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

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

p. 31CHAP. II. A Confutation of what the Dr. offers in Answer to the Presbyterians Argument, for Parity of Pastors, taken from the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, in the Scripture Account of the Pastoral Office.

THe Dr. by this time, has finisht his first easie Task of Discussing our Argument from Christs Institution. He will next fall upon our Argument from Scripture Consequences. And, that his Work here, may be as easie as the first, and least, he should break his Word to his Friend, in giving him a large History of our Arguments, on this Head. Of them all, he is pleased to Single out one, taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter; which he says, fills all our Books: Citing Smectym. Ius Divin. Minist. Ang. Unbishopping Tim. and Tit. Altare Damasc. Durh. Dissert. But surely, any who have Seriously and Impartially p. 32perused these Authors, and compares what they have written, with that which this Man pretends to Answer, may Laugh at his Prodigious Folly, in Boasting of an Answer to Books, which he appears never to have read or understood. It were good for him, that the Authors, he paints his Margine with, were out of the World, that the Ignorant, or such as never saw them, might believe, that this Personat Champion, had made a mighty Baffling Assault upon them; But, all such as are acquaint with their Writings, will easily discover, that he is here, Acting a Pedantick Nomenclator of these Authors, and no more. The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, (I mean an Official Identity) I acknowledge, is improven by these Authors, and other Presbyterian Writers, and am content to try Issue with him upon this Head, but the Dr, I find, is so Loose and Perverse a Disputer, that he doth not so much as offer to propose one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope.

He alledges, We Argue from the Homonomy of Names of Bishop and Presbyter, in the New Testament, to prove the Sameness of the Office, and that the Clergy of the New Testament, are Dichotomised into Bishops and Deacons only, in some Texts: And thus in some Ancient Writers. That we thus exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter, tho the Offices themselves be as much distinguished, in several Texts of the New Testament, as is possible. He holds, (P. 22, 23.) That we found the Solidity of our Demonstration of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, merely upon the Confusio Nominum, which he represents in a distinct Character, as our only Topick; To which purpose, he tells us we cite Act. 20.17, 28. Philip. 1.1. Tit. 1.6, 7. and several other places. There needs no more, than the Reciting of this, to discover this Mans Precarious Vanity, and Ignorance of this Controversie, since, all that are acquaint with it do know, that it is not the Sameness ef Names simplely, and in its self considered, which the Presbyterians ground upon, tho this have its own Secondary Weight, but the Sameness and Identity of the Qualifications, Ordination, Work, Duties, and every other Essential of the Office; Which is an Argument, with more Demonstrative Nerves, than that of the Sameness of Names. Presbyters, being in Scripture, called and owned, as Rulers, Governors, Overseers, Bishops; And both Ordination and Iurisdiction appropriat to them, without the least Hint of Imparity among them, in the Exercise thereof, Tit. 1.5. Act. 20.17, 28. 1 Pet. 5.2.2. 1 Thess. 5.12, 14. Heb. 13.7, 17. 1 Cor. 5.12. 1 Tim. 4.14. Now, if it be thus, sure the Conclusion of the Identity of the Office, clearly follows: And had this Man perused these Authors, he might have discovered, that their Arguments run to this Issue, and are not merely Bottomed upon so slight a Ground, as he would make such believe, whose Knowledge is of a like Size and Measure with his own: Yet, so weak is his Cause, that his Answer cannot p. 33stand before this very Argument, as he propounds it, at least with a due Respect to the Scope of the Places Cited; which will be evident to any, who will compare their Writings, with his Reasoning in this Pamphlet.

