The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 2 · Chapter 4
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 foreign and foreign 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, its 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. 2d. 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, its 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 2d. 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, its 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 foreign is left out in the most Ancient Manuscripts, particularly the Alexandrian, preserved in the Royal Library. 'Tis 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 foreign, according to the Current of all the Greek Copies. Its 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 foreign First in general by the discriminating But, or foreign; 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 foreign 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.