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

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

p. 38CHAP. III. Some more Exceptions and Answers of the Surveyer, examined, Viz: To that Passage, 1 Cor. 5: To that of Eph. 4:11. (To which the Paralels, 1 Cor: 12.28. Rom: 12: 6, 7, 8: are to be joyned) To that Passage Philip: 1:1. And to 1 Tim: 4:14: His unsoundness and inconsistency therein, further made appear.

PRoceed we to that considerable Text 1 Cor. 5. the energy and force whereof, in order to the evincing a Presbyterial Authoririty of Pastors in that Church, is above spoken to. He tells us, It is alledged that the Church of Corinth, not having a Bishop, …is acknowledged by the Apostle to have the Power of Ecclesiasti…k censures, even of Excommunication, and is reproved for not executing these Censures, and exhorted speedily to execute the same; that hence it is concluded, seeing this Apostolick Church was so Constitut with such a Power of Excommunication, by its own Officers and Presbyters without a Bishop, that therefore all other Churches, should have the same Power, according to the Word of GOD. In Answer to this, the Surveyer (not unlike a Fugitive Criminal, who will flee to a place of the greatest hazard otherways, so he may escape the Pursuer) Fleeth to the exploded Notion of the Independents, a Party standing in most opposit Terms to the Episcopalians, telling us, that this Power of Iurisdiction and Censure, is not found here in the Eldership, or in them alone, since the whole Church is spoken to in this Matter; There is Fornication among you, ye are puffed up, &c. and all the Saints, Are concerned, of whom he saith, they Judge them that are within: That it were strange, that Elders, who are not named, should be concerned, and not the People, who are expresly named; that there is no more mention of the Governing Presbytrie there, than of the Governing Bishop. Ans. The Surveyer here, is so unhappy, as to Raze the Foundation of all his pleading, which, if it have any foundation at all, must needs be grounded upon, and suppose a Distinction of the Church Representative and Collective, Church Officers and Church Members: Nay, he Cuts the Throat of his Assertion, P. 203. That there is an Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction, and Censure, p. 39and Disciplin Established in the Church, for keeping Gods Ordinances in Purity; which no person of common Sense or Reason can but ascribe to a distinct Select Society from the whole Community: For, if all were Correctors and Rulers, there is no Correlate of this Relative Power, or persons to be Ruled. If he understand the Passage, Do not ye Iudge them that are within? of a Jurisdictional Power and Authority, it must needs have some Object, and consequently must have for its Subject, some Select Order of Men, distinct from the Collective Body. Next, who knows not, that the Directions Generally addressed in the Epistles, to the whole Incorporation or Body of the Church, are to be understood and applyed pro unius cujusque Modulo, according to Persons several places and capacities, though the General Address supposes still the General Concern of all? When the Apostle thus enjoins Warn them that are unruly, and again, if any obey not our Word in this Epistle, mark that Man (which all do understand of a Censuring mark, as the word imports) who will alledge that these Authoritative Acts were competent to every individual?

The Surveyer foreseeing this, tells us, P. 212. That though this in some things will hold, yet in the usual Stile of the Apostolick Epistles, there are distinctive Notes and Periods, that each person may know the Precepts wherein they are concerned, and Apostrophees made to several Ranks, as Ministers, Masters, Servants, to evite a dangerous Confusion: And upon the same ground an acknowledged Iurisdiction in any of the Presbyters, would have here procured a distinguishing of them from the People. Ans. The Surveyers Concession [That sometimes Precepts are not to be applyed and appropriat to all, distributively, but respectively, according as several persons or sorts of Persons are concerned in these Commands contained in Epistles directed to the collective Body] hath razed the Foundation of this Answer, which, from the Non-nomination of Elders, concludes the collective Body of the People to be addressed only, and stiffled it in the Birth: Since he must acknowledge, that sometimes peculiar Duties, and such, wherein some persons only have a special Interest, are thus promiscuously and generally propounded, and even in this same Epistle: And then it would have suted his Thoughts to ponder, how in this Case, he could evite his own Consequence and Charge of a dangerous Confusion following thereupon, unless he quite the Topick of this his Argument and Reason; It would have likewayes suted his thoughts to assign his distinctive Notes and Apostrophees in the Passages cited, and the Apostles Precepts touching the Lords Supper in the 11. Chap. As likewayes to assign such in the Passages, which do intrust a Jurisdictional Power to Elders: I mean such distinctive Notes and Apostrophees, as would have distinguished the Bishop properly so called, from his Minor and improperly so called Bishops, in order to the eviting the Confusion of their Offices, and to cut off the dangerous Presbyterian Consequence and Error of understanding p. 40the Bishop and Presbyter to be Indentified in Name and Thing. He acknowledged that in some things this our Answer will hold: And sure, if in any Case, it must in this, where Rulers are supposed Existent, and a competent knowledge of their Official Authority, both in themselves and the People.

The Surveyer adds, That there is a deep silence concerning Presbyters Iurisdiction, or a fixed Presbytrie at Corinth, at this time, though there were Teachers and Eminent Teachers, Extraordinary Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. Ans. The Surveyer will not disowne, that in that 1 Cor. 14. There is a Tryal and an Examination of the Doctrine, ascribed to these Teachers, therefore he cannot deny them the Authority of Iudging those that are within, mentioned 12. v. of 5. Ch. But for the Surveyers deep silence, which he alledges, of a Presbyterial Jurisdiction here, he might have found it removed by a full Scripture Sound, had he pondered, First, in General, the Jurisdictional Power ascribed to Pastors and Teachers, such as is imported in these Names mentioned, viz. Rulers, Governours, Overseers, Bishops, Ministers, Stewards, Ambassadors. And next in Special, that this Church of Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church, and under the Inspection of a Presbyterial associat Ministry. 1. There was a great multitude of Believers there, mention being made of many Believers, of many Baptized and added to the Church; All whom Paul Baptized not himself, consequently, are supposed to be Baptized by other Ministers: God likewayes having a great Harvest of Souls there, & much People in that City, upon which Paul was encouraged to stay among them for so considerable a time, as the Year and six Moneths, compare Act. 18.1.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congregations. 2. There is correspondent Plenty of Ministers and Preachers found there, pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church, and not one single Congregation; first Paul stayed all this time at Corinth, as a Master Builder, having other under Builders, Act. 18.11. 1 Cor. 3.10. an occasion of their Doting, some upon one, some upon a second, some upon a third Teacher; So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there, who had their several Flocks and Followers; And Paul speaks of their not having many Fathers, though they had ten thousand Instructers, compare 1. Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. 5.14. Mention is likewayes made of a Subordination of Prophets to Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.29. Considering likewayes the Division of Tongues and Languages, this Church could not be one Congregation, but united in a Presbyterial Classical Unity. Which in a word, is further confirmed from this Principle, that we read of a Plurality of Churches there, while the Apostle sayes, Let your Women keep silence in the Churches, foreign he sayes not the Women, in general, but your Women p. 41in that Church. Yet this Plurality of single Congregations in Corinth, are called and owned as one Church, in the Inscription of the Epistle, which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity, for thus they were jure-charitatis, nor in regard of an Explicit Church-Covenant, whereof the Scripture is silent, nor in respect of the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments; for these were dispensed in single Congregations▪ severally, since they could not all meet in one Congregation: So that of necessity they are owned and designed as one Church, in regard of one joynt Administration of Government among them, by one common Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders, associated for that End. See Ius Divin. Minist. Eccles. P. (mihi) 206.207, 208. That the Prophets mentioned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pastors and Ministers of that Church, not extraordinary Officers, as the Surveyer insinuats, since Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to ordinary Pastors are imposed upon them, for the well ordering their Ministerial Exercises, is upon this and many other Grounds made good by Mr. Rutherfurd, in his Due Right of Presbyt. P. 466.467.