To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments, from these Scriptures, cited by him, and consequently of this Dr's Phantastick Vanity and Trifflings in this Matter. From Act. 20. We thus Argue, First, That the Apostles solemnly declares to the Elders or Pastors of that Church of Ephesus, that the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops over the Flock. Whence we collect, (1.) That the Pastor is the true Scripture-Bishop. (2.) That by his Office, he Feeds and Rules the Flock, and hath the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key committed to him by the Holy Ghost. Next, it hence follows, that whatever Authority, Power and Jurisdiction is imported, in the Name, Bishop, falls within the Compass of this Solemn Command, given to these Elders or Pastors, who are enjoyned foreign So, that this being essentially and intirely included in the Pastoral Office, the Diocesan Bishops foreign and foreign or pretended Paramount Inspection over them, evanisheth as a mere Chimaera, especially, since it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pastors. (3.) It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy, now present with Paul, and was posterior to the first Epistle directed to him, for at Writing thereof, the Apostle was at Macedonia; And the Sacred History informs us, that he came thereafter to Miletum with Timothy, and gave the Elders this Charge. In a Word, this Charge and Command was Paul's last Solemn Charge, for, after this, they were to see his Face no more: So, that these being the Apostles last Thoughts (to speak so) and Testamentary Instructions, in Point of Church Government, we have here the the Samplare and Pattern, shewed by this great Apostle, upon the Mount, of this Divinely Inspired Model and Instructions. And since, the Episcopalians, will not call the Gospel-Church, a Speckled Bird, and her Government of diverse Cuts, they must acknowledge, that the rest of the Apostles gave the same Directions; As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. 1.14. doth furher clear.

From hence, we further Argue, First: These Bishops who Feed and Rule the Flock immediatly, are the Apostolick Bishops, and these only: Ergo, the Hierarchical Prelat, is no Apostolick Bishop, 1. Because his pretended Episcopacy is over the Pastors, he is Pastor Pastorum. 2. He hath a Relation to no Flock, as such. We Argue, Secondly, from the Text thus: These Apostolick Bishops, have both the immediat and intire Episcopal Inspection and Power over Christs Flocks committed to them, by God, both the Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Key: And therefore, the Hierarchical Prelat stands Condemned upon a double Ground, 1. As Snatching away the last from p. 34Pastors, and Arrogating it solely to himself. 2. In Tearing and Breaking asunder the Bond. wherewith Christ hath Tyed these Keyes; And this in a double Respect, (1.) In the Case of the Pastor, to whom he leaveth only the Doctrinal Key. (2.) With Respect to himself, who is obliged, ex Natura & Ratione Officii, or from the Nature of his Office, to Preach the Gospel to no Flock, but to Govern only. Thirdly, All this Scriptural, Episcopal Jurisdiction, is by the Apostle, ascribed to these Pastors or Bishops of the Holy Ghost, in Presence of Timothy, while there is Altum Silentium, of any Interest he had over them in this Matter; Whence, it may be inferred, 1. They are declared and supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church, having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein. And 2. By clear Consequence, it follows, that nothing here enjoyned them, inferrs or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him, in these Duties, or his Supereminent Inspection over them. 3. By further necessary Consequence, this Authority being thus declared by the Apostle, and recognosced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy, in the first Epistle written to him, it cannot be supposed to contain any Super-eminent Episcopal Charge over these Pastors, but a Transient Evangelistick Inspection only, to pass off, with that Exigent: It being infallibly clear, that there can be no Inconsistency or Contradiction, betwixt this last Farewel Charge to the Pastors of that Church, and his Directions to Timothy, while residing therein. Finally, It is hence infallibly concluded, 1. That the Apostles themselves Exercised no such Jurisdiction over Churches constitute in their Organick Beeing, as is properly and formally Episcopal, or of the Hierarchical Mould: This Episcopal Authority being committed to the Colledge of Elders, as their Essential Right and Priviledge. 2. That the Apostles did not Substitute the Hierarchical Prelats, or Diocesan Bishops, as their Succedaneous Substitutes, upon their withdrawing, unless we will make the Apostle Paul, to Model this Church, in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other Churches. And in a Word, it hence follows, that whatever may be pleaded, as to Matter of Fact, neither this, nor any Church else, could ever after, Iure, divest themselves of this Authority, (I mean the Church Representatives, or Officers thereof) in setting up such a Proestos or Prelat, whose Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God.

