The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 3
SECTION III.
Some Arguments for Parity, not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer.
IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments: and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture, (which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers, such as Beza and Salmasius, lay little weight on) one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, and some Citations of the Fathers. Here we desiderate: Ingenuity, … in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments, while he doth not … these which were hardest for him to answer: also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them, and they may be easiest for him to Debate. It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength, and then answered what we say. Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name, I shall propose some others which he, or some others, may consider, when next they think fit to write.
§ 2. Our first Argument shall be this: our Lord hath given power to Presbyters, not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments; but to rule the Church, and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church: but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest, nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them; therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy, but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie. The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield. yea, the Bishop of Worcester saith plainly, that Christ hath given equal power to them all; which is the foundation of his Irenicum. But it may be this Author will deny it; and therefore I shall prove it: to wit, that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline. 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned, as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church, Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls (as all Pastors do) rule also over the Church, ibid: v. 17. they are called in both places foreign, Leaders: the word is used to express any kind of Authority, whether Civil, Military, or Ecclesiastick: but Church Rulers only can be here meant, viz. who speak the word of God to the people, and watch for their Souls; and such as they had at that time; seing they are bidden salute them, v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops, as some do, is most absurd: for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is, Preaching and Watching, which are things not peculiar to the Bishop: wherefore not he only is to be obeyed: and thence it followeth, that not he only doth rule in the Church. 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord, and have power to command and require people (by vertue of their Commission from Christ) to obey what they enjoyn them, have also power of Spiritual correction of them who (professing subjection to Christ) do not obey his Laws: for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers, and the other to others: neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction, that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches, over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them: the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary: That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches, and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order. Yea, it were strange, if this had been designed, that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor, that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people. Neither can it be imagined, that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ, can be separated from a power of correcting, as spiritual Fathers, or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power. 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church, to feed the flock, and take the oversight of them, (foreign) and to beware of lording it over them, which plainly saith that they had Authority; which they should beware of abusing, or stretching too far: now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ, but not a word of a superior Presbyter, or Bishop, to whom they must be answerable: and this power is given to as many as were Feeders, or foreign; which cannot be denyed to Presbyters. It is true, the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop, yea to an Apostle, and the Apostle here designeth himself by it; tho he was more than an ordinary Elder: but that it cannot here be so restricted, appeareth, because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general, as hath been said.
§ 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove, because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture, and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church, do respect the people as the Object of that work; we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church: let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man, either directly and expresly, or by good consequence. We read of feeding the Flock, 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves (each of them) and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock, but no Bishop of Bishops, or of Pastors: they were to be corrected, not by one set over them, but each by the Meeting of the whole. Again, if the power of the Pastors of the Church (I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people) did depend on the bishop, is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach, nor baptize, &c. without the Bishops leave? This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers: Christ hath charged them to preach, and that diligently; 2 Tim. 4, 1, 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop, he may supersede this Charge; neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him: now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter, unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture, that the Bishop hath this power over them. Further, this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop, and to be in a proper sense his Curats: which (tho I know some of our Brethren own, yet) hath this absurdity following on it, that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People, who depend on them (not on the Bishop, whom, may be, they shall never see, nor hear) for the means of their Edification: this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people, it is to make them the servants of one Man, not Rulers in the house of God, under their Master Christ.
§ 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that, by Divine appointment, are set in the Church: whether extraordinary, which are now ceased; or ordinary, which are to continue to the end of the World. But among all these there is no Bishop, with power over Presbyters; ergo, no such Officer is appointed by Christ: but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity, and without Subordination to such a superior Officer. That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture, is evident; for an enumeration of them is often made, as Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective: if complete, that is, what we desire: there can be no Church Officer owned, as Juris Divini, but what is in some of these places to be found: if any say that this enumeration is Defective; not only in some one of these places, but in them all: that is, that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them; he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost, which an ordinary Writer (who pretendeth to any measure of ca…or & accuracy) would be ashamed of. The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church, what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church, that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances, to whom they should Submit, whom they should hear and own. Now if there be some Officers whom Christ hath appointed to teach and rule his Church, who are not in some of these Catalogues mentioned, this is a lame instruction in this matter: and we are still at a loss whom we should own as Christs Embassadors to us, and what should be our carriage toward them.
