . 1 Thes. 5.12 . P. 526. explic . Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1. Consect . 1. Cum Paulus , & hic , & alibi , ut Act. 20. Uni Ecclesiae plures Episcopos tribuat ; nec ullum inter Episeopos ordinarios , & Pastores , statuat discrimen : sequitur , adversus pontificios , Episcopum non significare Pastorem & praefectum Pastorum , sed Ecclesiae Pastorem , ut docet Hieron . in Ep. ad Evag. & Comment . ad Titum probat . v. 1. Since Paul both here , and elsewhere , as Act. 20. ascribes unto one Church a Plurality of Bishops , neither places any difference betwixt the ordinary Bishops , and the Pastors , it follows against the Papists ( and thus against this Dr. in Gomarus Sense , ) that the Word Bishop , doth not signifie both the Pastor and Prelatical Inspector over Pastors , or a Pastor of Pastors , but a Pastor of the Church , as Ierom learnedly proves in Epist ad Evag. P. 704. Explicat . in 1 Pet. 5. Consect . 8. Quandoquidem Presbyterorum officium hic statuitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quemadmodum Paulus Presbyteros Ephesinos dictos , Act. 20.17 . vocat deinde Episcopos v. 28. & Philip. 1.1 . Ecclesiae unius Urbis Philippensis , tribuit Paulus Episcopos , & Diaconos : Neque ullibi in Sacris Literis Episcopus Presbyteris praefertur : Inde sequitur , non ex Divina Institutione , sed Humana Traditione ; cui deinde accessit superbia , Episcopos a Presbyteris fuisse distinctos , iisque Potestate & Authoritate praelatis . That is , since the Office of Presbyters is here held out , to be an Episcopal Inspection , as Paul doth accordingly call the Pastors and Presbyters of Ephesus Bishops , Act. 20.28 . who are likewise termed Presbyters , v. 17. and Philip. 1.1 . mentions the Bishops and Deacons of that one City Philippi , neither is there a Bishop found set over Presbyters in any place of Holy Writ : It hence follows , that the distinguishing of Bishops from Presbyters , and setting them over Presbyters , in a Potestative and Authoritative Prelacy , had its Rise from no Divine Institution , but from Humane Tradition , which was the Foundation of Pride . Well , shall I weary our Profound Dr , with another of the same Stamp with the Scots Presbyterians ? Antonius Sadael Operum Theol. Tom. 1. De Legitima Vocatione Pastorem Ecclesiae . In the beginning of that Dispute , he professes to deal with such as profest to owne the Reformed Doctrine , but studied to evert the chief part of Discipline — [ rejectis iis quibus ex officio incumbit ipsius Disciplinae Administratio ] rejecting such , who by their Office , have the Administration of Government committed to them . P. ( mihi ) 65 , 66 , 67. He thus proceeds , having Answered an Argument of one of the Sorbon Doctors , he proposes his Second , which is this — [ objicit primos nostros Doctores fuisse quidem Presbyteros , sed non Episcopos , itaque non potuisse alios Ecclesiae Doctores constituere , cum soli Episcopi Ius Ordinandi habeant ] That our first Doctors were Presbyters , and not Bishops , and thus could not Ordain other Ministers of the Church , since only Bishops have a Right to Ordain . [ Quae Sententia , saith Sadael , quam falsa sit , jam videndum est ] The Falshood of which Opinion , he undertakes to discover : And thus he confutes it , [ Patet ex Verbo Dei Episcopum & Presbyterum ( qui quidem Ecclesiam docent ) reipsa atque munere eundem esse : Atque ita variis nominibus rem eandem fuisse significatam ; sic enim Paulus ad Titum . Cap. 1.5 . hujus rei causa , inquit , reliqui te in Creta ut constituas oppidatim Presbyteros , sicut tibi mandavi , si quis est inculpatus — opportet enim Episcopum inculpatum esse ] It is evident from the Word of God , that the Bishop and Presbyter ( such as Teach the Church of God ) are upon the Matter , and in Office one and the same ; and that by these Names one and the same thing is signified : For , thus the Apostle to Titus Cap. 1. v. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete , That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City — If any be blameless — For , a Bishop must be blameless , &c. He adds [ idem Apostolus ad Presbyteros Ephesinos , Act. 20. attendite vos ipsos & totum gregem in quo Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos ad pascendam Ecclesiam Dei. Et in Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1 , v. 1. Salutat Sanctos qui erant Philippis una cum Episcopis & Diaconis . Ex quibus omnibus satis patere arbitror , Paulum , eundem fuisse Episcopum qui Presbyter esset ad docendam Ecclesiam institutus . Deinde cum Apostolus agit de muneribus Ecclesiasticis in Epist. ad Eph. Pastores quidem recenset & Doctores , nullum autem superiorem gradum Episcoporum Assignat : Imo ne meminit quidem illius nominis , adeo ut necessessit eos nomine Pastorum comprehendi : Quod quidem Presbyteris convenire patet ex Cap. 20. Actorum & ex 1 Pet. 5. Ne alii loci mihi commemorandi sint ] That the same Apostle Paul , Act. 20. Thus Enjoins the Presbyters of Ephesus ; Take heed to your selves , and to all the Flock , over which , the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops , to Feed the Church of GOD. And Philip. 1.1 . he Salutes the Saints which were at Philippi , together with the Bishops and Deacons . From all which it is evident , that with the Apostle Paul , the Bishop is the same with the Presbyter , who is appointed to Teach the Church . Moreover , when the Apostle , is Treating of Ecclesiastick Offices , in the Epist. to Eph. he reckons up Pastors and Doctors , but Assigns no Superior Degree of Bishops ; nay , he doth not so much as mention such a Name ; so that of necessity , he must needs Comprehend them under the Name of Pastors : And that the Name and thing is Competent to Presbyters , appears from Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. that I need not mention other places . But now let us hear what the Sorbon ( and our Reverend Dr. his Associat in the Cause ) do Reply to what is premised . Thus our Author proceeds , [ Respondet Sorbonicus nominum quidem esse , sed non munerum , confusionem . Verum enimvero quando Presbyteri vocantur Episcopi , ibi agitur non de nominibus ac titulis , sed de ipsa muneris functione ; cum enim Paulus hortatur Presbyteros Epheseos ad suum munus legittime obeundum , hanc addit rationem , quod illos Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos : Non igitur ait eos vocari tantum , sed esse constituos Episcopos ex quo efficitur tot revera tunc fuisse Episcopos Ephesi quot erant Presbyteri & Pastores Ecclesiae ; adeo ut plane jaceat illa responsio de sola nominum confusione ] i. e. The Sorbon doth Reply , that there is indeed in the premised places , a confusion of Names , but not of the thing it self , or the Office. But when Presbyters are called Bishops , the Apostle is in such places , treating not of the Names or Titles only , but of the Office and Function it self . For , when the Apostle exhorts the Presbyters of Ephesus , to the right Exercise o● their Office , he adds this Reason , that the Holy Ghost had constitute them Bishops , and therefore , he says not , that they were only called so , but that they were in very deed Constitut such Bishops , From whence it evidently follows , that there were then at Ephesus , as many Bishops , as there were Presbyters and Pastors of the Church ; So , that this answer , touching the Confusion of Names only in the premised places , is quite overthrown . Well , thus he thinks , he has laid all along , and aboard the Topgallant of the Sorbon ; and consequently our Dr's great Answer . The Author proceeds to a New Objection [ sed objicit , quod ait Paulus ad Timotheum . 1 Tim. 5.22 . Manus inquit , ne cui cito imponito , additque mandatum illud Pauli ad Titum de constituendis in Creta Presbyteris : Utrumque enim Episcopum fuisse atque eo ratione jus ordinandi habuisse contendit ] That Paul saith to Timothy , 1. Tim. 5.22 . Lay Hands suddenly on no Man. And that he adds that Command of Paul to Titus , anent the Ordaining Elders in Crete , and thereupon contends , that both the one and the other were Bishops , and upon this account had the Right of Ordination . Here , no doubt , the Sorbon presented much of the Strength of our Dr's Reasoning ; so that we see how much the Popish Agents , are in Love with our Prelatical Arguments , and that there is no new thing under the Sun. But let us hear our Authors Answer , [ respondeo , nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & impositionis manuum tota significatur electio ] That the whole Election of Pastors is signified by this Phrase of the Imposition of Hands . And after some what , in Confirmation of this , he adds — ( electionum vero curam ●ni Timotheo , incubuisse ne ipse Doctor Sorbonicus dixisset , qui ex frequenti veterum Lectione Dedicerat olim antistites Ecclesiae non aliter fuisse electos quam judicio totius Cleri , &c. ) That the Sorbon Dr. himself , will not be Bold to say , that the whole care of Elections , was incumbent upon , and Committed to Timothy alone , who from the frequent reading of the Ancients , had Learned , that Church Rulers , were not of old chosen otherwise than by the Judgment of the whole Clergy , &c. He adds ( merito dicere possumus in unius Timothei persona praefectos omnes Ecclesiasticos esse sui officii common● factos ) That all Church Rulers , are in the person of Timothy admonished of their duty . And hence , he further Argues , that this Reasoning and Conclusion of the Sorbon , is most absurd ( Paulus Timotheo praecepit ne cito manus imponat : Nemo igitur praeter Timotheum illic habuit jus ordinationis ) Paul enjoins Timothy , not to lay on hands suddenly ; therefore none but Timothy , had the Right of Ordination : Which he confutes from this ( jubetur Timotheus , fabulas rejicere , attendere Lectioni exhortationi , Doctrinae , &c. Num igitur illa omnia sibi uni Timotheus vendicavit — nonne pertinebant ad Presbyteros , quos Paulus ipse testatur laborasse in Sermone & Doctrina ] That Timothy is enjoyned to reject Fables , give Attendance to Reading , Exhortation and Doctrine , &c. Did therefore Timothy arrogat all these things to himself alone ? Did they not belong to Presbyters , who by Pauls Testimony Laboured in the Word and Doctrine ? He adds , that Timothy's Episcopacy at Ephesus [ Nullo Scripturae Testimonio confirmari potest ] can be made good by no Testimony of Scripture , which he proves from these Words [ Rogavi te ut maneres Ephesi cum profisiscerem in Macedoniam , 1 Tim. 1.3 . ] I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia , 1 Tim. 1.3 . Which shews , says our Author , he was left there , for some time , for this end — [ Quemadmodum ipsa Historiae series evincit ] As the very Tract of the History makes evident . And this he proves from Timothy's attending Paul , when to go to Asia ; As also from this Ground , that Paul was ordinarly attended by Timothy and Titus , in this Exercise of his Apostolick Function . Adding further , that if we suppose him Bishop of the Churches , to which he was sent , we will make him Bishop of the Corinthians , Philippians , Thessalonians , &c. He after puts the Querie to the Episcopalians : Who ( upon their Hypothesis ) Ordained at Ephesus , when Timothy was gone thence ? And whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [ apud Ephesios inter mortua 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 [ C●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 aper●e doc●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 P●esbyters were called Bishops , and in Egypt Ordained , if the Bishop were not present . So , Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. shewing , that the same Persons were called Bishops and Presbyters , that the one , is the Name of Dignity , the other of Age. And Epist. ad Oceanum , where he asserts , that ( Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ) So Epist. ad Evagrium . Likewise , his Famous Testimony upon Tit. 1. ( Presbyter idem est qui Episcopus — & antequam Diaboli Instinctu , &c. ) So also , Augustin . Ep. 19. [ Quanuqam secundum Honorum Vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit , &c. ] Where Augustin asserts , that his Episcopal Distinction from Ierom , and of a Bishop from a Presbyter , was only in some Titles of Respect , which the Churches use had obtained . Likewise that Passage [ in Alexandria & per totum Egyptum , si desit Episcopus , consecrat Presbyter ] That in Alexandria , and through all Egypt , Presbyters did Ordain in Absence of the Bishop . These , he tells his Popish Adversary , he Cites [ quia pluris faciunt Autoritatem Veterum , quam ipsos plane Scripturae Locos ] Because they esteem more the Authority of the Ancients , than plain Places of Scripture . I cannot but add what he has further ▪ If , saith he , we all allow to Presbyters , the Authority of Preaching the Gospel , the Administration of Baptism , the Celebration of the Lords Supper , and if , by their Judgment , Ecclesiastical Elections are to be made [ Ecquid erit Causae , quam ob rem non possunt Electum Sanctis Praecibus , & Manuum Impositione Deo Consecrare ] Upon what imaginable Ground can we suppose , they cannot Consecrat and set apart to God the Person thus Elected , by Prayer and Imposition of Hands , when the other parts of this Work are brought [ tanquam ad Fastigium ] to the Accomplishment or Copestone , as it were ? Wherefore are they [ ut Indigni & Inutiles ] as Useless and Unworthy Forbidden [ Manum Operi Imponere ] to set the last Hand to this Work , in its Accomplishment ? He adds , that we oft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching of the Gospel , which is the Pastor or Presbyters Function , Magnifying his own Authority therein , [ Cur non ille potius summum hoc Ius Ordinationis in medium proponit ] Wherefore presents he not rather his chief Interest in Ordination ? He afterwards Cites Ieroms Notable Saying [ Ad quorum Preces , Corpus & Sanguis Christi conficitur , atque interim Ius Ordinandi ipsis Presbyteris denegant ] That Presbyters are absurdly denyed the Right of Ordination , by whose Prayers notwithstanding , the Sacramental Elements are Consecrat , to Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. The Author adds [ Obsecro utrum majus est , Manus Imponere , an Christi Corpus & Sanguinem Precibus conficere ? Itaque qui Presbyteros a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excludunt , ipsi profecto Vim ac Naturam ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & quod sit ipsum Presbyterii Munus , penitus ignorant ] Whether is greater , I pray , to Impose Hands in Ordination , or in Prayer to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ ? Therefore , such as exclude Presbyters from this Imposition of Hands , do shew themselves to be grosly ignorant , both of the Nature of Ordination , and the Pastoral Office. And thus , we dismiss Sadael , whom we have found sufficiently to Combat and Worst our Dr. But to proceed , Dr. Reynolds , in the forementioned Epistle , after Citing several Fathers , for this Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , such as Ierom , Theodoret , Primasius , Sedulius , Theophylact , Occumenius 1 Tim. 3. Yea , Gregory , Pellic. Lib. 2. Tit. 19 , 39. & Grat. Cap. Legimus Dist. 39. & Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds , that these , who have Laboured in Reforming the Church , these Five Hundred Years , have Taught , that all Pastors , be they Entitled Bishops or Priests , have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word . Citing first , the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next , Marsilius Patavinus Defens . Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff . &c. If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr , we will find Bishop Iewel , fully Combats him in this Point : Defens . Apol. cont . Hard. Edit . An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding , saith he , to make it an Heresie to say , that by the Scriptures of God , a Bishop and Priest , are all one ? Knows he , how far , and to whom , he reaches the Name of an Heretick ? Then he Cites Chrystos . on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing , that [ inter Episcopum & Presbyterum interest ferme nihil ] Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter , there is almost no Difference . Ierom ad Evagrium , asserting that [ Apostolus perspi●ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ] The Apostle clearly Teaches , the Bishop and Presbyter , to be one and the same , calling the contrary Opinion , a Vecordia or Folly. Also August . Quest. Vet. & N. Test. Quest. 101. [ Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter ] That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter . Amb. de Dignit . Sacerd. [ Episcopi & Presbyteri una est Ordinatio ] Asserting , that the Ordination , and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter , is one and the same . All these and many more Holy Fathers , saith Bishop Iewel , together with St. Paul the Apostle , for thus saying , by Mr. Hardings Advice , must be holden for Hereticks . I will add , and all these ; and many more , together with the Apostle Paul , by this Dr's Advice , must be holden for Novelists , and Scots Schismaticks . But there are other Bishops , will yet enter the Lists with our Dr : Bishop Pilkinton , on Revelation , and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church . Bishop Bilson Perpet . Gover. Cap. 2. Yea , more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5 . Dr. Humphray in Campian . & Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration . 3. Whittaker above Cited . So also , ad Rationes Campiani Ration . 6. Confutat . Duraei . Lib. 6. Chemnitius & Gentiletus , the great Examinators of the Council of Trent , the one a Divine , the other a Lawyer , doth both Condemn , as a Trent Error , our Dr's Assertion , anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter ; the one by Scriptures and Fathers , the other , by the Canon Law. We have heard , that Dr. Reynolds , for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter , tells us , It s needless to speak of the particular Persons , since , it s the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia , Savoy , France , Scotland , Germany , Hungary , Poland , the Low Countreys , and our own ; Witness the Harmony of Confessions , Sect. 11. Now , from all that is said , whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches , be not for the Official , as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter : Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church : Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum , and Sophistical and Childish ; Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers , who shall Weigh what is said , in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason . Before I proceed , I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument . He says , this is our great Argument , That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture — And therefore , we conclude that our Argument , a Confusione nominum , is demonstrative and solid . As if , when we maintain , that in Scripture , there is no distinction betwixt these Offices , we meant a Nominal only , and not a real diversity . Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites , or conferred with any Presbyterian , who understands the Controversy , he would have found , that from the Scriptures Cited , and many Paralels , it s an Official oneness , not a Nominal only , we plead for , and that our Arguments therefrom , has such Nerves , as he durst not medle with . The Dr. tells us ( P. 23. ) That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest , falls not under his enquiry , nor is it very Material — considered with Respect to the common Priesthood , and Subordinat Officers , they might be of the same Order , tho at other times , when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named , the Bishop ( with regard to his Dignity and Power ) is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter . Here , I must say , is a strange Confusion , and that not Nominum but Rerum . 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter , that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion , got into the Heads of his Countrymen , and some others , but never heard of this 1400 years ; For curing of which , he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet ; yet he will not enquire , whether a Bishop be of a higher Order , or not , to a Presbyter , i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he , have the Right in this Debate . If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order , his Countrey Presbyterians are Right , their Arguments , which ly level to this scope , are good and Conclusive , and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor , and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop : The Antithesis whereof ( viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop , of a Superior Order eo no nine ) the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris & focis ; yet he says , the enquiry into this Point ( which to all men of Sense , is the Cardo Questionis ) is not in it self Material . Let any ponder , whether this stout pretended Signifer , doth not here let fall his Standart , and even flees at the First alarm . 2. He tells us , when Authority and Iurisdiction is named , the Bishop with regard to his Dignity , is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter . Now , I do appeal to all Men of Common sense , whether the Dr dos not here Assert . ( 1. ) A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter . ( 2 ) By clear Consequence , that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter ; or else , how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him ? ( 3. ) That the Bishop , under that Character , and eo nomine , is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him . Now , all this being his Assertion , in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors , how can he decline the enquiry , whether the Bishop be of an higher Order ? Let any Judge , if he says not this , upon the Matter , the thing is Clear in it self , in the Scripture Accounts ; and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians , whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground , but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments , or make good my own . 3. He tells us they are sometime considered , as of the same order , with respect to the common Priesthood . I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors , have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial Authority appropriat to them , and that with Relation thereto , the Bishop and the Presbyter , are in Scripture made one and the same . ( 2. ) When he says , they are made of the same Order , with respect to the Priesthood , common to either : He speaks Confusedly and Ignorantly ; For will he say , that the attributing to Two Church Officers , who are different , the same Geneal or ( to speak to the Dr's Scope ) the same Generical Priesthood , or Ministry , will inferr , that they are of the same order therein , or specifical Office ? If so , then Apostles , who are called Presbyters or Elders , he must say , are of the same Order with them ; yea with Deacons also , since sometimes their Office and Ministry is represented by such a term , as Represents a Deaconate or common service . Further , I must here warn the Doctor . to take up his Shield , and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow : Was our Lord of the same Order , with the Prophets or Servants of God , because in the capacity of Mediator , and with Respect to a general Ministry or Service of the Father , he gets the Designation , name and thing of Prophet , Messenger , and Servant of God ? Will the Dr. thus Blasphemously degrade him into the same Order with mere Creatures , who are Prophets and Servants ? In a word , let us hold the Dr to his affirmative , and challenge his proof of this Point , viz. That in Scripture , there is an ordinary standing Church Officer , exhibit under the Character and designation of a Bishop , who is alwise Reckoned above a Presbyter or Pastor , when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named . And according to the scope , measures , and extent of this Assertion , let his ensuing Discourse , Answers , and proofs be examined , wherein , I am sure , he has fair dealing , according to all acknowledged Laws of Disputation . Well , proceed we then to his Proofs of this Assertion , and the ground of his ensuing Answer to this Argument , taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter . He tells us , that the inspired Writers , as the Iews Dichotomotized , or made a bipartit Division ( Reader , be not so ignorant , as to start at this term as a Goblin , the Dr. as an English Orator , may cast his Greek into an English Mould : And you must know , he is against new stan●●t Opinions not Phrases ) Well , what did they Dichotomtoize ? The Clergy , saith the Dr. into Two Orders , ( here he has soundly exponed his term ) like that of Priests and Levits , tho as among the Jews — So , among Christians , this admitted of a Sub-division and subordination of Church Officers among themselves , as were the Priests of the Old Testament — This , he says , was suitable to the Language of the Helenistical ( or Graecian ) Tribes ( high Oratory ! ) of the Apostolick Age — the Name of Priest and High-Priest being Confounded , Levit. 1.7 . The Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put Fire , &c. v. 8. the Priests , Aarons Sons shall lay the parts , &c. Now , saith the Dr. if Priests and High-Priests got the same Name , without any distinction of Order , notwithstanding the High-Priests extraordinary priviledges , the Name of High-Priest likewise being never affixt to Aaron or Eleazar , and the term but Twice or Thrice mentioned in the Books of Moses while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not against the Subordination of Priests ; Could it be thought strange , that Apostles or Apostolical Men in mentioning Presbyters of the New Testament , might not make use of the current Phraseology of their Countreymen , in speaking of Priests and Levites , Dividing them into two Orders , as if there were no more ? — Tho the meanest Jew knew the high Priest was very Honourable , and by all marks of eminency and Authority , Disstinguished from ordinary Priests . Thus he Pag. 23.24.25 . I Answer , Quod haec ad rhombum ? What says this to the Point ? Or how lyes this Discourse level to his scope , either to prove the Bishops Jurisdictional Authority above a Presbyter or Pastor , as Bishop in the Scripture Sense , or to prove , that we Argue sophistically , when alledging that the Scripture makes the Bishop and Presbyter one in Name and thing , and that therefore , the discriminating of both , by Episcopalians , is antiscriptural . How , I say , this lyes level to the Dr's Conclusion , or can in solid Reason reach the same , I must Confess , passes my Comprehension . For , 1. Tho all the Dr. says be granted , it is palpably evident , that this pleading , if it prove any thing , levels merely against such as would draw the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter only from this , that there is an homonymie of these two Names , whereas , it is the Identity of the Qualifications , Gifts , Duties , and every essential of the Office , which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from , not merely the confusion of Names , 2. The Dr. himsef acknowledges , that notwithstanding of this supposed confusion of Names , o● Dichotomotizing the Old Testament Church Officers , yet the High-Priest , was distinguished from the other Priests , by marks of Eminency and Authority ; for instance , [ that he is called High-Priest ] And therefore , before his Discourse can have any shadow of Answer , he is bound to Exhibit , in a just Paralel , the same Scripture marks of Eminency and Authority of the Diocesan Bishop , above the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop , as the Scripture Exhibits in reference to the High-Priests , above the ordinary Priests , or the Priests in reference to the Levites , else , this Answer , by his own Confession , and in the Sense of all men of Sense , is but a pitiful Begging of the Question : For , upon this Ground , he might alledge a Distinction betwixt the Pastor and Preaching Presbyter . He alledges P. 25. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings , the High-Priest is frequently distinguished by his proper and special Character . Well then , he is obliged to let us see in Scripture , such a frequent distinction of the Prelatical or Diocesan Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter , by such a Character as the Dr. makes special and Peculiar to him , and exhibit his special Official difference therein , and super eminent Authority over Pastors , else he never touches the Point . We hold that the Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture alwise one , Name , and thing : The Dr. grants , that the High Priest , and other Priests are not so , but distinguished ; and therefore , he brings an impertinent Paralel and exception anent the sometimes Community of Names of Priests and High-Priests , unless he can otherwise than thus disprove and answer our Assertion . Besides , the Critical Disputant will here put him to prove , that the inspired Writers of the New Testament , followed the Phraseologie of the Iews , in speaking of the New Testament-Church Officers , especially since we find frequent recitations of them , in a far other strain and Phrase , and that in their several Classes and Degrees , both ordinary and extraordinary , as 1 Cor. 12.28 . Rom. 12.6 , 7 , 8. Eph. 4.11 . Moreover , when in that place , Levit . 1. Aaron , is called not merely the Priest , but emphatice , Aaron the Priest ( whose eminent immediat Call to the Priesthood , is so clear ) and distinguished from his Sons the Priests , mentioned in the plural , in that very Passage , his Super-eminency above them , is insinuat , yea Asserted . The Dr. is bold to assert , that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named , the Bishop , with regard to his Dignity , is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter . Of this alwise , we demand one instance , the Dr's extensive Phraseologie , boasts of a Plenty of Instances , but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury , especially , when , as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto : But here , as often elsewhere , he plys us with generals , alien from the purpose . He tells us , ( P. 26. ) Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar , in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy , were called High Priests , it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names , to have inferred an Equality , since their Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction . Here again , a Poor Repeated General , Alien from the Point ; If this Dr. had intended to Dispute , not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk , he should , instead of Begging Poorly the Question , in Supposing it , have made that good , in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government , which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy , viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests , were distinguished , and what was appropriat to the one , denyed to the other under that Dispensation , so there is exhibit in the New Testament , the same Discriminating Distinction , betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter , in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction . It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book , in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words , in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians , yet as an Officiperda , so far mistaking his Mark and Measures , that he never comes near the Point , which they deny , and he undertakes , or stands obliged to prove . He adds ( ibid. ) Bishops were called Presbyters , who had Presbyters under them , in the Days of the Apostles . If he mean this of ordinary Officers , distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters , I deny it , and that there were any such ordinary Officers , with such Authority over Pastors , under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter . He tells us , that the Presbyters signifie the Priests , who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations . A New Begging of the Question . I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers , and do consequently hold , that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural , or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor , doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer , as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould . The Dr. is bold to tell us , That tho all Bishops are Presbyters , yet not all Presbyters Bishops ; and therefore , to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names , is neither good Logick nor Good History . But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History , for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor ( wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers ) he shews himself no good Historian , in Obtruding such Doctrine : And since , instead of proving , he still beggs the Question , and that doubly : First , In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names , without respect to the Official Identity , exhibit in the places which we plead : Next , In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter , and grounding all his Answers thereupon , without the least Offer of a Proof , it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity . He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii , ( P. 27. ) He will not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters , from the High Priest among the Iews . But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered , what then would he prove ? Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament , we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order . I have often told him , that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , not from his Fancied Dich●tomies , but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power . And where there is such a Dichotomie , as he alledges , ( as Philip. 1.1 . ) our Argument proceeds not merely upon this , but also upon this Ground and Topick , that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context , as necessarly infers this our Conclusion . The Dr. tells us next , That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament , and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests . Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this , at least , what the Series of his Reasoning concludes , even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church : And therefore , needs Stumble no Protestants , nor Amuse them , tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet , or upon his Breast , as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church . He adds , That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat , as is clear from Philo the Jew . He told us the Scripture distinguishes them , pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo , since the Presbyterians , are satisfied in the first , and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self ? But to proceed ( P. 28. ) He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question , telling us , of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase , Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division , as reckoned either among themselves , or with relation to the People , as the Priests were by a Tripartit , while reckoned by their Distinctions : That Community of Names , was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be . But still we are Wearyed , Calling upon our Triffling Dr , to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings , to the Point , which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament , such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office , as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy , in the Old. The Dr. affirms , That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age , was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters , as the High Priest among the Jews , above other Priests , who yet was Ranked among them , without a Nominal Distinction . But , as in the rest , so here , the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument : He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Pr●estos , or first Presbyter , Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age , and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity . 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact , or such a Proestos in that Age ? Will that merely prove the Ius ? If the Dr. say so , ( and he does say it , in his Way of Arguing ) then he Claps the Lawful Mitre , or a Divine Warrand at least , upon the Head of a Diotrephes , and Stamps this Ius Divinum , upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity , and other Tares , which the evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat . 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters , as the High Priest above other Priests , is as Ignorant an Assertion , and Arrant Untruth , as the Dr. could readily have let fall : Whereof I will ( 1. ) Convince him out of his own Mouth , unless in the Point of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he still begg the Question . ( 2. ) From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office. First , He does acknowledge , that the High Priest was thus Termed , upon the Ground of Special Ministries , which were Essential and Peculiar to him : Now , I pray , what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos , and even in the Point of Order , in the Apostles Days , above his Fellows ? Next , the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies , with Blood and Incense , and had this Prerogative above other Priests , the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born , Tyed to his Family , &c. And would not the Dr. Blush , to Assert such like Prerogatives , as Applicable to the Proestos , or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days ? But he adds , Salmasius grants , That when the pretended Equality prevailed , a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life — And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat , in the Apostolick Age , that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it . But if Salmasius assert , that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair , an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed , it is undenyable , that he denyes to this President or Chair-man , such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for , and allows him only the Chair of Presidency , not Principality : A Moderator's Chair , and no more . Again , I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence . Salmasius asserts , that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors , when there was a Proestos set up , during Life : Ergo , he asserts , that this Proestos was ab initio , in the Apostolick Age , or approved by the Apostles . For what he adds , P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity , do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat , in the Apostolick Age : He should have Named them , and where they assert this : For , as for what he adduces of Salmasius , I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion . And Beza , I am sure ( whom no doubt , the Dr. will owne , as an Eminent Pleader for Parity ) condemns this Humane Prostasie , as the Episcopus Humanus , distinct from the Divine , much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another . For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity , which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers , the premised Account of them , discovers what a Black Theta he marks himself with , who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines . No doubt , if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors , or Preaching Presbyters , ( for this is the Parity , which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General ) as he is for Imparity , and the Prelatical Hierarchy , their Stickling were not to be Valued . But what are these palpable Evidences , which convinces our greatest Sticklers ? — Something , saith the Dr , that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction . Some mighty Evidences then we must expect . The first , which he adduces , is , That of the Apocalyptick Angels , among whom , he tells us , we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna . But , 1. How has he proved , that these Angels were single Presidents , and that the Term is not taken Collectively ? 2. How does he prove , that such as acknowledge them single Persons , do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore ? Beza , I am sure , acknowledges them only such . Whom the Dr , or any other , do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna , when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church , is not the Question , but whom he can prove from Scripture , to have been such , and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture . The Dr's . next supposed evidence , is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus , and the Catalogues of Bishops , succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees . To which I Answer in short , First , That the Dr. can neither prove . 1. That the Apostles , or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists , exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority , to be continued in the Church . Nor , 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues , such an Authority : Since ( 1 ) They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority . ( 2 ) Inconsistent and contradictory to one another . ( 3 ) They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists , whose Office admitted of no Succession , and upon this very account , can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends , far less , make the thing evident beyond contradiction . What the Dr. adds further in this Page , Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament , from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters , and of the Ancients , dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders , &c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops — That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical : Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question , with the former , wherewith , instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter , he fills up idle Pages . How often shall we tell him , that the point in question , is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings , or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings , after the Apostolick Age ? What Comparisons Cyprian , Clemens , or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry ? But what Answers the Dr. has to offer to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians , for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter , Iure Divino ? And what proof from Scripture , from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice , he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop , under this Character , above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter , as he is bold to assert ? We often tell him , that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies . And tho that were made one Ground , and say further , he had disproved it , in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions , what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed ? But proceed we . P. 29.30 . He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies ; Especially , says he , since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders ▪ yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order , and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters . Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients , and their words , thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character , from all subordinate Presbyters . 2. The Dr. is obliged ( this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers , and insinuat Argument ) to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office , into higher and inferior Orders , and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer , as comes under the Character of Bishop , from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors . As for determination in Councils , 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 Vo●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 Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite or Tripartite Division of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters , in the Scriptures and inspired Writings of the Apostles ; And we do again , as often before , Challenge one Instance of this . We have already told him , and that not once , That we hold , that there is a Subordination of Officers , and Courts of Judicature , Represented in the New Testament ; yea , and a tripartite Division of Officers , viz. Pastors , Ruling Elders , and Deacons : But that Officers , Ordinary and Extraordinary , Apostles , Evangelists , Pastors , &c. are of one Official Authority , and equal in their own kind , we maintain , and are still challenging his contrary proof . And to this Point , it is palpably impertinent to tell us of Ecclesiastical Writers , distinguishing Bishops , Elders and Deacons . Besides , that the early Prostasie that obtained , and the Bishops Nominal distinction thence ensuing , might easily be productive of such a Division , or Phraseology , in some of the Ancients , as he mentions , who never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head ; and the Authority , which Presbyters are clearly found to exercise in Judicatories , after the Proestos came in ; together with the First Bishops acknowledgment of Presbyters collegiat Power with them ( as Cyprian particularly ) Besides , the acknowledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter , as having one and the same Ordination , especially by Chrisostom and Ambrose , doth evince this beyond contradiction . I might add , that the Office of the Presbyter or Senior , who Rules only , acknowledged by the Ancients , as Presbyterians have made appear , might easily in some Writers , have produced this Tripartite Division of Bishop , Presbyter and Deacon , wouthout the least Shadow of advantage to his Cause . The Dr. in the close of this Page , soares aloft in a Triumphing Vein ; telling us , That we may easily perceive that our Argument against Episcopacy , founded upon Dichotomies , is not only weak , but foolish and extravagant . But truely , the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments against Episcopacy , upon this head , to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies , and offering in Answer thereto , such trivial babling Repetitions , has discovered to all judicious Readers , that weakness , folly & extravagancie , which he imputes to us . To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing person hereof , let it be considered , that he Cites Smectymnus , Ius Divin . Minist . Ang. The unbishop . of Tim. and Tit. Alt. Damasc. Mr. Dur. on Rev. He would be thought to answer these Authors ; and their great Argument , he represents thus , That it is taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter . There is no doubt , but that this is one great Topick and Argument , and Mr. Durham makes use of that Term of Identity , in the Title of his Digression upon this head . But dare this Man say , or tho he should have the Brow to say it , will any who ever Read so much as one , much less , all of these Authors , believe it , that it is a mere Nominal Identity , that they plead from , and not an Official , in all the parts and ingredients of the Office ? Or , that the Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a confusione Nominum , as he expresses it ; and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds , which in the Texts mentioned by him , and other Paralels , do evince an Official Identity ? Why then , bottoms he all his Answers and impertinent quiblings upon this palpably false Supposition ? To make what I assert , evident to conviction , one of the Authors he names , viz : Ius Div. Minist . Ang. proposes the Question thus , We undertake to prove , that according to the Scripture Pattern , which is a perfect Rule , both for Doctrin and Government , a Bishop and Presbyter , are all one , not only in Name , but in Office ; and that there is no such Officer in the Church , Ordained by Christ , as a Bishop over Presbyters . Then they propose , no fewer than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments ▪ all running to this issue , to prove an Official Identity : The Topick of the Fourth whereof , is thus proposed , They who have the same Name , the same qualifications for their Office , and the same Ordination , and the same work and duty required of them , are one and the same Officer . Then subsuming , that thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bishop and Presbyter . They subjoin Scripture-proofs , to every one of these Clauses and Assertions , and thereupon conclud , that they are one and the same Officer . Now , upon this small view of but one of these Authors , let the World Judge of this Mans Impudence , in asserting , that not only , that Authors Arguments , but all the Arguments of the Authors he mentions , concluds only a confusione nominum ( as he expresses it , in a distinct Character ) and whether his founding of all his supposed confutation of Presbyterian Arguments , upon this supposition and quiblings about a Dichotomie , be not extravagancy with a Witness . Moreover , let the Serious & Impartial , Judge , since these Authors he mentions , presents so considerable a Number of Scripture-Arguments , For that which this Man calls a New Foolish Opinion , in order to his design of making men believe he has fully Confuted them , and convinced them of folly , whether he was not in Conscience and Reason , obliged fairly to present their Arguments to his Readers view , and offer formal Replys to them . I may further pose the Impartial Reader upon it , whether this Man , who has never encountered their Arguments , nor tryed their Strength in a fair and formal Dispute , and yet would fain Triumph in this boasting Pamphlet , charging all their Arguments , with weakness , folly and evtravagancy , has not Written himself a Fool of the first Magnitude , and a personat Thra●o in Disput ? I must not forget , that while I view that Fourth Argument of the Ius Div. Minist . Ang. I find they have upon the Margin , Ambrose's Testimony upon 1 Tim. 3. [ post Episcopum Diaconi ordinationem subjicit , quare ? nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est ] After the Bishop , the Apostle subjoins the Ordination of the Deacon , and upon what other ground but this ? that the Bishop and the Presbyter have one and the same Ordination . One would think that this is a little more than the assertion of a mere Confusio Nominum , and that both from Scripture and Antiquity . But to proceed , our Dr. P. 35. Censures Blondel , Salmasius , Dallie , as ●mploying their Learning to support their own Hypothesis with this Argument of the Confusion of Names : And the Dr. regrats , that Sir Tho. Craig , a Man otherwise learned in Law , was deceived with this fallacy . We see , that in the Dr's Sense , learned Men have been imposed upon , by this Scots Notion , but when he has exhibit and answered their Pleadings , whom he here mentions , then , and not till then , his Censure is to be admitted . But he tells us , That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius . Good Mr. Dr. ye know the Answer of Protestant Divines to the Papists Objection , where was your Religion , your Church and Doctrin before Luther ? viz. That it was from the beginning , and is to be found in Scripture . The same I affirm of the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter : And many Learned Protestant Divines think they have made it good , whom the Dr. may please to advise , if his leasure from Pamphleting work , together with some piece of petty interest , and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles , will admit of the perusal . If it be found in Scripture , it was a pretty while , it seems , before Aerius . But there is an English Divine of some considerable account ( good Old Whittaker if it were not , that he had got the Scots new Notion in his Head ) who hath a Saying somewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum Aerio s●●sit Hieronymus quo minus curandum est toties nobis objici Aerium ab insulsis hominibus . Si fuit in hac re Haereticus Aerius socium haereseos habuit Hie●onymum nec illum modo sed alios etiam veteres patres Graecos pariter & Latinos quemadmodum Medina confitetur . Thus he , Controv. ● 4ta quest . 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Here we find , he spares not to call these of the Dr's . Judgment Bl●ckish Men , in objecting this anent Aerius , affirming that not only Ierom , but likewise both Greek and Latine Fathers , were of Aerius Judgment in this point . The Dr. might likewise have found , that Michael Medina Lib. 1. de Sacr. Hominum Orig. & continen . Cap. 5. holds , that not only Ierom , but also Ambros. August . Sedulius , Primasius , Chrysost. Theodoret , OEcumen . and Theophylact. were of the same mind with Aerius ; As also the Waldenses and Wickliff . What more ? P. 35. Apostle , Bishop and Presbyter , are sometime remarked without a Distinction , yet the Government of one among many , is particularly demonstrated . This is somewhat obscure . No doubt , Apostles , Bishops , and Presbyters , have general and common Names . For the Government of one among many , in his Sense , I do still call for the Dr's Proof , but have no Return . We are told next , ( P. 35 , 36. ) That our Saviour is called an Apostle , Heb. 3. That the Names seems restrained to the Twelve , and yet Matthias is called an Apostle , that the Name was bestowed on several others , besides the Twelve , as Paul , Barnabas , Adronicus , Junius , Epaphroditus : That our Saviour is called a Bishop , 1 Pet. 2.25 . And the Government of the Apostles , Episcopacy , Act. 1.20 . That Priests of the Apostolick Power and Iurisdiction , are called Bishops ; That thus all the Fathers understand 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1.7 . That the Bishops , Philip. 1.1 . are by Chrysost. OEcum . Theoph. Theodo . understood of Priests ( still Priests ) of the second Order : For , they conclude Epaphrod . Bishop of Philippi from Philip. 2.25 . The Dr. is never wearied of this Nominal Argument , which seems one of Achillean Strength to him . I am sorry he is put to so much Pains in Print , to raise such Formidable Batteries against this New Notion , and am afraid , some Facetious Witts will alledge , he is but getting himself a Heat , in Cudgelling and Beating a Man of Straw of his own Upsetting . But in short , it passes much my Comprehension , what he would make of all this , if not to prove that palpably distinct Officers , do sometimes come under general Names : And who knows not , that this Argument and Answer is still ex ignoratione Elenchi ? None of us doubts of this , which he offers in Thesi ; But the Dr. will easily acknowledge , that these Officers mentioned , have , in the Scripture Accounts , their Marks of Distinction clearly set down , which makes it evident , that their Communicating in the same general Name , will not conclude an Identity in the Office : And thus the Dr. and we are easily agreed in the Application of the Answer , when he has exhibit to us , such Scripture Discriminations of the Office of the Bishop and Pastor , or Preaching Presbyter , such a clear Official Imparity and Difference , as is betwixt the Office of an Apostle and Presbyter , and betwixt our Saviours Apostolate , and that of his Disciples ; and betwixt his Episcopacy or Overseeing Care , and that of Apostles . For the Denomination of Apostle , I need not tell one , who sets a D. D. to his Name , in the Frontispiece of his Book , how Protestant Divines understand the Name , properly taken , and do define the Office as distinct from all others : That first , Matthias , and thereafter Paul were added to the Number of Apostles , none doubts : That the Name is sometimes taken improperly , when attribute to certain Persons , is as little doubted . As for Adronicus , Iunius , who are said to be of Note among the Apostles , the Phrase imports in the Sense of some , that they were well known to the Apostles ; Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy , Luk. 10. Others to be of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty , mentioned Act. 1.15 . Or of these Converted by Peter , Act. 2.14 . See Pool Annot. That 1 Tim. 3.1 . and Tit. 1.7 . are understood of Priests of the first Order , with Apostolick Power by all the Fathers , must pass current only , with those , who will take the Dr's ipse dixit for Proof : But let them at their Leasure , Pose him , whether St. Chrysost. and Ierom , upon these Passages , were of that Judgement , and whether he reckons them among the Fathers . That the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip. 1.1 . Understood it of the Priests of the second Order , he should have proved from their Words , and that they understood Epaphroditus to be Bishop of Philippi from Chap. 2.25 . Our Translators renders it with the current of Protestant Divines ( as I have made good ) your Messenger , which the Context convincingly discovers , viz. The Messenger that ministred to Paul's wants . But the Dr. has no shift , but to censure them as following Beza : A pityful shift indeed . The Episcopal Translators , who in their Translation , so Zealously patronize that Cause , that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the utmost endeavour translated to that Scope , yet are so befooled ( in the Dr's . Sense ) as to translate this passage , so advantagious to Episcopacy , contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Fathers , yea , and the Greek Fathers , so well seen in that Language , and all this to follow a Presbyterian Novelist . But the Dr. preferrs Salmasius to his Episcopal Masters , who thinks the word Apostle , signifies Legatum Dei ad homines : He is now become of sudden Fond of Salmasius : But should have given us a better Account , than a bare naming of Walo Messalinus , putting us to search all the Book , in order to an enquiry of what he here asserts . I might tell him further , that the Complex Phrase [ your Messenger ] and the Explication of [ ministring to Paul's wants ] sufficiently restricts the Term Apostle , in this place , tho it were granted , that ordinarly it is thus taken . But one Word more , before I part with the Dr. on this Passage : If , in the Sense of these Fathers , the Bishops mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle , were Priests of the second Order only , and Epaphroditus , the Chief Priest or Bishop ; Then 1. It seems the Apostle Paul was somewhat rude in his Salutation , to mention only these inferior underling Priests , with the lowest petty Deacons , passing quite over the High Priest , without any Hint or Note of Distinction . 2. It seems that either Ambrose , or some of his late Episcopal Pleaders , are pityfully bemisted , who do cite Ambrose , as holding that the Bishops saluted by Paul , were not Bishops of that Church , but extraneous Bishops accidentally present ; Thus the Author of the three Dialogues , P. 9. But Theodoret , saith the Dr. did judge , that when in the Apostolick Age , Bishops were named as contradistinct from Priests , they were called Apostles . Behold our critical Dr. censuring again the Apostle Paul , in his Salutation ; It seems also there were none of the Apostles of the Dr's . Mould , when this Apostle gave his last Farewel to the Elders of Ephesus . nor in the Church , which Peter wrote to ; For , Ministers there , are called to act the Bishops , and nothing is heard of an Apostle-bishop : And really I think this inadvertant Man , Paul , is further to be blamed , in that describing of set purpose , 1 Tim. and in the Epistle to Titus , which are in the Dr's . Judgement , the great Charter of the Episcopal Authority , the Qualifications and Duties of Church Officers , he was so leavened with his Notion of Dichotomies , that he passes quite over in silence , the High Priest & Apostle-Bishops , whose Office was chiefly under this Name and Character to have been discribed , that the Churches then , and in after ages , together with all inferior Priests , might understand their Duty towards them : But since , in all their Descriptions , Recitals , and Accounts of Church Officers , he and other Apostles , were so foregetful , as to pass over in silence , the absolute High-priest of the Christian Church , the Pope's Holiness , notwithstanding that the Iewish OEconomy of Church Government was never repealed , but still standing as a Patern to the New Testament Church , it is no wonder that they fell into this Mistake also . P. 37. He tells us , That he only mentions this transiently , not insisting upon it . What this extends to , is somewhat dubious ; many , it is like , will be of Opinion ( of whom I am one ) that what ever he has offered hitherto , is a Digression , and but obiter to the point . But his business , he tells us , at present , is to prove that community of Names will not prove community of Offices . Truely , if this be all his business , he is a mere Officiperda , and has foregot his Episcopal Errand in this eloborat Pamphlet : For , no Presbyterian ever concluded this , from the mere community of Names simplely , and abstracted from other Grounds , drawen from the Scope and Circumstances of such places , as we do plead from Scripture upon this Point , and from many other clear Scripture Arguments , long since exhibite to him , in the Books , which he mentions , and there needs no more , than the reading , to convince any person , that he is acting the Thraso , in this his pretended Confutation of the same , which doth rather confirm , than weaken the perswasion of any Man of Sense , who have perused these Authors . The Dr. tells us ( ibid. ) That Peter calls himself a Presbyter . Well , if this Apostle writing to Presbyters , and dehorting them from acting the Bishops , and Lording over the Flock , put himself , as to an ordinary Office and Ministry Pastoral , among the number , making this one of his Arguments ; It is evident that he thus asserts their proper Succession to him , tho not to his Apostolat , yet to his Pastoral Office of feeding by the Word and Discipline : For , his Command imports both . But why did he not address the Chief Bishop , or High-priest , under the Apostolick Designation , after this manner ? [ The Apostle and inferior Presbyters among you , I exhort , who am also an Apostle ] or thus [ The Super-eminent Bishop and Presbyters I exhort , who also am a Bishop ] But the Dr's . correcting information , is come far too late to him . I might further tell him , that when he shall exhibite as clear a distinction betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter , as there is betwixt the Office of Apostles and Presbyter , then , and not till then , his paralel Argument will appear of some force , which he draws from Peter and Iohns designing themselves Elders , and shall be acknowledged conclusive to his Scope . The Dr. will next preoccuppy our Argument from 1 Tim. 4.14 . And tells us , That the Presbytrie mentioned in that place , was a Senat , composed of Apostles and other Priests , but whether of the first or second Rank , he is not certain . And really , the Dr , in my poor Judgment , might have added , whether there were any other Apostles in that Senat , than the Apostle Paul , is equally uncertain : And let me humbly intreat his Reverence , by his next , to give us an Account of the Scripture Grounds of his Certainty of the one , rather than of the other . That the Apostle Paul was present , and concurred in this Presbytrie , I know is pleaded by his Episcopal Brethren ; tho Collating the two places , 1 Tim. 4.14 . and 2 Tim. 1.6 . the different Phra●eology in both being pondered , they will find the Work pretty hard , to make it good against a Critical Disputant , and the admitting of this , rather Confirms , than Weakens our Pleadings from that place , as Presbyterian Writers have made appear . Some have alledged , that by the Presbytrie , we are to understand the Office : Which Pleaders , have been long since told , that the Office has no Hands to lay on . But that other Apostles were there than Paul , is a Notion , I am sure , much , if not only , beholden to the Dr's Fertile ( that I say not Fond ) Invention . It were needless , and but to burden Paper unnecessarly , to recite Interpreters , in Opposition to this his Gloss : This is known to all that are acquaint with them . But let us hear the Dr's Argument upon these Passages ; He tells us , It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that Paul was of the Number ; and that in the other place , 1 Tim. 4.14 . he is exh●rted not to neglect the Gift given him , with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie : In the last , he is put in mind , to stir up the Gift , which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands . There is none doubts , that these Passages , thus stands in the New Testament , but had he , instead of this Dark Insinuating Hint , drawn out a Formal Argument , lying level to his Scope and Conclusion , it would have deserved our Consideration . However , to prevent his Mistake , Presbyterians have long since told him , 1. That the different Phrase in both places , viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second , makes Paul's presence , at least , Debateable , but clearly proves , that the Laying on of the Presbytries Hands is evidently Diversified in a distinct Comma , as a distinct Priviledge , in its self considered , from the Gifts given by Prophesie , and ascribed to the Laying on of Pauls Hands . And 2. That tho Paul's presence in this Action were admitted , it clearly proves , that even an Apostles Laying on of Hands upon an Evangelist , did not exclude the Presbytries Authoritative Imposition : And that therefore , ( by a clear Consequence , from the Greater to the Less ) that Priviledge , much more belongs to them now , with relation to ordinary Pastors or Ministers , when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased . But , if I might be bold with a Person of the Dr's Reverence , I would ask him this Question : He holds Timothy was Consecrat a Bishop ; here we find a Presbytrie , Laying Hands upon him with Paul , whom the Dr. holds to be here Acting the Bishop ; How comes he then to say , It is uncertain whether they were Presbyters or Priests of the first or second Rank ? Really , if he be uncertain in this , he holds by clear Consequence , that mere Presbyters , might have laid on Hands upon a Bishop at his Consecration , yea , and this by Apostolical Warrand , tho Bishops superior to them , were present at this great Work : And what Consequence in Doctrine and Practice , this will further amount to , I leave to the Dr's Melancholick Reflection . But further , in mentioning this last Text , the Dr. says , He is put in mind to stir up the Gift , which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands : He has also told us , and positively asserted , that this Senat was composed of Apostles in the plural : How many there were , I think , the Dr. found it hard to determin ; but in this , he is clear and positive , that there were other Apostles with Paul , and consequently of equal official Authority with him in this Action . Now , upon this , I would desire his grave Judgment , how comes this Apostle to mention the laying on of his own hands solely , and of no Apostles else ? We find him so humble an Apostle and Biishop , that in the inscription of several Epistles , he takes in the Inferior Clergy and Presbyters with himself ; whence then comes this singularity of expression , herein attributing to himself solely , what was equally applicable to other Apostles concurring with him ? What he adds further of the Work and Ministry of Apostles and Pastors , sometimes exprest by the General term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; I have already made appear , how insignificant it is to his scope , so that it is here Idlely repeated . We are next told ( P. 38. ) That if any infer the Community of Offices from the Community of Names , he confounds the highest and lowest Rank of Officers . The Presbyeerians are of his mind , when the inference is from a mere Community of Names , while the Offices are otherwise distinguished in Scripture , but when both Name and Office in all essentials thereof , are identified , they think the Argument from hence for an Official Parity , concludes well ; and they pity this Dr's continued Repetition of his mistake , in stead of an Answer to their Argument . He tells us next , That it is certain , the Offices were carefully distinguished and separated in those days . This is true when understood of Church Officers in general ; and hence we conclude that the Spirit of God has left us clear distinguishing marks of the Superiority and distinction of such Officers , as do communicat in General Names with ( the inferior ; and this to prevent the mistake which he instances : And therefore , unless the Dr. will fasten a blasphemous Reflection upon the Spirit , who dictat the Scriptures , he is obliged to let us see therein the distinguishing marks and Characters fixt to the Bishop and Pastors Office , to shew the Official difference of the one from the other : And this he cannot but acknowledge necessary to prevent the bad consequence of an Official Identity , drawn from the Community of Names . And no doubt , had he as sincerely designed to give and receive light in this Point , as to present a vain prattling Pamphlet , he would have examined the Presbyterians Arguments for the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , and endeavoured to produce the Scripture distinguishing differences , discriminating the one from the other . What more ? We are told ( ibid. ) That the Humility of Superior Officers , hindered them not to distinguish themselves from their subordinat Brethren . Right ; Paul , no doubt owns , and strenuously pleads for the Authority of his Apostolick Office , notwithstanding of his often instanced Humble Respect to Officers of inferior Rank . What then ? Why ? Bishops in the second Century transcribed this , tho they preserved the distinction betwixt Priests ( still Priests ) of the first and second Order . But we are wearied , seeking from this Dr. the Scripture Distinction of Pastors and Presbyters into a first and second Order : Besides , it is odd , that no Bishops were so modest and humble in this point , and prudent withal , but those of the second Century . We must know , the Dr. prefaced thus , that he might tell us , That they studied humble modest Expressions , and of Condiscension , which he instances in the Inscription of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians . But since this modest Condescension , the Dr. will acknowledge , did not prejudge his care to distinguish the Offices of Bishops and Priests , of Priests of the first and second Rank , he must either exhibit this in the place cited , or he puts this Reflection upon Polycarp : He may also remember , how that afterward ( p. 84. ) he makes Augustine to pass from his Episcopal Authority , in a Complement to Ierom , in his foolish gloss on that passage of Ep. 19. [ Episcopus Presbytero major secundum honoris vocabula , quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit ] That he was distinguished from Ierom , by a customary Title only of a Bishop . As for the Elegy of Apostolick Martyr , which he bestows upon Polycarp , we let it pass , as capable of a sound Sense ; But for that of Prince of the Asiatick Church , I remit him to 1 Cor. 3.5 . 