The Surveyer in his next Answer, is, in with standing the Evidence of this Scripture, driven upon the contrary extreme of ascribing the Authority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apostle Paul solely. He tells us, That the Apostle speaks of the Sentence, as proceeding from himself, though the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto the Corinthians, that they are charged for not mourning that the Incestuous might be taken away by such as had Power: And it were improper to say, a Man were to take a thing away from himself. Ans. The plain reading of the Text, is a sufficient Confutation of this Distortion and Gloss. The Apostle certainly reprehends this Church, and imputs a Guilt to them, as to Non-procedure, in this Matter. Now the Question is, wherein their Negligence appeared? And this is best seen and understood, in pondering the Duty enjoyned, viz. their Iudging such as were within, Purging out the Infectious bad Leaven, the Delivery unto Satan, &c. comp. v. 5, 7, 12. with 2 Cor. 2.6. If they had no Authority hereanent, why is such a Defect and Negligence reprehended? This Surveyer, in making them only the Promulgaters and Executers of the Apostles previous Sentence, taketh the Guilt of this Negligence from the Corinthians, and puts it upon the Apostle Paul. The Surveyers Gloss upon the Apostles Rebuke, as to their not mourning over this Wickedness, viz. That they sought not with Tears to such as had Power to inflict the Censure: If meant of a Power lodged in the Apostle, is contrary to the Scope, since they are enjoyned to deliver the Person to Satan, and to put him away from among themselves. But says the Surveyer, the word foreign I have judged, imports the Apostles sole Determination, that none are taken in as Sharers with him in this Censure, and imports he required only the Execution of their Sentence. We have already removed this Objection, the Apostles giving his Apostolick Judgment, p. 42as touching the Necessity and Expediency of the Thing, can no more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Interest of the Ordinary Church Officers herein, than his giving his Apostolick Judgment in any other Uncontroverted Duty, wherein the Persons enjoyned the same, have an infallible Interest, will bear such a Conclusion. Suppose the Apostle giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in his Ministry; And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage, and the Duties thereof, as one that had found mercy to be faithful, can this prejudge the Interest of the Persons concerned in the Duties enjoyned? Or would the Surveyer have said, that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers, in any Point of their Ministerial Duties, and shewing them that he had judged such and such things to be their Duty, will conclude they had no Authority and Interest therein, antecedaneously to such Judging and Enjoyning? Surely not at all. Nay suppose his Hierarchical Bishop, set up in this Church, with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Censures, and that upon his Neglect of putting forth his Power, Paul had thus declared, that he had already judged the Necessity and Expediency of such Duties, will this prove that the Bishop was destitute of all this Authority antecedaneously to such Judging, or had none previous thereunto? The Surveyer could not say it, and no more could he assert it in this case. The Apostle saith, to whom you forgive any thing, I do also, which looks like the Apostles corresponding with the inherent Authority in these Officers, so that the Apostles Judging in this Case, was to prevent and obviat their Pretences of Delay, and quicken them to their Duty.

But the Surveyer, (P. 213.) from that Passage, when you are mett together with my Spirit, and the Power of the Lord Iesus, inferrs, That something was to be done, beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth, viz. Delivering of the Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly, which Paul only by his Miraculous Power, could effectuat. Ans. Suppose such an extraordinary Appendix, distinct from the Censure it self (which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt) it doth no whit impeach the intrinsick, ordinary Authority of the Church Officers, in the inflicting of that Censure, though this Miraculous Effect, attending the same, were ascribeable to Apostolick Authority. Again, the Surveyer, in the Series of his Reasoning, shutting up both the Sentence in its self, and this Miraculous Appendant (which two, he must needs distinguish, unless he totally deny the Right of Excommunication in the Churches) within the Sphere of an Apostolick Prerogative, renders useless, and casts a blot upon several Clauses of the Sacred Text; such as their Solemn Meeting together, here enjoyned, and that expresly, in order to the delivering of the Man to Satan, which doth include the intire Sentence and Punishment, and that this Punishment is expresly said to be inflicted by many, p. 43viz. the Church Officers as distinct from the Church Members, for thus they are called in Opposition to the Collective Body. Besides, that the Apostle in this Passage joyning first in their gathering together, and then mentioning his Spiritual Confirming Presence, holds out that the first was an Authoritative gathering together, the other a Confirming Approbation, for their Encouragement in this Exercise of their intrinsick Power and Authority, as all Sound Interpreters take it. Again, the Separating here enjoyned, must be an Active, Iudicial Separating this Person from them (as the Leper and Unclean Person under the Law, was thus separat from the Congregation) which doth import an Authoritative Interest of Church Rulers, in putting forth this Censuring Act, whereas the Surveyer makes it a consequential withdrawing only from a Person already Censured.

The Surveyer in his third Answer, tells us, That though a Censuring Power were in these Church Officers, it can make nothing for us, unless we could prove they were single Presbyters, in the Modern Notion; There were Prophets here above ordinary Officers, who might have this Power, and it is uncertain whether ordinary Presbyters were here settled. Ans. The Surveyer hath forgot that he hath acknowledged upon that Passage 1 Cor. 12. That there were here such Pastors and Teachers, as will include the Bishops, and likewise Presbyters: Besides, that the Apostle diversifies the Ordinary and Extraordinary Gifts, v. 8.9.10. Likewise, he knew there were in Corinth many Instructers, and such as were settled in every Church, Act 13.1, 2, 3. Compared with Ch. 14.23. Viz. Preaching Elders and Presbyters, so that he could not with any Shadow of Reason, suppose they were all extraordinary Officers. And in a word, if he asserted, there were here mixed Officers, he not only made the Power and Authority of the extraordinary Officers, to swallow up that of the Pastors, but likewise he crossed his monopolizing this extraordinary Power in the Apostle. Again, since he could not say the Apostle in these Injunctions, doth by distinctive notes or Apostrophees, diversify the Ordinary from the Extraordinary Officers, in the point of this high Jurisdictional Act, he baffled and excluded his First Answer. And in a word, giving by this Answer, a Jurisdictional Power and Authority in this Act, to a Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers, and asserting that it was joyntly thus put forth by them, he did thus bid farewell to my Lord Bishops singular prerogative in this Matter, and generally in Point of Government.

His last Answer is, That if this Power were supposed in the ordinary Church Officers of Corinth, they might have had this by delegation and Commission of the Apostle. But where did the Surveyer read this Commission? What account can he give of such a delegated Power beyond the Essential Authority of Pastors, to deliver to Satan, purge out the old Leaven, to meet together for this great Jurisdictional Act? And why was the Apostle Paul so fatally Cross p. 44to the Diocesan Prelat, as not to deliver this Commission to him? But we must know this Chimerical fancy stands upon the strong Pillar of this infallible Surveyers may be, or might be, and this is all the proof we must expect. But what is the last shift and dead lift? We are told next, That this Instance of the Church of Corinth is but one, which cannot make a Rule, without the sure knowledge of the Divine Direction, which the Apost…les had to keep an uniform course in such ext…rnal Matt…rs. Ans. As none will say, that the Apostles did constitute the Christian Church as a speckled Bird, with a Hetrogenous or various Mixtures of forms of Government, so in this P…int they had their Masters great Rules and Measures prescribed to them, and such Rules as overthrows the Hierarchical Bishop. First, We may remind the great Rule in Mat. 18. recommending a subordination of lesser to greater Judicatories, pointing likewise at the Collegiat Meeting of Church Officers, as the proper subject of the Jurisdictional Power, in opposition to what he pleads for, viz: the concentring this in one Prelat. Next, what surer direction can we have in this Point, than that the Apostles are found Establishing; wherever a Church was gathered, such Officers as have Names and Titles of Intrinsick▪ Official Power and Authority ingraven upon them, and are found exercising an equal, Official Power in Government? Thus in the Passage now debated, and 1 Cor. 12.28. Comp. with Eph. 4.11. and with Act. 14.23. Tit: 1.5, 7. Heb. 13.7, 17, 1 Thes. 5.12.

Presbyterian Writers do exhibit a large account and induction of these Names and Titles, importing Authority: Such as that of Presbyter or Elder, Act. 15.2, 4, with 20, 17, 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Pet. 5.1. A Title of Political Rulers, Iudg. 8.14. Thus expressed by the LXXII▪ Interpreters. The Title of Bishop importing a Power and Charge over the Flock Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.5.7. A word made use of also by these Interpreters to point at the Civil Magistrats Power, Num. 31.14. The Title and Name of foreign ▪ which signifies Conductor, Captain, Governour, Leader: A word setting forth the Power of Civil Rulers, Deut. 1.13. 2▪ Chron. 5.1. And thus they are distinguished from the Church and Saints, Heb. 13.7, 17, 24. The Title of Stewards over the Lords House and Family: Of Pastors and Shepherds, who are to feed Pedo and Pabulo; a Title likewise attributed to the Civil Magistrat, Isa. 24.28. comp. 1 Cor. 4. 1. Luk. 12.42. Gal. 4.2. Rom. 13.2.3. Now, our Lord Commanding his Apostles to Disciple all Nations, or form them into Churches, and the Apostles pursuant to this Commission, being found to have placed such Officers in the Churches, and these being found exercising a joint Official Authority in greater and lesser Judicatories, either the Apostles Divine Direction herein must be acknowledged, and their walking up to it in this Point of an uniform Mould of Government, or their Faithfulness in the p. 45execution of their great Trust is impeached and called in Question. Thu- we have seen, that after this pregnant Text, hath tossed this Pitiful Sursveyer from one extream to another, in seeking some shift of Answer, and driven him upon the Pinacles and Precipies of contradictory Answers, all his fantastick quiblings issueth in this miserable shift of calling into Question the Uniformity of the Apostolick Church Government.