From Tit. 1.5, 7. The Presbyterians Argue, not merely from the Promiscuous Use, or Identity of the Name Bishop and Presbyter, but from the Nature and Mould of the Apostles Reasoning, and the Connecting Particle and Illative foreign, which points at the very Topick and Ground, upon which the Apostle concludeth that which is his Scope; which necessarly inferrs an Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, not a Nominal only: For, thus his Argument lyes; The Presbyter or Elder, must be so and so p. 35Qualified, for such must the Bishop be: So, that the Stating of an Official Distinction betwixt the two, as different Orders of Ministers, breaks the Force of the Apostles Argument, there being no Soundness in such Reasoning as this, Inferior Officers must have such Qualifications, because such are proper to the Superior Office. No doubt, the Holy Ghost, who thus Reasons, ascribes to them, not only the same Name, (and he knew best, how to express the Nature of the Things by fit Words) but likewise the same Qualifications, Work, and Office. Episcopalians will not disowne it, that the Bishop hath distinct Qualifications and Work, from that of the Presbyter or Pastor; So that, they must either acquiesce in this our Sense of his Words, while purposely describing the Presbyter and Bishops Qualifications, Office, and Duties, or Blasphemously impute unto him Incongruity of Speech, and Unsoundness in Reasoning; And therefore, the Office of the one, and the other, is clearly supposed one and the same.

From Philip. 1.1. Where the Apostle salutes a Plurality of Bishops of that Church: We inferr, 1. Their proper Episcopal Relation thereunto. 2. That they could not be Diocesans, (1.) Because the Deacons, the lowest Officers, are immediatly subjoyned to them; And Prelatists will not say, that there were no Pastors in that Church, but only Diocesans. (2.) It is impossible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical Bishops therein, and by clear Consequence, the Pastors and Presbyters are supposed the Highest Ordinary Officers of that Church, Exercising a joynt Collegiat Power in the Government thereof.

If I should adduce the Judgment and Testimonies of Protestant Divines, upon these Passages, correspondent to our Sense and Pleading, it were a large Work. The Belgick Divines, upon Act. 20.28. from that Clause [the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers] do plead as above; For, having told us, that in the Greek it is Bishops, and that from this the Word Bishop is derived; they add, That these are v. 17. called Elders of the Church; from whence it appears, that in the Holy Scriptures, there is no Difference made betwixt Elders and Bishops, pointing to Philip. 1.1. upon which Passage, they shew, that this Term is common to all Governours and Overseers in the Church; referring again to Act. 20.17, 28. together with 1 Tim. 1.3. Where they shew, That Timothy was appointed to continue at Ephesus, not as Bishop, but as Evangelist for a time, to Confirm the Church. Upon Chap. 3. v. 1. they shew, That the Word Bishop, is to be understood of all Overseers and Teachers of the Church without Difference, as appears▪ in the following Description, compared with other places, citing Act. 20.17, 28. Philip. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 7. Diodat. on Act. 20.17. shews, That by the Elders, we are to understand the Pastors and Conductors in v. 28. Upon which Verse, he shews, That the Word signifies Overseer, Guardian, p. 36&c. And represents the Duty of a true Pastor of the Church, without any absolute Dominion, only for the Profit and Good of the Flock, Philip. 1.1. he paralells with Act. 20:17, 28. 