1 Pet. 5.2.3 . 2 Cor. 1.24 . to be censured for his vain precipitancy . The Dr. ( P. 38. ) drawing to an end of these impregnable reasonings , must needs give us a touch of his pulse and humour , in concluding with high Rantings ; This Argument , he tells us , he has considered the more carefully , in that he Finds it over and over again in all the Writings of the Ecclesiastick Levellers , as their first and last refuge . Truely , if these Disputers he calls so , had as inspidily proposed it , far less repeated it so often , as he has Parat-like , c●nted over and over , in so many Pages , his babling repetitions of an impertinent quible , instead of an Answer , they had as much exposed their Judgment and ingenuity in this Controversy , as I am sure , his , now is , in the Sense of all men that understand it , and have Read the Authors mentioned by him , whereof this petulent Scorner discovers he knows no more but the Names . As for the Character of Ecclesiastick Levellers , which he bestows upon the Presbyterians ; I think indeed his experience ; together with that of his Fellow , has taught him , that in this respect , they deserve it , Viz. That their nervous Scripture Reasonings , which he dare not encounter , has so levelled and laid along , and aboard the high Top-gallant of the Hierarchical Prelat , he so zealously fences for , as all his Wit and Learning , will never erect it again : which in this place , is convincingly apparent , since among the many Argumnts used by them , he has upon this head insisted so long upon ( if not solely singled out ) this one , anent the Community of Names of Bishop and Presbyter , which is none of the most considerable ; and after he has disguised it , and spent Eight or Nine Pages , in exhibiting the outmost of his wit to answer the same , the expense of all his endeavours , has only amounted to such pityful impertinent Repetitions , Battologies , and beggings of the Question , that it is evident , this one Argument has Mastered him , and with its Weight , born down his poor strength to the ground . The Dr. adds ( P. 38.39 . ) That nothing is more frivolous and triffling than this Argument — that the Names of the lowest Officers of the Christian Church were frequently assumed by the highest ; and distinction of Offices is rather to be inferred from peculiar Ministries and Acts of Iurisdiction , than any Names we can fix on . But what can be more triffling and frivolous , than this Dr's endless canting over and over this Quible and begged Supposition , without giving us any shadow of the peculiar Ministries and Iurisdiction , distinguishing in Scripture , the Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter ? The Dr. having ( P. 39. ) discussed all our Scripture Arguments for Parity , as he invidiously calls it , from the Command of Christ , and the Consequences of Scriptures , drawn a confusione nominum — tells his Reader , That if we cannot establish our new Doctrine thus , we endeavour to support it , by some Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers . I am satisfied that his Reputation stand or fall upon this Tryal , Whether he has so much as proposed , far less answered the Scripture-pleadings of the Authors , whom he cites for the Parity of Bishop & Presbyter . As for his alledging that we endeavour to support the Government we plead for , by Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers : He has in this , as in many other things , exposed himself , and is blotted as a gross Calumniator : For , it 's the Scriptures of Truth only , and no Humane Testimonies , upon which we found the Ius , the Divine Right of the Government , we owne and contend for . As for Humane Testimonies of the Ancients , we look upon them as confirming Appendices of Matters of Fact only , as Testes facti in some Respect , but not as Iudices veri , it being the Divine Scripture's Barr and Tribunal only , to which we bring our Cause to be decided . And to discover to all Men , this Dr's . impudence in this point , one of the Authors he cites , viz. Ius Divin . Minist . Ang. in their learned Appendix , in the point of Antiquity , consisting of eight Propositions , and nine , in the Matter of Ordination in special , not one of which this Man has dared to medle with . The very first is , That whatever may be said for Prelacy out of Antiquity , yet ( as they have proved ) it hath no foundation in the Scriptures — That , as in the Matter of Divorce , Christ brought the Iews to the first institution of Marriage , so we must in point of Episcopacy , say as Christ [ from the Beginning it was not so ] Thereafter , they cite several of the Ancients , in proof of this , that it is not the Custom or Practice of the Church , but the Divine Scriptures ; which must herein determin us , and that all Human Writings must be examined by the Canonical , and Customs never so ancient , the Scriptures being perfect as to all Credenda , Petenda , Facienda . In the second Proposition , so far are they from making the most ancient Testimonies , or Practice of the Church , the Foundation of our Government , that they affirm and prove by clear Testimonies and Instances , that many Corruptions crept into the Church , in the Infancy of it , and were generally received as Apostolical Traditions , which yet Episcopal Men themselves confess to be Errors ; instancing the Millenary Error , with diverse others : Whence , they conclude — That there are Doctrines and Practices , pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical Institution , which are rather to be accounted as Apocryphal . But to proceed , upon this false Foundation ( ibid. ) the Dr being about to blot some useless Sheet , with his Trifling Quiblings , upon several passages of Blondel and Salmasius , must needs , e're he fall to work , disgorge some more of his Venom and Gall against the Presbyterians , his Countrey-Men , as well as Blondel . For Blondel , he would needs make us believe , That in Complyance with Cromvel his Enthusiasticks , he imployed his Skill to make the Ancients contradict themselves , and all Contemporary Records . A bad design no doubt , and so bad as well as irrational , that its hard to believe the Dr : For , Blondel his Writings , as well as those of Salmasius , has obtained the Testimony of Men of the best note in Protestant Churches ; as the Learned Professors of Saumer , and many others : So that his barkings will never touch or stain the same . But for his Countrey-men , Presbyterians , he is bold to tell his Reader , That they Concluded Blondels Book , to be pure and undenyable demonstration , before ever they Read it . If I should return him the Words of the Psalmist [ What shall be given thee thou false Tongue ? ] I think I should merit no severe Censure . What a fore head , must this Man have , who durst suffer his Mouth to utter , much less dare to Print and exhibit to the World , such an impudent Calumny , yea , so Vilely to asperse his Native Countrey ? Two things , do sufficiently discover what sentiments upon this Assertion , the World may have of this Person . 1. His Conscience can tell him , yea , it s known to all Men , who know Scotland , that since our Reformation , there hath been , and are Hundreds therein , not only of Ministers , but others of the most Considerable Note and Character , Men of Conscience and Learning , who adhere to the Presbyterian Government , as having a Divine Warrand , and who have concerned themselves in a Search of this Controversie , in the Writings upon both Sides ; And if the Dr. know not this , he is a pitiful Peregrinus Domi. 2. That to conclude any Mans Writings and Book , to be pure and undenyable Demonstration , before a Person has Read the same , is such a Sottish , Brutish Practice , such an Irrational Conclusion , as cannot befal any Per●o● , that has the most Common Exercise of Reason : So , that he might with the same Veracity , have told the World in his Pamphlet , that his Countrey Men , Presbyterians , are Idiots , Dunces , or Brutes , and in Point of Judgment and Integrity , much of a Size with the Popish Vulgar , who Hang upon an Implicit Belief , and have but a Plagiary Faith , depending upon Mens Dictats and Hear-say ; yea , and that they are all such , none excepted . But that the Dr. may not ( since he is in his Ranting , Calumniating Vein and Humor ) be satisfied with one single Lie , but make a Lusty Complicated One , and let flee a whole Vollee of this Hell-Shot , at his Countrey Men , he adds , That his Countrey Men think , they need no other Answer , to any thing written against them , than to say , that Episcopacy , and all its Defences , is quite Ruined by Blondel and Salmasius . Poor pitiable Soul ▪ Had he gone to Iamaica , or to some places ; where neither the Persons , nor Matter he speaks of , was ever heard or known , he might hope to get this believed . Some of the Books he mentions , P. 22. his Conscience could tell him , are Written by Scotsmen , viz. Didoclav . and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day , unto either of them : It should then seem , that his Countreymen should rather alledge these . Doth he think indeed we esteem , that we need no other Answer , than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius ? But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings , Tho there are , saith the Dr , ( ibid. ) few of them that ever read them , and that every Line of their Writings , that hath Colour of Argument , has been frequently exposed , yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality , that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries . Here 's a Deep Charge : 1. His Countreymen , Presbyterians , becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's , that few of them read these Books . 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth , that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof , so , that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them , if this Man may be believed . But I will be bold to ask him , what are these Evidences , I mean Scripture-Evidences , produced by him , or any of his Party , which we have not considered ? Dare he say , that all in Scotland , Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion , do thus shut their Eyes ? And may we not easily Retort his Charge , and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav . Mr. Durh. and others , whom he mentions ? And besides these , many not Named by him , to whom , neither he , nor any of his Gang , have offered an Answer to this Day . Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them ? Presbyterians , no doubt , need no other Evidence , than this Pamphlet , to convince the World , that the Power of Prejudice , has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light. He pretends therein , by his mighty Arguments , to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles ; He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work , some considerable Authors , whose Writings and Arguments , he tells the World , they ground their Perswasion upon , yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them , when fairly presented in their genuin strength : And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality , this savours of . And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto , he cannot but know , that our Judgment in this Point , is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines . And are they also thus Hardned ? But more yet , ( ibid. ) the Dr. tells us further , That it is enough for us , that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages , and this , in our Iudgment , may barr all Dispute . Indeed , Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them , than in your 339 Pages , Stuffed with Blustering Talk , and Empty Quiblings , the Defence were no Defence . We are again told , That when we are bidden Name the Place , which proves the New Doctrine , we refuse any such closs Engagement . Really , the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well — Decline a closs Engagement ! Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names , judge what closs Engagement , this Man has made with them , and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments , as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom , that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter , the Learned have sufficiently discovered . But , saith he , Salmasius and Blondel , have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester . Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers , they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons . But now , our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity : Some , no doubt , not all , and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments , i. e. so as to convince all Readers , that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings , instead of Answer . But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings , that I interrupt not the Series thereof , I must here pass over to his Second Chapter . CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function , in Opposition to Protestant Divines , is exposed ; Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles , in a proper Formal Sense : His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities . IN this Chapter , the Dr. having told us , That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity ( And what Scripture Arguments , he has Examined , let any judge ) gives us Encouragement , by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie , ( I am sorry , he has not done it sooner ) No doubt , all will acknowledge this to be , what he stands obliged to . But to Trace his Steps , and Examine him clossly . 1. I am agreed with him in this , That the Government of the Christian Church , has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles , to continue to the end , and who oppose this Institution are Schismaticks . 2. For what he adds , ( P. 95. ) That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament , the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests . I must tell him , that we do hold , with all our Divines , that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency , as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it : And moreover , we hold , that both the one and the other was Typical , and also such , as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin , or invade their Decisive Suffrage ; as Iunius particularly observes . Our Dr's Inference , That Subordination of one Priest to another , is not simplely unlawful ; if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general , is admitted ; If , of one Pastor to another , in Point of Official Authority , it is a bad Inference , and a Begging of the Question , which is not about , what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case , but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution , in the New Testament OEconomy and Government . The Dr's Distinction ( ibid. ) of the Apostles Ordinary , Permanent , Essential Power , and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges — suteable to the first Plantation of Churches , is in general accorded : But his Application and Explication subjoyned , viz. That by the first , they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers , in the Christian Church ; is that which I deny : And that upon this ground : That Power , which was Ordinary , Permanent and Essential , behoved to be so eminenter , in the Apostles , as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers , who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary , Essential , Permanent Power , else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist , that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature , or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation , when the Apostles , at first Cloathed with it , were gone off : And therefore , to be Transmitted to successive Officers , consequently , these ordinary succeeding Officers were , in this equal to them , when cloathed with this Power , and invested therein ; And by further necessary Consequence , the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power , distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers , it being such , as the Churches subsistence required the same in all times : And besides , these succeeding Officers , when invested with this ordinary Power , were still subordinat to them , as Apostles , and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority . I know , that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers , the Dr. excluds the Bishops , in the Series of his Reasoning , that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors : But how absurdly and inconsequentially , as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines , in this Point , is already evident , and shall yet further appear . To proceed , the Dr. tells us , That by the second ( i. e. their extrinsick , extraordinary priviledges , suted to the First Plantation of Churches ) they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success , in the Conversion of Infidels , in the Government of Churches . Wherein I differ from him in t●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 m●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 Christ● 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 , s●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. ( ●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 Saum●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 Gifts of the Spirit , by the laying on of their Hands , they add ( quae omnia fuerant , &c. ) All which were necessary in the Apostolick Office , for laying the first Foundation of the Christian Church , through the World. Here again , the Apostles Extraordinary Office , is asserted by the Saumer University , and that with the same Ingredients , & upon the like grounds , as we do hold . So , here are more of the Socinian Principles , if we may believe this Dr. and this University , as well as that of Leyden , found ignorant of , and going cross to all Antiquity , in this Matter . The ordinary succeeding Officers , and of the highest Function in that capacity , they hold to be the Pastors and Doctors , whom they assert to derive down what was ordinary in the Apostolick Office , to whom the Authority Consequently , and Power of Teaching and Governing the Church is committed , citing Act. 13. where mention is made of this Authority , in the Pastors and Teachers of Antioch , and their joint collegiat Power in Imposition of Hands ; also 1 Cor. 14.29 , 30 , 31 , 32. where the Prophets Authoritative judging of every Member of the Colledge and Society , and the due Subjection of every Prophet to their decision , is asserted ▪ joining therewith Chap. 12.29 . ( Are all Apostles ? are all Prophets ? are all Teachers ? &c. ) Well , shall we offer to the Dr , yet more Scots Presbyterian Novelists , and of the Socinian Stamp , in this Matter ? Piscat . de Minist . Eccles. Aphorism . 9 ▪ [ Apostoli immediate a Christo vocati fuerunt , &c. ] The Apostles were immediatly called by Christ , and sent through the whole World , to es●ablish every where , the Kingdom of God , by the Preaching of the Gospel . In his Explication he shews , that in this Aphorism , the Ministry of the Apostles is explained in four Heads , 1. [ Ex causa sine qua non , &c. ] From the Cause and Ground , without which they could not discharge their Apostolical Office , and this was their immediat Vocation and Calling . 2. [ e subjectis Locis , &c. ] From the Places , where they Exercised their Apostolick Function , viz. the various Kingdoms of the World. 3. [ Ex Fine ad quem , &c. ] From the Scope and End , to which they were to Direct their Ministry and Labours , viz. the Planting and Founding Churches , &c. 4. [ Ex Causa Instrumentali , &c. ] From the Instrumental Cause they were to make use of , viz. their Unfixt Preaching of the Gospel . Here , I Appeal to all Men of Judgment , whether this Account of the Apostolick Office , is not the same , with that which this Man rejects as Socinian . Aphorism . 12. [ Sequuntur Pastores , &c. ] He proceeds to Describe Pastors and Doctors , whom the Church can never want ; in the Explication , he tells us , that [ a praecedentibus differunt Duratione ] They differ from Apostles , Prophets and Evangelists , in Continuance , as being of constant Necessity to the Church . Thus , Denying in Contradiction to our Dr , the Permanency of the Apostolick Office. Afterwards he adds , [ Officia Pastorum indicantur , &c. ] That there are four Branches of the Pastors , work and Office ; The Interpretation of Scripture , the Ordering of Government and Discipline , the Administration of the Sacraments , together with Authoritative Admonitions and Exhortations : Shewing thereafter , that the Pastors do Succeed to what is Ordinary in the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office : And their Episcopal Pastoral Authority , he proves from these notable known Passages , improven by the Presbyterians , Act. 20.28 . 1 Pet. 5.1 , 2. Philip. 1.1 . 1 Tim. 3.1 . 2. Tit. 1.5 , 7. Now , I dare refer it to all Men of Sense , whether this Man , is not in this Point of the New Opinion of Scots Presbyterians , and stands Antipode to our Dr's Uniform Testimony of all Antiquity . Shall we Consult yet another ? Turret . ( Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 17. Thes. 3. ) Reasoning against Bellarmin , in Point of Peters pretended Primacy , he draws his Argument , [ a Natura Apostolici Muneris ] and tells the Iesuited Cardinal , and our Dr. with him , that the Apostles had an immediat Power and Jurisdiction , which they received from Christ immediatly . And ( Thes. 4. ) in Answer to Bellarmin , holding , ( much to our Reverend Dr's Sense and Pleading ) that Peter had the Pontificat , as an ordinary Pastor , to be therein succeeded . He Answers , that [ gratis supponitur , &c. ] it is without Ground presumed , that Peter was an ordinary Pastor , to whom any could succeed ; Adding in the end , ( denique cum Apostolatus , &c. ) since the Apostolat as such , was an Extraordinary , Temporal , Transient Function , which was to expire and cease in the Church , it could have no Successors : Herein flatly giving the Lie to our Dr's Grand Topick and Principle , anent the permanent Function of Apostolat , as necessary in the Church till the End of Time. As for his Judgment of the Pastoral Office , as the Highest Ordinary Function of the Church , and the same with that of the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter , and by Consequence , the Succession thereof to what was Ordinary in the Apostolick Office , we have already made it appear . Musculus ( if I may Name him again , without Angring our Dr. ) is full and clear to this Purpose , ( de Offic. Minist . P. 358 , 359. ) ( Apostolus est , qui , &c. ) That the Apostles were not set over any one particular Church , but the Lords Command to them , was , that they should Preach the Gospel through the World , and the Command ( Go , Teach all Nations ) was peculiar to them . And ( P. 360. ) he shews , that Pastors were the same with Bishops , and were in this distinguished from Apostles , that they were sent to Teach and Feed particular Churches , and fixed to them . Amand. Polan . ( Syntag. Theol. Lib. 7. Cap. 11. de Minist . Ecclesiae ) describes thus the Apostolick Office , ( Apostoli Christi fuerunt Christi Discipuli immediate ab ipso edocti , &c. ) That the Apostles were the Disciples of Christ , immediatly Instructed by him , sent to Preach the Exhibiting of the Messiah before his Ascension , and thereafter to Preach to the whole World , and thus to Found the Gospel Church , having this Testimony from God , that they could not err in Doctrine , &c. Afterward , he tells us , what were the Privilegia Apostolorum , and the Prerogative Praeordinari●s Novi-Testamenti Ministris , their Prerogatives above the ordinary Ministers of the New Testament ; Instancing , 1. Their immediat Institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat Mission by him to Teach . 3. Their General Legation to the whole World , with Authority of Founding Churches every where , not in one place only , Citing 2 Cor. 11.28 . where Paul shews , that the Care of all the Churches was upon him . 4. The Visible Symbol and Badge of this Legation , viz. the conferring of the Visible Gifts of the Spirit by Imposition of Hands . 5. Their Immunity from all Error , after their Receiving the Holy Spirit , in the Day of Pentecost . 6. Their Extraordinary Authority against the Rebellious , Citing 2 Cor. 10.6 , 8. where Paul mentions his Readiness to Revenge all Disobedience , and the Authority hereanent , for the Edification of the Church , whereof he might Boast . 7. Their Prophetical Gift , in shewing things to come . The 8 th . Prerogative , he represents thus [ Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest , qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extit●runt ] Their singular Authority , which was of such a Nature , that none of their Disciples or Successors , in an ordinary Ministry , could be compared with them , nor can be ; For as Apostles , they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church . ( P. 538. ) He describes the Pastors to be such , as are set over some particular Flock , Citing Act. 20.28 . Here I need not tell the Dr , that this Man also , is of the Novel Scots Opinion , and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence , a Socinian , as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office , giving the same . Sense of its Ingredients as we do , and holding that the Apostles neither were , nor could be succeeded in their Office , and consequently , that their Formal Office , as such , ceased with themselves . He asserts , ( ibid. ) the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter ; And thereafter tells us , that ( Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt ) All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding & Teaching the Church , Citing Anaclet . Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo , & Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap ▪ Ecclesiae ( si in Apostolorum Loco sumus , &c. ) Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles , in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry : And ▪ also ▪ — Urbanus Secundus ex August . Dist. 68. Another yet of the New Scots Opinion , in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office , we may propose , yea oppose to the Dr. viz : the Famous and Learned Rivet . Cathol . Orthodox . Tract . 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit , against whom he disputes , proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism ( Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam ) Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests , and all other Orders of the Ministry . I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista , the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of ( universalis ▪ patrum consensus ) universal consent of the Fathers . The great Answer is ( Apostolis Episcopos successisse ) That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles , in their proper formal Office. And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause , our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter , viz : Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles . And remarkable it is , that the Catholick Iesuit and he , pleads upon the same very Grounds , viz : The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. — Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem ▪ — Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office — Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus — yea , and our Dr's . Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot ( lib. de Baptismo ) ( Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet , &c. ) That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing , then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority , that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy , may be kept intire . — Thereafter the Iesuit , as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers as pleading for a confused Parity Well , some will alledge , the Dr. in this point , is pretty near the Sacred Order . I cannot here transcribe all that this French , or Scots Novelist Presbyterian , Rivet , returns in Answer to this point , which I really judge , had our Dr. impartially read and perused , it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet . He is first severe to the Iesuit , and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos , or Priest , whereby they represent Pastors ( De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia , saith he , frustra disputatur , cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo , ut antea docuimus , &c. ) That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests , since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught ; ( so upon the preceeding Question , Par. 4. ) He tells his Adversary , the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called , for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church , and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest , has no Successor : Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers , if you will accord with Rivet , but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion , again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists ▪ Thereafter , he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita , and our Dr. ( Negamus , saith he , Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hàbere . ) He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors . Thereafter , reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's ( quod Episcopi Apostolis , Presbyteri Discipulis suec●sserant● ) That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles , and Pastors the Seventy Disciples : He answers thus [ hoc falsum est , ac utrorumque Officio contrarium , quod extraordinarium fuit — nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit : Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolor●m in Doctrinae publicatione , & Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio , successores dici possunt ] That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists , which was extraordinary , and none did succeed them in the same Order , Office and Authority , altho all true Pastors , in respect of the publication of the Doctrin , and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin , may be called Successors of the Apostles . Here , the Scots Presbyterian Opinion , pretty clear : Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian ; and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity . I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers , to our Dr's . and the Iesuits ▪ Arguments Subjoined . His Answer to that of confusion of Names , as not inferring the sameness of things , is thus ( faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere , sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur , vera est synonomia , si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune ) That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves , yet when the same things are attribute to those , to whom the same Names are given , there is a true Syn●nomie or sameness of both Name and thing , the Name being common with the definition . Here ▪ in this one J●dicious Answer , he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head . Then for Confirmation of this Identity , he Cites 1 Tim 3.1 , 2. Tit. 1.5.7 . And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do , that the Name , Qualities , and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same . For Tertullians Testimony , which the Dr. Iesuita ( and our Dr ) cites , he tells him , That Tertullian speaks ( de humano ordine su● tempore recepto ) of the human Order or custom , received in his time , which was , that the ( probatus quisque Senior ) or 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 Epis●opal Mould or any other . The D● 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 Descrip●●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 E●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 , i● 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 , i● 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 triff●●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 Matthia● 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 , h●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 M●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 Col●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 tru●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 Suprem● 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 ●● 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 , Maj●s & minus non variant speciem , Nazianzen , and such Bishops , as a●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 ●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 P●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 Officia● . 