The Surveyer next assaults our Argument from the not mentioning of the Bishop in the Catalogue of Church Officers, but palpably disguises it, as if we argued merely from the non-nomination of the Bishop in Eph, 4.11. among the Officers there mentioned, as Gifted to the Church. The Argument is this, That there being several Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Institution, as in that Passage Eph. 4. and likewise 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.6.7. The Diocesan Hierarchical Bishop is found in none of them, and we may add, and likewise in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Officers, exhibit in Scripture; and therefore is no Officer app…inted of GOD. He tells us, That though not mentioned under that Name, they are mentioned under the Name of Pastors and Teachers. But▪ as he unjustly supposes that our Argument Concludes from that one place, so he deals as unjustly, or unskilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers, who so little concern themselves in that work, and marrs his design in making them Succeed to the Apostles, in the plenitude of their ordinary Power, as he doth, P. 194, 195. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apostles, or else he must bring up Pastors and Teachers to the same Succession. The Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apostolick or Evangelistick Office, why then did he assign different Degrees of the Pastoral Office? This Consequence, the Surveyer calls weak, because a Governing Superiority among Apostles and Evangelists, was partly impracticable, partly unnecessary, they seldom living in ordinary Societies, because of their Dispersion, for speedy spreading of the Gospel, and having infallible direction in their Ministry: Whereas Pastors living in Society, and fixed-upon their Charges, their Associations have need of some Governing Superiority among them, to be a Nerve and Sinnew of their Union, and that the Prudence of some may repress the Levity of others. Ans. This Reason is but the ignis fatuus of our Surveyers fancy: First as touching Apostles, we find them notwithstanding of the infallible conduct of the Spirit, joyning Counsel together, yea, and with concurrence of ordinary Officers, as Act. 15. and a Moderator of the Meeting presiding, whom his Party will needs make us believe did preside as Bishop of Jerusalem; so that this very Colledge of Apostles had the Superintendency of this Episcopal Nerve, in their Sense. And none can deny that persons managing one work, if far dispersed, have the greater need of a Corresponding head…. Next, as for Pastors, we find their social Government by common Counsel exhibit p. 46in Scripture, and that their Union was a Presbyterial, Classical Union, and did not Coalesce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat. Besides, the Surveyer is a niggardly Dispenser of Governing Prudence, when Monopolizing it in one Prelat, and denying it to the rest of the Members of the Society of Pastors: Or, if he allow it to more than one Person, he plucks the Hierarchical Bishop from his Seat, and disownes the Concentring of this Authority in his Person. For what he adds of the Early Reception of this supposed Headship of the Hierarchical Prelat by the whole Church: His Confident Assertion is easily Answered by a well grounded Denyal. He is bold to say, there is nothing in Scripture against this Officer: But his palpable Perversion of the Scriptures pleaded against him, discovers there is more said against him, than he was able to Answer, and these Texts pleaded, appears the more forcible after all his faint Essays this way.

He offers in the next place (P. 214.) a Reply to our Argument from Philip. 1.1. From which we argue, That there being here a Plurality in one and the same Church, who must need be Pastors and Officers therein: Therefore, the Scripture Bishop is not the Hierarchical Bishop, since the Apostle salutes these Pastors joyntly, as Officers of the Highest Rank, under this Notion of being Bishops thereof, and without the least hint of a respect to any Superior Officer set over them: Besides, that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior. In Answer to this, the Surveyer first takes notice, that in this Epistle only, the Direction is by Paul to the Officers, as contradistinct from the Church, whereas in the rest of the Epistles, he includes them in the Organick Church, without express mentioning of them. Ans. Not to stand upon this Variety in the Inscription of Epistles, wherein sometimes the Apostle Stile himself by his Authority, sometimes not, sometimes associats with himself, Officers of an Inferior Order, sometimes not. It is noticeable here, how this Man, in a palpable Contradiction to himself, doth quite baffle and run down his first large Answer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5. which concludes the People only to be bespoken, because Officers are not Named: Whereas here he acknowledges, that except in this one Epistle, in the rest the Church Officers are included in the Organick Church, without the express mentioning of them. But to proceed, the Surveyer will needs, with Ambrose, have the Reason of the Difference to be, that they were not Bishops and Deacons of that Church, but present with Paul and Timothy at Writing of the Epistle, and assumed as Consenters with him; and this he makes paralel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me. He tells us, the Apostle calls them not Bishops and Deacons of Philippi, but absolutely Bishops and Deacons, and the Copulative [foreign] may refer to Paul and Timothy, the Writers, as well as to the Saints at Philippi. Ans. The Surveyer, in approving this palpably absurd Gloss, discovers how miserably he is put to it, to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument: For …not to speak of Ambrose Sentiments, wherein the Surveyer cannot make p. 47it appear, he is followed by any Interpreters) it is evident beyond all Contradiction, that the Apostles usual Method in the Inscription of all the Epistles is, First, To describe himself, either by his Office of Apostle, or otherwayes, as the Pen-man of the Epistle, together with Others (if any such be) whom he is pleased to Associat with him in the Inscription: And then in a Distinct Clause and Branch to Describe these, whether persons or Churches, to whom the Epistle is Addresed. And we dare confidently Challenge such as embrace this Sense to exhibit a contrary Instance in any of the Epistles, or to shew where the persons supposed present with the Apostle, are in their Description cast behind his Character of himself, and the Description of the Persons to whom he writes. Nay, this so evident, that the Surveyers own Instance Gal. 1. baffles his Answer: For, after Pauls Description of himself, as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man, calling himself an Apostle, not of Men, neither by Man, &c. He doth in the 2 v. add, and all that are with me; And next describes those to whom the Epistle is directed, viz. Unto the Churches of Galatia. The Surveyer inverts the Order, and would make the Words run thus, Paul an Apostle, &c. unto the Churches of Galatia, and all the Brethren, &c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. should thus run and be Sensed, Paul an Apostle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth, and Sosthenes our Brother, point blank cross to the Scope and Order of the Text. Thus also 2 Cor. 1.1. Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ, &c. unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth, and Timothy our Brother. Thus the Sense of this place Philip. 1.1. is (with the Surveyer) Paul and Timotheus, the Servants of Iesus Christ, to the Saints in Christ Iesus at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons with Paul. What Sense, or rather Non-sense is this? He could assign no Instance of such a Trajection of the copulative foreign, as he here admitts, nor any Reason why Timothy is not ranked with these Bishops.

The Surveyer P. 215. to strengthen one absurd Notion with another, doth in the second place alledge, That there was here a casual Muster of other Bishops of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof, to consult the good of the Churches; And tells us, That the Apostle speaks generally, as to the Saints at Philippi, Ch. 4.21. And not only of that Church, so of these Bishops and Deacons taken universally as mett there, though not of that particular Church. But this fantastical Muster-master of these Extraneous Officers, as he can give no shadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact, which is the Substratum of his Reason & Answer; So he doth in asserting Philippi to be the Metropolis of Macedonia, either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick Sense, contradict the Judgement of several of the Learned. And as he still beggs the Question, in supposing the Existence of his Diocesan Prelat, so there is nothing in this Epistle, that might be supposed to have the least respect to the Ends of such a Meeting, p. 48or can give Ground to extend the Bishops, Deacons, or Saints, beyond the Limits of that Church, unless such an Extension be applyed to other Churches, in the like case of Epistles addressed to them, as Ephesus, Rome, &c. Nay, where there is in the Inscription of Epistles, such an express Extension in reference to the persons addressed, we find it in a distinct Clause; Thus 1 Cor. 1.2. after this general Inscription and Designation, viz. Unto the Church of GOD, which is at Corinth, there follows this Extension, with all that in every place call upon the Name of Iesus Christ. Thus 2 Cor. 1.1. After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Corinth, follows this express Extension, with all the Saints that are in all Achaia.