§ 5. I suppose the second proposition is that which our brethren will most controvert with us: which if they do, they must shew us where they find a Diocesan Bishop in any of these places, or in any other enumeration of Church officers; if they know of any more. Here some of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks, to find my Lord Bishop among all these Church officers. If he be found Rom. 12. It must be v. 8. He that ruleth foreign, I have met with none of them who insist on this place. The current of Interpreters either hold in the general: mentioning rulers. So Estius, Tolet, Hamond: or understand it of ruleing Elders, who were distinct from preaching Presbyters, as Vorstius, Gomarus, Beza, Parraeus: Grotius also saith, they were foreign, de quibus Tertull: praesident probati quique seniores: horum erat diligenter attendere ad singulorum mores, monere titubantes, lapsos censura corrigere, Praescribere panitentiae tempus, & modum; interdum & relaxare. No man will think that Grotius here meaneth a Diocesan Bishop, who hath many thousands of Souls under his Charge, whose manners he cannot particularly inspect. Some pretend that the Bishop is designed 2 Cor. 12. 28. Under the name of Governments, foreign: but first, it is plain that here is meant a sort of Governour distinct from the Teacher, who is here also named: but this is not competent to the Bishop; but to the ruling Elder. 2. Though an Argument drawen barely from the order wherein these Officers are mentioned, were not of much force; yet in this place, where the Apostle doth accuratly note the order and dignity of these Officers, by a first, and secondarly, and thirdly; it must needs be very significant. Especially seing our Opposites themselves do take notice of the Apostles words as marking out out the Degrees of the dignity of these Officers. Grotius, and Hamond, Estius also, observes the eminency of the Apostles, from their being first mentioned, with this Note, first; the former two also on these words, Secondarly Prophets, call them Apostolis honore proximos. Let it then be considered, when the Apostle is so exact in setting down the order and dignity of Church Officers, whether it be consistent with this, that Governments, if by them were meant Diocesan Bishops, should be placed after the Pastors and Teachers; that is Presbyters. If it be said that Helps, whom we take to be Deacons, are set before Governments, whom we make ruling Elders; though the latter be of more respect in the Church than the former. I answer: after the Apostle hath ranked the chief Officers in the Church, both these who were extraordinarie, & who are ordinarie, he doth not use that exactness in these that are inferior of either sort: but while he doth expresly place the teachers (who are Presbyters) in the the third place of Dignity, it were absurd, either to take no notice of the place in which the Bishop should be ranked, or to put him behind the Presbyter. If any alledge that the Bishop is meant both by the teacher, and by Governments: this were to admit of an absurd tautologie in a very short list of Church Officers: beside that it were to exclude Preaching Presbyters, as no Officers in the house of God: for by this gloss no mention is made of any teaching Presbyter, except Bishops.
§ 6. Others fancy that they find Bishops under the name of foreign Helps: so Grotius, and Hamond: the latter laboureth to establish his Gloss, first, in that Graeci complures, quod hic est foreign explicant foreign. But he is neither pleased to tell us who these Greeks are, nor what reason they give for this Explication. 2. He seemeth to plead that here is expressed a part of the Episcopal power, cujus rei causa (saith he) est quod haec erat specialis pars muneris Episcoporum, quod ipsorum fidei commissa est cura pauperum, & dispensatio facultatum Ecclesiae: ut testantur Justin: Ignat: Polycarp: &c. Et Acts 20. 35. This Author rather than not find a Bishop in the Text, he will turn him to a Deacon: contrarie to the Institution of Christ, by his Apostles Acts 6. 2, 3, 4. what Justin: &c. Say in this point, I cannot examine, because he hath not pointed to the places: but I am sure Acts 20. 35. saith no such thing: nor can I understand what should move this Author so to expound the place, unless it be because he findeth foreign in that Text, and he will force that word to express the work of a Bishop: it is plain, even from the records of antiquity, as well as from Scripture, that the Bishops had no further the Dispensation of the goods of the Church, than that the Ministers and Elders had a directive power in that matter, and the Deacons did execute what was appointed by them. But for the Text Acts 20. 35. It is far from aiming at any such matter: the Apostle setteth before them his Example, in working with his own hands; by which he did two ways support the infirm; both by spareing the Poors Stock, in his not taking the maintainence that he might have demanded, and also by giving of what he gained by his Labour, for their relief: I do not exclude from the meaning of this Text, Acts of mercy toward Souls, by spiritual instructions, and Consolations, Administred to distressed Consciences. Menoch: Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, Sclater, Beza, apply this Tex… to both sorts of support. Aquinas in locum, maketh them to be, illi q… ferebant opem Majoribus praelatis in universali regimine sicut Archi-Diacom Episcopis. But to expound it of distributing the Churches Money, when it is rather to be understood of giving of our own to the Poor, is a strange Gloss. Further, if this meaning of the Text were admitted, and if a Bishop had a hand in the Distributions to the Poor, is it imaginable that, when the Apostle is about to instruct the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church, that he would give us n… clearer Light about so important a Matter, and that the Government o… the Church and the practice of all her Members is so much concerned in, than by designing him by one of the lowest pieces of his Work; and which is most extrinsick to his Character? A Notion so absurd and i… founded, could hardly have been expected from a person of Doctor Hamonds learning. If the Bishop be here known by the name of Help, o… Supporter of the Poor by Alms: that is the meanest (if any) part of his work: if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls, by spiritual Advices and Directions, that is common to him with the Teacher, before mentioned in this Text; and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers.