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 Authorit●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 U●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 G●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 is changed unto a Limited and Confined Inspection of Bishops . Tho the Contexture of his Reasoning , renders him in this inconsistent with himself , Christs Care and Promise are abundantly verified in the Establishment of such a Government and Officers in His Church , as are suted to her Edification and Preservation in all times and places . I cannot but further remark the Dr's . changing the Term of [ Apostolick Office ] which he holds to be transmitted to Successors , into that of [ Episcopal Power ] as if these were all one . But this is such a confusion of Names and Things , as cannot be admitted . But proceed we . The Question the Dr. will needs have to be a Matter of Fact , to be decided by Testimony . Whom the Apostles appointed Successors is [ Matter of Fact ] simplely considered ; But this [ Matter of Fact ] must have a Divine Testimony to clear it , it being [ a Divine Fact ] ( to call it so ) of Christs Infallible , Divinely Inspired Apostles , in the management of the Trust committed to them , in founding and modelling the Gospel Churches . And consequently , in enquiring into this Point , we must take our Measures , both from their Doctrine and Practice , if we acknowledge the Apostles had no Soveraign , independent , but Subordinat , Subaltern Power , Authorized and prescribed by their great Master , whose Doctrine and Measures prescribed in his Holy Testament , we must therefore look unto . So that , when the Dr. asserts , There can be no decisive proof of this , but by Testimonie ; He should have called it [ Divine Testimonie ] for an Human Testimony can here have no place ▪ when the Question is anent the Apostles Doctrine and Practice , in point of Church Government : And therefore , what the Dr. adds , viz : That the Testimony alledged by him and the Episcopalians , is so much the stronger , upon the Ground of the Reception thereof , Discovers his bad Design of leaving out the Qualification of Divine , in the Testimony to which he appeals ; And likewayes , his absurd alledging , that a Divine Testimony is strengthened by an Human , as influencing a stronger Pr●of in eodem genere Causae . That the Church knew no other Government than Prelacy , for fourteen hundred Years ( as the Doctor is bold to assert ) shall be admitted , when he shall exhibit the full Accounts and Records of these 1400 Years asserting so much . To proceed . To prove that the Apostles Rectoral Power , was by them transmitted immediatly to single Successors , the Dr. tells us ( ibid. ) that he will first view the Holy Scriptures , then Ecclesiastical Records . First view , I say only and properly view , in order to this proof : For , 1. our Faith of this , is a Divine Faith , which therefore cannot be founded upon an human Testimony , else it were but an human Credulity . 2. Ecclesiastick Records cannot be an infallible Comment upon the Sense of these Scriptures , wherein this Testimony is contained : And this upon several weighty Grounds , which I have elsewhere exhibit ; Since this were , ( 1. ) To set up an higher Tribunal than the Scriptures . ( 2. ) Ye exclud an examination of the Human Testimony by the Scriptures . ( 3. ) To make the Churches practice the infallible Rule to direct our perswasion and practice , in reference to every Scripture Truth and Duty , therein held out . Besides , that neither this Dr , nor any for him , will ever exhibit Authentick Records of the Churches Universal Practice since the Apostles ▪ many of the Ancients having written nothing at all , many of their Writings also being lost , many going under their Name , being Counterfeit and supposititious : And that none of these , did in this Matter contradict th● Writers , whom the Dr. alledges in this Point , but did accord in judgment and practice with what he supposes them to hold in Point of Episcopacy , is a proof which lyes upon the Doctor as the affirmer , before his Argument can be admitted as valid , and his Testimonies be supposed harmonious ; and this he will , no doubt , perform ad calendas Graecas ▪ Who knows not that the prime Historian , Eusebius , with many others , do acknowledge , that the shattered and maimed Records of the First Ages after the Apostles ( which are in this Point most considerable ) are most uncertain and dark , as to Matter of Fact ? And do therefore , exhibit but a Lame and imperfect Testimony in this Matter : My work and scope then , is to examin the Dr's Pleadings from a Divine Testimony ; which I shall fully perform . CHAP : IV : The Dr's Proof of the Divine Right of the Hierarchical Bishop , drawn from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus , and the Seven Asian Angels , Examined . HEre we find the Doctor Tracing the Steps of his Fellows , but giving their Notions and Arguments pitifully Insipide , and nothing Recocted . In the first place , saith he , ( P. 106 , 107. ) we find Timothy set over Ephesus by Paul , when he went unto Macedonia . Which place he compares with Act. 20.3 , 4. 1 Tim. 1.3 . [ I besought thee to abide at Ephesus , when I went into Macedonia , that thou mightest charge some , that they Teach no other Doctrine ] — That Timothy thereafter waited upon Paul , to yield Assistance in the Service of Religion , he tells us , cannot infer , he was disingaged upon Occasional Iourneys from that Episcopal Inspection , particularly committed to him , in the Church of Ephesus by Paul. Here is such a Proof , as he might have seen long since Baffled and Disproved : 1. All that hold Timothies Office , as Evangelist , to be extraordinary , and to have expired with that of Apostles , ( and this do the Body of Protestant Divines hold , as is above evinced ) will consequently deny his Episcopal Instalment over Ephesus ; And put the Dr. to prove , that his Evangelistick Office , here expresly enjoyned him , was First , an ordinary Office to be continued : Secondly , Formally and properly Episcopal ; or such as did import a sole and singular Authority , Paramount to all the ordinary Officers Authority in that Church , and Exclusive thereof : And what Answer to these Demands , and Proof of these Suppositions is in the premised Argument , let all Men judge . 2. Had the Dr. been serious in this Debate , he might have found , that Presbyterians have exhibite from Scripture , Timothie● continual transient Imployments through the Churches , both before and after this supposed Instalment● . Ius Divinum Minist . Angli . Smect . with diverse others , have made this evident . 3. The Dr. did well to exhibit the supposed Scripture Charter of Timothies pretended Instalment , [ I besought thee to abide at Ephesus , when I went into Macedonia , that thou mightest Charge some , that they Teach no other Doctrine &c. ] Which the Presbyterians have long since told him , is a clear Proof of the contrary ; since there was no need of such Importunity , if Paul had Committed the Episcopal Charge over Ephesus to him : For , thus he might have laid as Dreadful a Charge upon him , to abide at Ephesus , as he doth afterward to Preach the Gospel , 2 Tim. 4.1.2 . They have told him , that the Words specifie an Occasional Imployment , and are not Words of Instalment to any ●ixt Office or Bishoprick over that Church , and do clearly insinuat and point at an Intendment to Call him away again ; As accordingly , both he and Titus , are found actually Recalled , in these same Epistles . For what the Dr. adds , That his Occasional Travels disingaged him not from his Episcopal Inspection : It is long since Presbyteria●s ( and in special , the Authors mentioned by him ) have Baffled this Answer , telling him , and such as have pleaded thus , that they are challenged to prove , that any one , appointed Overseer of a particular Church , had such a Planetary Motion , and Transient Imployment , as that of Timothy is proven to have been . Or , 2. That either he or Titus , after this Imployment , did constantly or ordinarly return to Ephesus or Crete , and not to the Places of the Apostles present Abode or Imployment . 3. They also tell him , that this Answer is a Begging of the Question , since all the Ground of Instalment exhibit here by the Dr. and his Fellows , is in that Charge in Reference to Ephesus , wherein this Transient Imployment is clearly held out . The Dr. adds , ( ibid. ) That Presbyterians would not take it kindly , if told , that the Relation to their Flocks were lost , if upon Occasions they were Imployed now and then to Visit Forreign Churches . Certainly they would not , but they take it as unkindly , that the Dr , instead of an Illustrating Argument and Proof , by this Paralell , Beggs the Question still , and draws a Simile from an Instance , wherein there is a palpable Disparity and Dissimilitude . For , in the Instance adduced , the fixed Relation , Instalment and Title is supposed . 2. The ordinary fixed Attendance upon the Pastors Charge , in Consequence thereof ; whereas , in the Case of Timothy his fixed Instalment is begged , not proved , but rather a Transient Occasional Imployment pointed at in the very Place , which he Cites . Whence it clearly follows , That this Transient Unfixt Ministry , was Timothies Ordinary Imployment and Ministry . The Dr. proceeds to tell us ( ibid. ) That the Ancients took no notice of this Objection against his Episcopacy at Ephesus , and that in the 11. Act of the Council of Chalcedon , Twenty seven Bishops are Reckoned from Timothy . What notice the Ancients took of this Objection , is not the Question . But for the Catalogues , Presbyterians have long since told him , what a poor Argument this is , and have largely baffled this Phantastical conceit ; particularly Ius Divinum Minist . Ang. in Prop. 7. of the Appendix , in several weighty Considerations , to which I refer him . They have therein made appear , that in these Catalogues , besides , that there is an Homonomy in the word Bishop , the nearer they come to the Apostles days , they are the more uncertain and contradictory one to another ; that the Catalogue-drawers spoke in the Language of their own times ; and in these Catalogues , is a far other design than what is pretended by the Episcopalians ; that the Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists , who were not Bishops , nor could be properly , as not having an ordinary , but extraordinary Office , the proof of a successive Line of Bishops from them , which is drawn from these Catalogues , appears palpably unsound and impertinent . Before I pass from this , since the Dr. mentions Act. 20.4 , 5. to prove that Timothy was left at Ephesus by Paul ; He had done well to look downward to the 28 v. where he would have found the whole Episcopal Charge over that Church committed after this to the Elders or Pastors of Ephesus , before Timothies face , in Pauls last farewell unto them , and this without the least hint of any Interest that Timothy had in or over them , or of their precarious dependence upon him in this Matter . And here he might have seen a passage looking like the Apostles committing their Episcopal Power , or what was ordinary in their Function , to a Colledge of Presbyters , and consequently a Scriptural Decision of this Question and Controversy against him . But to proceed . The Dr. ( P. 107 , 108 ) undertakes to prove from the Epistles , that an Episcopal Authority was Committed to Timothy ; And to clear this by instances , viz. That he is Charged not to rebuke an Elder , but intreat him , 1 Tim. 5.1 . Not to receive an accusation but before two or three Witnesses v , 19. To rebuke such as sin before all , v. 20. Not to lay hands suddenly , v. 22. To ordain such Deacons as were blameless , 1 Tim. 3.14 , 15. Where his particular Rel●tion to that Church , is insinuat , the Apostle Writing to him , to instruct how to behave himself in the House of GOD , &c. To these the Dr. adds his Charge of the care of Widows , and Objects of Charity , and ordering the publick Worship and Liturgies of the Church 1 Tim : 5.9 . 1 Tim. 2.1 . 1 Tim. 5.21 . He and he alone , saith the Dr , is Charged to observe these things , without preferring one before another , doing nothing by partiality . Ans. 1. If all these prescriptions suppose only in Timothy , an Evangelistick , and consequently an exraordinary expired Inspection , not an Episcopal and ordinary , then this Parade of the Dr's Argument , is cut off with one Blow : For , as for his proof of an Episcopal Relation to that Church , drawn from the Apostles shewing his scope to direct him , how to carry in the House of GOD ; it is so clearly adapted to an Evangelistick Inspection over that and other Churches , that it can afford him no shadow of a Reason or Evasion . For Convincing the Dr. of this , I shall make use of his own Paralel Argument , and turn his Weapons point upon him . He hath told us [ that no Presbyterian would think his Relation to his Particular Flock untyed , if imployed to visit now and then Forreign Churches ] Now , suppose , that in this transient visitation of such Churches , the Church Rulers do write several directions to such a Pastor , in reference to Government , adding as a pressing Motive [ that he is therein instructed how to behave in the Church of the living God , which is his House , in case he continue any time in this imployment ] as the Apostle here adds the limiting Clause [ if I tarry long ] Will the Dr's Argument hold good , that this will infer such a Pastors relation to these Churches ? If he says this , he Contradicts himself : And on the other hand , he will not dare to affirm , that a Minister in this Case , is not capable of such directions , which would upon the Matter infer , that these Churches were not the House of God , and that a Minister is not concerned how to behave in them . And if this will not conclude such a Pastors particular Relation to these Churches , but supposeth only a transient Imployment in this Case , then I say , his Reason and Argument is naught , which Infers Timothies special Episcopal relation to Ephesus ; I mean to that Church , from this expression of the Apostles Scope , in the premised directions . Moreover , the Dr. will not deny , that Timothy visited and watered several other Churches , after this at Ephesus , and after the directions given , while officiating therein . Now , I would fain know , if the Dr. will deny , that these directions , together with this expressed scope thereof , viz that he might know how to behave in the Church of GOD , were clearly applicable to him in 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 ●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 l●●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. shape Prelat's Diocesses by this Standart , he will extend his Measures far beyond Ephesus . What more is contained in those addressed Injunctions ? His relation to that Church ( saith the Dr. ) and the perpetuity of his Power . But we have above made appear , that these Injunctions can no more evince a peculiar Relation to that Church , than to others , where he exercised his Evangelistick Office , as well as in that of Ephesus : And for the perpetuity of the Power , we have told him , that the intimation of Timothie's transient Employment in that Church , presented in the beginning of the Epistle , the express Command of doing the work of an Evangelist therein ( an Office , acknowledged by Protestant Divines , to be expired ) the Apostles express recalling him from this transient Employment to the further prosecuting of his Office else where , as likewise , his ascribing the whole Episcopal Power , after this , to the Pastors of this Church of Ephesus , in Timothie's presence , without the least hint of his Interest therein , convinceth this assertion of Falsehood . But to prove that his Power was not transient , but successive and perpetual , the Dr. presents unto us the Apostolical Command put upon him , to commit his Power to faithful Men , who shall be able to teach others . This proves indeed a Succession of a teaching Ministry , and of the Scripture Bishops and Pastors , who must be apt to teach , and hold fast the faithful Word ; But that it imports a committing his Evangelistick Authority to Successors , is the Dr's . Anti-scriptural Dream ; Wherein , he runs cross , 1. To the Judgement of sound Interpreters , as all know , since they understand by that which was to be intrusted to these Faithful Men , the Doctrine of the Gospel , not the Authority of Timothy . 2. He doth herein cross the Scope & Context : And that in three Points ( 1. ) In that there is here a Plurality of Successors supposed , to whom this was to be committed : And if Timothie's Authority was to be devolved upon a Plurality , Dr. farewel the Derivation of an Episcopal Power to a single Successor . ( 2. ) The great Characteristick of these Faithful Men , is ( as is said ) that they be apt to teach , which is the very Character of the Pastor , Chap. 3.2 . ( 3. ) The thing which is to be committed is , That which Timothy had heard of Paul , Sciz . The true Doctrine of the Gospel , and the Pastoral Charge thereanent , which is likewise intrusted to all Ministers of the Word , Act. 20. Tit. 1.9 . But the Dr. will needs have that which is enjoyned in this Precept — ( which is Faithfulness and Ability to teach others ) to be by Timothy committed to a single Successor , as it was in solidum , his sole Prerogative . Really Dr. this is at least slender Dealing of Charity . What! All Faithful Teaching monopolized in the person of the Bishop , committed to him , in solidum , excluding Pastors ? Many will suppose , that if this Work be enhanced in the Bishop , the Diocess will be meanly fed , especially since , besides his personal incapacity to feed the whole Diocess , his Sermons drops very rarely ▪ and many poor Sheep may starve in the interval . But to proceed , the Dr. ( ibid. ) will have his Adversaries to grant ▪ That Timothy 's power exercised over Ephesus , was the very same , which he pleads for , as due to Bishops , in their particular Sees . That he had an Evangelistick Power , we grant , and that Bishops take or usurp an Authority and Inspection , which , with some Presbyterians , is said to have an apparent Resemblance of that of Timothy , is true ; But that the Function exercised by Prelats , is one and the same with that of Timothy , is denyed : For 1. We have proved , that neither Apostles nor Evangelists had a fixed or ordinary Authority over particular Churches , or any such special Relation thereunto , as Prelats do pretend . 2. We made appear , that the Authority which they exercised , was not exclusive of , or paramount unto the ordinary ▪ Authority and Decisive Power of Pastors in Government , that in Churches constitute , they had neither a sole Power , nor sole Exercise of Ordination and Jurisdiction , such as Prelats assume , who , according to the Nature of that Government , are the proper sole Pastors of the Diocess , and the whole power of Order and Jurisdiction is properly and originally seated in them , no Pastor having any thing of this , or the Exercise thereof , but according as it is lett out , or derived to them , at the Bishops pleasure ; For , they deny universally , that the Pastoral Office hath in its Nature , included any Interest in Government . Now , this Dominion over Church Judicatories , thus exclusive of all Authority of Pastors in Government , no Evangelist , nay , nor Apostle ever exercised , it being such a Dominion in the House of GOD , as is disowned and discharged by them ; 2 Cor. 1. ult . 1 Pet. 5.2 , 3. Besides , the Dr. knows , that he pleads for a power in Civils , and a Civil Peerage , as due to Prelats , which he dare not say , that Apostles or Evangelists ever exercised , nor can he , or any of his Party , make it appear , that the Apostles gave the least shadow of a Warrand for it in their Doctrine . But to proceed , the Dr. adds ( ibid. ) That we pretend that Timothy exercised his power in the Church of Ephesus , under the Notion of an Evangelist , not as proper Bishop of Ephesus . That he was enjoyned , and accordingly exercised this Office , and had a Command put upon him , to perform the Work of an Evangelist there , is that which ( under this prodigiously profound D●'s Correction ) a Man tinctured with the New Scots Opinion , viz : The ●postle , Paul pretends ; And this Office , we hold to be distinct , toto coelo , ●●om that of the Bishop . The Dr. saith , he will examine this afterward , wherein , I shall afterwards trace and search him . But at present , the Dr. will have some things to be granted , which cannot be denyed . If such indeed , its pitty the Dr. were denyed so just a Demand . What are these ? First , That the power which Timothy exercised was Lawful in it self . GOD forbid , we should assert that Paul enjoyned or authorized an unlawful power ; But Lawful and Law , being Correlats , the good Dr. will allow us to Distinguish Lawful , into that which is so , upon ground of a Standing Law or Ordinance ; And that which is so , upon a temporal and transitory Precept , and authorized by an Extraordinary Authority for the time ; Which might be exemplified in a multiplicity of clear Scripture Instances , if we were not discoursing with a venerable Dr. who can distinguish General and Special , Ordinary and Extraordinary Precepts , &c. Lawful in their own time and Circumstances . We know the Apostolick Universal Authority was Lawful , writing authentick binding Epistles , in the Execution of this Authority , constituting Officers , Church by Church , modelling them in their Organick Being , delivering to them the Ordinances , their Disciplining all Nations , laying on Hands in order to the Spirits Miraculous Gifts , anoynting the Sick with Oyl , in order to the healing of them , &c. What next ? The Doctor , in the Second Place , will have us grant , That this power was practised by Timothy in the Church of Epesus . And truely they are highly Censurable , who will deny the Doctor so Just a Demand , so necessarly following upon the preceeding Concession , and the Scripture Records of the Exercise of his Power in that place . And no doubt , had the Dr. knit all his Consequences as well as this , he had past for a fair and Triumphant Disputant , and Acted as a Man worthy of his Cape and Orders : Only , we must be permitted , together with this Concession , to Whisper the Dr. in the Ear , That he Exercised the same Evangelistick Office in other Churches , as well as in Ephesus , yea , and both before and after he was there , and he knows the Consequence , which these that have got the Scots Notion in their Head will draw upon him , viz. That therefore , Timothy had no Special Relation to that Church , nor Ordinary Inspection therein . What is his Third Desire of a Concession ? viz. That this Power was committed to him alone , not to a Colledge of Presbyters , Acting in Parity and Equality . If he mean the Evangelistick Power , or an Evangelistick Inspection , supposing ( as is often told him ) the Existence of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Offices , which we hold , with all Sound Divines , to be expired ; Supposing likewise , the Foundation of the Churches to be a laying , and which we may call the Scaffolding , which the Dr. hath told us , was to be removed , when the Building is perfected ; And withal , understanding the Term Alone , as Exclusive of Pastors , and other Inferior Ordinary Church Officers ; And so as not to Confine the Evangelistick Office to Timothies Person : This Demand is easily granted . But here we deny two Points , 1. That this Inspection , or Extraordinary Evangelistick Power , was so committed to Timothy , over this Church , at this time , as to Exclude or Inhaunce the Pastors Ordinary Power , or to infer his Sole , and consequently Episcopal Interest in Government . 2. That the Ordinary Power of Government , was not committed by Paul to a Colledge of Presbyters , as the Dr. supposes , or that the Non-committing of Timothies Formal Office and Power as an Evangelist , to such a Colledge will infer such a Conclusion : Since , thus we would fasten a Contradiction upon Paul , in Intrusting the whole Episcopal Power over the Church of Ephesus , after this , to a Colledge of Presbyters , Acting in Parity . The Fourth Undenyable Point , the Dr. will have us to grant , is , That there is no mention of a Spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters , to which Timothy was Accountable for his Administrations . I Answer , 1. There was no need , because in that Infant-State of the Church , when ( to use the Dr's Phrase ) the Churches Fabrick was but in an Imperfect Scaffolding Posture , & the Ordinary Church Officers and Judicatories were a Framing , he was Accountable to the Infallibly Inspired Great Apostle of the Gentiles , Paul , who Enjoyned him to order Things , in the Moulding of that Church , as he had Commanded and Appointed him . Besides , that the Nature of Timothy's Work , being a Temporary Transient Inspection , to pass off with that Exigent , & to give Way to his other Imployments elsewhere , there was no Access for such an Inspection in the Colledge of Presbyters . Here I cannot but take notice , that the Dr. still adding the Clause of Spiritual , when speaking of Timothy's Power , must be minded of the Bishops Temporal & Civil Authority , which they claim . 2. We find mention made of a Presbytrie , that Ordained him , and whether , if ever fixed in any particular Post or Charge after Pauls Death , the mention of a Presbytrie that Ordained him , will infer an Accountableness , is left to the Dr's Consideration . As also , whether the mention of that General Rule , 1 Cor. 14.32 . That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets , will infer an Accountableness of all who come under a Character of Prophets to their Collegiat Meetings . The Dr's Fifth Concession , he will have from us , is , That the great and most eminent Branches of Episcopal Power , were lodged in his Person , Viz. the Ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function , the care of the Widows , the censuring of Elders , the Authoritative prevention of Heresies ; about which ( he tells us ) the Episcopal Authority was most conversant in the Primitive times . I am glad that the Bishops high Office is become of so condescending and humble a nature and genius , that the mean business of the care of poor Widows , or Church Eleemo●ynaries , is become one of the most eminent Branches of their Power . I see these Branches runs far out , and their Lordships must have long A●ms . But may I hope that the Dr. will take along in his next famous Work ( since he hath in this place forgot it ) the little mean and humble exercise of Preaching the Gospel constantly and assiduously , since we find that Timothy was here enjoined it , and that in Season and out of Season , to which these Eminent Branches may stretch out , if at least , the Dr. can obtain a Licence for it of their Lordships , with such restrictions and proviso's , in respect of their State-Imployments , as this unwarry Man , Paul , forgot to put in , who lays this in an unlimited general Precept upon the Bishop , Timothy , and with the solemnity of an alarming Preface of Laying this Charge upon him before God , and the Lord Jesus Christ , who shall judge the quick and the Dead , at his appearing and his Kingdom . 2. Timothy is found so far from having the Dr's Eminent Branches of Episcopal Power , lodged in him , that in the Scriptural Accounts , he is found , to have neither Root nor Branch of the same : The Bishops Power is supposed Ordinary , his was not ; the Bishops Power is pleaded for as necessary to the Churches exedified State , in all times , and when Moulded in its Organick Being , his was suted to the Moulding thereof , when in fieri as to such a Being ; the Bishops Power is in Fixed Diocesses , Timothies was not , but a transient Ministry , like that of the Apostles ; The Bishops hath sole absolute Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction , over all Pastors of the Diocess ; Timothy had no such Authority , but only of an Inspector and Moderator , for the time of his transient Mission ; The Bishops assume a negative voice in all Judicatories of the Diocess , which the Dr. here owns , for he will have them subject to no collegiat Meetings of Pastors ; had Timothy assumed this , he had contradicted and baffled the Apostles Carriage Act. 15. where ordinary Pastors or Elders , are found concurring Authoritatively with the Apostles in the whole procedure of that solemn Council , both in the Disquisition , the Sentence , and the Epistle , enjoyning the Churches obedience thereunto : And I must presum to add with the Dr's good leave , that this Council is of more venerable Authority , and the Constitution thereof , of a more Divinly-exemplifying influence , than any he can appeal to , as patronizing the Hierarchical Prelat , for whom he pleads . Again , had Timothy ordained alone , without Pastors , where they were to be had , he would have crossed the Rule of his own Ordination , and Pauls Precept supposing the same : Had he Censured alone , or assumed a sole Interest therein , he had crossed the Apostles Doctrin , who makes Censures the joint Authoritative Acts of the Collegiat Meetings of Pastors , 1 Cor. 5.1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , &c. 2 Thess. 3.14 . As for the exercise of such Episcopal Power in the Primitive times , the Dr. will never prove the Bishops sole Power herein , in the First and Purest times , yea , and even after the Episcopus Praese● 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 pr●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 P●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 , 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 m●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 Jerusalem , having a fixed Relation thereto , as his proper peculiar Diocess , and Exercising an ordinary Episcopal Iurisdiction over that Church . The first Proof is , That Peter pays a Deference to him , in enjoyning notice to be given him , and the Brethren , of his Escape from Prison , Act. 12.17 . Here is an Account given of an Important Mercy to a Fellow-Apostle , and other Ministers at Ierusalem , but a Deference to him asi Bishop of Ierusalem , in the Sense above exhibit , even granting the ordnary Exercise of his Apostleship there , is such a Consequence , as no Rational Man can admit : For , 1. Were not all , whether we may suppose them Apostles or Brethren present , concerned in this , and capable of the Deference of this Information ? Yea , are they not thus Represented ? 