The Surveyer in his third Answer, will admit the Bishops and Deacons to be related to that particular Church: But tells us, This will not prove they were all Bishops of an equal Degree. It is good, that the Surveyer will at last admit these Bishops to be the settled Bishops here, and will take them off, and likewise the Deacons, whose work is only to serve Tables, from his alledged great and general Consults, anent the Case of the Churches of Macedonia. But for what is here forged and pretended, we have told him, that the Scripture Bishops or Pastors are of equal Official Authority, and that he would here mind and take home his own Reason, viz. that there is no such Notes of Distinction, or Discriminating Characters, as he stands so much upon, in the Apostles Salutation. The Surveyer tells us, The general Name might be common to the Bishops, strictly so called, and the Inferior Bishops: As in a Letter directed to the Magistrats of a City, and terming them Magistrats in general, though one only is supposed a Provost, and others Bailiffs: Thus Saluting the Bishops in cumulo, he denyeth not their different Degrees. Ans. Besides, that the Surveyer is still renewing his Petitio Principii, and supposing the Existence of his Hierarchical Prelat, he should have pondered the Rule Similitudo ad Pompam, &c. A Similitude may illustrat a thing proposed or supposed, but cannot prove a thing in Question. Next, this Similitude overthrows his Scope: For, 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cumulo, but under distinct Epithets of Bishops and Deacons, diversifying as he acknowledged, Church Officers of a distinct Character and Office. 2. He makes the Term Bishop, to be the Name distinguishing the Diocesan, as under that Character, from Presbyters, and who is supposed to be but one in one Church; Thus looking to his Similitude, he makes the Apostle speak as improperly, as if a Plurality of Provosts, or Provosts in the p…ural, were saluted in a Letter to one City. But the Surveyer P. 216. urges, That since we own two sorts of Elders, the Preaching and Ruling Elder, and comprehend them under the Name Bishop, we must owne it that there are diverse Ranks of Officers, saluted under that Name; Or if disowning this, it follows that the Apostle did not intend to write to such, tho supposed Church Officers. Ans. This Dilemma p. 49is crocked, and pushes us not: If we say such Officers were not as yet existent in this Church, it only follows, that it was not yet fully constitute in all its Officers: Or, if in the next place, we admit them existent, the Surveyer hath no Advantage: For, 1. We admit this Divinely instituted Officer, as eminenter included in the Office of the Bishop or Pastor, both having the general Notion of Inspection applicable unto them; But the Hierarchical Bishop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer, by his Confession. 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder, impeaches not the equal Power of Pastors, here saluted in the Plural, but the admitting of the Hierarchical Prelat overthrows this, and consequently the Apostles Scope. But the Surveyer tells us, he may, upon our ground, bring in the Superior and Inferior Degrees of Bishops and Presbyters, under this general Name of Bishops. Ans. We can comprehend none under this Designation, who have not our Lords Institution, as all Inspectors and Governours of his House must, else they run unsent, and cannot be called his Stewards, not having a Commission from him. We include the Elder, as a Divinely instituted Officer, whose Divine Institution we make good, but do reject the Hierarchical Prelat, as an Officer of Mans devising: And the Surveyer might, under Pretence of this general Name, and upon such a Topick, advance Cardinals, Primats, or whom he pleased.

The Surveyer, in the fourth place, will needs loose the Objection, that the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior: To which he gives this Return, That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Inferior, in respect of some common Dignity, Qualifications, or Accidents, competent to both; as the Name of Presbyter, both via ascensus and descensus is given to Superior and Inferior Officers, as Beza confesses on 1 Pet. 5. Ans. The Surveyer here hath disguised the Strength and Nerves of this Objection. We know that Superior and Inferior Officers do come under general Names and Designations: But our Assertion is this, That no Name of the Superior Officer, which is the proper Characteristick of his Office, and whereby he is distinguished from the Inferior, is attributed to such Inferior Officers, since this would Brangle the Scriptures Distinction thereof, and remove the March-Stones, which God hath set; So that his Instance of the common Name to Superior and Inferior Officers, upon the ground of common Qualifications, is impertinent to the Point: For no Names of this Nature and Import, can be the proper distinguishing Names of the Superior from the Inferior, since this would infallibly infer a Confusion in the Holy Ghosts Language, such as cannot without Blasphemy be imputed to him. Thus the Name Apostle, in its proper Sense, or Evange…ist, is ascribed to no Inferior Officer. To apply this, the Name of Bishop, is in the Surveyers Princip…es, a distinguishing Character of an Officer superior to a Pastor or Presbyter; p. 50and therefore the Absurdity of his Inference or paralel Reason, is palpably evident; this Name being by his own Confession, ascribed to ordinary Pastors.

The Surveyer in the Fifth place, repeats again to us for Answer, this poor, hungry shift, which we have before refuted, viz: That granting there were none but mere Presbyters at that time, in that Church of Philippi, who are called Bishops, yet upon what grounds shall the Constitution thereof be the Measure of all Churches, unless a Divine Rule for Managing the Government in that uniform manner could be produced? Ans. The Surveyer in Repeating this Subterfuge, which he made use of, to eschew our Argument drawn from the State of the Church of Corinth, told us, that that Church, which is but one, ought not to be a Rule to others, and that one instance cannot make a Rule. Here it seems he he hath found another Instance, to make the Number two, yet this will not please him, unless a Divine Rule be produced, for managing the Government in that manner. It is certain, that the Apostles practice, in the constitution of Churches, in their Officers and Ordinances, pursuant to their great Masters Commission hereanent, and upon the necessary supposition of their Infallibility and Faithfulness, in managing this Trust, is a sufficient Rule and Divine Warrand to found our Perswasion and Faith in this Matter. This is so clear, that the Episcopalians must either acknowledge it, or baffle and overthrow their own Principles and Arguings for Prelacy: For I pray, how will they make their supposed Constitution of the Churches of Ephesus & Crete, under the pretended Episcopal Inspection of Timothy and Titus, a Standart and Measure for all Christian Churches, if this Apostolick Constitution therereof, be not admitted, as an infallible ground of this Argument? And if Presbyterians shall repone to their Episcopal Pleadings, that the Constitution of these Churches, cannot be a Standart for ever, unless a Divine Rule be produced, for managing the Government in that uniform manner, they are destitute of an Answer: So, that it appears the Surveyer behoved either in granting the Churches of Corinth and of Philippi, to be thus governed, to yield the Cause to the Presbyterians, in acknowledging a Divine Presbyterial Constitution of these Churches, or sto…d obliged to retract and disown all his Episcopal Pleadings, in the Instances exhibit. The Episcopalians might have found that these Instances are exhibited by us as proofs and Demonstrations of the common Universal Rule. The Constitution of the other Apostolick Churches, after this manner, hath been exhibit and evinced, as by several others, so in special, by the Judicious Authors of the Ius Divin, Minist. Eccles. who have at large made appear and proven a Presbyterial, Classical Unity, and equal Official Authority of Pastors in Government. 1. In the Church of Ierusalem. 2. In the Church of Antioch. 3. In the Church of Ephesus. 4. In the Church of p. 51Corinth. And that in all these Instances, there is in the Word, a Pattern … Presbyterian Government, in common, over diverse single Congregations in one Church. See Ius Divin. Minis. Eccles. from P. 292. &c. And in special, the Surveyer and his Fellows might have found this made good, which he here pretended to seek a Proof of, Viz: That the Pattern of the said Presbytrie and Presbyterian Government, is for a Rule to the Churches of Christ in all after Ages. Which is made good,

First, From this, that the First Churches were immediatly Planted and Governed by Christs own Apostles and Disciples. The strength of this Reason is illustrated from several Grounds; As that 1. The Apostles immediatly received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ himself, Matth. 16.19. Ioh. 20.21.23. 2. Had immediatly the promise of his perpetual presence in their Ministry, Matth. 28.18.19.20. The plentiful donation of the Spirit to lead into all Truth, Ioh. 14.16. Act. 15. Ioh. 16.14, 15. 3. They received immediatly Commands from Christ, after his Resurrection, and were instructed Forty days, in the Nature of his Kingdom. That they were first and immediatly Baptized of the Holy Ghost extraordinarly Act. 2.1. to 5. So that whether we consider the Spirits infallible influence upon the Apostles in this great work of ordering and Governing the Primitive Churches, or their performing Christs Commandments in this work, which he did impose upon them, touching his Kingdom, and consequently their infallibly Right use of the Keys of his Kingdom, which he Committed to them, it is evident beyond all contradiction, that the Pattern of their Practices herein, must be a Rule for all the succeeding Churches.

Secondly, This is made good from the end proposed by the Holy Ghost in the careful Records of the Apostolical Churches State and Government; which must needs be in order to succeeding Churches imitation, since this Record, as the other Scriptures, must needs be foreign for our Learning or Instruction; which Instruction must Relate, not merely to the Factum, but mainly to the Ius, viz: the Reasons and grounds of this Apostolical Government, this being the most proper and profitable Instruction.