§ 7. For Grotius's notion of foreign, I oppose, first, by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers. 2. By the force of the word: the native and genuine signification of which is, to help, uphold, or support one who is in hazard to fall: which I am sure, is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work, or to a troubled Soul, by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church, than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop. That learned Critick saith, it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere; and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew foreign which is to strengthen: and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere, because the seventy translated it foreign. Here is a strange Argument, to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius: for neither foreign nor foreign can be turned manu ducere. It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned foreign: and Acts 23. 19. Heb: 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt: for who knoweth not that foreign and foreign have not the same signification: neither is foreign turned by foreign, but when it is constructed with foreign, the hand, laid hold on by another, being that by which one is supported, that he fall not as he goeth: and it is evident that the force of that word in these places, doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way, as his manutenency by which they are supported. From all which it is plain, that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius, why we should think that foreign importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood. Further, if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing; will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care; when the word properly signifieth upholding, (to which indeed care is often needful) but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word. I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament (as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me) where that word, in any of its derivata, is used; and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling. Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed, and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it, that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless.
§ 8. These of our Episcopal brethren, who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office, will possibly say, that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place, in the Lists of Church Officers; viz. under the name of Apostles. Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not, will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book, which I am now examining: what I have now to do is, to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate: which may plainly appear, if we consider first, that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places; nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head, when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind, and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words, and not into them. Yea, Grotius, and Estius, on 1 Cor. 12: 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned, have these words, Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos, à Christo in id vocatos, ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent. And Doctor Hamond saith, these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent, & regerent, eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit. I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops, or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church. 2. It cannot be denyed, even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles, and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them, but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were: none will say that they are wholly the same, more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church: they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary, who were sent immediatly by Christ, to plant Churches; and ordinary, who succeed to these, and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted. Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists, under the same name of Apostles, is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion, in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected: for in these Enumerations, he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment: but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned: one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant; they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant, must give us some better ground for believing this, than a Synonimous word: I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name. If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure, and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do, a sort of Apostles: this is to expound Scripture at pleasure, and indeed to make it speak what we fancy. I conclude then, that Bishops have no Divine right for them, seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church, both at first for planting of it, and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World, and no Diocesan Bishop, name nor thing, is to be found among them.
§ 9. A third Argument for Parity, and against Prelacy, I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline, Mat. 18: 17: that the offended Party (when other more private means of Redress do fail) should lay the case before the Church: whence this Argument doth clearly result; that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many, is not Jure Divino, lodged in one person; but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment, is to be exercised by many; Ergo, it is not, Jure Divino, in the hand of one person, to wit, a Prelate. The major cannot be called in question: for if it were otherways, Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution; which to imagine, is most absurd. For the minor Proposition: Christs Injunction is, tell it to the Church; which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work; never a single person acting by himself. I need not here debate with Erastians, who by the Church understand the Magistrate: nor with Independents, who hence argue for the peoples Church power: these my present Antagonists condemn, as well as I do. But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy: whether over the whole Church, as Papists; or over the several Districts in the Church, as Prelatists: both of them agree in this, that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person; and by the Church, must here understand such a person. Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self. First, the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth, in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment: that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone: next (that failling of its effect) he must take the Assistance of two or three: if this prevail not, he must bring the Matter to a greater number, to wit the Church. The learned Drusius, on this Text, citeth the Passage out of foreign which sheweth, that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church, and that as their Discipline, as the name of the Book importeth. After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step (as the Text doth) he addeth; Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit, debet eum pudefacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare: which sheweth, that the third Step of Reprehension among them, was not to tell the Crime to a single person: wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church, it is not like he meant a single person, however of more Authority than the two or three.