2. Suppose Apostles present , without any such Residence , or supposed Episcopal Relation , will the mere Deference of such an Information prove this ? Yea , say this supposed his special Residence there , and consequently , his and the other Brethrens Concern in the Information , can any Rational Man imagine , that this Deference thus expressed , will suppose any more , than such a Residence for the time ? Besides , that the more Severe Critick , would Interrogat him , how this Information , simplely considered , comes under the Character of such a Special Deference and Honour , as the Dr. makes it ? Will the Report of an Important Mercy prove this , since another End is evident , viz. The Instruction and Comfort of the Person Informed , simplely considered ? The Critick would also Pose the Dr. upon this , What Deference was paid in Peters first Personal Visit to the House of Mary , and the other Praying Persons with her ? I think if mention had been of Iohn Mark his Personal Presence , this Deference , by the help of the Dr's Logick , and Quickned a litle by his Zeal for Prelacy , would have put fair to set him up as Bishop of Ierusalem at this time . But the Dr. tells us , this Deference is taken notice of elsewhere , as Gal. 1.19 . Gal. 2.1 , 9. For the first Passage , the Apostle tells , v. 18. that he went up to Ierusalem to see Peter . Here is some Deference . He adds , that he saw none of the Apostles save Iames. What Deference is here insinuat , and in special eo nomine , as Bishop of Ierusalem , will require a new Essay of the Dr. to draw it from the Text. Pool takes the Naming of these here to import , That the other Apostles being scattered , and gone off to prosecute their Work , these two Apostles were only at this time resident there . Thus it seems the Dr's great Topick from a Residence at Ierusalem , as peculiar to Iames , is much Weakned by this Testimony ; And his Reverence did not well to raise this Ghost . As for Pauls second Journey to Ierusalem , Recorded in the other Passage , and the mention of Iames with Peter and Iohn , as Pillars , I know not what Shadow of Argument can be drawn therefrom , for his pretended Episcopacy at Ierusalem , more than of Cephas and Iohn : Whatever Eminency in Moral Respects is here insinuat , sure it is Shared among all the three , without any Shadow of a Preference of Iames to the rest , and far less eo nomine , as Bishop of Ierusalem , unless the Dr. draw the Strength of his Argument from his being first Named , and thus Patronize the Popish Argument , from the first Nomination of Peter , to prove his Primacy ; Which is long since Baffled and Disowned by all Protestant Divines . The Dr. alledges , that Presbyterians would needs Impose upon Mens Senses and Belief , their own Dreams ; as if some Phantastick Person should pretend he sees Visions of Armies and Battallions in the Skies , and Challenge and Threaten others to see what they see not : If his Consequences in this and many other places of his Pamphlet , be not of this Nature , surely never any were . But the great Demonstration of the highest Class follows , which the Dr. Prefaceth with a most of all . What is that ? Why ? Act. 15.19 . He pronunces the Sentence of the Council by his Episcopal Authority . Here is an Airy Vision indeed , a Demonstration , the Rules whereof are existent only in the Dr's Brain . The Sentence and Decision of this Apostolick Council , upon Conference and Debate , was pronunced by Iames ; Ergo as a Deference exhibit to him by all the Apostles above themselves , yea , and eo nomine , as Bishop of Ierusalem . What a Rope of Sand is this ? I know , it s ordinarly supposed he presided in the Council , but that this doth import any Official Deference or Supereminency over his Fellow-Apostles , and far less as Bishop of Jerusalem , is a Consequence as far remote from this Concession and Supposition , as East from West . The Dr. saith , he pronunced the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority : Thus it seems his Episcopal Authority was a higher Sphere of Authority , than ever he had by his Apostolat ; And if so , the Dr. hath Razed all his former Pleadings for a Succession of Episcopacy to an Apostolat , and must devise a higher Function , than even that of Apostolat , to found Episcopal Authority . But the Dr. will not be thought ( now that he is in a Calmer Humor ) to plead that James alone Decided by his sole Power , without Concurrence of o●her Apostles , but as Bishop of Jerusalem he presided in the Council . But here it might be asked , what sort of Presidency it is that the Dr. here ascribes to James , in this Council ? Whether the mere Presidency of a Moderator , or that which is properly Episcopal , having the sole Rectoral Power included therein ? The asserting of the first only seems not Consonant to the Dr's Scope , which is to prove an Episcopal Authority in Judicatories , as here Exemplified . If he assert the second , then in Contradiction to himself , he robs the rest of the Apostles of this Rectoral Power , Monopolizing it in the Person of James . Or , if he should ascribe this Episcopal Power to him , with respect to the Inferior Clergy there present , he cannot deny , that his Fellow-Apostles Shared with him herein ; And so there is nothing of sole Episcopal Power Exemplified in this Instance , or any thing else , except a mere Presidency , which might be allowed upon the Account of his ordinary Residence at Jerusalem , by his Fellow-Apostles , not unlike unto a Moderators Office allowed by a Synod to the Minister of a City , wherein it is assembled , which doth nothing impeach the same Rectoral Power , competent to every Pastor of the Judicatory . But as to the Episcopal Rectoral Power , the Dr. cannot be ignorant , that his Fellow-Pleader Bishop Downam , in his Defence ( with whom the Dr. will not desire to Justle and Deal Stroaks ) is clear and positive in this Assertion of the Bishops sole Authority in Government . That James presided in the Council , I have told the Dr , is supposed , though I conceive it a pretty hard task to offer a demonstrative Argument from the Text to make it good : But that it was as Bishop of Ierusalem , is a phantastick Dream , which hath no shadow of Ground . That Passage [ My Sentence is ] the Authors of the 2 d. Part of 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 su●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 th● 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 t●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 . Phrase in reference to Salmasius , his Answer to this Objection , appears to be a silly subterfuge , fit for nothing but to move their Laughter , who are seen in this Debat , and unworthy to have been uttered , much less printed by a Man who sets a D. D. to his Name . The Dr. cannot but know that the pinch of this Debate , and state of the Question betwixt him and us , is , Whether all that 's spoken of this Angel , can be competent to one individual ( the contrary whereof , Presbyterians have made good ) and not anent the Concerns of particular Persons , in some special Precepts of a general Epistle , which is in terminis addressed to the whole Church . The Dr. adds as another mighty Answer , That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him alone , tho the Conclusion be to all the Faithful at Ephesus . Ans : That the second Epistle to Timothy is addressed to him immediatly , no Body doubts : As for that Conclusion , The Lord Iesus be with thy Spirit , Grace be with you , there can nothing thence be inferred , but that the Apostle in the Precepts addressed to Timothy , designed the Good of the whole Church : And altho what is contained in the Epistle , have this general Scope , yet it is to be applyed pro unius cujusque modulo , and Peoples Duties , and that of Ministers , are to be distinguished : But in the plural Adress of the Angel , the same Duties are ( as is said ) enjoyned to the same Persons , and to the same Scope ; And the Mystical Term Angel , is represented in a plain plural Mould , as pointing at a Plurality of Church Officers . Besides , that in this Conclusion , the People are distinguished from the person of Timothy ; So , that the Conclusion doth not solely and immediatly reach them : But this holds not paralel with the Direction of an Epistle to a Plurality , thus Mystically represented by one single Angel. The Dr. adds further , That the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches , are said to be Angels , in Imitation of the Jews , among whom the High Priest was dignified with that Name , as Mal. 2.7 . Where the Word Messenger may be translated Angel. I like not the Doctor 's Iewish Imitations : If the Pattern was drawn from Mal. 2.7 . Even granting this to the Dr , that the Term Angel is with Allusion to that Term of Messenger , the Term and Designation is Scriptural ; And had his Eyes been single , he might in looking upon that Text , have found that the Term of Messenger and Priest , hath a plural Signification ; And consequently our Exposition of the single Term Angel , in a Collective Sense , in these Epistles , and Application of the Plural Address to the single Angel , to be Exemplified in that Scripture . But the Dr. will needs suppose gratis , and Magisterially Dictat unto us , his Petitio Principii , That the High Priest only was Dignified with that Name : But he and his Fore-leader Dr. Hammond hath pi●ifully mist the Mark in this Notion , it being palpable , that the Scope is to direct the Lords Priests and Ministers in their common Duties to which they were called ; and to say that the High Priest alone was here designed and intended , will infer that the first Verse of that Chapter , O ye Priests this Commandment is for you , is to be understood only of the High Priest , that he alone was concerned to give Glory to the Lords Name , as is enjoyned in the 2. Verse , and he alone threatned in the same Verse , with a Curse to be inflicted upon his Blessings , that he alone was to have the Law of Truth in his Mouth , and to keep knowledge , as Verses 6 , 7. and that at his Mouth only , the Law was to be sought ; Whereas all the Priests were Teachers , and Solemnly Addressed the People , in Teaching together with Moses himself , Deut. 27.9 , 10. and were sent to Teach the People , 2 Chron. 17.8 . Besides that , had the Dr. been through in Searching this Controversie , he might have found , that as the Term Levi , represents in this Chapter the Multitude of Levites , so Pres●●terians do plead , that the Term Angel , whereby the Officers of every Church of Asia is represented , hath nothing peculiar in it ; beside what is applicable to every Minister of the Gospel , whose Angelick Frame , as well as Office and Authority , is hereby pointed out ; And therefore , cannot in this place Indigitat an Officer Superior to Pastors or Ministers . The Dr. asserts That the Angels Authority was extended to Laity and Clergy . But he must be admonished , that his new Term of Clergy and Laity , were not then begot ; and he must prove , not assert without Proof , this his alledged Extension of the single Angel , or Prelat his Power and Authority . The Dr. pleads that the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels , because of their Spiritual Power to Reform and Chastise these Abuses . Ans. No doubt Ministers have great influence upon the good or ill Frame of Churches , and this will say as much , yea much more for us , than for the Dr ; for upon our Supposition of a Plurality of Pastors Addressed in the Angel , it s much more suteable to suppose a Peoples good or ill Frame and Spiritual Condition to be influenced by the good or bad Carriage of their Pastors , who have an immediat Inspection over them , than to suppose it flows merely from the good or bad Carriage of one Prelat set over their Clergy and themselves , this Inspection being the more remote : And the Dr. knows we may call in an old gray Hair'd Witness , Experience , to testifie that there hath sometimes been some diligent Pastors , and a thriving People in a Diocess , where the Bishop hath been naught . And besides , that the Dr. here pitifully beggs the Question , he should have seen how to evite the Inconvenience of Timothy ( so eminently commended for his Faithfulness , Stedfastness and Piety ) his falling , as Bishop of Ephesus , from his first Love , and by his bad Carriage influencing this bad Frame in that Church , and leading them wrong . As likewise , he should have seen , how to make it appear , that the Important Duties of Faithfulness , holding fast what is attained , not to Fear Sufferings , Warnings of a Prison Tryal , &c. are applicable to one Person solely . As likewise , how several of these evils charged upon the Churches , could be the Objects of the Bishops supposed Spiritual Chastising Power , such as their Dead Frame , Falling from their first Love , &c. The Dr. ( ibid. ) will in the next place , loose the Objection taken from Rev. 2.24 . But unto you I say , and to the rest in Thyatira : Whence he tells us we plead that the Epistles were directed to a Community , because the Compellation is in the Plural . To this he Answers , That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out in the most Ancient Manuscripts , particularly the Alexandrian , preserved in the Royal Library . 'T is pity the Dr , or a Man of his Sense was not called in to Instruct or Inform our last Translators , wh● were , no doubt , as favourable to the Episcopal Cause as he ( though I will not say they would have allowed all his Methods in Pleading ) and he will not doubt of their diligent Searching the Original Text , and that they knew of these Manuscripts , as well as Dr. Hammond and he , yet do render the Text with the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , according to the Current of all the Greek Copies . It s strange that the Dr. hath the Confidence , upon the Supposition of one Copy , or of two at most reading the Text without the Conjunction , to assert that the most Ancient Manuscripts do thus read it , as if these two deserved that Character , and might stand good against the whole Body of all the Greek Copies , wherein this Particle is found , yea the whole Body of all Translators , as hath been Instanced unto him by Presbyterian Writers . We have above made appear , that the Text cannot be consonantly read Read to the scope or contexture , without the Conjunction , since after that our Lord in vers . 23. gives this general warning , I will give unto every one of you according to y●ur Works , &c. He adds , but unto you and unto the rest in Thyatira , viz : you Ministers and the People in that Church , contradistinct from others , &c. The Dr will needs have the words we insist on , applicable to those mentioned in the latter end of the 23 verse , and not properly to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira : And this is his Answer , even upon the supposition of our Reading with the conjunction which he is forced to acknowledge is the common Reading ; and thus discovers his folly in opposing two supp●sed Copies to it . His Reason is , that [ they ] are the other Churches of Asia , which because mentioned in the Speech directed to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira , the immediat transition from him to them is natural and easie , and all the Churches shall know , viz : the Churches of Asia shall know that I am He which searcheth the Reins and hearts : v. 24. But unto you ( i. e. saith the Dr. ) the Churches of Asia , &c. Thus he scor's out , and expungeth the adversative particle , [ But ] in 24 verse , clearly limiting the you here , and distinguishing it from the more extensive [ you ] in verse 23. I hope the Dr saw no Copies reading the Text without the adversative particle [ But ] The Dr. says , because the Particle [ they ] in v. 23 , is understood of all the Churches of Asia , in the Speech directed to Thyatira , the Transition from him to them is easie and natural , all the Churches of Asia shall know , &c. — But unto you i. e. the Churches of Asia , &c. If this be not an offering violence to the Text , nothing ever was ; For after that our Lord hath added a general appendant motive v. 23. that by this stroak on Iezebel , all the Churches shall know ( viz : the Asian Churches ) that he is a searcher of the Reins and Hearts , &c. He returns to an express Application and Address of the Speech to Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First in general by the discriminating But , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Secondly in an express mention of Thyatira . And that we may not mistake it for a general partition of the Churches of Asia unto those of Thyatira and others ( as the Dr. dreams ) he expresly , & in terminis , thus restricts the phrase and address to that particular Church , to you and the rest in Thyatira , not to you in all Asia . The Dr will not deny , that in this clause the ( you ) and the ( rest ) are distinguished , and within distinct Limits and Marches , but so cannot those of Thyatira , be distinguished from the Churches of Asia , whereof they are a part . For what he adds of Beza's Acknowledgment of the Angel to be a Praeses , we have already made appear , how insignificant this is to bear the weight of his conclusion of a Prelatical Presidency here supposed , since he owns him only as a Moderator or Praeses of the Meeting , by the Dr's acknowledgement . But the Dr. tells us , he makes him in a ridiculous manner a Weekly or Monthly Mod●rator . This Charge of the Dr's is ridiculous , Beza only pleading against the fixed Moderator , which with him is the Episcopus humanus , without mentioning any such Limits of time , as the Dr. Imputes unto him . The Dr. will needs remove the Objection taken from the Angels not being called Bishops ; to which he returns , That neither Baptism nor the Sacrament of the Lords Supper are called Sacraments , though we express the Scripture Sense of these Institutions , when so terming them . But by his favour , this Objection is not so inconsiderable , as he imagins , nor his Answer so considerable ; for , if the Apostles Scope was to point out the Nature and Office of the Diocesan Bishop , whom the Dr. distinguishes from inferior Officers , and owns him as distinguished by this term Bishop , which he knows to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in terminis a Scripture term and epithet , such as is not the word Sacrament , it should seem this discriminating term should here have been made use of rather than a more general Term , aplicable to all Pastors . And in a word , when he shall make the Divine institution of the Diocesan Bishop appear in Scripture , then his Paralel answer with reference to Terms of Trinity and Sacraments , expressing what is revealed in Scripture , though not in Scripture Terms , shall be admitted as valid : But till then , must make up the Number of the rest of the Dr's gratis supposita and beggings of the Question . The Dr. will needs have the whole Question to be determined by the Ancients affirmation of a Prelatical Succession to Apostles . And next by their insisting on this Succession in their Disputes with Hereticks . And in the Third place , by the resolution of this doubt , whether we may safely Lean on their Authority and Tradition in an affair of this Consequence . What Credit is to be given to the Ancients in this Poin● , and what strength is in the Argument drawn from their supposed Testimony , in reference to our perswasion of the Divine Right of Prelacy , is above fully cleared . And our scope being to trace only the Dr. in his pretended Scripiure-proofs , we leave him sufficiently exposed in this Point of Antiquity , by those , who have fully examined him , and traced his human Proofs on these heads : Wishing him a Sounder heart , and more sincere diligence in this Controversy . FINIS . A REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF THE Scripture-Grounds , UPON WHICH The AUTHOR of the Survey of Naphtali ( Supposed to be Mr. Andrew Honyman , Bishop of Orkney ) Pleads for the LAWFULNESS of the Episcopal Office : Where the Arguments of the IV. Chap. of his II. PART , are Discussed . CHAP : I : A Consideration of the Scripture Grounds , upon which the Surveyer pleads for the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office. TO Examin with as Succinct Perspicuity as we can , the Surveyers Scripture Pleadings for Episcopacy , in this 4 th . Chap. It is in the first place to be noticed , how that he was afraid to set his Foot upon such Slippery Ground , as to plead directly for the Necessity of Prelacy , upon a Divine or 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 m●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 Will that this Moderator or President should have their whole Authority Concentred in him , as this Survey●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 th● 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 or Presidents acknowledged alwise the Power of the Colledge of Presbyters to be above their own , and were subject to the Injunctions of the Meetings , as well as any other Member . The Fourth Ground , which the Surveyer layeth down , P. 194. is this , That as there are ordinances merely Divine , so also mixed Ordinances , which have a Divine ground , and with all adjoyned thereunto a positive human Institution , such as Calvin holds geniculation in prayer to be : The Episcopal Power being in it self Lawful , the Subjecting of it in one person , in a certain Circuit , is most suitable for preserving Unity , supposing the Person to be of greater worth , and consequently recommended by the light of Nature , and in so far by the word of GOD , and further warranded by a Lawful Church Constitution . Ans. This ground easily appears foolish and unsound , when we consider that not only the Power it self , is of Gods appointment and institution , but likewise the Subject thereof , and and Officers Cloathed with the Power , so that whatever Authority the Church may be supposed to have for regulating the Exercise , according to the general Rules of the word , and of Christian prudence ; yet no Church under Heaven hath Authority to lift up the March-stones , which God hath set , and impeach his Institutions in Point of Government : Which Guilt , is certainly Contracted either , 1. In setting up a New Officer , Cloathed with such Authority as he hath not allowed ; such as we have made appear the Prelat to be , both in Respect of his acclaimed Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority . 2. In Robbing the Pastor of that Authority , allowed by the great Masters Appointment and Institution , which , as we have made appear , doth in its Essence respect an Interest , both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction . As for Calvin , he is found in that place , to speak nothing of the Nature of this Geniculation . or what may give light touching the Nature of those mixed Ordinances . Besides , that the Surveyers Reason here adduced , from the Light of Nature , appears to Confound the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and without Respect to the Gospel Rules of Government , to found a Claim thereunto , merely upon the greater Worth and Ability : A Principle which will also brangle the Civil Government . And in a word , this Principle of Monopolizing the Power in one Person , in a certain Circuit , for this end of Preserving Unity , will tower up this singularity of Government in one person over the Bishops , the Arch-Bishops , till the Hierarchy resolve in a Papacy at last . Proceed we to the Surveyers Fifth Ground , ibid. resolving in a Partition of Three or Four Particulars , to infer a direct positive Institution , for the Superiority of one Church Officer , of a certain Circuit , over others . Whereof the First is , That Iesus Christ from his Received plenitude of Church Power from his Father , to be made use of , till the Elect be gathered in , sent his Apostles , with plenitude of Power for all Church Offices , necessary for Edifying and Preserving the same , as Power to Preach , administer Sacraments , preserve the Church in order by Godly Disciplin ; for which he Cites Joh. 20.21 . As my Father hath sent me , even so send I you , &c. Ans. As it is acknowledged , that the Apostles were sent forth for the Great end of laying the Foundation of the Gospel Churches , and Establishing the Ordinances and Offices thereof ; so that whatever Officers they are found to have Instituted and Authorized for the Churches preservation , and Purity of Order , ought to be received with all due Reverence ; so it is evident , that their Office was in this Respect , Extraordinary , and that they were Distinguished from all other Officers by their immediat Call , their immediat Instructions from Christ , in●allibility in Doctrin , a greater Amplitude of Power , &c. Hence we have made appear , there was no Shadow of a Prelatical Power in their Office , & the exercise thereof , since none of the Apostles were set over any fixed Diocess , but had an immediat Relation to the whole Church , they exercised their Ministry sometimes joyntly and promiscuously in the same place , they Ordained no Inferior Officers alone , without the Concurrence of other Officers , where they might be had , nor Challenged , as Prelats , a sole Power of Jurisdiction over the Churches , &c. The Second Subservient ground , which the Surveyer , P. 195 , adduces , is , That the Apostles had Successors to themselves in that plenitude of Ordinary Church Power , for that Power was not to Cease till the end of the World , according to the Promise , Matth. 28.20 . I am with you alway , to the end of the World , meaning with them and their Successors . Ans. That the Apostles had Successors , that derived down an Ordinary Church Power , in reference to the Preaching of the Word , the Administration of the Sacraments , and such a Governing Power , and the exercise thereof , as is necessary for the Churches Edification and Preservation in all times , is easily admitted : And this ordinary Church Power , we maintain with the Body of all Protestant Divines , to be derived down by the Pastor , the proper Successor of the Apostles in this Work , as hath been above cleared . And this is most Properly that plenitude of Power , which was to continue to the end . For this Surveyer , in this Discriminating term of Ordinary Church Power , seems , to exclude any Succession of Church Officers to the Apostles , in eundem gradum , and properly . The Surveyer tells us in the Third place , That there are three probable Pretenders to this Succession of Apostles , Viz : Single Presbyters in the Modern Notion ; Colledges of Presbyters in a full Equality of Power ; Or some single Persons having Superiority of Power over ordinary Presbyters . The Pretensions of the People , or of any other to the Church Government , He tells us , he doth pass as Irrational : And so do we . Only I must here say , That as what a single Presbyter may do in extraordinary Cases , in Point of Jurisdiction , is not here the Question ; And that therefore his three Pretenders may be Justly reduced to two : So in his confident Rejection of all other Pretenders as Irrational , he should have been aware of touching the Kings Crown , and more consistently defended his Erastian Supremacy in Church Government ; Since in the last Edition of our Scots Hierarchy , he was Owned and Established , as the chief Officer and Head of this Church . The Surveyer will have this Question of the Matter of Fact , upon which the Jus depends , to be determined by Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles , and the first and surest Light , Church History can afford in the Churches purest Times . I have made appear that this Question of a Divine Fact , must be decided by the Scripture Light allenarly , and by Consequence , not from the Acts of the Apostles Solely , excluding what further Light in this Matter is to be had from their Instructions , in Point of Church Government , contained in their Epistles , and likewayes from other places of the New Testament . So , that whatever Practice of the Church , the History , 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 to Pastors ? This Objection is above fully removed . And here again we repone , 1. The Infant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an Evangelist , and Directions from an infallible Apostle . 2. Episcopalians must confess , that in many Points , wherein Timothy and Titus are immediatly addressed , ordinary Pastors and Presbyters have a necessary and essential Interest , and that therefore they must acknowledge this to be one end of these addressed Instructions , that Pastors or Presbyters may have a clear Vidimus of their Ministerial Office and Duties ; And that by consequence the addressing of these Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude Pastors from the Jurisdictional Power ; And no more make this peculiar to these persons , than the Injunctions respecting the Reading , Preaching of the Word , Convincing the Gain sayers , and Rebuking the Scandalous , solely applicable to a Prelat , as his incommunicable Prerogatives . The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song , That its the greatest possible evidence , that can be in such a Matter of Fact , that immediatly after all the Apostles Death , until the Council of Nice , the Church had no other Government , but that of Bishops . Ans. This Assertion , especially as respecting the Patriarchal Bishop of the late Edition , viz : with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction , tyed to Preach to no flock , and deriving all his Power from the Civil Magistrate , is so grosly absurd , so palpably false , that the very Repetition is a Confutation ; the contrary having been demonstrated by several Learned Pens . The best Antiquaries confess these first times dark , as to Matters of Fact. But the Surveyer quite mistakes this Question , which is not anent a mere Matter of Fact , or the Churches Practice simplely Considered , but anent the Apostolick Instructions and Institutions , in point of Church Government , viz : what Officers the Apostles set up and Instituted , in what order , and Cloathed with what Authority , how qualified for their Office , and instructed therein , how they are found to have exercised this Power , when thus Instituted and set up . If this be clear in the Scripture Records , then no defects or aberrations therefrom , either in , or after the Apostles times , can direct or warrand our Imitation , nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule , unless we will extend this to Regulat us as to every Scripture Truth and Duty therein held out . Both Scripture and Church History , do give us an account of the early aberrations from the Divine Rule , both in Point of Doctrin , Worship and Government , such as those anent the Resurrection , Justification by good Works , Worshipping of Angels , the Error of the Nicolaitans ; and in Point of Government , the Mysterie of Iniquity , the Embryon of a Papal Primacy , was working in Pauls time , and early appeared in Diotrephes aspiring after a Primacy ▪ Not to stand upon the Millenary Error , the Error anent the Vision of GOD , and others , early appearing thereafter . The Surveyer will needs strengthen his Notion by the Maxim , Lex currit cum praxi , & consuetudo est optimus interpres Legis : What interpretation and Sense this is capable of , in reference to Human Laws , or of what use , is left to the Consideration of the Gentlemen of the Long Robe ; But sure with respect to the Divine Law , 't is dangerous and sadly lax . Divinity , & Israels Consuetudo and early practice of Idolatrie , and the Worshipping of Images , as that of the Golden Calf , with a pretended design to Worship the Lord Jehovah , was a shrewd and gross interpretation of the Second Command . The People who told Jeeremiah , that they would pour out Drink Offerings to the Queen of Heaven , because their Progenitors in a long tract of time had done so , were much in this Surveyers Mind . But the great Lawgiver , who enjoyned his People not to walk after their Fathers Commandments ▪ nor Judgments , though of never so Large an extent and long Continuance , but after his Laws and Judgments , is of another Mind . Tertullians Rule and Prayer is good , speaking of Custom in it self considered and simplely , Surge veritas ipsa . Scripturas tuas interpretare quas consuetudo non novit nam si nosset non esset : Did Custom know Scripture , it would be ashamed of it self , and cease to be any more : Upon which ground he pleads , that the Eternal Light himself might arise and expone his own Scriptures . The Surveyer tells us , That in these preceeding grounds , he hath pleaded only for the Lawfulness of Prelacy , though the necessity is not denied . But sure , if these grounds evince any thing , they prove a Necessity , as well as Lawfulness : If the Apostles Directions and Practice in the Institution of Church Officers , pursuant to their great Masters Commission , together with his supposition of the Apostolical and Christian Churches Universal Reception and Practice , will not evince and prove this , I know nothing will : Besides , that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine Institution , which will bear this Conclusion of Necessity , not of Lawfulness only . But in this proof of the Lawfulness of Prelacy , the Surveyer tells us , he intended to quiet the Minds of People , anent the Covenant obligation against it . A good Pillow of security , no doubt this had been , had he proved , that Universally and absolutely no Oath can oblige against a thing in it self Lawful or retrench our Liberty thereanent , and answered the Arguments urged by Casuists on the contrary . But it is not our purpose to digress on this head . He adds , That if Lawful , it is Juris Divini , that we submit to a Lawful Human Ordinance and Command , for the Lords sake : Which Reason were valid , had he made good that the Human Ordinance , in this Circumstantiate Case , had for its object a thing Lawful ; And that the Human ordinance is the First Rule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of a Practice hic & nunc , though in it self Lawful : And further , that the Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loose solemn Oaths and Vows upon the Lawgivers themselves , and the Subjects , against such a practice as is commanded . CHAP. II. The Surveyers Exceptions and Answers , which he offers to the Scriptures , Pleaded by Presbyterians , Examined ; Particularly , To these Passages viz : Matt. 20 : 25 , 26 : with the Paralels Mark 10 : 42 : Luke 22 , 25 : To that passage Mat. 18 : 17 : and Act : 20 : 17 , 28 : Tit : 1 : 5 : 7 : 1 Pet : 5 : 1.2 . The Vnsoundness and Inconsistency of his Exceptions and Glosses made appear . THE Surveyer having thus presented his Episcopal Strength , and his great Grounds for proving Prelacy Lawful , doth in the next place , undertake to Answer the Scripture Arguments , that are pleaded for Presbyterian Government ; which we shall now Consider and Examin● . The First Scriptures ( he tells us , P. 197. ) that are made use of , for proving the Parity of Ministers in the Government of the Church , and disproving Imparity or Superiority of any over others , are Mark. 10.42 . Matth. 20 , 25 , 26. Luke . 22.25 . Where , because our Lord is speaking of the Kings and Great Ones of the Earth , their Exercising Dominion and Authority over their Subjects , forbids his Disciples to do so , it shall not be so among you ; therefore , it is concluded , that there should be no Superiority or Governing Power of Ministers of the Church above Ministers , but all should be equal . Ans. These Texts have been above considered and improven : It is evident , that our Lord Commanded Parity of Official power among his Apostles , his First Ministers , and by clear Consequence , the same equality among Pastors , who are equal , and of the same Order as Apostles were , and their proper Successors in the ordinary power of Government . That the Prelats acclaimed Power in Civils , and Dominion over Church Judicatories , brings him within the Compass of the prohibition in these Texts , is above made good . The Surveyer , in his way of expressing our Argument , seems to oppose to this Official equality of Pastors , the Superior power and Authority of greater to the lesser Judicatories , which is the necessary Ligament of all Government , and of Presbyterian consequently . But to proceed . The Surveyer in his First Answer , will needs question , That there is at all a Prohibion in these Texts given to Christs Apostles , but only a mere prediction of what was to be their Lot in the VVorld , Viz. That they were not to have a Stately , Glorious , Pompeous , worldly Superiority over others ; Christ assuring them they were to be dispised of the World ; It was as Incongruous to prohibit them to Reign as Grandees , as to Charge a Man not to act the King , who is assured that all his days he is to be a Beggar ▪ Ans. This pitiful Shift and Gloss , out of the Road of Interpreters , discovers what a desperate falling Cause the Surveyer was maintaining , which needed the support of such a Conceit as this : To which we oppose . 1. The Circumstances and Scope of the place , clearly refuting this irrational Subterfuge . It is evident , our Lord was here curing the Disciples Emulation and sinful Debate about Superiority and Chiefness in his Church and Kingdom , and directing them , both negatively and positively , in the exercise of their Spiritual power , as his Ministers , and this in order to the preventing of mistakes in Judgment , and contravention of their Practice , in Reference to the Nature and Exercise of Church Government : In order to which Scope , the pointing at the events of Providence , merely in their external Condition , had been utterly extraneous and impertinent . And as in this Gloss , the Surveyer doth Violence to the prohibiting part of the Text , so most palpably to the positive Injunction , He that will be great or Chief , as Luke hath it , let him be as the Youngest , recommending to them a Humble Ministry , in Opposition to Pompous greatness . 