1 Tim. 5.17. Understanding therein the Ministers of the Sacred Governing Senat, 1 Tim. 3.1. he understands of the Bishop or Pastor, who has the Charge of Teaching and Governing the Church. On Tit. 1.5. the Elders, who are immediatly after called Bishops, he understands of such Pastors and Conductors, as were to be placed in Churches, where was a Competent Number of Believers. Pools Annot. Vol. 2. understands, Act. 20.17. as speaking of such Elders, as are Governours and Pastors of the Church: And shews, that the Term and Title, respects not their Age, but their place. And upon v. 28. they shew, That the Overseers there mentioned, are the same, who are called Elders, v. 17. and were certainly such as had the Government and care of the Church committed to them. Upon Philip. 1.1. By Bishops, they understand Pastors and Teachers, asserting that the Name and Office of Bishops and Pastors was all one, in the Apostles days; and do Cite for Confirmation of this Act. 20.17.28. 1 Cor. 4.1.2. 1 Thes. 5.12.13. 1. Tim. 3.1. 1 Pet. 5.1. 2. Tit. 1.5. Heb. 13.17. Iam. 5.14, 3 Ioh. 9. The very Passages we make use of, shewing that this is the Sense, both of Ancient and modern Interpreters. Thereafter, they confute at large Hammonds Notion of Presbyters, who takes them for Diocesan Bishops. Upon 1 Tim. 3.1. They shew, That the Term, Bishop, is the proper Title of Gospel Ministers, pointing at their Honourable Work and Imployment; and Paralels this with the Title of Angel, mentioned Rev. 2.1. Upon the last Clause of v. 2. where the Bishop is injoyned to be apt to Teach, they shew, "That he must be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Person. Eng. Annot. upon Act. 20. understand the Elders, v. 17. of the Governors and Pastors, paralelling it with these Elders of Ierusalem, mentioned Chap. 11, 30. Upon v. 28. they shew, That the term Episcopus or Bishop, is here to be understood of the Pastor of the Church, and Minister of the Word, as elsewhere: Also upon Philip. 1.1. on that Clause, [the Bishops and Deacons] they shew, That the Synod of Nice, did forbid Two or more Bishops, to have their Seats in one City: And before that, Cornelius Bishop of Rome, upbraids Novatus with Ignorance (as Euseb. lib. 6. Writes) that he knew not, there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church, in which he could no be Ignorant, there were Forty Six Presbyters. And Oecumenius and Chrysostom affirm this of Philippi: In one City it cannot be supposed (say they) there were more Bishops in that restrained Sense, as the word was afterward taken. Here therefore, by Episcopi and Diaconi, we are to understand. the whole Ministry at Philippi, consisting of Presbyters, to whom the Government of the Church was p. 37Committed: And Deacons, who not only had the Care of the Poor, but also Assisted Ministers, in their Ecclesiastical Function. Upon 1 Tim. 3.1. they shew, That the Term Bishop, doth properly relate to the Flock; referring to Philip. 1.1. And having shewed, that Antiquity did appropriat this Term to Diocesan Prelats, and consequently, as it relates to Pastors; But that they Disowne this, as not being the Scripture Acceptation, is evident, not only, from that Reference to Philip. 1.1. but also, from this, that the Clause of [Desiring a good Work] they paralell with 1 Thes. 5.13. where, after the Apostle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Deference and Subjection to such, as Laboured among them, (viz. In the Word and Doctrine) he enjoyns to Esteem them Highly in Love for their Works sake, asserting thus the Bishops [good Work] to be one and the same with that of the Pastor, and consequently the Office. By the Elders, mentioned Tit. 1.5. to be Ordained in every Church, they understand the Pastors to be Ordained, where there was a convenient Number of the Faithful: And the Apostles Reason v. 7. [For a Bishop must be Blameless, &c.] they paralell with Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1, 2. Thus clearly Corresponding our Sense and Pleading for the Identity of the Bishops and Pastors Office, from these places.