§ 10. A second Proof of this is, the word Church foreign, in Hebrew foreign, is never so used; but always signifieth a Plurality: why should it then be so used here? 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made, and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear, he doth not speak of that Church as a single person: what ye shall bind, and what ye shall loose. 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender, as what may consist of a very small number, two, or three, v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on. 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality; foreign, Sutlif: de Pontif: Rom: lib: primo c: 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope, from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop, in his District: his words are, Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis (nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet) sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes, intelliguntur. Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae, fieri non potest, repugnat enim natura & nomen Ecclesiae, quae est congregatio ex pluribus; & in uno consistere, si propriè loquimur, non potest: repugnat deinde & Patrum interpretatio, qui una voce non unum Pontificem, sed Episcopos & praesidentes Eccelesiae; seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur, Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt: Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary. For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches, and not to the Universal Church only: and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church, and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation, is unaccountable. It is here objected by some, that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim, not of the Christian Church: and this they pretend to prove, because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican. To this I reply, first, if in the Jewish Church, where was an High Priest, there was not a Monarchical Government; much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church. 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church, (which then was presently to be set up) is evident; because this Injunction is given to the Apostles, who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church; and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them, is expresly given, and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 16: 19: John 20: 23: This alluding to Jewish Customes, and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans, is no Argument against what I have said; this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles; yea with the Prophets, long before, to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms.
§ 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles, were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly, without a Bishop set over them; Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters, is not of Divine Right: The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed: for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful, than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants. It is a most irrational fancy, that the Apostles in their own time, allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection; but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone. For first, this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters, that not only they had no right to, but which did belong to others by Divine Institution. 2. What ground is there to say, that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary, or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles? Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them; how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined: nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had. This is a Fiction that no account can be given of. Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument; which I must prove by Instances.
§ 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed; not only by the Apostles connivance, but by his express Direction and Approbation; as in the case of the incestuous man, 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers, and not a single person, had power to censure that man, is proved first; the Apostle, v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication; they were not duely affected with the Crime, and did not mourn for it; neither did set about censuring of it: both these were the effects of thei… not being so sensible of the evil of it, as they ought to have been: In this sense Ambrose understands this place: for on this occasion he saith, Si autem quis potestatem non haber, qui scit reum abjicere, vel probare non valet; immunis est. So also Chrysostom, on the place foreign: non accusat quod non ei significaret; sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur: ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit, propter peccati evidentiam. What can be more plain, than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth, as having the power of Church Censures? Yea, that the Apostle thought so too; otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter. 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion, that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated (delivered to Satan) by them assembled together; (not by one Bishop among them, and of this their assembling for this end, he saith two things; which imply their power: that his Spirit should be with them; that is his good Wishes, Approbation, and hearty Concurrance) Menoch: in locum; congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu, affectu, & Sollicitudine. Next, that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ, and with his Power, or Vertue, by which he would bless this his own Ordinance, and make it effectual: none of these could be said of this Act, if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution. 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they (not thou Bishop, but ye) judged them who were within; that is the Church Members. 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past, saith, that it was the rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop. 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence, the man being now truly penitent, 2 Cor. 2: 7. which is an Act of Church Authority, and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on.
§ 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument. First, that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man; because he saith, foreign, I have judged: he passed the Sentence, and enjoyned them to publish, and execute it. This is said without ground: for it is evident, that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written; as is clear from the Arguments above adduced: the man was not yet purged out, he was not delivered to Satan: the Apostle saying he had judged already, foreign ▪ signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion, in which, after deliberation, he was determined, that the thing should be done: beside, that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him, more than when James said Acts 15. 17. foreign, I judge, it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him. Again they except, that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not, seing the Apostle had commanded it; Ergo, this Excommunication was not in their power. Reply: the Consequence is naught▪ for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power, but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie, held forth to them by the Apostle. Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie; and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act, they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan, was not Excommunication; but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him, which only the Apostle, and others having the Gift of Miracles, could do: and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth. Reply: This Exposition of the place (though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it) is without all ground, or example in Scripture; and a pure Invention to serve a turn. Again, the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this; bids them, with his Spirit joyning with them, do it: but it was never heard, that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others: Further, this Punishment was inflicted by many, to wit the Elders of Corinth; but they had no power of working Miracles. Lastly, Erastus (the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages) held that this power was given to the Apostles, and some others, till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church, to punish Scandals: from this it would follow, that the Magistrate should now purge out by death, all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication, or delivering to Satan; such as Drunkards, Fornicators, Railers, &c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles.