2. The Surveyers Reason is palpably absurd and impertinent , for notwithstanding of our Lords warning them of their despised State in the World , yet he also Instructed them in the Nature and Exercise of his Kingdom , did shew he was to have a Church , which is his Kingdom , against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail ; In which Kingdom , they being Officers and Governours , it was necessary they should understand its nature , in order to a due exercise thereof , and as necessary it was , their Successors should have the same knowledge . The Offices in the House of GOD are truely Honourable , to be counted worthy of Honour and Highly Esteemed by the Members of the Church , was it not then necessary , that the Nature of this Spiritual greatness and Honour , in opposition to worldly Pomp , should be thus pointed out ? The Surveyer holds there was a Prophetick Intimation , that Apostles and their Successors , should not have a Glorious , Pompous , Worldly Superiority , and thus excludes from an Apostolick Succession , Prelats , who are Princes of the Empire , and Peers of the Land , and must set them in Terms of Contradiction to this his supposed Prophecy . Secondly , Granting there is here a Prohibition , the Surveyer will consider what is prohibited , and to whom . For the First , He tells us , It is that Sort of Dominion exercised among Kings of the Gentiles , according to the Notion the Apostles had of Christs Kingdom , Act. 1.6 . Luk. 24.21 . Mat. 18.1 . Mark 9.34 . So that our Lord discharged Earthly Pomp , Coactive Power of Worldly Kingdoms , not all Superiority of one of his Ministers above others , non Rem sed Modum Rei . Ans. This is above Examined and Confuted . We have made appear , that all Masterly Power and Dominion is here forbidden , as inconsistent with that Humble Ministry , and Ministerial Service , enjoyned in the positive part of this Precept , which doth not Discriminat one Dominion from another , as if one sort were allowed , and another forbidden , or , as if Government , which is in the Nature of Lordship and Dominion , were Diversified and Distinguished in respect of its manner of Exercise , good or bad , but all Masterly Power , though in its self lawful , is here , both as to matter and manner forbidden to Christs Ministers , in the Exercise of their Authority . This Man acknowledges Earthly Pomp to be forbidden and Worldly Grandure , and what could his thoughts be of Prelats being a third Estate of Parliament , bearing State Offices of the Highest Sort ? He says our Lord discharged not Rem but Modum Rei : If by this Modus Rei he understand a Civil Dominion , he hath cut off the Prelats Civil Rule , and in so far acknowledges their Transgressing this Precept : If he restrict the Sense to a Dominion , which he may call Spiritual , he leaves still a Latitude for the highest Extension thereof , even to a Papal Primacy . He tells us , that a Chiefness is rather supposed than forbidden , as he labours to prove ( P. 201. ) from Luk. 22.26 . And thus neither the Disciples Distemper , nor Emulation about a Primacy , nor the Papal Pretensions thereof , are ever touched by this Prohibition , according to his Gloss : And in this , as he crosses our Lords Scope , so he contradicts himself , since ( P. 199. ) he asserts with Cyprian , that the Apostles were Pari honoris & potestatis consortio praediti , had equal Power and Authority . This Answer of the Surveyer , wherein he embraces the Popish Distinction and Evasion upon this Text , viz. That our Lord discharged that Sort of Dominion only , exercised among the Kings of the Gentiles , and as he expresses it non Rem sed Modum Rei , brings to Mind a remarkable Passage of the Learned Turretin , Institut . Theol. Elenct . Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 16. de Regimine Ecclesiae , P. mihi 164 , 165. Having Cited this Passage , Luk. 22.25 , 26. against the Papal Monarchy , together with the paralell , 1 Pet. 5.2 . And from both , having inferred that Dominion in the Church is forbidden , and a Ministerial Service enjoyned : He brings this Popish Argument and Exception , Nec dici potest apud Lucam Monarchiam & Dominationem absolute non interdici , sed tantum ejus modum , qui non sit simulis Dominationi Politicae seu Tyrannidi Regum Gentium ; That is , It cannot be said in the place of Luke , that Monarchy and Dominion is not absolutely forbidden , but only the manner thereof , or such as is like to that Tyrannical Dominion of Earthly Kings . The Reasons of his rejecting this Gloss , he subjoyns , Quia Apostoli non contendebant inter se de modo Primatus sed de Primatu ipso , &c. That the Apostles were not contending about the manner of a Primacy , but the Primacy it self , and therefore , that our Lords Answer may be apposit to their Question , it must needs absolutely forbid all Dominion . 2. If our Lord had intended to forbid only some special kind of Dominion certum Dominationis modum , he had not removed their Ambition , which he is here endeavouring signally to remove , since other Primacies also do Feed Ambition . 3. Saith he , this Phrase [ Not so , viz. shall it be among you ] according to the Use of the Scripture , doth import a simple and absolute Negation , as Psal. 1.4.147.20 . Adding that in the paralells , Mat. 20. and Mark 10. it is expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non it a sit inter vos , It shall not be so among you . He adds that if Christ had allowed a Dominion to Peter , the Apostles had been admonished thereanent , and that the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Service or Ministry ascribed unto them , is inconsistent therewith . He afterward in the next Paragraph Answers the Objection taken from the Signification of the Compound Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as importing a violent Domination , shewing that the Words of themselves will not necessarly import such a thing , which he proves from some paralel Texts , and that they signifie a simple Dominion only , which he further proves from Lukes making use of the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Adding in the third place , that there was no need , that our Lord should speak of a Dominion of this Nature , because the Apostles Debate was not about a violent Domination . He adds further , Nec valet quod subjicitur , &c. It is of no weight which the Popish Adversary pleads against the Discharge of all Primacy , because our Lord subjoyns , He that is greatest among you , since our Lord speaks not of a true Greatness , in respect of the thing it self , but of an Imaginary , in respect of Affectation and Desire : Which Matthew and Mark do expone and clear by these Words , Whosoever will be great amongst you . In the rest of his Reasons , he hath several things to this purpose , as if he had been expresly Disputing against this Surveyer , as indeed upon the Matter he doth , and Listeth him among the Popish Adversaries in this Point . For that Point of the Persons spoken to , the Surveyer tells us , The Apostles were sometimes spoken to , as representing all Christians , Mark. 13.37 . In which Sense , this Prohibition was not given to them , which would strike at the Authority allowed among Christians : Sometimes what is spoken to them concerns themselves alone in their Apostolick Capacity , as Matth. 19.28 . In which Sense , we cannot understand this Prohibition , since it would exclude all Ministers afterward : Some things likewise were spoken to them , as representing only Ministers , as when Power of remitting and retaining Sins is given them , Joh. 20. In which Sense , we cannot apply this unto them , since this will impeach the Superior Authority of any of them above others , and their Authority over Inferior Ministers , evidenced in Pauls Excommunicating Hymeneus and Alexander , making Decrees for the Church of Corinth , &c. Ans. Whatever may be said to this Partition in it self , it is certain , the Enumeration is not so adequat as not to admit of a Super-numerary : Some things might be spoken to Apostles , which did most nearly concern them as Apostles , as being immediatly directed to them , and yet may have an useful reference , in a Subaltern and Subordinat Sense , to all the Ministers of Christ. As when our LORD said to His Apostles , Ye are the Light of the World , the Salt of the Earth : This in some respect had a peculiar Application to them as Apostles , and our LORDs Infallibly Inspired Ambassadors , authorized to lay the Foundation of the Gospel Church , prescribe her Ordinances and institute her Officers , and several of them appointed to be the Holy Ghosts Pen-Men in writing the Scriptures , in which respect the Church is said to be Built upon their Foundation . But though no Ministers else could acclaim to be in this respect the Light of the World , and Salt of the Earth , or challenge a Right to the peculiar Priviledges of Apostles included therein , it is notwithstanding certain , that there is a Subordinat Application hereof unto ordinary Ministers , that they are in their Capacity and Sphere the Light of the World , and the Salt of the Earth , and have the Honour and Duties of their Ministerial Office therein enjoyned and included , as well as the Apostles had theirs . 2. Since he grants the Apostles were pari honoris & potestatis consortio praediti , and cannot deny that our LORD bespoke them upon that Ground of an equal Official Power , and as in that Capacity , it follows that he bespoke Pastors , whom he appointed to be in the same order of an equal Official Power , and to succeed to the Apostles in their ordinary Authority . The Surveyer can give no Reason wherefore our LORD discharged the impeaching this instituted Equal Power of Apostles , by an Unlawful Dominion , and not to have given the same Prohibition to Pastors : Why a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chief or Primat is discharged among Apostles , and not also among Pastors . The Surveyers Contrary Instances ( as he calls them ) of the Apostolick Authority over Ministers in the Church , are palpably Impertinent , and do miss the Mark. For 1. Their Authority in the first plantation of Churches , can no wayes conclude what is the ordinary Authority of Pastors , in the Churches ordinary and settled Government . 2. Our Argument runs thus , That the Apostles being placed in an equal Sphere of a Ministry , were equal among themselves as Apostles , formally , and equal among themselves as Gospel Ministers upon this Ground : But that therefore , they could have no Authority Apostolical , as Apostles , over Inferior Officers , doth nowayes follow this Supposition , nor will it follow , that because the Apostles were Ministers , and had Authority over other Ministers , that therefore there is a Lawful Official Authority of one Pastor over another , because the Apostles were more than Ministers , viz. Apostles , and in that Capacity had that Superiority , but not as Ministers simplely : So that such an Argument would run cross to the common Rules . It is certain , whatever Authority they put furth in the Churches in fieri , and in directing them in the Exercise of their ordinary Power , yet in settled Judicatories they are found acting as Elders and Ministers , and not as Apostles ; This hath been made Good in Pauls assuming the Presbytrie in the Ordination of Timothy ; The ordinary Elders or Ministers concurring with the Apostles in that Council , Act. 15. Both in the Disquisition , in the Sentence , and enjoyning the Decree . But sayes the Surveyer , We must not distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not ; If notwithstanding this Prohibition , the Apostles exercised Authority over Ministers , it doth not Discharge such an Authority of Pastors over Pastors . Ans. The Laws of our LORD delivered in the New Testament , and the Correspondent Recorded Practice thereof , doth State a clear distinction betwixt the Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers and Pastors , and that both with respect to the Nature and Extent of their power . The Surveyer tells us , the Ambition beginning among the Apostles , the cure should have been applyed to them . Ans. So we affirm it was in our Lords prohibiting either a Prelatical Dominion among themselves , or over Inferior Officers : But this could not impeach their extraordinary Inspection over the Churches , - which was together with their Office to pass off , and die with themselves , when that Case and exigency of the Church was over . The Surveyers Second Counter-evidence ( P. 199. ) is drawn from 1 Cor. 12.28 . God hath set in his Church , First Apostles , Secondarily Prophets , Thirdly Teachers ; which is an ordinal Numbering , with reference to the Object they were imployed about ; as Presbyterians hold upon this ground , the Pastors Office Superior to the Elder . Ans. Not to stand upon this his ordinal numbering ; nor upon an enquiry wherefore the Evangelist is excluded by the Surveyer in this Account of ordinal numbering , whom we find Numbred , Eph. 4.11 . It is Evident , that . 1. This Instance is extravagant from the Point : For , from our Assertion , that the Prohibition of Unlawful Dominion over their Fellows , was given to Apostles as representing Pastors or Ministers , he draws a Conclusion , that thereupon will follow a Discharge of the Superior Authority of one Pastor over another , he means an Official Superiority , the Contrary whereof , he undertakes to prove by Instances ; and here his great Instance is drawn from the Apostolical Authority , which the Apostles exercised over inferior Officers ; or the supposed ordinal Numbring of Extraordinary Officers : But I pray , what is this to prove the Official ordinary Superiority of Pastors over Pastors , or to evince their Superior Degrees among themselves ? Apostles , Prophets , Evangelists , &c. were placed in their several Degrees , or had their special Pieces of work in the Churches Infant State , therefore there ought to be the same Degrees of the Pastoral Office : What Consequence is this ? 2. He is inconsistent with himself in this Reasoning : For ( 1. ) He hath already distinguished the Apostles Official ordinary Power , in the plenitude whereof , he alledges Prelats do succeed them , from another , which he must call extraordinary , else his Distinction is chimerical , and must fly with one Wing . And ( 2 ) He alledges some things are spoken to them alone in their Apostolick Capacity , which concerned none else ; and thus distinguishes that capacity from the capacity of Pastors : Now when he is about to prove , that the Apostles , qua Pastors , or in that Capacity , and under thus reduplication strictly and properly , were above other Pastors , and consequently that there are different Degrees of the Pastoral Office ; As if he had forgot his Distinction , he draweth his Argument from the Apostolical Acts of Superiority over inferior Officers , and the supposed Degrees of Apostles , Prophets and others , in that extraordinary Function , wherein he palpably baffles his former suposition and Distinction . That in the Text Cited , together with the Paralel , Eph. 4.11 . there is a Numbering ( whether we call it ordinal or not ) of Extraordinary Officers , now past off with these first times of Christianity , is the consentient Judgment of sound Divines , and by Consequence , that no Argument can be drawn from hence , for distinction of Degrees in the Pastoral Office. The Surveyer ( P. 200. ) cannot understand how the Pastor having a Doctrinal Superiority over other Officers of the Congregation , should in Point of Disciplin , which is but a Personal application of the Word sink below his Assistants in the Session and have his Voice swallowed up by theirs . But he might much more wonder at his own Principle , who alledges the Pastor to have , in dispensing the Word and Sacraments , an Authority and Power of the same Nature , with that of the Hierarchical Bishop , and yet when he comes from the Pulpit , and sitteth in a Judicatory with the Prelat , losses all Authoriry in Government , and according to the last Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy , become a mere Cipher without a Figure , having no Power but to advise the Prelat , and scarce that . As for the Pastors Authority in the Session , we say that although the higher Honour allowed to the Labourer in Word and Doctrin , above the Officer who Rules only , and who doth not thus Labour , will allow the respect & deference of a constant Presidency in the Parochial Church Judidicatory , yet Ruling Elders having an Essential interest in Church Government , he cannot have the sole decisive Vote , though there is still access to appeal to a higher Judicatory , in case of mal-Administration . The Surveyers Third ground is , That if Governing Superiority be inhibit to Pastors over others , it is either of one over others , and thus we unjustly distinguish this Monarchical Government of one , while we allow the like Government of many , which in an Aristocratical form , may have as much of State and Command , as of one : If we say , that he Discharged all Superiority of many , or of some Number over others this will , in favour of Independents , destroy Presbyterian Government , and the Subordination of Iudicatories . Ans. This is in part already removed , by what we have offered anent the Essential difference , in Point of Government , betwixt the Judiciary Power , as Subjected in a Colledge or Society , and the Monopolizing and concentring it in one Person . 1. We have told him , that our Lord hath Established and Instituted both the Nature and Subject of Church Power . 2. Having Instituted Pastors of an equal Official Authority , all Pastors as Members of the Judicatory , have an Essential interest in the decisive Votes , and an equal decisive suffrage therein upon this Ground ; so that there is a Clear exclusion of the Monopolized Government in one Person , who appears excluded and Discharged by our Lords Instituted Principles and Grounds of Government , since this Concentring of Government in one , robs Pastors of this their Decisive suffrage , excludes a free and full Conference and Debate , in order to a sutable Determination , by a free suffrage , as is exemplified in that Council ▪ Act. 15. And therefore this Dominion of a Prelat over Pastors ( besides his Pompous Civil Dominion ) brings him palpably within the Compass of this Prohibition . 3. That the Presbyterians Subordination of Judicatories , cannot fall within the Compass hereof , nor come under the Surveyers imputation of State and Dominion , is many ways evident . ( 1. ) This is founded upon the Light and Law of Nature , and the Nature of all Governments . ( 2. ) This is notably consistent with the Jurisdictional exercise of the Pastoral Office , and the ends thereof , both which the Prelatical Dominion destroys : This Subordination is founded upon our Lords Institution , as is evident , Matth. 18. where the gradation in Point of Censure and Appeals , is from the Lesser to the greater Number , which the Prelatical form inverts and destroys . As for Commisions of Assemblies , which the Surveyer next quibles about : We say , that it is no extrinsick Judicatory , exercising any extrinsick power , but a more Compendious meeting of the whole Assembly , with their Conjunct power for the purposes delegated and limited , both as to the Time and Object of their power , and are accountable to the ensuing Assembly for their Administration . What the Surveyer adds , touching their power to punish all Ministers who will not obey their Acts , &c. It is palpably impertinent , for no Censures or Punishments were to go beyond the Limits of their Instructions and Commission , nor ever did , or could Assemblies engage to own them any otherwise ; so that in whatever point they did Malverse , the Assembly , was still as an equal Judge to be Appealed unto . The Surveyers Fourth Ground and Instance ( P. 201. ) is , That in the Texts under Debate , our Lord supposes some of his Disciples , in Comparison of others , were to be great and chief , in respect of Power and Authority , else the Speech were not to the purpose ; And that our Lord directs such as attained to this Chiefty and Greatness , to Demean themselves Humbly and Usefully , let him be as the Younger , which is no Direction to Undervalue such , but only prohibits an Affectation of Honour , separat from the worthy Work mentioned , 1 Tim. 3.1 . Ans. This Popish Gloss of Bellarmin and others , we have already at large Confuted , which , as we have above made appear , establisheth and fixeth the Popes Mitre , instead of Levelling against it , as this Text certainly doth . Protestant Divines , more appositely to the Scope and Contexture , have told the Papists , that our Lord said not , he who by my Appointment should be Chief , or enjoy a Principality or Supremacy , but he that from the bad Disposition of Iames and Iohn , would seek this , must in place thereof endeavour and emulat Spiritual Faithful Diligence in the Ministerial Duties , and thus to be Chief in Vertue and Reward . That this Popish Gloss of a supposed Lawful Chiefness or Principality in the Church , so overthrows the Scope , that it makes our Lord rather to have Inflamed than Quenched by his Answer , the Ambitious Sute of the two Brethren , and the Disciples Emulation thereupon . That this Gloss will prove the Disciples Concernment in the Enquiry , anent the Person who was to be Chief . The Survey●r though apparently excluding a Civil Chiefness or Kingly Power , yet allows a Spiritual Principality . His Caution , that the Clause , let him be as the Younger , will not import a Direction to Undervalue such , is fruitless and impertinent , since the Lord recommends therein a humble Ministerial Diligence , as is said . The Bishops Work , 1 Tim. 3. is the Work and Office of the Laborious Pastor and Scripture Bishop , but the Aspiring Seeker of a Chiefness , which the Surveyer would bring within the Compass of that Text , is condemned with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diotrephes , who aspired after the same . For what he adds of the Motive drawn from our Lords Humility : We have above made appear , that in the Series of their Arguing , he and his Fellows doth underprop by such a Notion and Gloss of this Passage , a Primacy or Papacy . It is enough that we add here , that our Lords Exemplary Humility , who is the Master of the House , is in this place presented , the more strongly to enforce his Servants abhorring all Ambitious Usurpation one over another , since they are all Fellow-Disciples and Servants . The Surveyers Fifth Ground and Counter-Instance ( P. 202. ) is this in Summ , That our Lord mentioning in this Prohibition , the Authority , not of Kings over Chief Grandees , but over their Subjects , were our Gloss of his discharging all Governing Superiority admitted , it would reach a Prohibition of Government over the People , and therefore our Lord discharges not the Rule of one or some Ministers over Ministers , but only the Lordly and Earthly Way of it . Ans. As the Dominion and Arbitrary Power , which our Lord here discharged , is certainly such , as respects both Ministers and People , Church Members and Church Officers , and a fortiori , as reaching Church Officers , because respecting Church Members : Whence the Apostle Peter , Copying out this Direction of his Master , exhorted Ministers not to Lord over Gods Heritage ; So we have made appear , that the Power and Dominion of the Hierarchical Bishop , is such as encroaches upon the just Liberties both of Ministers and People , robbing the one of their Decisive Suffrage and Jurisdictional Power , the other of their just Liberty in the Call of Ministers , and in other things . Here again , we may notice , how this Surveyer overshoots still his Mark , and wanders from the Point , while endeavouring to prove that an Official Inequality of Pastors is not here prohibited ; And drawing his Proof from the supposed Superiority of Apostles over ordinary Pastors . Again , the Surveyer acknowledged , that there is here discharged a Dominative , Worldly and Lordly Government , and thus the Text forces him to give a Deadly Blow to his Darling Prelats , who owne the Title , Name and Thing of Lordship , and both Civil and Spiritual Dominion , they being owned as Spiritual Lords , and Lords of the High Court of Parliament . The next Scripture made use of for Presbyterian Government , and against Episcopacy , which the Surveyer ( P. 203. ) undertakes to Answer , is that Passage , Matth. 18.17 . If thy Brother trespass against thee , &c. go tell the Church , &c. Whence he saith we argue , That Christ our Lord giving out the great Charter of censuring Iurisdiction to be exercised among his Subjects , doth not give that Power to one Man , a Bishop , but to the Church , and one Man cannot be a Church . In Answer to this , the Surveyer in the first place professes to disclaim Erastus way , which denys an inherent Discipline and Government in the Church for correcting Offences , and keeping Ordinances in Purity . Which contradicts his Zealous Pleading for the Kings Ecclesiastick Supremacy in this Pamphlet , as it was then established by Law , and screwed up to the highest pinacle of an Arbitrary Dominion , so that the Prelats were declared to Act as his Commissioners , accountable to him in their pretended Ecclesiastick Administrations , and the Government it self , is in our Laws called and owned , as his Majestie 's Ecclesiastick Government . But though the Surveyer pretends to disowne Erastus way , yet he spends a considerable Discourse in fighting with their Weapons . In order to this Scope he tells us , That a Course is here prescribed for charitable removing privat Quarrels arising among Brethren , both to gain their Friendship and their Souls too , from the guiltiness of the Breach of Charity , which he tells us , is clear from v. 21.22 . And from the paralel , Luk. 17.2 , 3 , 4. Hence he inferrs , that our Lords Direction is in Limitation to privat Injuries , and not be extended to the whole Latitude of all Offences , to which this Direction cannot be extended . Ans. First , It is evident that our Lord here prescribs this Method of removing Offences , viz. That when more privat Means reach not the end , and the person privatly admonished is not gained and convinced of his Miscarriage , the Matter is to be brought to the publick hearing of the Church , and such a Church and Collegiat Meeting , as is supposed to be cloathed with power to censure Ecclesiastically . So that admiting there is a Remedy here prescribed for the removal of the privat Offences , it is still under the Notion of Scandals that might arise among them in point of Charity and Equity . And hence it is evident , that the Gaining , here made the Scope of Dealing with the offending Brother , respects mainly the gaining of his Soul to GOD : So the word is taken Iam. 5.20 . and the gaining of his Friendship , only in a Subordinat Sense . As for the Passages cited , neither v. 21.22 . of this Chap. nor Luk. 17.1.2 , 3 , 4. ( which the Surveyer himself dare not call exactly paralel to the place under debate ) can evince that the Offences mentioned were nothing but mere privat Injuries , and not Scandals ; as Mr. Gillespie in the Aarons Rod , Lib. 3. Ch. 2. hath abundantly proved : And admitting there is a Medium betwixt privat Injuries and all Offences , this place is meant only of Offences and Scandals ; Nor can it be hence inferred , that the more grosser and the lesser Scandals may not fall under a diverse Consideration , with reference to some pieces of a Method of Procedure , as is evident from what the Apostle prescribes , 1 Cor. 5. in reference to the removal of that attrocious Scandal of the incestuous Corinthian . The Surveyer ( P. 203 , 204 205. ) spends a long Discourse in endeavouring to load with Absurdities , the Distinction betwixt Civil and Ecclesiastick Powers , upon the account of the Varieties of Offences arising upon sins of Omission and Commission , sins of Quotidian Incursion , Scandals from Actions Criminal , or in point of Civil Injuries , of Oppression , &c. And Injuries in order to the joynting of the supposed Discipline , as he calls it , with the Civil Government , when the Civil Injuries and Scandal are joyned , whether he shall complain to the Church to Iudge of the Scandal , since thus the Church will Iudge the Civil injury , and invade the Magistrats part , or else pronounce the Actions Scandalous , and Censure blindly , following the antecedent Iudgment of the Magistrat , or otherwise be necessitat to review the whole Process de novo , &c. Ans. As Matters coming before these Respective Judicatories , must be considered Matterially and Formally , so the proper difference betwixt the two Jurisdictions , with respect to the Object , is to be drawn from the Formalities of the Actions , or the ratio suo qua , they come under their Respective cognizances . It cannot be the Materiality of the Action simplely , for this would make the Two Powers inevitably to Justle , and the Church might not medle with any Action , which the Civil Magistrates Power doth in any Case touch , such as habituated Adultery , Perjury , Incest , &c. So that the Scandal being the proper formal Object of the Churches Power , the same Action , as under the other formalis Ratio of the Civil injury , is the proper object of the Magistrats Cognizance ; and in the Case wherein the Civil injury is dubious , the Magistrats Right stands good , as to a Priority in the Cognizance . Likewise , there are Civil wrongs , wherein the Case is so dubious , that before the Legal Decision , the Person wronging , cannot be presumed to have Acted from a bad Principle or purpose , but from the ground of a mistaken Right , and therefore after the Legal Decision , no Scandal can be concluded . And in cases wherein there is manifest Scandal , the Churches Power takes place and herein there is no necessity , as the Surveyer pretends , either for a blind following the Magistrats Decision in this Point , or an immediat medling with Civil Processes . For the Scandals Mentioned by him , we say , that as in the Circumstantials of procedure , there is such variety allowed to the prudentials of Church Governours , according to the General Rules of the Word , as cannot Justle with the Method prescribed in this Text , so these Sins , whether of ommission , ordinary incursion , of opinion , in Matters Civil or Criminal , in so far as habituat and scandalous , do come under the Churches Cognizance , understanding this still with the due Caution premised , touching the Scandal of Civil injuries : For Scandals in Matters Criminal , if the Magistrats Sword of Justice do strike , in removing the Person from the Land of the Living , there is a prevention of any further dealing ; If he neglect his Duty , the Church is to follow the ordinary Methods for gaining the Persons Soul , and removing the Scandal . In a word , the Civil & Ecclesiastick Jurisdictions being both Gods appointments , as this Surveyer should not deny , it necessarly follows , that they have their distinct Limits and Measures drawn , their proper Ends and Objects appointed by the God of Order , and therefore cannot be said of themselves , to interfere , and clash together , without a Blasphemous reflection upon him , who is the Author of both ; so that whatever practical interfeirings and abuse of Power , men in either Capacity may be guilty of , can no more reflect upon these Ordinances themselves , than Mans Sinful abuse can be said to impeach the Divine Authority of the Office he sustains . I add this remark further , that the Surveyer doth in the Premised discourse palpably contradict himself , while endeavouring to asperse a true Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction , for he professes to disclaim Erastus his way , and asserts there ought to be a Godly Disciplin in the Church , for correcting Offenders , and keeping the House of GOD and his Ordinances in Purity , and consequently he professes to own an intrinsick Church Government distinct from the Civil , and by further consequence , a coordination of the two Powers and Jurisdictions , and likewise a necessary mutual Subjection of persons Cloathed therewith , to the Respective Authority of the one and the other Jurisdiction ; yet in his muster of supposed absurdities , he impugns this Principle , and endeavours to prove that without palpable Confusions and clashing of Societies , there can be no exercise of this Government . Besides , he pretends to impugn only the received sense of this Passage , and to keep within these Limits , yet while attempting to prove , that this is not the sense of the place , he rambles out into such a Discourse , as if it prove any thing , doth evince that neither this , nor any other place of Scripture , doth hold out an Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and Disciplin , as properly and formally distinct from the Civil . The Surveyers next Answer ( P. 205. ) is in Summ this , That supposing the Church Collective cannot be here understood , but the Representative only , in the Matter of Representation , it is indifferent , whether they be one or many ; one Commissioner may represent a Presbytrie in an Assembly : So that tell the Church , is tell the Presidents and Rulers of the Respective Churches , or tell him that 's Chief , with his Assistant . Ans. The State of the Question is whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church , doth here import such an imbodied Society or Court , as is the proper Subject of a Jurisdictional Censuring Power , and to whom the Appeal is to be made after more privat Dealings , which if evinced , the Hierachical Prelats arrogated Power monopolizing this Jurisdiction , and ( to use the Surveyers term ) concentring this Authority in himself solely , is sufficiently overthrown , as contrary to the Scripture Pattern , and cross to this great Rule and Standart : For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Consentient Judgement of Criticks and Interprete●s , that it naturally signifies a Caetus , and Caetas evocatus , a concio convocatorum , an indicta concio , thus Suidas ; thus Demosthenes ; and in Scripture it points out generally a Convocation , as Act. 19 32. and a Convocation in curia , or a Caetus civilis , v. 39. And sometimes it s put for the Assembly of Believers , sometimes for the Church Militant , sometimes for a Province , Kingdom or City : Compare Eph. 5.23 . with Act. 8.13 . Rev. 12.5 . Rom. 16.5 . And here good Interpreters do consequently take it to Represent the Ecclesiastick Senat or Presbytrie , making it one and the some with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 . Hence the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies in Concione delibero , Verba facio , to Consult , Deliberat and Discourse in Publick Assembly . The Text convinces of this ; For , 1. The Gradation is from the Lesser to the Greater Number . 2. Our Lord , v. 19 , 20. speaks of an agreeing on Earth , and gathering together in his Name . Besides , that the Surveyer himself expones the Church , of the Rulers and Governours , who , if they have a joynt Essential Interest in their Jurisdiction , he overthrows his Opinion of Concentring this in the Prelat ; if he ascribe the Jurisdictional Decisive Authority to one , who is Chief , making the rest but his Assistants , he again contradicts himself , in seeming to ascribe this Ruling Power to the whole Meeting , for thus the Sense could not be as he says , tell the Rulers and Governours . For what he adds of Commissioners , it is palpably absurd : For , 1. The Church Representative , or the Officers thereof , have a Divine immediat Institution , are set by God therein , and have not a derived Authority from the Church . 2. It is the Court it self , not the Deputed Commissioner , one or more , which is the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power . 