The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 3 · Chapter 2

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 3 · Chapter 2

p. 13CHAP. 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….

p. 14The 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 p. 15Surveyers 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, p. 16nor 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 foreign 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 foreign 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, foreign and foreign 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 foreign and foreign. Adding p. 17in 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 p. 18enjoyned 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 foreign 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 p. 19Officers: 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 p. 20drawn 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 p. 21imputation 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 p. 22a 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 foreign 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. p. 23go 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 p. 24evident 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 p. 25Magistrats 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 foreign 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 p. 26use 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 foreign 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 its 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 foreign 1 Tim. 4.14. Hence the Verb foreign 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, p. 27since 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 foreign 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 p. 28prove 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.

p. 29His 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 p. 30to 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 thats 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 foreign 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, p. 31having 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 hairbreadth 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 p. 32sometimes 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. p. 33since 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 p. 34supposing 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, p. 35as 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 foreign or foreign 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. its 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 p. 36and 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 foreign, 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 p. 37Work 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.