Thirdly, That, if in the Point of Government, such Apostolick Patterns will not amount to an obligatory Rule, we will impeach the Authority of other Acts of Religion, received from them, and bottomed only and Chiefly upon the Foundation of the Practice of Christs Apostles, and Apostolical Churches, such as the Reciving of the Lords Supper on the Lords days, &c. See Ius Divin. Minis. Eccles. P. 213, 214. Nay, this is so evident, that the Surveyer without contradicting himself, cannot but admit this Rule; For P. 195, he will needs have the determination of this p. 52Question to depend upon the Historical Narrations of the Acts of the Apostles contained in Scripture, and the surest Light History can afford in the Churches most Virgin times. Now, here is exhibit Historical Accounts and Narrations of the Churches pure and Primitive pure Constitution in its first and most Virgin times, why then did he (in Contradiction to himself) call for another Rule?

But the Surveyer, P. 216.217. presents yet another evasion, That this Church might have had a Bishop, Eminenter, so called, though not present at Philippi; That we cannot otherwise account of Epaphroditus, who is called their Apostle, Philip. 2.25. or Messenger, as the Angels Rev. 2. and 3. are called the Angels of the Churches; and not for any Temporal Imployment of being sent with their Alms, it being too high a Stile to give Men upon so low an Account: Thus 2 Cor. 8.23. We read of the Messengers of the Churches, and the Glory of Christ. Ans. We have above removed the Foundation of this exception, both in Reference to Epaphroditus, and the Asian Angels. That Epaphroditus gets the Name of their Apostle and Messenger Catachrestice and improperly, and consequently that he was no such Bishop, as the Surveyer pretends, is most evident in the Sacred Text, since he is thus termed, with respect to that special Employment of carrying the Churches Benevolence to Paul. For the Apostle, after he hath called him their Messenger, doth expresly adjoyn this ground of the Epithet and Denomination, viz. He that Ministred to my Wants, which doth clearly restrict and explain the Term [Messenger] in this Context. Besides, that v. 30. he is said to come to supply their Lack of Service towards the Apostle; and the Apostle mentioning him again, Ch. 4.18. tells this Church, That he received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent by them: As for the Surveyers Exception, That this was too high a Stile to be given upon so low an Account, comparing this with 2 Cor. 8.23. I have above told such Pleaders, that the Service of the Churches, and the Interest of Christ in them, is such a Honourable Employment, as the most eminent need not be ashamed of, since he who is Lord of all, came not to be Ministred unto, but to Minister; and the Holy Angels, literally so called, think it no Disparagement to their High Estate and Dignity, to be sent forth as Messengers, to Minister and do Service to the meanest, who are Heirs of Salvation. For that Passage, 2 Cor. 8. we have made appear, that it rather Confirms, than Impugns our Answer and Exposition of this Scripture anent Epaphroditus: The Apostles Scope in that place, being evidently to stir up the Church to a large Expression of their Charity and Bounty, upon the Account of the Fidelity and Worth of the Messengers sent to them for that end. Next, I might tell this Surveyer, that Epaphroditus and these other Messengers, being restrictedly called Messengers of the Churches, and with a special respect to the Employment specified in the Text, are thus distinguished p. 53from the Apostles, who properly are Christs Messengers to the Churches; And therefore, Persons under this Character of Messengers from Churches to Churches, have not that special proper Signature, which the Surveyer pleads for, upon the account of the general Name, Messenger, applyed to them. In a word, in this Conjecture, as the Surveyer presents but a new Petitio Principii and groundless Fancy, without the least shadow of Proof, so, its baffled by his own Principle, who thinks it below his supposed great Men to be sent upon a Temporary Employment. Now, it is certain that Epaphroditus was sent with this Churches Benevolence to Paul, and it would have puzzled this Surveyer to Ans…er the Querie: Why none else, but the sole and eminent Bishop was sent with this Benevolence? As likeways, to Answer further these Queries, First, Why the Apostle Paul put the proper Name and Characteristick of this sole and eminent Bishop, upon all the Pastors of the Church of Philippi? Which, upon his Principles, did draw with it great Inconveniences; as tending 1. To cast a Cloud of Ignorance upon these Pastors, in reference to a Person, to whom they did owe important Duties. 2. This might tend to involve them in the Temptation of a Sinful Emulous Disposition and Breach among themselves: And no body will judge, that the Apostle was not careful to prevent this. Besides, this could not consist with that high Esteem of Epaphroditus, which the Apostle here expresses, thus to deal with him, and in special, to make him the Messenger of such Derogatory Expressions, in this Epistle, wherein he is so much commended. Thus we have seen, that the Evidence of this Scripture, as likewise of the preceeding, doth quite dispel the Mist of the Surveyers fond Exceptions.