The Professors of Leyden, Disput. 42. at large Correspond with our Sense and Pleading from these Passages, They assert the Extraordinary Expired Call and Office of Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, and that the Pastors, D…ctors, Elders, and Deacons, are the only standing ordinary Church Officers; Thus Thes. 17.18, 19, 20. &c. Ascribing to Pastors, the Authority of Government, as the Highest Ordinary Officers of the New Testament, Thes. 25.26. Thes. 29. From Act. 20.28. they shew, that the Apostle calls the Pastors of the Church of Ephesus, Bishops, set up by the Holy Ghost, paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3.2. where (they tell us) the Bishop is described from such Qualities and Effects, as the Apostle Peter enjoyns and ascribes to his Fellow Presbyters, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. Adding, that in the Epistle to the Philippians, Chap. 1. v. 1. under the Name of Bishops, for whom the Apostle prays for Grace, he understands such [qui Philippi Verbo & Gubernationi praeerant] who had Inspection of the Doctrine and Government, distinguishing them from the Deacons, who were set over the Churches Treasure. Adding, that Tit. 1.5. such, whom the Apostle Named Presbyters, v. 7. he calls Bishops [non correlate ad Presbyteros tanquam ad Secundarios, sibique Subordinatos Praesules, sed ad Ecclesiam Vigilanti ipsorum Curae atque Inspectioni Commissam, non enim alicujus in alios Ministros Autoritatis aut alicujus prae aliis Prerogativae, sed s…lius istius Curae ac Vigilantiae Respectu, Episcoporum Titulo in Sacris Literis Insigniuntur] That the Bishops are called such, not with Relation to any supposed Subordinat Bishops or Presbyters, p. 38but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care, in which Respect alone, they have that Title in Scripture, but not upon the Account of any Prerogative or Authority, which one Minister has over another. Which, how clearly it asserts our Judgment, Principles and Pleading upon these Texts, in Opposition to the Hierarchical Bishop, and for the Parity of Pastors, is convincingly evident. But, let us hear their Inference, Thes. 30. which is thus [Non ergo ex Divino, sed ex Humano Instituto aliquis post Apostolorum tempora, aliis ex Ordine Presbyterorum fuit Authoritate praepositus, atque, Episcopus dictus ex singulari Prerogativa, sicut post Hieronimum, non-nulli quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim. Lombard. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Gratian. Dist. 93. c. Legimus & Dist. 25. c. olim. Cusanus de Concord. Cathol. Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Citing first Ierom on Tit. 1. & ad Evag.] In summ, that the Setting of one Presbyter over another, in a supposed Supereminent Authority and Peculiar Prerogative, under the Character and Designation of a Bishop, is an Humane Invention only, without any Divine Warrand, as not only Hierom, but several Popish School Men, have acknowledged.

The Professors of Saumur, speak also our Sense here fully. Syntag. Thes. Theolog. de Divers. Minist. Evang. Grad. Thes. 7. They hold the Office of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists to be Extraordinary and Expired, making peculiar to them, their immediat Call, Infallibility in Teaching, their Universal Legation to all Churches, their Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts, &c. The Pastors and Doctors Office, they hold Ordinary, and affirm they are the same with Presbyters planted in every Church. Thes. 16.20. de Episcop. & Presb. Discrimine. Thes. 7.8. they shew, that the Apostles placed Presbyters, Church by Church, for the Government thereof, citing Act. 14.23. and 20.17, 28. where they Collect, that these Presbyters were Commanded foreign to take heed to the Flock, and are called foreign from which they infer, that it belonged to them to Watch over, Inspect, to see unto, and take Care for such things, as tended to the Conservation, Propagation, and Growth of the Church: Adding [Quod fieri sine Regiminis Cura & Potestate non potest] which could not be performed, without the Care and Authority of Government. Thes. 9. They assert, that Pastors being thus in the beginning Constitute by the Apostles, they did according to the Apostles Command, and from the Nature of the Office Intrusted to them [ex Officio sibi ab Apostolis demandato] Govern the Church [Communi Consilio] by Common Counsel (according to Hierom's Phrase) (Communibus Suffragiis, Communi Solicitudine & Cura) by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care. Adding (Nullus tum eorum in reliquos Sym-Presbyteros Autoritatem, Potestatem, Imperium aut Iurisdictionem habuit, sed par & equalis Cura & Solicitudo omnibus & singu…is in totum Gregem competebat) that in