§ 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters, and not by a Bishop, is that of Thessalonica. 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note, or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word, and to withdraw from them: this note, is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication, which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians. Erasmus in locum, ut signamus boves cornupetas, quo vitentur: my Argument from this Text is this, the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power, and that by the Apostles allowance, to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel; Ergo, they, and not a single Bishop, did govern the Church. The Consequence is plain: the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction: he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline; which he would not have done, if they had not had Authority so to do. Neither doth he here design the person or persons, who were to be Excommunicated; but owneth them for proper Judges of that, and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge, telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted. The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance, by another reading, and Gloss, on this Text: they read it thus, if any man obey not our word, note, or signifie that man by an Epistle, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning: that they should write to him, giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them, to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons, and then the Church should shun their company: the Presbyters were to examine the Matter, and find it sufficiently proved; and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence.
§ 15. To this I oppose, for strengthening our Argument; 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters; AEcumenius, Theophylact, Basilius, Ephrem Cyrus, all cited. Altar: Damasc: p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading, yet approveth our reading in these words; Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo, quod per hanc Epistolam significo: he also, and Menochius, make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus; which could not properly, nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle: of which more after. The Syriack Version, as also the Arabick, doth read this place as we do. 2. The Greek foreign, cannot bear this Interpretation: for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person, or thing; not to give Notice, which is the signification of foreign, Scapula rendereth the first word (which is the word of the Text) insignio, noto: and he citeth for it Graegor: foreign And Athen: lib. 2. foreign: but foreign, he turneth, signum do, significo: and giveth sufficient authority for that signification. In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place: for foreign, it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident, to all who read these places, that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing; but to signifie, or hold forth. It must then be to put force on the Text, to draw it to express their giving notice, by a Letter to the Apostle, of the mans faults. 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his; not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church: for he saith not by an Epistle; but by the Epistle, foreign: the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them; which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey, but could not bring from them, to him, notice of what Scandals fell out among them. 4. Upon this noting of that man, did immediatly, and necessarly, follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted; as is clear in the Text: which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves, because the Apostle (notwithstanding of their informatary Letter) might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused, either because the Crime was not relevant, or the Proof not sufficient; but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him.
§ 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches, did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline, or such as was to continue in the Church, by themselves, and without the Authority, or the authoritative …oncurrence of the Presbytrie; then Bishops may not do it: but the former is true, Ergo: I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed: nor can it; unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles, and give them a Power that is wholly boundless. They cannot alledge, that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would. For that is to be proved: and further, their not using it, was a binding example to them who should come after them, from which they ought not to swerve. Before I come to the proof of the Assumption, I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power, by themselves, in the matter of Church Discipline, or Correption, or other Church Acts. First, when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted; as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted, nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power; as many think, in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus. Saravia, a great Patron of Prelacy, defen. Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words: Apostolos & Evangelistas, rebus & Ecclesiis jam constitutis, & in Parochias Episcopis distributis, nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis & invitis locorum Pastoribus, & Episcopis, me firmiter credere. That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves, but with the Presbyterie, I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie: and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary. First, Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself; but with the Presbyters: though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self: 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet, that the Presbyterie concurred is clear, 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie, as well as to that of the Apostle; which is a clear Indication of a joint Power. 2. The Apostle did not, by himself, Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian; as hath been shewed. 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses; Acts 15. by themselves, but with the Elders and Brethren. They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan. It is to be proved by the Objecters, first, That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church. 2. That if so, the Apostle did this by himself, without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie: neither of which can be proved.
§ 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest, in any sort of Church Officers; Ergo, it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither. The Antecedent is clear; if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture: there was no Apostle had power over the rest, as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy. No such Disparity among Prophets, or Evangelists, or among the Governments, or ruling Elders, nor among Deacons. I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders, and invented new ones: it was no wonder then, that an Arch-Presbyter, or Bishop, was brought in too: but no Foundation in Scripture (which alone can found a Divine Right) for any such Disparity or Subordination. The consequence cannot be denyed; unless our Adversaries can prove, that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord; though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be: which they shall never be able to do. It were strange, if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another, and yet not Hint that Disparity, when he is setting down all the Officers in his House: and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers, this only should admit of such Subordination. I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie, and against Prelacy, that the Reader might see how slightly, and unfairly, my Antagonist dealeth with us, when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments, because he hath refuted one or two of them, which he was pleased to single out, as easiest for him to deal with.