The Surveyer tells us, He finds one Scripture more, wherein, because Presbytrie is Named, we account we have great Advantage for our Way; The Passage is 1 Tim. 4.14. Whereas, he may more justly triumph in the word Bishop, so often mentioned in Scripture. He professeth his Resolution pressely to consider this place: And his Replyes shall be pressely considered. His first Reply is, That we cannot prove that by Presbytrie here is meant a Colledge of single Presbyters, in the Modern Notion, and not rather the Dignity and Office of a Presbyter, as Calvin (Institut. Lib. 4. Cap. 3.) Jerom, and others also do judge. Ans. 1. Not to stand upon the Surveyers cutting off by this Gloss, Presbyters from so much as a consent to Timothies Ordination, which in contradiction to himself here, he doth in his other Replyes to this Text, allow them. It is in this place very considerable that this Word foreign or Presbytrie, being used only thrice in the New Testament, viz. Luk. 22.66. and Act. 22.5. and in this Passage under Debate; Since in the two first places, it must necessarly be taken, for a Concessus Presbyter orum, a Colledge of Elders or Presbyters, this Surveyer could offer no shadow of p. 54Reason or Evidence for the altering the Signification in this Passage; Since 1. The Scope and Circumstances do clearly lead to this its ordinary Acceptation. And 2. There can no such Exposition be offered here, without a very gross Imputation upon the Language and Sense of the Holy Ghost; It differing little from Non-sense, if at all reconcilable to Sense, thus to read the Text, Neglect not the Gift given thee &c. by the laying on of the Hands of the Office: For what Hands hath an Office to lay on? Not only Reason, but the very Ear disrelishes such a Sense: Especally, if the Matter of Fact be admitted (in opposition to which, the Surveyer could give no Evidence) that as there was Ruling Officers or Presbyters then existent, so they did de facto, lay Hands upon Timothy. For Calvins Judgement, we find that in his Commentary upon the place, he asserts that such as understand the Word Presbytrie here, in a collective Sense, and to import the Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters, do, in his Iudgement, put a right Sense upon the Words; So that he cannot be reckoned as holding the Surveyers Gloss▪ And however, we do not judge that most worthy Person (as neither Ierom in this point, Inferior to Greek Fathers) infallible, or our selves obliged jurare in ejus verba. As for the Authors after cited, as understanding the Term in his Sense; It is one thing to say that the Term foreign and foreign have been indifferently used by Greek Authors, for the Office and Order of a Presbyter; it is a far other thing to say, that the Scripture Term in these three Passages, is so to be understood; Since here the signification of the Word is to be drawn from the Scope and Contexture of the place of Scripture where it is, which must needs Over-rule and Determin the Signification in this Passage, though it were granted that sometimes Greek Authors did use it in another Signification. The Language of the Holy Ghost in these three Passages, as it doth certainly Over-rule all other Greek Authors, so the Term in the three Passages exhibited, doth palpably appear to be of one and the same Signification, viz. pointing at a Colledge of Presbyters or Elders. Besides, that there want not Ecclesiastick and Greek Authors thus understanding it; Such as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact. For what the Surveyer adds out of Bilson, P. 77. That ordinarly in Ancient Greek Councils foreign and foreign have been used indifferently for the Office and Order of a Presbyter: Citing Council of Nice, Can. 2. Antioch, Can. 18. Afric. Can. 136. Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 8. It is Answered, First, It is acknowledged by Bilson, that the Councils mentioned, use the Word foreign which is distinct from foreign. Next, as Camero is clear and positive for our Sense of the Word foreign on Matth. 18.5. And asserts that the contrary Acceptation for the Office and Dignity of Presbyter, contradicts both the Signification of the Word, and the Apostles Scope; So he shews further, that rarely doth the Word foreign import the Office, but where the Word p. 55foreign may be understood. Hen. Stephanus takes the Word here to import Caetum omnium illorum qui in verbo laborabant, the Colledge of such as labour in the Word and Doctrine. And the other Paralels Luk. 22.66. and Act. 22.5. he expones of the Meeting of Elders. Scapula expones the Word in this Passage, Caetus Presbyterorum, Presbyterium, a Presbytrie or Colledge and Meeting of Presbyters. The Passage of Euseb. Lib. 6. C. 8. may be taken without any Violence offered to the Words, to import the Colledge of Presbyters, and in Camero's Judgement foreign may be taken for foreign. In a word, it is enough to baffle this Exception, that as this Term in Greek and Ecclesiastick Authors, is ordinarly thus taken, for which frequent Instances might be given, so it is certain, and enough for us, that it's alwayes taken in a Collegiat Sense, in the Scriptures of the New Testament. And in the Paralels mentioned, it were gross Non-sense to take the Word in the Surveyers Sense, and to say that the Office of Elders did meet together, and the Office of Elders did bear Witness to Paul, so it carrieth the same Incongruity and absurd Sense with it, to assert that the Office laid Hands upon Timothy. The Surveyer next excepts against our Argument drawn from the Paralels, That therein the word imports not a Meeting of Christian Presbyters, but only of Jewish Elders, persecuting Christ and His Apostles: That though the Term were taken in this Sense only in this place, there wants not Paralel Instances of such an acceptation of words; As the word [Church] is taken but once Matth. 18.17. for a Representative Church, so the 1 Cor. 11.10. the word [Power] in that place of Scripture only signifies the Covering and Vail upon the Womans head, as a token of Subjection to her Husband: And that it is enough in such Cases, that the Strain of the Context requires a Varrying from the Acceptation of the word in other places. Ans. The Strength of our Argument is drawn, both from the ordinary Acceptation of the Word, which hath its own secondary weight, and likewise, and mainly from this, that the Scope and Contexture of this Passage, do clearly plead for the Acceptation of the Word in the ordinary Sense, and not to varry from it. And therefore his Assertion, That the Strain of the Context requires a varrying from this ordinary acceptation in this place, is but his bold begging of the Question; For of this, he neither offers, nor can offer any solid proof: Nay, the contrary, is the consentient Judgement of Interpreters. The Imposition of Hands here signifies Consent and Election, whereof it was a Sign, saith Vatabulus. The whole is signified by a part, viz. of the Ordination, saith Estius, To wit, of the whole Ceremony of the Presbytries Ordination. Prayer was added with Imposition of Hands, saith Grotius. I hope he will not say the Office prayed. Camero censures the contrary Exposition, upon several Grounds. 1. Because the Imposing of the hands of the Office, is a harsh saying, and sounds improperly. 2. Because p. 56the word foreign never signifies the Office, wherever it occurs in the new Testament, citing the Paralels Luke. 22.66. Act. 22 5. As likewise, because the Office is signified by the word foreign but here the word signifies a Colledge or embodied Court. 3. Because Timothy's Authority was greater, than that it could be called a Presbyterate. Bullinger upon the place tells us, that this is one motive whereby the Apostle stirrs up Timothy to diligence in his Office, that besides the Prophesies that went before of him, and his inward impulse accedit praeterea & manuum Seniorum impositio, quae ista comprobavit, & publico muneri publice praefeeit, That he had the Imposition of the Hands of the Elders or Presbyters, sealing and confirming his inward impulse, in the Prophesies that went before, and which did install him in this publick Office▪ Paraeus upon the place, shews that Timothy was thus taken into the Order and Society of Pastors: And upon Ch. 1. v. 6. of 2d Epistle, collating together the imposing of Pauls Hands, and the Hands of the Presbytrie, he shews the Reason thus, quia Paulus▪ unus fuit ex Presbyterio, vel Presbyterii nomine imposuit; Because Paul was one of that Presbytrie, or imposed hands in their Name; Where it is evident he understands the Prebytrie in a collegiat sense, for a Meeting of Pastors. Piscator upon the place, shews, That Timothy is stirred up to diligence, first upon the account of his singular vocation to this Function, by the Revelation of the Holy Ghost: And next, by the vocation of the Church▪ obeying this Command of the Holy Ghost, in imposing the Hands of the Presbytrie upon him, because the Presbyters or Pastors by this Rite ordained the Ministers of the Church. Diodat. upon the place tels us, that by the Presbytrie, we are to understand the laying on of the Hands of the Elders; shewing that thus the Italian reads the Text, and these Elders, he expones to be the Pastors and other Guides of the Church, paralelling this Sense of the Elders, with that of Act. 11.30. where we read of the Churches benevolence sent to the Elders and Church Rulers, for the Relief of the Poor Saints in Iudea. The Belgick Divines upon the place, Translate this Clause of the Eldership, That is (say they) of the Assembly of the Elders, or Overseers of the Church, &c. The Eng. Annot. upon the place having added to the word Presbytrie, the Phrase of [Eldership] thus proceed▪ Some by Presbytrie understand the Office of a Presbyter, which Timothy received by imposition of Hands; but the word foreign is never taken in Scripture for the Office of a Presbyter, but for the Company of Elders, who here laid hands upon Timothy, when he was Ordained: And they add the agreeableness hereunto of the Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage, and the Practice of the Reformed Churches to this day, Pool. 2d Part, Paraphraseth this Passage thus, That Timothy's Office was given by the Revelation of the Divine Will, by the extraordinary Influence of the Spirit of GOD, and the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie, p. 57was a declaration of it. The last clause of 6. v. 1 Ch. of 2d Epistle, they thus Paraphrase, That he is called to the improvement of those Spiritual abilities given him upon the Prayers of Paul & the Presbytrie, when he was by them set a part to the work of an Evangelist, for the end, for which GOD had given them to him. To these Expositors, many others might be added, exponing this word and term, of a Collegiat Meeting; such as M…nochius, Tirinus, Zegerius, Sligelius, Beza, Simplicius, Vorstius, &c.

But now to proceed (after this little digression with Interpreters) to our Surveyers Instances and Exceptions taken from the Terms in Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 11. We Answer, that the exception is palpably absurd; For he could not deny that these terms [Church] and [Power] are Ordinarly taken in Scripture in another Sense, than in these Passages, though the circumstances of these Scriptures plead for varrying from that Acceptation: But he neither did, nor could make it appear, that this Term Presbytrie under debate, is ever in Scripture taken in this Acceptation, nor could he deny, that it is taken in our Sense elsewhere; So that his Exception touches not the Point: And as much ridiculous, if not more, is that other Exception which he offers to the paralel Passages, viz. That Rulers therein signifies Civil Rulers, and Rulers who were Enemies to Christ: For, whatever were the Moral Qualities of the Rulers, if the Word signifies a Collegiat Meeting of Rulers, it is enough to our purpose, and evinceth our Argument from the paralels, to be good and valid, unless he could evince a contrary Acceptation, which he doth not so much as essay. He could not deny, that the Legal Constitution of one Assembly or Parliament, is a far and distinct thing from the Qualities of the Members, who consequently come truely under these Denominations upon the ground of a Legal Constitution. And supposing our Sense of the Word Presbytrie, and the Matter of Fact to be such as we assert, he could not, without making himself most ridiculous, infer from these Paralels, that the Members Constituent of this Presbytrie, were either Civil Rulers, or bad.