these First times, no Presbyter or Pastor, p. 39had Authority, Power, or Jurisdiction over his Fellow-Presbyters, but the same, and alike Care and solicitude over the whole Flock, was competent to every one. Thes. 10. they shew, That tho there was one, who, as in every Colledge, or Juridical Court, was Primus or President, yet that Primatus was (Ordinis duntaxat non Authoritatis, Potestatis, Dominii, Imperii, Iurisdictionis, sic enim non fuissent Sym-Presbyteri, quomodo passim vocantur in Patrum Scriptis) of Order only, not of Authority, and not importing a Iurisdictional Power, and Dominion; For, thus they had not been Collegues, or Co-Presbyters, as they were every where called in the Writings of the Fathers. Thes. 14. they shew, That things being thus Constitute by the Apostles, as every one of these Presbyters had not only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments (Verum etiam pari Iure, pari Autoritate, ad Ecclesiae Clavum & Gubernaoula sedebant, quam ut dixi, Communi Consilio, Communibus Suffragiis regebant) That with the same Authority also, and Equal Jurisdiction, Ministers did sit at the Churches Helm, and Governed her by Common Suffrages. Adding (Quod hinc liquot, quod omnes communiter, & Presbyteri & Episcopi, pariter in Scriptis Apostolicis, adeoque Vetustioribus Scriptoribus, vocantur promiscue) That Pastors are called both Bishops and Presbyters, promiscuously in the Apostles Writings, makes the preceeding Assertion apparent. Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus (Id quod sati… manifestum ex loco, Act. 20.28. Ubi Ephesinae Ecclesiae Presbyteri dicuntur … Spiritu Sancto constituti Ecclesiae illius foreign, tam ex Philip. 1.1. Ubi Apostolus Epistolam suam inscribit Ecclesiae illius foreign nulla fact… Presbyterorum mentione, quos Episcoporum nomine isthic procul dubio intelligit; Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclesia Episcopi, ex quo Episcopus singularem habuit ac praecipuam supra Presbyteros Autoritatem atque Potestatem, ejusque Manus distinctum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine) That the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter appears from Act. 20.28. where the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, are said to be Constitute Bishops of the Church by the Holy Ghost; As also from Philip. 1.1. where the Apostle inscribes his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of that Church, making no mention of Presbyters, whom without doubt, he understands by the Name of Bishops: For, there were never more Bishops in the same Church, since the time that the Bishop had a Singular Power and Authority above Presbyters, and his Office was distinguished from the Order and Office of Pastors. Then they add Thes. 15. (Id ipsum manifestam ex 1 Tim. 3.2. Opportet Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem, &c. nulla mentione facta Presbyteri: Nam si alias tum fui… set Episcopus alius Presbyter, Paulus isthic Presbyterum non omisisset, sed adjecisset eadem in Presbytero requiri, vel si alia aut pauciora in eo requiri voluisset, id procul dubio monuisset, alioqui ea in parte Officio suo Defuisset) That the same appears from 1 Tim. 3.2. A Bishop must be blameless, &c. without mentioning p. 40the Presbyter: For, if the Bishop and Presbyter; had been then distinct, Paul, would not in this place, have omitted the Presbyter, but would have added, that the same things were required in him, or if he would have required either other or fewer things in him, he would, without doubt, have admonished hereof, otherwise, in so far, he had been wanting in his Duty. They add (Idem liquet ex Tit. 1.5, 7. Nam ubi dixit Titum se reliquisse in Creta, ut istic constitueret Presbyteros foreign docet quales essent illi Presbyteri foreign inquit foreign) That the same is apparent from Tit. 1.5, 7. where, after the Apostle had said, that he had left Titus in Crete, to place Presbyters in every City, he shews, how these Elders must be Qualified; A Bishop must be blameless. Asserting, Thes. 17. that this may be demonstrated from the Monuments of the Ancient Church; They cite the Commentary under Ambrose Name on Ephes. Cap. 4. and that passage (Non per omnia conveniunt Apostoli Scripta Ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia) That the Apostles Writings did not every way agree with the Order then in the Church. Here is Novel Doctrine of Presbyterians, so Close and Throng, as will probably put our Antique Dr. to the outmost Limits of his Patience. Presbyterian Scriptures, Presbyterian Sense, Presbyterian Arguments, Canted over by Dull Novelists, one after another, and which is yet more, by Novelist Universities of the Scots Presbyterian Perswasion. But this that follows, will possibly please worse.