3. To make the Paralel hold , he behoved to say the Prelats have a derived Power , as Commissioner , from the Church , the Falshood whereof is apparent . The Surveyer adds , ( P. 206. ) That the attributing a Iurisdictional Power to the Church , is nothing against him , who allows not to one single Bishop this Power , without the Council of Presbyters , according to the 4th . Council of Carthage , Can. 23. though nothing is to be done without the Bishop . Ans. In Stating the Question with the Presbyterians , ( P. 192. ) he tells us , It is whether this Power be equally Diffused in the whole Colledge of Presbyters , or Concentred in one Person : Now if the Person of the Bishop be the Centre , he cannot allow this Official Power to step beyond that Centre ; So , that no Members of the Meeting have any Interest therein . He adds here , as likeways in the place before Cited , That the Bishop must exercise this Power with the Concurr●nce and the Assistance of Presbyters ; But this can import no Exercise of Jurisdiction , since privat Persons may Counsel and Advise , who have no Decisive Suffrage : And he knew , that in the late Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy , the Clergy were to Advise the Bishop only , and scarce that . So that our Prelats , in such Exercise of their Power , baffled that Act of the Council of Carthage , which he mentions . The Surveyer adds , That there is a Plurality of Officers , even where this Inequality of Power is supposed , whether Iudging or Advising . But if one only Judge , and the rest are but mere Advisers , the Judging Power being thus Concentred in one , there is no such Court , as is the Subject of a Jurisdictional Power ; So that the Surveyer bewrays great Impudence , in saying that the Determination properly flows from them all , since the Authority is thus Concentred in one . But says the Surveyer , since the Organick Church is made up of Rulers and Ruled , the Notion of a Church will not import an Equality of Power in all . Ans. This Paralel is palpably unjust and impertinent , since the Church Organick , considered thus complexly , doth necessarly and essentially include Members and Officers , Rulers and Ruled , and consequently a necessary Inequality ; But the Surveyer could not deny , that in this place , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church , imports a Society or Colledge of Rulers only , which can come under no such Consideration of a necessary Inequality . The Surveyers Fourth Answer is in Summ , That we find the highest Censures of the Church inflicted by the Authority of single Persons , who ever otherwise concurred ; So Paul excommunicat Hymeneus and Alexander , 1 Tim. 1.20 . And to say he acted as a Member of a Quorum , is to make him a vain Boaster , and to make the Scripture speak what we will. Ans. The Surveyer must acknowledge , yea & hath acknowledged the difference betwixt the Apostolick Authority , in the Framing and Constitution of Churches , and the Exercise of their Power , in Churches already constitute in their Organick Beeing : In the first Case , there was an indispensible necessity of exerting a singular Apostolick Authority , when no Officers were to concur , and Churches were not fully Moulded in their Organick Beeing : And we heard himself distinguish the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Power : In the other Case , when Churches were constitute , it is evident , and hath been made good , that they did assume the Official Concurrence of ordinary Church Rulers . The Surveyer challengeth us to produce a Warrand for our Assertion of Pauls acting here upon an extraordinary Apostolick Authority . Thus he challenges the Apostle Paul to produce his Warrand for this his Apostolick Acting , which he has long since produced and recorded , if this Man had been pleased to read and consider it . Whereas he tells us , It was none of the extraordinary Characters of the Apostles to act in these Matters , by his own only Authority ; We say it was , where Churches were not constitute , and no ordinary Officers to concur : And this Surveyer might be challenged , as the Affirmer , to prove that this Act was put forth in an Organick Church , where ordinary Officers were to concur , or else in denying this to be one of the Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office , he asperses his Apostolick Power and Authority . He adds , That what was beyond their immediat Calling , infallible Direction , illimited Iurisdiction , &c. was transmittable to his Successors , and actually transmitted to Timothy and Titus . It is Answered , we have made appear , that their immediat Calling , considered with reference to its Nature and End of Planting Churches , Constituting the Officers & Ordinances thereof , did necessarly include this Authority in this first Framing of Churches , which neither was nor could be transmitted , unless it be pleaded that the Churches Foundation could be twice laid . For Timothy and Titus , we have above spoken to their Authority and Office , and made appear that it was transient and extraordinary , as that of Apostles , and to be Exercised with the Authoritative Official Concurrence of ordinary Officers or Presbyters , where they were Planted . The Surveyers Fifth Answer and Exception ( P. 207. ) is , That there is in this Text an Allusion to the Jewish Church Courts , wherein there were Chief and Subordinat Rulers , both in the Sanhedrin and Synagogues . Ans. Unless the Surveyer can make appear , that the whole Iurisdictional Power and Authority therein , was so Concentred in one Person , as there was nothing of it left to any of the Members ; and that their Work was only to give Assent unto the sole Decisive Determination and Sentence of that one Person , this Answer will never help the Hierarchical Bishop , whose Power was of this Nature , according to our Laws . If it be supposed that the Jurisdictional Power , was competent to the whole Colledge in these Meetings , the Passage stands still in its Condemning Force against the Hierarchical Bishop . That the whole Jurisdictional Power in the Sanhedrin , was Concentred in the Person of the High Priest , none can , without extreme Impudence , assert . We heard that the Learned Iunius ( and several others ) do assert that the ordinary Jurisdiction was penes concessum Sacerdotum , competent to the whole Meeting of the Priests . The Levits , as well as the Priests , were to shew the Sentence of Judgment in Matters and Questions brought before them , Deut. 17.8 , 9 , 10. So Iehoshaphat , 2 Chron. 19.8 , 9. restoring this Sanhedrin , set the Levites , as well as the Priests , to Judge the Controversies that came before them , by way of Appeal . And though we find that the High Priest did pronounce the Sentence of Judgment , 2 Chron. 19.11 . with Deut. 17.12 . this will not infer the Surveyers Conclusion of his sole Decisive Suffrage , since the Moderator of an Assembly may pronounce the Sentence flowing from their joynt Decisive Votes . For the Rulers of Synagogues , since we read of them , and of Chief Rulers in the plural , Mark 5.22 . Act. 13.15 . compared with Act. 18.8 , 17. it is evident there could be no peculiar Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest . His Last Exception to this Passage is , That the Remedy here prescribed was presently to be made use of , upon the rising of Scandals , and therefore , was not for Scandals to arise a long time thereafter . Ans. This first Seminarie of the Christian Church , being at present under our Lords immediat Inspection , there was no such Access for a present Use of this Remedy , & therefore this Rule and Remedy was mainly prescribed for after-times , as the Charter of the Churches Jurisdiction . The Author of the second part of Pool's Annot. well observes upon this Passage , That we are not to understand our Saviour as speaking with relation unto the present time , but the time to come , and giving Laws , which should take place , and abide from the gathering of the Christian Church : And if the Church be understood of those that have the Authority of Binding and Loosing , they shew that the present Church of Apostles , was to constitute particular Churches , to whom , when constituted , in force of this precept , such Offences were to be told , &c. The Surveyer asks , Suppose Scandals then arising , V. G. Iudas giving Scandal to Peter , would our Lord have sent them to the Sanhed●in of the Jews ? Upon the Ground I now offered , the Negative Answer is clear ; The Complaint was to be made to this glorious Head of the Church , in whom all Church-Authority is truely concentred , and in telling him , the Church was told . But the Surveyer tells us of Bucers Assertion , That Christ and his Apostles were a sufficient Representative Christian Church ; And this Primitive Presbytrie and Representative , he professes to accept well of , where was no Equality of Power in the Members . Ans. The Surveyer knew there was here an absolute Dominion of the Churches Glorious Head over a Society of Officers ; And if he will still have such a standing Pattern of a Representative Church , viz. a Supreme Vicar having the Radical Authority thereof , the Pope will joyn issue with him in his gladful Acceptance thereof .. That there was no Equality of Power in the Members , contradicts his former Assertion , anent an Equality of an Official Power among the Apostles , unless he will put Christ the Glorious Head among these Members , and degrade Him from his Head-ship . He tells us further , That in this Primitive Pattern , there was no Inter-mixture of Lay-Elders . A witty Knack and Notion indeed . He hath told us P. 199. of several Classes and Degrees of Church Officers , which he thinks exemplifies the continual standing Measures for the Christian Church , from that Passage , 1 Cor. 12.28 . First Apostles , Secondarily Prophets , Thirdly Teachers , after that Miracles , and he will not doubt Evangelists likewayes are of the Number , who are reckoned Eph. 4. Our Surveyer saw no mixture of these in this Presbytrie , nor of the Pastor , whom he distinguishes from the Apostolick Office , the Bishops being with him , their Successors : So that the poor Man was upon the Charybdis or Scylla , either to acknowledge that this Presbytrie was not so compleat as it ought to have been , and thus forced to contradict what he here asserts , That according to this Form all others afterwards should be framed ( for this will make the Pattern and after Copies manck and defective ) Or else , if he acknowledge that in this Primitive Seminary and Embryon of Church Judicatories , all ordinary Officers were not present , he behoved to confess that his Charge against Lay-Elders ( as he calls them ) because not here , was impertinent and groundless . The Surveyer calls for such a Presbytrie to end all our Controversie . That is a Presbytrie with a Head , having a Soveraign Absolute Dominion over all the Members : And since he would not with the Millenaries , have our Lord to reign personally on Earth , he here wished for a Supreme infallible Vicar to end the Controversie . In his Dislike of hetrogenous Mixtures in Church Judicatories , he might have reflected upon the High Commission Court , with its threefold Inte●mixture . 1. Of Members , viz. His Reverend Fathers the Bishops , and Lay-Lords , Nobles , and other States-men . 2. Of Matters cognoscible and Objects of their Power , viz. Scandals , and Civil Crimes . 3. Of the Actings of the C●urt , like the Popes Ecce duo gladii , Fyning , Confyning , Imprisonment ; As also , Ecclesiastick Censures of Excommunication , Deprivation , &c. One Remark further I add upon this Passage of Scripture . The Surveyer founds his Argument upon the Allusion made to the Jewish Courts : But 1. It is evident in general , there are Scripture Allusions , that will not so much as plead for the Lawfulness of the thing alluded to , witness , the Psalmist allusion to Charming , and our Lords warning that he comes as a Thief . 2. Should he plead for a compleat equality betwixt the Iewish , and Christian Church Judicatories , he would plead for an Oecumenick Bishop and fixed President over the whole Christian Church , as there was a Supreme High Priest set over the Iewish ; so-that this Argument proving too much , and beyond his Assertion , proves nothing . 3. It is enough to found the allusion , that there be some likeness of the things compared ; and thus in this Case , there being in the Jewish Church , Courts , a sutable Subordination of the Lesser to the greater , and a Correspondent Official Power seated therein , the allusion stands good , intire , and evident upon this ground ▪ that Christian Church Courts are of such a Nature . The Surveyer ( P. 207.208 . ) makes his next Assault upon our Argument for the Official identity of Bishop and Presbyter , drawn from Act. 20.17 . 28. where the Elders of the Church sent for by Puul to Miletus , are called Bishops : And from Tit. 1.5 , 7. where he that 's called an Elder , is called also a Bishop , and the Names are used as Synonim●us , so 1 Pet. 5.1.2 . the Elders are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have oversight over the Flock . The Argument with the Surveyer runs thus , If there were no Bishops in the Apostles days , differing from Presbyters in Office , there ought to be none now : But there were none such in the Apostles days . Ergo : We do for Brevity rest upon this hint of Argument , having spoken to it above , as deducible from these Texts . His fi●st Answer is , That the first proposition is not so indubitable as it seems ; And his proof is , that Beza , though holding the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter to be ●ne and the same , yet acknowledges the Lawfulness of that Episcopacy , which he calls human ; And therefore , though no such Bishops had been in the Apostles time , the Churches appointment of such a Constitution , guided by the Spirit , might be a fit means for Conservation of Peace . Ans. First , The Surveyers founding the unsoundness of the proposition upon the supposed sentiments of Beza , as it appears palpably unsound , unless Beza were supposed infallible , so it is evident ( and if we could here stay upon it , might be made good at large , from many Passages of Beza , which we have elsewhere produced ) that he disowns the human Prostasie , as a recess from the Divine appointment , and the fi●st step of the Churches defection in point of Government . On Philip. 1.1 . he tells us , of the community of the Name of Bishop and Presbyter , which Continued till he who was in the Assembly set over the rest — began to be peculiarly called the Bishop ; from hence , saith he , the Devil began to lay the first Foundation of Tyrannie in the Church of GOD. And discoursing further of the Ascension that was made from Bishops to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs , &c. He hath this remarkable Passage at the close of his Discourse , Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline , even in a hair-breadth from the Word of GOD. . Now , this Surveyer might have pondered what Sense or Divinity it could be in him , or Beza ; to assert that the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declinings from the word of GOD. To this Scope we might Cite many Passages of Beza : See ( for brevity ) Beza ad Cap. 9. apud Sarav . num . 20. Beza Resp. C. 11. N. 3. Likewise in Quest. 2. Referent . Sarav . P. 92. In which Passages ( and many such like ) we find him clearly condemning this Human Prostasie , in so far as transcending the Limits of a Moderators Office. The Surveyer next coming to the Second proposition of the Argument , tells us , That its sooner affirmed than proven , that there were no Bishops in the Apostles days , differing from Presbyters in the modern notion : And he compares the Presbyterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens , who concerned himself in every Ship arriving in the Harbour , as his own property A Charge easily retorted ; since in such like Hypochondriack distempers , the Surveyer ( as his Fellows ) would needs have the Hierarchical Bishop of their New Notion , to be lodged under the Denomination of the Scripture - Bishop : Yea ( and in a Distemper beyond that of the Man at Athens ) will often lap him under the Denomination of a Presbyter , where there is not so much as an appearance of this auspicious arriving Vessel . The Surveyer tells us , That the Name of Presbyter is not in Holy Scripture , a distinguishing Name of one sort of Officers from all others , although sometimes the Scripture requires that it must be looked on as Distinguishing those that are under that Name from other Officers ▪ Ans. The proposition he impugns , is , That in the Apostles days , there were no Bishops Superior to Presbyters , no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould , or Bishops of his Modern Notion . That from these places Cited , it is aparent , that the Ordinary Church Officers Instituted by Apostles , were Bishops and Presbyters , of the same Official Mould and Authority , to whom the Feeding and Governing of the Church is enjoyned promiscuously : And all his Answer to the Proposition amounts to this , that the Name of Presbyter is sometimes a more general Name , than to point at an ordinary Officer : An Answer utterly remote from the Point , as is obvious to any that considers , That it touches not . 1. The Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter , in the Passages Cited , and their equal Official Authority , as ordinary Church Officers , given to Feed and Rule the Church jointly , which is a necessary Consequence of the former . 2. The unwarrantableness of such an Officer , as the Hierarchical Prelat , whose Office encroaches upon , and robs them of that Power allowed them of GOD , which is another Necessary Consequence drawn from this Ground . This Charge is the more evident in that he hath acknowledged , that sometimes these Names of Bishop and Presbyter , distinguishes those that are under the same , from other Officers . And in the Passages Cited , he cannot but acknowledge them thus distinguished : Sure they are so , at least for any thing he hath said . He tells us , he will in this and other Considerations , remove our Mistake : But sure he hath here presented his own . He adds , ( P. 209. ) That in the Rehearsal of Church Officers , 1 Cor. 12.28 . with Eph. 4.11 . Presbyters are not in the Number , though Bishops , and they are comprehend under the Name of Pastors and Teachers , which shews that the Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers . Ans. The Surveyer could not but grant , that the Hierarchical Bishop , according to his modern Notion , as distinguished by this Name from the Pastor or Presbyter , is in none of these Rolls , and therefore , upon his own Principle , this Name is not appointed to design any certain Order of Ministers : And where is then his warrand for the Hierarchical Bishop , as thus distinguished ? Likewise the Surveyer very unhappily made the Name of Teacher , the Characteristick of his Hierarchical Bishop , who looks upon Teaching as none of his work , nor is Chargeable , qua Prelat , with any deficiency in his Office , though his Sermons drop but once or twice , pro forma , and on Solemnities from one years and to another . In a word , as the 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 bete●● 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 P●●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 promis●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 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 , ●is acknowledged by the Apostle to have the Power of Ecclesiasti●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 Names mentioned , viz. Rulers , Governours , Overseers , Bishops , Ministers , Stewards , Ambassadors . And next in Special , that this Church of Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church , and under the Inspection of a Presbyterial associat Ministry . 1. There was a great multitude of Believers there , mention being made of many Believers , of many Baptized and added to the Church ; All whom Paul Baptized not himself , consequently , are supposed to be Baptized by other Ministers : God likewayes having a great Harvest of Souls there , & much People in that City , upon which Paul was encouraged to stay among them for so considerable a time , as the Year and six Moneths , compare Act. 18.1.7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congregations . 2. There is correspondent Plenty of Ministers and Preachers found there , pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church , and not one single Congregation ; first Paul stayed all this time at Corinth , as a Master Builder , having other under Builders , Act. 18.11 . 1 Cor. 3.10 . an occasion of their Doting , some upon one , some upon a second , some upon a third Teacher ; So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there , who had their several Flocks and Followers ; And Paul speaks of their not having many Fathers , though they had ten thousand Instructers , compare 1. Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. 5.14 . Mention is likewayes made of a Subordination of Prophets to Prophets , 1 Cor. 14.29 . Considering likewayes the Division of Tongues and Languages , this Church could not be one Congregation , but united in a Presbyterial Classical Unity . Which in a word , is further confirmed from this Principle , that we read of a Plurality of Churches there , while the Apostle sayes , Let your Women keep silence in the Churches , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayes not the Women , in general , but your Women in that Church . Yet this Plurality of single Congregations in Corinth , are called and owned as one Church , in the Inscription of the Epistle , which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity , for thus they were jure-charitatis , nor in regard of an Explicit Church-Covenant , whereof the Scripture is silent , nor in respect of the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments ; for these were dispensed in single Congregations ▪ severally , since they could not all meet in one Congregation : So that of necessity they are owned and designed as one Church , in regard of one joynt Administration of Government among them , by one common Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders , associated for that End. See Ius Divin . Minist . Eccles. P. ( mihi ) 206.207 , 208. That the Prophets mentioned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pastors and Ministers of that Church , not extraordinary Officers , as the Surveyer insinuats , since Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to ordinary Pastors are imposed upon them , for the well ordering their Ministerial Exercises , is upon this and many other Grounds made good by Mr. Rutherfurd , in his Due Right of Presbyt . P. 466.467 . The Surveyer in his next Answer , is , in with standing the Evidence of this Scripture , driven upon the contrary extreme of ascribing the Authority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apostle Paul solely . He tells us , That the Apostle speaks of the Sentence , as proceeding from himself , though the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto the Corinthians , that they are charged for not mourning that the Incestuous might be taken away by such as had Power : And it were improper to say , a Man were to take a thing away from himself . Ans. The plain reading of the Text , is a sufficient Confutation of this Distortion and Gloss. The Apostle certainly reprehends this Church , and imputs a Guilt to them , as to Non-procedure , in this Matter . Now the Question is , wherein their Negligence appeared ? And this is best seen and understood , in pondering the Duty enjoyned , viz. their Iudging such as were within , Purging out the Infectious bad Leaven , the Delivery unto Satan , &c. comp . v. 5 , 7 , 12. with 2 Cor. 2.6 . If they had no Authority hereanent , why is such a Defect and Negligence reprehended ? This Surveyer , in making them only the Promulgaters and Executers of the Apostles previous Sentence , taketh the Guilt of this Negligence from the Corinthians , and puts it upon the Apostle Paul. The Surveyers Gloss upon the Apostles Rebuke , as to their not mourning over this Wickedness , viz. That they sought not with Tears to such as had Power to inflict the Censure : If meant of a Power lodged in the Apostle , is contrary to the Scope , since they are enjoyned to deliver the Person to Satan , and to put him away from among themselves . But says the Surveyer , the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged , imports the Apostles sole Determination , that none are taken in as Sharers with him in this Censure , and imports he required only the Execution of their Sentence . We have already removed this Objection , the Apostles giving his Apostolick Judgment , as touching the Necessity and Expediency of the Thing , can no more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Interest of the Ordinary Church Officers herein , than his giving his Apostolick Judgment in any other Uncontroverted Duty , wherein the Persons enjoyned the same , have an infallible Interest , will bear such a Conclusion . Suppose the Apostle giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in his Ministry ; And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage , and the Duties thereof , as one that had found mercy to be faithful , can this prejudge the Interest of the Persons concerned in the Duties enjoyned ? Or would the Surveyer have said , that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers , in any Point of their Ministerial Duties , and shewing them that he had judged such and such things to be their Duty , will conclude they had no Authority and Interest therein , antecedaneously to such Judging and Enjoyning ? Surely not at all . Nay suppose his Hierarchical Bishop , set up in this Church , with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Censures , and that upon his Neglect of putting forth his Power , Paul had thus declared , that he had already judged the Necessity and Expediency of such Duties , will this prove that the Bishop was destitute of all this Authority antecedaneously to such Judging , or had none previous thereunto ? The Surveyer could not say it , and no more could he assert it in this case . The Apostle saith , to whom you forgive any thing , I do also , which looks like the Apostles corresponding with the inherent Authority in these Officers , so that the Apostles Judging in this Case , was to prevent and obviat their Pretences of Delay , and quicken them to their Duty . But the Surveyer , ( P. 213. ) from that Passage , when you are mett together with my Spirit , and the Power of the Lord Iesus , inferrs , That something was to be done , beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth , viz. Delivering of the Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly , which Paul only by his Miraculous Power , could effectuat . Ans. Suppose such an extraordinary Appendix , distinct from the Censure it self ( which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt ) it doth no whit impeach the intrinsick , ordinary Authority of the Church Officers , in the inflicting of that Censure , though this Miraculous Effect , attending the same , were ascribeable to Apostolick Authority . Again , the Surveyer , in the Series of his Reasoning , shutting up both the Sentence in its self , and this Miraculous Appendant ( which two , he must needs distinguish , unless he totally deny the Right of Excommunication in the Churches ) within the Sphere of an Apostolick Prerogative , renders useless , and casts a blot upon several Clauses of the Sacred Text ; such as their Solemn Meeting together , here enjoyned , and that expresly , in order to the delivering of the Man to Satan , which doth include the intire Sentence and Punishment , and that this Punishment is expresly said to be inflicted by many , viz. the Church Officers as distinct from the Church Members , for thus they are called in Opposition to the Collective Body . Besides , that the Apostle in this Passage joyning first in their gathering together , and then mentioning his Spiritual Confirming Presence , holds out that the first was an Authoritative gathering together , the other a Confirming Approbation , for their Encouragement in this Exercise of their intrinsick Power and Authority , as all Sound Interpreters take it . Again , the Separating here enjoyned , must be an Active , Iudicial Separating this Person from them ( as the Leper and Unclean Person under the Law , was thus separat from the Congregation ) which doth import an Authoritative Interest of Church Rulers , in putting forth this Censuring Act , whereas the Surveyer makes it a consequential withdrawing only from a Person already Censured . The Surveyer in his third Answer , tells us , That though a Censuring Power were in these Church Officers , it can make nothing for us , unless we could prove they were single Presbyters , in the Modern Notion ; There were Prophets here above ordinary Officers , who might have this Power , and it is uncertain whether ordinary Presbyters were here settled . Ans. The Surveyer hath forgot that he hath acknowledged upon that Passage 1 Cor. 12. That there were here such Pastors and Teachers , as will include the Bishops , and likewise Presbyters : Besides , that the Apostle diversifies the Ordinary and Extraordinary Gifts , v. 8.9.10 . Likewise , he knew there were in Corinth many Instructers , and such as were settled in every Church , Act 13.1 , 2 , 3. Compared with Ch. 14.23 . Viz. Preaching Elders and Presbyters , so that he could not with any Shadow of Reason , suppose they were all extraordinary Officers . And in a word , if he asserted , there were here mixed Officers , he not only made the Power and Authority of the extraordinary Officers , to swallow up that of the Pastors , but likewise he crossed his monopolizing this extraordinary Power in the Apostle . Again , since he could not say the Apostle in these Injunctions , doth by distinctive notes or Apostrophees , diversify the Ordinary from the Extraordinary Officers , in the point of this high Jurisdictional Act , he baffled and excluded his First Answer . And in a word , giving by this Answer , a Jurisdictional Power and Authority in this Act , to a Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers , and asserting that it was joyntly thus put forth by them , he did thus bid farewell to my Lord Bishops singular prerogative in this Matter , and generally in Point of Government . His last Answer is , That if this Power were supposed in the ordinary Church Officers of Corinth , they might have had this by delegation and Commission of the Apostle . But where did the Surveyer read this Commission ? What account can he give of such a delegated Power beyond the Essential Authority of Pastors , to deliver to Satan , purge out the old Leaven , to meet together for this great Jurisdictional Act ? And why was the Apostle Paul so fatally Cross to the Diocesan Prelat , as not to deliver this Commission to him ? But we must know this Chimerical fancy stands upon the strong Pillar of this infallible Surveyers may be , or might be , and this is all the proof we must expect . But what is the last shift and dead lift ? We are told next , That this Instance of the Church of Corinth is but one , which cannot make a Rule , without the sure knowledge of the Divine Direction , which the Apost●les had to keep an uniform course in such ext●rnal Matt●rs . Ans. As none will say , that the Apostles did constitute the Christian Church as a speckled Bird , with a Hetrogenous or various Mixtures of forms of Government , so in this P●int they had their Masters great Rules and Measures prescribed to them , and such Rules as overthrows the Hierarchical Bishop . First , We may remind the great Rule in Mat. 18. recommending a subordination of lesser to greater Judicatories , pointing likewise at the Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers , as the proper subject of the Jurisdictional Power , in opposition to what he pleads for , viz : the concentring this in one Prelat . Next , what surer direction can we have in this Point , than that the Apostles are found Establishing ; wherever a Church was gathered , such Officers as have Names and Titles of Intrinsick ▪ Official Power and Authority ingraven upon them , and are found exercising an equal , Official Power in Government ? Thus in the Passage now debated , and 1 Cor. 12.28 . Comp. with Eph. 4.11 . and with Act. 14.23 . Tit : 1.5 , 7. Heb. 13.7 , 17 , 1 Thes. 5.12 . Presbyterian Writers do exhibit a large account and induction of these Names and Titles , importing Authority : Such as that of Presbyter or Elder , Act. 15.2 , 4 , with 20 , 17 , 1 Tim. 5.17 . 1 Pet. 5.1 . A Title of Political Rulers , Iudg. 8.14 . Thus expressed by the LXXII ▪ Interpreters . The Title of Bishop importing a Power and Charge over the Flock Act. 20.28 . Phil. 1.1 . 1 Tim. 3.2 . Tit. 1.5.7 . A word made use of also by these Interpreters to point at the Civil Magistrats Power , Num. 31.14 . The Title and Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ which signifies Conductor , Captain , Governour , Leader : A word setting forth the Power of Civil Rulers , Deut. 1.13 . 2 ▪ Chron. 5.1 . And thus they are distinguished from the Church and Saints , Heb. 13.7 , 17 , 24. The Title of Stewards over the Lords House and Family : Of Pastors and Shepherds , who are to feed Pedo and Pabulo ; a Title likewise attributed to the Civil Magistrat , Isa. 24.28 . comp . 1 Cor. 4. 1. Luk. 12.42 . Gal. 4.2 . Rom. 13.2.3 . Now , our Lord Commanding his Apostles to Disciple all Nations , or form them into Churches , and the Apostles pursuant to this Commission , being found to have placed such Officers in the Churches , and these being found exercising a joint Official Authority in greater and lesser Judicatories , either the Apostles Divine Direction herein must be acknowledged , and their walking up to it in this Point of an uniform Mould of Government , or their Faithfulness in the execution of their great Trust is impeached and called in Question . Thu - we have seen , that after this pregnant Text , hath tossed this Pitiful Sursveyer from one extream to another , in seeking some shift of Answer , and driven him upon the Pinacles and Precipies of contradictory Answers , all his fantastick quiblings issueth in this miserable shift of 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 app●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 head● . 