The Surveyer, (P. 217, 218.) is bold to call this our Exception against his Sense, viz. That the Office hath no Hands to impose, a ridiculous Objection flowing from a Mistake of the Meaning of the Text, which attributes not the imposed Hands to the Presbytrie, as to an Agent or Efficient, but only limits and determines that Imposition of Hands which Timothy had from the Apostle, or other high Officers of the Church, to the particular use and end for which Hands were imposed on him, viz. the giving him a Power of a Presbyter or Elder. Ans. Here is a strange Exposition, obscuring rather than clearing the Text. Had the Apostle no other way of expressing the end of the Ordination, and its Nature, than by telling him of Hands of the Office laid upon him, which in all common Sense, doth relate to an Agent or Instrument, and not to the Limitation and Use of his Office? A Man may thus fasten the most Fantastick p. 58Senses upon Scripture. Besides, he holds that there were eminent high Officers with Paul, and concurring with this Imposition of Hands upon Timothy: Why then will he strike off their Hands from being here meaned, when Imposition of Hands is so expresly mentioned? The Surveyer thus further Senseth the Words, Neglect not the Gift given thee by the Laying on of Hands, not Confirmatory, not Reconciliatory, but Imposition of Hands Ordinatory, whereby thou was ordained, or made a Presbyter. Ans. Besides, that this Division of Imposition of Hands, is as odd, as his Sense of the Text, it is strange, that he admits of Imposition of Hands upon Timothy, in order to this end of making him a Minister, and yet denyeth the Presbytrie here to import a Collegiat Meeting, thus imposing. He holds that the Sense is, Neglect not the Gift given by the Laying on of the Hands, whereby thou was ordained. Now, pray, what hinders these Hands to be the Hands of the Collegiat Meeting imposing the same? Whereby the Sense is ours, or otherwise, in Contradiction to himself, he makes the Office the Ordaining Agent. If he acknowledge this place paralel with 2 Tim. 1.6. he cannot but see a like Construction in both, of the Term of Hands, with the Genitive. Nor can he deny that the Imposition of Hands is ever constructed with the Office in other Paralels, Act. 6.6. and 13.3. He calls our Reason against his Gloss ridiculous, but whether his Return be not more ridiculous, is left to the Reader to judge.

We are told for his next Answer, That were a Presbytrie here admitted, there is nothing in the Context to evince that it was a Classical Presbytrie, to which only we ascribe Ordination, and not a Congregational or Paroch Presbytrie. Ans. Here again, the Surveyer is driven to seek shelter among the Independents, but is ruined in this Shift; For, upon his Supposition, that a Congregation, or one Pastor with Unpreaching Elders, is the Subject of an Ordaining Power, the Prelatical as well as the Presbyterian Ordination, is overthrown. The places above referred to, and hinted at, do abundantly clear and evince the Divine Institution of Classical Presbytries, and Collegiat Meetings of Pastors of several Congregations, in order to a Ministerial Rule and Jurisdictional Authority over the same, and consequently, that they are the proper Subject of the Ordaining Power. The Treatise above mentioned, Ch. 10. besides several others, have abundantly evinced this Point, that the Fraternity or Community of the Faithful, and consequently of the particular single Congregation, cannot be the proper Subject of the Jurisdictional Power, nor the Power of Order; and …oth are cleared by a large Account of the one and the other; See P. 95, 96, 97, 98. This Surveyer did but ridicule the Scriptures, or rather expose himself, while pretending to impugn the Presbyterians, and answer their Scripture Reasonings, for he comes on with his may be this, and may be the other Sense; the one sense [may be] p. 59striking out and Contradicting the other, whereas, in the Judgement of all who own the Truth and the Authority of the Scriptures, the true sense is but one, since otherwise there can be no Truth, where there are different and various Senses. In his first Answer, he will needs have High Officers of the Church (as he calls them) to concur with the Apostle Paul in Imposing Hands upon Timothy; these High Officers, he no doubt advances far above the Sphere of Presbyters and Pastors, and puts them in the Character of his Magnates or Hierarchical Bishops; yet in this second Answer, he will needs (in a palpable Contradiction to the First) croud in all these High Officers into one Congregation; yea, and positively asserts, that there is no evidence in the Text to prove that this Presbytrie was any other than a Paroch-Presbytrie; and that it will trouble the Presbyterians to prove the contrary: But would it not much more have troubled this Fantastical Dictator, with his Linsey-Woolsey, party coloured Senses and Comments, to prove that these High Officers, near to the Apostolick Character, were all related to one Congregation, and but a Meeting of a Paroch Presbytrie, as he speaks.

His Third answer is taken from collating this Passage with 2 Tim. 1.6. where Paul enjoins Timothy to stir up the Gift that is in him, foreign, by the putting on of my Hands, as here 1 Tim. 4.14. He saith, Grace was given thee foreign, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie. The former place importing his Authority in the Action, and the latter the concern and consent of the Meeting of Presbyters with him: So that granting a Presbytrie present, there is no ordaining power can be hence inferred. Ans. We have already made appear, that these places Collated, do clearly evince a Presbyterial Authority in the Point of Ordination, and that since the imposing of Pauls hands in order to the Gifts, is clearly distinguished from the imposing of the Hands of the Presbytrie, which must needs respect his Ordination, and consequently their Authoritative influence thereupon, these Texts collated, do confirm this Point; and further do thus give light unto it, that supposing that the Imposition of Pauls hands, and the Hands of the Presbytrie, were contemporary, the Presbyterian Cause is the more strengthened, in that the imposing of an Apostles Hands, did not swallow up, nor exclude the Presbytries Authoritative imposition: So that this Authority may be much more now supposed competent to them, when the Office of Apostle is gone. I must here again Reflect upon it, that this our vertumnous Expositor, who will needs have in his First Answer, several High Officers to concurr with Paul, in this Imposition of Hands, makes Timothy thereby to receive a Presbyterate only: And I pray what needs such High Officers to concur with Paul, in order to this end? But in this Answer, we find ordinary Pastors concurring in the Ordination of this his supposed Presbyter; for the Surveyer in collating these Texts, insinuats no Officers of a higher Order, p. 60to have been present, except the Apostle Paul: And indeed the Passages themselves do only point at the Presbytrie and the Apostle Paul. Here also, Presbyters are found laying hands upon our Surveyer and his Fellows supposed Hierarchical Prelat, set over the Church of Ephesus.

Next, he acknowledges that the mention of imposing of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6. with the emphatick foreign, or by, respects the Gift of GOD in him, wherein he seems to distinguish the foreign and foreign the Authority and the Gift, yet expones this precisely of Pauls Authority in his Ordination, exclusive of that of the Presbytrie: But so it is, that the imposing of Hands, in order to Gifts of the Spirit, he must needs acknowledge to be of it self distinct from such an Imposition of Hands, as is in order to Ordination: Yea, even some of his own party acknowledge, that Hands were twice laid upon Timothy, and once by the Presbytrie alone. Besides, that Passage 1 Tim. 4.14. we find him very confusedly and inconsideratly exponing thus, Viz. The Grace given him with (foreign) the laying on of the hands of the Presbytrie: Whereas the Text runs thus, neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophesie, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie; where it is evident, the Gift given, and the Prophesie, are in two distinct Clauses, and the laying on of Hands of the Presbytrie, is in the third and last, and diversified by a distinct Particle foreign both from the Gift, and from the Prophesie: So that it is apparent, that this Grace or Gift, hath a special Respect to the Prophesie, but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie, is here set down in a distinct Clause, as a distinct Priviledge from the other two, and therefore, must either import their Authoritative action, or doth here signifie nothing; especially, since (as is said) the variation of the phrase foreign, or with, doth here import so much, and diversifie the one from the other. Which baffles his Sense and Exposition, that makes the imposing of the Presbytries hands to import no more but a Consent or Concurrence; The folly of which Exposition is further evidenced in that. 1. This solemn Action of Imposing Hands, being in the Scripture Accounts and Sense▪ a badge of Authoritative Blessing, must neeeds import much more, than a bare Consent or Concurrence, for he will not dare to say, that all those whose Hearts do concur in praying for the Blessing, had right to impose hands upon the Ordained. 2. He tells us in the beginning of his Answer, that the Presbytrie imposed not hands alone without a Higher Officer joyned with them in the Act. Now, I pray, what was this Act, if not of Ordination? Now, if the Presbytrie had an Authoritative Concurrence in the Act, or rather an influence thereupon, as their Act, how can he say they did only consent to the thing? For, upon this ground of a naked consent, he could not say that Paul was joined with him in the Act, which imports their joint Authoritative Concurrence (if this phrase have any Sense) and yet notwithstanding p. 61of this, according to his exposition, in the latter part of his Answer, the Action was Pauls alone, and not theirs; and he Confines the Authority of the Action, within the compass of the Apostles Imposition solely. I only add, if the Actions were supposed diverse, as severals do hold, the Surveyer hath no Shield nor Buckler against such a Weapon, which notwithstanding quite baffles this his Answer, if admitted.

His fourth Answer is, That since the Name of Presbyter or Elder, even in Beza's Sense on 1 Pet. 5. comprehends in general, all who have any Ecclesiastick Function, the Officers here might be of a higher sort than single Presbyters, even admitting the Term Presbytrie, to import a Collegiat Meeting. Ans. The Surveyer is still here repeating his groundless Conjectures, and beggings of the Question, for an Answer, yea, and confuting and baffling himself in these his fantastick Quiblings; For, besides that the existence of ordinary Officers, Superior to Presbyters, and cloathed with Episcopal Authority, is still begged by him, in several other Respects, this his Conjecture is most unaccountable and repugnant to the Text: For neither, first, can he make appear that such a Meeting of such Officers of a higher Order than single Presbyters, comes under the Scripture Denomination of a Presbytrie, in any Passages of Holy Write, or that when Officers of a higher Order, mett with Presbyters, they had no distinct Specification by their Titles or Names; As when the Apostles mett with the Elders Act. 15. and Prophets and Teachers mett together Act. 13. we find distinguishing Epithets and Names given to these Officers.