Maccovius Redivivus in his foreign Pontificorum, Socin. &c. Cap. 6. De Cler. thus represents the Pontificii, or the Popish Cause and Doctrin, which I fear will Embrace in its Bosom, the Dr's. Reverence. It is even thus, [Episcopi jure Divino superiores sunt verbi Ministris, tum ordinis potestate, tum jurisdictione] That the Bishop by Divine Right, is Superior to the Ministers of the Word, both in the Power of Order and Jurisdiction. Maccovius not having the Honour to know our Dr. presents for his voucher, Bellarmin, lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The …. …. he thus represents [consuetudo Romanorum quae Distinguit inter versantem verbum Dei & Episcopum] The Romish Custom, which distinguishes betwixt the Preacher of the Word, and the Bishop; As our Romish Dr. doth: This is Rude, but how is this Refelled by Maccovius? Why? Its even thus [Refellitur; primo Philip. 1.1. Ubi idem Presbyteri predicantes & Episcopi dicuntur; Secundo. Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 3.1.2. U…i idem docentur esse Presbyteri Praedicantes & Episcopi] His two Proofs are, that in these premised Scriptures, the Preaching Presbyter, or Pastor, and the Bishop, are held out as one and the same.

Another Novelist, asserting this New Coyned Doctrin, and falling into the same error with the Scots Presbyterians, is Antonius Walleus, de funct. Ecc…es. P. (mihi) 470. having stated the Question Viz. utrum talis sit eminen… inter Pastores, ut unus gradu altero sit superior jure Divino, adeo ut uni Potestas p. 41in alterum concedatur, potestas scilicet mittendi aut deponendi ministros, potestas excommunicandi, aut admittendi, leges praescribendi, regendi &c. qualem sibi bodierni Episcopi ascribunt] whether there be such an Eminency among Pastors, so, as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right, and has Authority over another, the Authority of the Mission or deposition of Ministers, the Authority and Power of Excommunication, or relaxation, of prescribing Laws, and of Governing, &c. such as the present Bishops, arrogat and appropriat to themselves. Then he shews, that he speaks of Spiritual Authority: And thus Answers [hoc est quod nostri negant adversus episcopales] This is that we deny against the Episcopalians: Here is a bold Novelist. He after shews that the Divines of that Church, were of his mind; and thus exhibits a Muster Roll of New Coyned Novelists. But he presents his [praecipua Argumenta] Chief Arguments: What are these? (1) [in tota scriptura ejusmodi eminentiae & potestatis nulla fit mentio] That in all the Scripture, there is no mention of such Eminency and Power of a Bishop above Pastors. (2) [quia in illis Locis ubi ex professo de ministrorum novi Testamenti gradibus fit mentio, unius generis Pastorum Scriptura tantum meminit, ut 1 Cor. 12.28. constituit in Ecclesia primum Apostolos, secundo Prophetas, Tertio Doctores. Et Eph. 4.11. ipse dedit alios quidem Apostolos, alios vero Pastores & Doctores, &c. sic Rom. 12.6. Act. 20.17.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.] That in those places, where there is express mention of purpose made of the Degrees of Ministers of the New Testament, the Scripture owns only one kind of Pastors, as 1 Cor. 12.28. He set in the Church, first Apostles, secondarly Prophets, Thirdly Doctors or Teachers; and Eph. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, some Pastors and Teachers, &c. Thus Rom. 12.6. Acts, 2….17.28. 