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 ●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 p●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 and Nerves of this Objection . We know that Superior and Inferior Officers do come under general Names and Designations : But our Assertion is this , That no Name of the Superior Officer , which is the proper Characteristick of his Office , and whereby he is distinguished from the Inferior , is attributed to such Inferior Officers , since this would Brangle the Scriptures Distinction thereof , and remove the March-Stones , which God hath set ; So that his Instance of the common Name to Superior and Inferior Officers , upon the ground of common Qualifications , is impertinent to the Point : For no Names of this Nature and Import , can be the proper distinguishing Names of the Superior from the Inferior , since this would infallibly infer a Confusion in the Holy Ghosts Language , such as cannot without Blasphemy be imputed to him . Thus the Name Apostle , in its proper Sense , or Evange●ist , is ascribed to no Inferior Officer . To apply this , the Name of Bishop , is in the Surveyers Princip●es , a distinguishing Character of an Officer superior to a Pastor or Presbyter ; and therefore the Absurdity of his Inference or paralel Reason , is palpably evident ; this Name being by his own Confession , ascribed to ordinary Pastors . The Surveyer in the Fifth place , repeats again to us for Answer , this poor , hungry shift , which we have before refuted , viz : That granting there were none but mere Presbyters at that time , in that Church of Philippi , who are called Bishops , yet upon what grounds shall the Constitution thereof be the Measure of all Churches , unless a Divine Rule for Managing the Government in that uniform manner could be produced ? Ans. The Surveyer in Repeating this Subterfuge , which he made use of , to eschew our Argument drawn from the State of the Church of Corinth , told us , that that Church , which is but one , ought not to be a Rule to others , and that one instance cannot make a Rule . Here it seems he he hath found another Instance , to make the Number two , yet this will not please him , unless a Divine Rule be produced , for managing the Government in that manner . It is certain , that the Apostles practice , in the constitution of Churches , in their Officers and Ordinances , pursuant to their great Masters Commission hereanent , and upon the necessary supposition of their Infallibility and Faithfulness , in managing this Trust , is a sufficient Rule and Divine Warrand to found our Perswasion and Faith in this Matter . This is so clear , that the Episcopalians must either acknowledge it , or baffle and overthrow their own Principles and Arguings for Prelacy : For I pray , how will they make their supposed Constitution of the Churches of Ephesus & Crete , under the pretended Episcopal Inspection of Timothy and Titus , a Standart and Measure for all Christian Churches , if this Apostolick Constitution therereof , be not admitted , as an infallible ground of this Argument ? And if Presbyterians shall repone to their Episcopal Pleadings , that the Constitution of these Churches , cannot be a Standart for ever , unless a Divine Rule be produced , for managing the Government in that uniform manner , they are destitute of an Answer : So , that it appears the Surveyer behoved either in granting the Churches of Corinth and of Philippi , to be thus governed , to yield the Cause to the Presbyterians , in acknowledging a Divine Presbyterial Constitution of these Churches , or sto●d obliged to retract and disown all his Episcopal Pleadings , in the Instances exhibit . The Episcopalians might have found that these Instances are exhibited by us as proofs and Demonstrations of the common Universal Rule . The Constitution of the other Apostolick Churches , after this manner , hath been exhibit and evinced , as by several others , so in special , by the Judicious Authors of the Ius Divin , Minist . Eccles. who have at large made appear and proven a Presbyterial , Classical Unity , and equal Official Authority of Pastors in Government . 1. In the Church of Ierusalem . 2. In the Church of Antioch . 3. In the Church of Ephesus . 4. In the Church of Corinth . And that in all these Instances , there is in the Word , a Pattern 〈◊〉 Presbyterian Government , in common , over diverse single Congregations in one Church . See Ius Divin . Minis . Eccles. from P. 292. &c. And in special , the Surveyer and his Fellows might have found this made good , which he here pretended to seek a Proof of , Viz : That the Pattern of the said Presbytrie and Presbyterian Government , is for a Rule to the Churches of Christ in all after Ages . Which is made good , First , From this , that the First Churches were immediatly Planted and Governed by Christs own Apostles and Disciples . The strength of this Reason is illustrated from several Grounds ; As that 1. The Apostles immediatly received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ himself , Matth. 16.19 . Ioh. 20.21.23 . 2. Had immediatly the promise of his perpetual presence in their Ministry , Matth. 28.18.19.20 . The plentiful donation of the Spirit to lead into all Truth , Ioh. 14.16 . Act. 15. Ioh. 16.14 , 15. 3. They received immediatly Commands from Christ , after his Resurrection , and were instructed Forty days , in the Nature of his Kingdom . That they were first and immediatly Baptized of the Holy Ghost extraordinarly Act. 2.1 . to 5. So that whether we consider the Spirits infallible influence upon the Apostles in this great work of ordering and Governing the Primitive Churches , or their performing Christs Commandments in this work , which he did impose upon them , touching his Kingdom , and consequently their infallibly Right use of the Keys of his Kingdom , which he Committed to them , it is evident beyond all contradiction , that the Pattern of their Practices herein , must be a Rule for all the succeeding Churches . Secondly , This is made good from the end proposed by the Holy Ghost in the careful Records of the Apostolical Churches State and Government ; which must needs be in order to succeeding Churches imitation , since this Record , as the other Scriptures , must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our Learning or Instruction ; which Instruction must Relate , not merely to the Factum , but mainly to the Ius , viz : the Reasons and grounds of this Apostolical Government , this being the most proper and profitable Instruction . Thirdly , That , if in the Point of Government , such Apostolick Patterns will not amount to an obligatory Rule , we will impeach the Authority of other Acts of Religion , received from them , and bottomed only and Chiefly upon the Foundation of the Practice of Christs Apostles , and Apostolical Churches , such as the Reciving of the Lords Supper on the Lords days , &c. See Ius Divin . Minis . Eccles. P. 213 , 214. Nay , this is so evident , that the Surveyer without contradicting himself , cannot but admit this Rule ; For P. 195 , he will needs have the determination of this Question to depend upon the Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles contained in Scripture , and the surest Light History can afford in the Churches most Virgin times . Now , here is exhibit Historical Accounts and Narrations of the Churches pure and Primitive pure Constitution in its first and most Virgin times , why then did he ( in Contradiction to himself ) call for another Rule ? But the Surveyer , P. 216.217 . presents yet another evasion , That this Church might have had a Bishop , Eminenter , so called , though not present at Philippi ; That we cannot otherwise account of Epaphroditus , who is called their Apostle , Philip. 2.25 . or Messenger , as the Angels Rev. 2. and 3. are called the Angels of the Churches ; and not for any Temporal Imployment of being sent with their Alms , it being too high a Stile to give Men upon so low an Account : Thus 2 Cor. 8.23 . We read of the Messengers of the Churches , and the Glory of Christ. Ans. We have above removed the Foundation of this exception , both in Reference to Epaphroditus , and the Asian Angels . That Epaphroditus gets the Name of their Apostle and Messenger Catachrestice and improperly , and consequently that he was no such Bishop , as the Surveyer pretends , is most evident in the Sacred Text , since he is thus termed , with respect to that special Employment of carrying the Churches Benevolence to Paul. For the Apostle , after he hath called him their Messenger , doth expresly adjoyn this ground of the Epithet and Denomination , viz. He that Ministred to my Wants , which doth clearly restrict and explain the Term [ Messenger ] in this Context . Besides , that v. 30. he is said to come to supply their Lack of Service towards the Apostle ; and the Apostle mentioning him again , Ch. 4.18 . tells this Church , That he received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent by them : As for the Surveyers Exception , That this was too high a Stile to be given upon so low an Account , comparing this with 2 Cor. 8.23 . I have above told such Pleaders , that the Service of the Churches , and the Interest of Christ in them , is such a Honourable Employment , as the most eminent need not be ashamed of , since he who is Lord of all , came not to be Ministred unto , but to Minister ; and the Holy Angels , literally so called , think it no Disparagement to their High Estate and Dignity , to be sent forth as Messengers , to Minister and do Service to the meanest , who are Heirs of Salvation . For that Passage , 2 Cor. 8. we have made appear , that it rather Confirms , than Impugns our Answer and Exposition of this Scripture anent Epaphroditus : The Apostles Scope in that place , being evidently to stir up the Church to a large Expression of their Charity and Bounty , upon the Account of the Fidelity and Worth of the Messengers sent to them for that end . Next , I might tell this Surveyer , that Epaphroditus and these other Messengers , being restrictedly called Messengers of the Churches , and with a special respect to the Employment specified in the Text , are thus distinguished from the Apostles , who properly are Christs Messengers to the Churches ; And therefore , Persons under this Character of Messengers from Churches to Churches , have not that special proper Signature , which the Surveyer pleads for , upon the account of the general Name , Messenger , applyed to them . In a word , in this Conjecture , as the Surveyer presents but a new Petitio Principii and groundless Fancy , without the least shadow of Proof , so , it s baffled by his own Principle , who thinks it below his supposed great Men to be sent upon a Temporary Employment . Now , it is certain that Epaphroditus was sent with this Churches Benevolence to Paul , and it would have puzzled this Surveyer to Ans●er the Querie : Why none else , but the sole and eminent Bishop was sent with this Benevolence ? As likeways , to Answer further these Queries , First , Why the Apostle Paul put the proper Name and Characteristick of this sole and eminent Bishop , upon all the Pastors of the Church of Philippi ? Which , upon his Principles , did draw with it great Inconveniences ; as tending 1. To cast a Cloud of Ignorance upon these Pastors , in reference to a Person , to whom they did owe important Duties . 2. This might tend to involve them in the Temptation of a Sinful Emulous Disposition and Breach among themselves : And no body will judge , that the Apostle was not careful to prevent this . Besides , this could not consist with that high Esteem of Epaphroditus , which the Apostle here expresses , thus to deal with him , and in special , to make him the Messenger of such Derogatory Expressions , in this Epistle , wherein he is so much commended . Thus we have seen , that the Evidence of this Scripture , as likewise of the preceeding , doth quite dispel the Mist of the Surveyers fond Exceptions . The Surveyer tells us , He finds one Scripture more , wherein , because Presbytrie is Named , we account we have great Advantage for our Way ; The Passage is 1 Tim. 4.14 . Whereas , he may more justly triumph in the word Bishop , so often mentioned in Scripture . He professeth his Resolution pressely to consider this place : And his Replyes shall be pressely considered . His first Reply is , That we cannot prove that by Presbytrie here is meant a Colledge of single Presbyters , in the Modern Notion , and not rather the Dignity and Office of a Presbyter , as Calvin ( Institut . Lib. 4. Cap. 3. ) Jerom , and others also do judge . Ans. 1. Not to stand upon the Surveyers cutting off by this Gloss , Presbyters from so much as a consent to Timothies Ordination , which in contradiction to himself here , he doth in his other Replyes to this Text , allow them . It is in this place very considerable that this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytrie , being used only thrice in the New Testament , viz. Luk. 22.66 . and Act. 22.5 . and in this Passage under Debate ; Since in the two first places , it must necessarly be taken , for a Concessus Presbyter orum , a Colledge of Elders or Presbyters , this Surveyer could offer no shadow of Reason or Evidence for the altering the Signification in this Passage ; Since 1. The Scope and Circumstances do clearly lead to this its ordinary Acceptation . And 2. There can no such Exposition be offered here , without a very gross Imputation upon the Language and Sense of the Holy Ghost ; It differing little from Non-sense , if at all reconcilable to Sense , thus to read the Text , Neglect not the Gift given thee &c. by the laying on of the Hands of the Office : For what Hands hath an Office to lay on ? Not only Reason , but the very Ear disrelishes such a Sense : Especally , if the Matter of Fact be admitted ( in opposition to which , the Surveyer could give no Evidence ) that as there was Ruling Officers or Presbyters then existent , so they did de facto , lay Hands upon Timothy . For Calvins Judgement , we find that in his Commentary upon the place , he asserts that such as understand the Word Presbytrie here , in a collective Sense , and to import the Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters , do , in his Iudgement , put a right Sense upon the Words ; So that he cannot be reckoned as holding the Surveyers Gloss ▪ And however , we do not judge that most worthy Person ( as neither Ierom in this point , Inferior to Greek Fathers ) infallible , or our selves obliged jurare in ejus verba . As for the 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 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 M●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 ●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 Presbyter or Elder , even in Beza's Sense on 1 Pet. 5. comprehends in general , all who have any Ecclesiastick Function , the Officers here might be of a higher sort than single Presbyters , even admitting the Term Presbytrie , to import a Collegiat Meeting . Ans. The Surveyer is still here repeating his groundless Conjectures , and beggings of the Question , for an Answer , yea , and confuting and baffling himself in these his fantastick Quiblings ; For , besides that the existence of ordinary Officers , Superior to Presbyters , and cloathed with Episcopal Authority , is still begged by him , in several other Respects , this his Conjecture is most unaccountable and repugnant to the Text : For neither , first , can he make appear that such a Meeting of such Officers of a higher Order than single Presbyters , comes under the Scripture Denomination of a Presbytrie , in any Passages of Holy Write , or that when Officers of a higher Order , mett with Presbyters , they had no distinct Specification by their Titles or Names ; As when the Apostles mett with the Elders Act. 15. and Prophets and Teachers mett together Act. 13. we find distinguishing Epithets and Names given to these Officers . Next , As this conjecturing Surveyer , could give no account , whether this Meeting was solely of extraordinary Officers , or a Meeting mixed of Ordinary and Extraordinary , whether of his supposed Bishops , with these Extraordinary Officers , or not ; So , whatever Answer he might embrace , he is still in the Briars , and overthrows his own Scope ; For , besides that he cannot give account , why a Colledge of Prelats is called a Presbytrie , or to what end such a mixed Meeting can be here supposed : If his Conjecture be admitted , they could be no Paroch Presbytrie ; And thus his second Answer is baffled , which supposeth this . Again , if there were in this Meeting higher Officers than Presbyters , he would needs grant that the ordaining Authority was not monopolized in one : And thus 1. He affronts and excludes all his former Pleadings for the sole Authority of the Prelatical Bishop in Ordination . 2. He asserts that all here imposing Hands , did Authoritatively Concur , and therefore none of them were mere Consenters ( as he alledges this Presbytrie was ) and this universally , without Exception of any one of the Number ; And the Authority of the Action was not solely Pauls : And thus again , he hath given a deadly wound to his third Answer , asserting so much . In a word , if all were Extraordinary Officers , the sole Authority of the Prelat in Ordination ( a supposed ordinary Officer ) is no way concluded , nor that of a Presbytrie impeached : If they were all ordinary Officers , this Ioynt Authoritative Concurrence , cutts the throat of the Prelats arrogated sole Interest in Ordination : If mixed Officers of a Superior and Inferior Order , this Surveyer could give no shadow of a Reason wherefore the Pastors did not Authoritatively concurr . I need not mention the common Maxim , pleaded by some of his Party , in a like Case , Actiones sunt suppositorum , the Authoritative Act is ascribed to the whole Collegiat Meeting or Presbytrie , without the least shadow of a Distinction of the Interest and Authority of one Member from another , and he hath before told us , that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit . The Surveyer adds , If he was ordained a Bishop , as some of the most Learned Commentators of the Ancients do think , as Chrysostom , Theodoret , Theophylact and Oecumenius , That Presbytrie might be a Meeting of Bishops , concurring according to their Mind in that work with the Apostle Paul. Ans. The Surveyer striving against the Light of this Scripture , is still more and more involved in the Briars . Before , he would needs have Timothy to receive but the Office of a Presbyter in this Ordination , and thus he expresly paraphraseth the Text , Neglect not the Gift which is given thee by the laying on of Hands , whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter : This he seteth down in distinct Characters , as the Genuin Sense of the Text : Now , here he quits this post , and will admit that he was ordained a Bishop ; For he Ownes and Defends the Sense of the Authors cited to this Scope , so that we know not where to find this Proteus , in these his inconsistent Answers . Again , if Bishops here concurred in this Ordination of a Bishop , he wil grant that they all Authoritatively concurred , and were not mere Consenters in the Action : And thus again farewel his third Answer , which monopolized this Authority in the person of Paul , or else he must say that all these Bishops were Apostles . Again , if not Apostles , but ordinary Officers , then sure , Paul put forth no Extraordinary Authority in this Case , but acted as an ordinary Bishop ; and then it would puzzle this Surveyer to shew wherefore the Apostle imputs this Ordination to the Laying on of his Hands solelie , or why upon our true Supposition ( which he cannot disprove ) viz. That the persons concurring were Pastors or Presbyters , the presence of Paul , or the laying on of his Hands , did swallow up or exclude their Authority , rather than that of a supposed Bishops , in this Matter . As for the Authors mentioned , it is above made appear , that they spoke of Scripture Church Officers , according to the Practice and Style of their own Times . The Surveyer calls this a foul Imputation , as if they did wrest the Scriptures , to colour the Practice of their own times . Ans. Here again the Surveyer is put upon this pitiful Dilemma , viz. either he must disowne the Comment of these Ancients , and yeeld to the Strength of this Objection ( which truely makes the best Apology for this Exposition ) or else he must acknowledge that his preceeding Answers puts him under this foul Imputation of palpable wresting the Holy Scriptures , to patronize the Antiscriptural Hierarchical Prelat , and imputs the same to these Fathers ; For it is evident to any that reads his Answers , that these Fathers Sense of this Text , and his foregoing Answers , are Antipods , yea and cross and destroy one another . The Sense and Comments of these Fathers , which he is so Zealous in defending , makes Timothy to have received an Episcopacy , in his Ordination : His first Answer makes him to be ordained only a Presbyter : His third Answer makes the Authority of Ordaining to be only the Apostle Pauls , and the rest of the Meeting to be but Consenters : The Comment of these Fathers , makes them all to concurr with Official Authority ; For such , certainly that of Diocesan Bishops , is held to be : The Comment of these Fathers makes the Members of the Meeting such Bishops , as had every one of them Authority over a Diocess , and consequently over many Congregations : His first Answer makes them all Congregational Elders , and crouds them within the small Circuits of one Paroch . Now , this Surveyer might , or any of his way , may still call in Vulcans Gymmerers to sodder these Assertions with themselves , and with the Fathers Comments , if they can . That the Expressions of the Fathers touching Scripture Church Officers , were of that Mould , as is said , hath been made good by several of the Learned , and 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 Mee●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 Edific●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 ju●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 ●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 spe●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 th● 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 M●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 two things . First , What the faithfulness of Moses under the Legal dispensation , did reach unto , which our Blessed Lords Soveraign Faithfulnesss doth exceed . 1. Moses appointed the Officers of the House of God their several Orders and Degrees , their Work and Duties , in so far that his Institutions did amount to determin a species of Government . 2. All his Appointments hereanent were fixed and unalterable , so as none might add to or detract therefrom . 3. They were hence not Committed to the disposal of the Civil Magistrate , to mould them after the Rules of worldly Policy . 4. These Officers were not to denude themselves of any part of the Authority and Function committed to them , or of the exercise thereof . Hence , it inevitably follows , that the Government and Officers of the Church of the New Testament , is in all these Points of the like Nature ; the Species is determined , the Offices and Officers are unalterable , are not to be Fashioned by Mens Laws at their arbitriment , are to continue in this Fixed Mould of his Institution , and Method of its Official Exercise , till his Returning again . Secondly , The Scriptures Perfection clears this abundantly , all things to be believed and practised , in order to Salvation , are perfectly contained therein , and there being so much delivered in Scriptures , touching the Government , Laws and Offices of the House of GOD , and in order to the Instruction , both of Church Rulers and Church Members , in their Respective Duties ; if these Directions , Laws and Institutions be not compleatly correspondent to these ends , the Scriptures perfection is palpably impeached , and the infinit Wisdom of the Lawgiver blasphemed . To this Argument the Surveyer Answers , That in order to the great end of our Lords Prophetical and Kingly Offices , He hath given particular Commands concerning the Essentials of the Government of His House , and general Commands to direct the Prudence of His Church ▪ to order what is Left to Christian Liberty ▪ for the best Ends ; And that it is preposterous to fancy a thing necessary ; and then alledge Christ hath instituted the same , because Faithful , but rather upon this ground , we must reason the necessity of the thing from his Appointment . Ans. This is removed in a word , by this one Position , That if we acknowledge these Essentials do include all necessary Offices and Officers of the Church , and do draw the Limits and Measures of their Actings , Qualifications , and the Nature of their Power , with such Exactness , as none may justle with , or encroach upon their Priviledges therein ; We can offer such Scripture Discoveries in this Point , as do sufficiently lay aside the Diocesan Prelat , and prove him such an Heteroclite , as his Office cannot be brought up to the Scripture Rules . Thus , we are so far from such Reasoning , as this fancycal Surveyer imputs to us , that on the contrary , we do suppose and prove the Scripture Institutions in this Point , and upon the Scripture Discoveries thereof , we reason the Necessity from our Lords Faithfulness . But if the Surveyer did hold that the Offices and Officers of the House of GOD , their Duties and Qualification , are such things as falls within the compass of the Churches Liberty , to dispose as she thinks fit : 1. It might be enquired , what he or those of his Mind will owne as Essentials ? Next , To what end are all the Scripu●e Directions and Institutions in this Point delivered unto the Church of GOD ? And why upon this Ground , the most extended Hierarchy may not be pleaded for ? 3. How this can consist with that express Design of the Scriptures Perfection , viz. To make , not only the ordinary Christian , but also the Man of God , the Minister of God , perfect and thorowly furnished to every good Work , or every piece of his Office and Duty ; and with this further Expression of this Design of Ministerial Instructions proposed by the Apostle , 1 Tim. 3.15 . viz. To instruct the Man of God how to behave in the House of God , which is His Church ? In Answer to this , the Surveyer acknowledges the Scriptures Perfection , to make the Man of GOD wise to Salvation , and furnish him for every good Work , either by the general or particular Precepts thereof , but that it belongs not to the Perfection of the Scripture , to contain the particular Rules for all the Circumstantials of Church Government , more than it doth for all the particular Practices of our common Life . Ans. Behold the Hierarchy , in this our Surveyers great Essay , turned into the Dwarf of a mere Circumstance . Behold also his Zeal for right ordering of the House of GOD , what Officers must Rule therein , what the Nature of their Work and Power is , what Duties are committed to them , what the Nature and Species of the Government must be , whether it must run to the Extrems of Monarchy , or the An●baptistical Morellian way , of Anarchy , or the midle Forms ; All , or either of these is but a mere Circumstance , with our Surveyer . Let any Judge , if he gave not here manus victas to the Presbyterians , and yeelded up his Cause to them : For no Man of Sense , will call the Matters , instanced mere Circumstances ; And if they be not , the Scriptures Perfection , for the ends mentioned , must clearly reach the Determination thereof . The Surveyer told us , That the work of the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Doth import the Work and Office of the Hierarchical Prelat ; And he has acknowledged here the Scriptures Perfection to furnish the Minister of Christ for every good Work , yea , he hath asserted P. 194.195 . That the plentitude of the Apostolick Power , committed by our Lord to the Apostles , for the great End of the Churches Edification and Union , was by them committed to the Bishops , as their proper Successors . Now , how these Assertions can consist with his Describing and Owning here the Work and Office of the Bishop as a mere Circumstance , wherein the Scriptures gives no certain distinct Sound , must be put among the rest of his mysterious Inventions . Two or three things further , I add , and I have done with this Surveyer . First , It is generally acknowledged by all Sound Divines , That there is no Lawful Church Office or Officer of the House of GOD , but what must have our LORD' 's positive Grant or Institution : And this is fortified by several Grounds . 1. Whatever is not of Faith is sin , in general , and whoever pretends to Officiat in Christs House and Kingdom , as an Officer therein , acts sine titulo , and his Actings are void ; And therefore he cannot act in Faith , if there be not a Divine Warrand for the Office he sustains , and the Official Exercise and Actings thereof . 2. If we acknowledge Christs Kingly Power and Headship over the Church , as a political Body , whereof he is the political Head , giving her her Laws and Officers , Isa. 9.6 . Matth. 28.18 . Ioh. 5.22 . As in all Kingdoms , no person can claim an Office of State , or Magistracy , without the Warrand of the Laws , and the Kings Authority thereto Interposed , so all Church Power and Authority , must be conveyed to Church Officers by this Glorious KING 's Authentick Commission or Grant. Now , none can pretend to any Grant or Commission from Him , but what is in the Scriptures ; Which is especially evident , and further convincingly clear , both from the Perfection of His Word and Testament hereanent ; And likewise , from this , that the Church Government in the whole of it , must needs be acknowledged to be founded upon a Divine and positive Institution . Secondly , Our LORD did thus actually exercise His Kingly Power , and derived the same to Church Officers , thus he gave the P●wer to Bind and Loose , and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to his Apostles , promised His Presence with them and their Successors to the End ; And this for the Edification and Building up of His Church , till her Warfare is accomplished , Matth. 16.18.19 , with Matth. 18.19.20 . Ioh. 21.23 . Matth. 28.18.19 , 20. 2 Cor. 8.13 . Eph. 4.11.12 . Finally , When this Fundamental Truth of our LORD' 's political Headship and Influences accordingly , in the Government of the Church , and the Perfection of His Holy Testament , in reference to the Laws , Ordinances , and Officers thereof , is denyed , the Foundations of a Christian Church are removed , the Rules , Limits , and Boundaries , in reference to the Duties , both of Church Officers and Members , so annihilate , as the Church becomes a Chaos of all Confusion and arbitrary Disorder whatsomever , or at least the Leaden and Versatile Rule of Worldly Wisdom , being made her Measures of Ordinances and Government , a Door is opened for Inundations of all Errors and Superstitions , and for the most wicked Usurpations and Disorders , in point of Government , that the wicked Mind of Man , by the influence of Satan , can invent . FINIS . The CONTENTS PART I. CHAP I. Dr. Scot's stating of the Question , and his Argument taken from the Institution of of our Saviour , Examined . Pag. 1. CHAP. II. His Argument , from the Practice of the Apostles , Examined . P. 11. CHAP. III. His Argument taken from an alledged punctual Conf●rmity of the Primitive Church , to Christs Institution , and the Apostolick Practice , in Point of Episcopacy , Considered . Pag. 35. CHAP. IV. His Argument Examined , taken from our Saviours alledged Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government , in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches . Pag. 69. CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture proofs of a Four ●old Ministry or Prerogative of a Bp. as Superior to a Pastor in Point of Government , Considered . Pag. 85. PART . II. CHAP. I. Dr. Monro's unsound and Impertinent Reflections upon our first Reformers , as to Church Government , exposed : Together with his unsound and Popish Method in his Answer to the Argument against Episcopacy , from Matth. 20.25 . And with the Paralel Texts . Pag. 1. CHAP. II. A Confutation of what he Offers in Answer to our Argument for Parity of Pastors , taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter , in Scripture . Pag. 31. CHAP. III. The Dr's absurd description of the Apostolick Function , in opposition to Protestant Divines , exposed : His Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles , in a proper formal Sense : His Opinion Loaded with gross and palpable Absurdities . Pag. 85 CHAP. IV. His proof of the Divine Right of the Hierarchical Bp. from the pretended Episcopacy of Tim. ct Tit. & the 7 Asian Angels , examined . P. 119. PART III. CHAP. I. A Consideration of the Scripture Grounds , upon which the Surveyer pleads for the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office. Pag. 1. CHAP. II. His Answers offered to the Scriptures , pleaded by Presbyterians , Examined ; viz. Mat. 20.25 , 26. with the Paralels , Mark. 10 42. Luk. 22.25 . Mat. 18.17 . Act. 20.17 , 28. Tit. 1.5 , 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 ▪ 2. The unsoundness and inconsistency of his Glosses made appear . Pag. 13. CHAP. III. Some more of his Exceptions and Answers examined , viz. to 1 Cor. 5. Eph. 4.11 . ( To which the Paralels , 1 Cor. 12.28 . Rom. 12.6 . 7 , 8. are to be joyned ) to Philip. 1.1 . And to 1. Tim. 4.14 . His unsoundness , and inconsistency therein , further made appear . Pag. 38. CHAP. IV. Wherein is considered his Answer to our Charge against the Diocesan Prelat , as a New Officer , different from those Instituted by our Lord , and standing in opposition to the New Testament Church Government , and this upon the Ground of the Perfection of the Scripture ▪ Records hereanent , and our Lords Faithfulness in the ful Institution of the Officers and Government of his Church . Pag. 65. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A39998-e1950 See page 388 , 389 , 390 , 391. See pag. 392. p. 392. Differ : of the time pag. 14. See p. 394. pag. 394.395 . P. 397 P. 398 ibid. P. 400. ibid. P. 401. P. 401. sub finem P. 403. P. 404. P. 402 403. P. 404. Ibid. P. 406.407.408 . P. 407. ibid. P. 408. P. 408.409.410.411 . P. 409. P. 409. ibid. P. 398.399.400 &c. p. 410. P. 410.411 . P. 411 P. 412 Ibid. P. 412.413 . Prop. 7. Pag. 123.124.125 . P. 413. P. 414. ibid. P. 414.415 . Ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 415.416 . ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 417. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 417.418 . ibid. P. 418 , 419. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 419 , 420. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 421. ibid. & P. 422. ibid. P. 423. P. 422. ibid. ibid. P. 424. P. 426. P. 426. P. 427. P. 433. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 435. P. 435.436 . P. 436.437.438 . P. 438. ibid. ibid. ibid. P. 439.440.441 . P. 442 P. 428. P. 442.443 , P. 443. P. 443. ibid. P. 444. P. 444 , 445. P. 445. P. 445. P. 446. ibid. P 447 ibid. P. 446. P. 447. ibid. ibid. Notes for div A39998-e55160 a 1. Cor. 5. b Act. 20. c 1 Tim. 4.14 . 2 Tim. 1.6 . d Philip. 1. 1. Tit. 1.6.7 . e 2 Cor. 1.24 . f 1. Cor. 4.1 .