Next, As this conjecturing Surveyer, could give no account, whether this Meeting was solely of extraordinary Officers, or a Meeting mixed of Ordinary and Extraordinary, whether of his supposed Bishops, with these Extraordinary Officers, or not; So, whatever Answer he might embrace, he is still in the Briars, and overthrows his own Scope; For, besides that he cannot give account, why a Colledge of Prelats is called a Presbytrie, or to what end such a mixed Meeting can be here supposed: If his Conjecture be admitted, they could be no Paroch Presbytrie; And thus his second Answer is baffled, which supposeth this. Again, if there were in this Meeting higher Officers than Presbyters, he would needs grant that the ordaining Authority was not monopolized in one: And thus 1. He affronts and excludes all his former Pleadings for the sole Authority of the Prelatical Bishop in Ordination. 2. He asserts that all here imposing Hands, did Authoritatively Concur, and therefore none of them were mere Consenters (as he alledges this Presbytrie was) and this universally, without Exception of any one of the Number; And the Authority of the Action was not solely Pauls: And thus again, he hath given a deadly wound to his third Answer, asserting so much. In a word, if all were Extraordinary p. 62Officers, the sole Authority of the Prelat in Ordination (a supposed ordinary Officer) is no way concluded, nor that of a Presbytrie impeached: If they were all ordinary Officers, this Ioynt Authoritative Concurrence, cutts the throat of the Prelats arrogated sole Interest in Ordination: If mixed Officers of a Superior and Inferior Order, this Surveyer could give no shadow of a Reason wherefore the Pastors did not Authoritatively concurr. I need not mention the common Maxim, pleaded by some of his Party, in a like Case, Actiones sunt suppositorum, the Authoritative Act is ascribed to the whole Collegiat Meeting or Presbytrie, without the least shadow of a Distinction of the Interest and Authority of one Member from another, and he hath before told us, that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit.

The Surveyer adds, If he was ordained a Bishop, as some of the most Learned Commentators of the Ancients do think, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and Oecumenius, That Presbytrie might be a Meeting of Bishops, concurring according to their Mind in that work with the Apostle Paul. Ans. The Surveyer striving against the Light of this Scripture, is still more and more involved in the Briars. Before, he would needs have Timothy to receive but the Office of a Presbyter in this Ordination, and thus he expresly paraphraseth the Text, Neglect not the Gift which is given thee by the laying on of Hands, whereby thou was ordained or made a Presbyter: This he seteth down in distinct Characters, as the Genuin Sense of the Text: Now, here he quits this post, and will admit that he was ordained a Bishop; For he Ownes and Defends the Sense of the Authors cited to this Scope, so that we know not where to find this Proteus, in these his inconsistent Answers. Again, if Bishops here concurred in this Ordination of a Bishop, he wil grant that they all Authoritatively concurred, and were not mere Consenters in the Action: And thus again farewel his third Answer, which monopolized this Authority in the person of Paul, or else he must say that all these Bishops were Apostles. Again, if not Apostles, but ordinary Officers, then sure, Paul put forth no Extraordinary Authority in this Case, but acted as an ordinary Bishop; and then it would puzzle this Surveyer to shew wherefore the Apostle imputs this Ordination to the Laying on of his Hands solelie, or why upon our true Supposition (which he cannot disprove) viz. That the persons concurring were Pastors or Presbyters, the presence of Paul, or the laying on of his Hands, did swallow up or exclude their Authority, rather than that of a supposed Bishops, in this Matter. As for the Authors mentioned, it is above made appear, that they spoke of Scripture Church Officers, according to the Practice and Style of their own Times. The Surveyer calls this a foul Imputation, as if they did wrest the Scriptures, to colour the Practice of their own times. Ans. Here again the Surveyer is put upon this pitiful Dilemma, viz. either he must disowne the Comment of these Ancients, p. 63and yeeld to the Strength of this Objection (which truely makes the best Apology for this Exposition) or else he must acknowledge that his preceeding Answers puts him under this foul Imputation of palpable wresting the Holy Scriptures, to patronize the Antiscriptural Hierarchical Prelat, and imputs the same to these Fathers; For it is evident to any that reads his Answers, that these Fathers Sense of this Text, and his foregoing Answers, are Antipods, yea and cross and destroy one another. The Sense and Comments of these Fathers, which he is so Zealous in defending, makes Timothy to have received an Episcopacy, in his Ordination: His first Answer makes him to be ordained only a Presbyter: His third Answer makes the Authority of Ordaining to be only the Apostle Pauls, and the rest of the Meeting to be but Consenters: The Comment of these Fathers, makes them all to concurr with Official Authority; For such, certainly that of Diocesan Bishops, is held to be: The Comment of these Fathers makes the Members of the Meeting such Bishops, as had every one of them Authority over a Diocess, and consequently over many Congregations: His first Answer makes them all Congregational Elders, and crouds them within the small Circuits of one Paroch. Now, this Surveyer might, or any of his way, may still call in Vulcans Gymmerers to sodder these Assertions with themselves, and with the Fathers Comments, if they can. That the Expressions of the Fathers touching Scripture Church Officers, were of that Mould, as is said, hath been made good by several of the Learned, and is in this convincingly apparent, in that they put the Names of Bishops and Arch-bishops, or Metropolitans, upon Timothy and Titus. We need not here again remind what is above made good touching Ambrose Assertion upon Eph. 4. Non per omnia conveniunt, &c. That the Practice of the Church then (he is speaking in point of Church Government) did not sute in every thing the Writings of the Apostles. And that of Chrysostom on 1 Tim. 3. Hom. 11. That betwixt the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, there is almost no difference. As for his Charge of our wresting the Scriptures to patronize Human Devices; We let it pass among the rest of this Mans lying Imputations, it being evident to the candid Searchers of the Word, and into this Controversy, whether this person and his Associats, in their Pleadings, or the Presbyterians, be the Perverters and Wresters of the Scriptures.

The Surveyer P. 219. further adds, That if the Ordination of Timothy to be an Evangelist, be spoken of here, under the Name of Presbytrie, may well be comprehended a Mee…ing of Apostles or Evangelists, or Apostolical Men, seeing the conjugated word Presbytrie, may be of as great a Latitude and Signification as to a Meeting, as Presbyter is to a Person. Ans. Here is a new flight of our Surveyers fancy, Timothy now stepping up to be an Evangelist, and the Ordainers Apostles or Evangelists, or Apostolical-Men: But sure, if they be p. 64either of the first two, as he supposeth, Paul is put out of his Office of a Sole Ordainer here; Yea, and in his Sense, if any of the three be admitted, the Scripture Particle foreign, which he pleaded as importing Pauls single Authority in this Action, is expunged, that room may be made for other Apostles and Evangelists. This Surveyer would be hard put to it to prove that the Ordination of an Evangelist, necessarly required such a compacted Meeting: But as in the rest of his Comments and Replyes, so in this, we must take his word for proof, as if his new Prelatical Office (if such it was indeed, as some have supposed) had derived an Infallibility into his Magisterial Dictats. As for his Latitudinarian Extensions of the word Presbytrie, besides, that he hath exhibit no Scripture Instance to prove such an Extension, or evince that the word is ever taken in such a Sense, he still beggs the Question in its Application to this Passage.

Next, We are still in the dark, what he means by Apostolick Men: If he intend his Hierarchical Prelat, here is a new begging of the Question, and though the word Presbytrie might reach the comprehending of the higher Officers to the Presbyter, who have the Scripture Stamp and Signature, it is a stretching of the Term upon Tenter Pins till it crack, to make it reach to an Officer of a Human Invention, or a half Human Mould, as he makes the Bishops. It would have also puzzled this Surveyer, or these of his mind, upon the supposition that Timothy was here ordained an Evangelist, to reconcile this with what he and they do plead from Pauls Directions in the first Epistle to him, for his Instalment in his Episcopal Function over the Church of Ephesus, wherein he is commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist; For they must either here degrade him from this Function, upon their Supposition of his Episcopal Instalment, or if they make his Instalment here Evangelistick, they make him to have been twice instaled in that Function.