1 Pet. 5.1.2. The (3d) Reason or Argument is thus [quia Sacra Scriptura docet expresse Episcopos & Presbyteros fuisse plane eosd…m, ita Act. 20.17. convocavit Presbyteros, & v. 28. Dicit Spiritum Sanctum eos constituisse Episcopos, Ita Phil. 1.1. Paulus & Timotheus servi Iesu Christi, omnibus Sanctis qui sunt Phillippicum Episcopis & Diaconis: Et ad Titum 1.5. ideo reliqui te in Creta, ut oppidatim constituas Presbyteros: Et v. 7. opportet enim E-Eiscopum unius esse uxoris virum, &c.] That the sacred Scriptures shews the Bishop and Presbyter, to have been one and the same; Thus Act. 20.7. the Apostle called together the Elders, and v. 28. he saith, that the Spirit of God had made them Bishops: Also Philip. 1.1. Paul and Timotheus, Servants of Iesus Christ, to all the Saints which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons; and Tit. 1.5. For this Cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City; and v. 6. For a Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife ▪ &c. He adds, that Ierom (Comment. in Tit. & Eph. ad Evag.) doth from these places collect (as an old doting Novelist too) that the Bishop and p. 42Presbyter is all one, the one Name signifying the Age, the other the Office: he Cites also Ambrose (in Eph. 4.) as holding the same. He adds (sic Augustinus & plurimi alii in hanc sententiam) that Augustin and many others, were of this Judgment, to whom he also adds Bucer (de gub. P. 258. C. deinceps) Thus Walleus holds, that this forementioned Scots Presbyterian Sense of the Scriptures premised, has for a considerable time been a working Notion; for want, no doubt of our Dr's clearer Instructions. But this bigot Novelist, goes on to add, Deni que ex nullo Scripturae loco prohibetur uni Presbytero aut Pastori ordinario ullam dari potestatem, sive in verbi predicatione, omnes enim sunt Doctores & Pastores; sive in Sacramentorum Administratione ut Mat. 28.19. 1 Cor. 11.23. sive in exercitio Disciplinae. 1 Cor. 5.4. &c. 2 Cor. 2.7. sive in Ecclesiae rectione, Act. 20.17. 1 Pet. 5.1.2. Heb. 13.17. obedite praepositis vestris qui non datur alteri) That from no place of Scripture, it can be made good, that there is any Power given to an ordinary Pastor, or singular Prerogative above another, either in the Preaching the Word, for all are Pastors and Teachers; or in th… administration of the Sacraments, Matth. 28.19. 1. Cor. 11.23. or, in the exercise of Disciplin. 1. Cor. 5.4, &c. 2 Cor. 2.7. Or in the Governing the Church, Act. 20.17. 1 Pet. 5.1. 2. Heb. 13.17. Obey those that are set over you. He adds, quare Apostoli in Epistolarum suarum inscriptionibus seribunt Sanctis, item Ministris, Nunquam soli alicui Episcopo, & Regulas Prescribunt. 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.5.7. 1 Pet. 5.2. Omnibus Pastoribus communes, nullas singulares Episcoporum) That upon this Ground, the Apostles in the Inscriptions of their Epistles, do write unto the Saints, and also to Ministers, but never to any one Bishop; & 1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.6. 1 Pet. 5.2. Do prescrbe such Rules as are common to all Pastors, but none that are peculiar to Bishops. Here is a bold new Novelist, with a whole Congeries of New Notions upon Texts pleaded by the Scots Presbyterians, suting, no doubt, the Consideration of our Profound Antiquary. I am verily of Opinion, that this grave Inquirer into the new dangerous Notions of the Scots Presbyterians, should either have perused the premised grounds of their New Opinion, or Written to his Friend at Edinburgh, to make inquiry in his behalf, for some more of these dangerous Books, that they might be sent up to him, in order to his Doctorships perusal and confutation: For, it seems, he has never seen them. I need not mention Chamier, and other conceited Novelists, who has fallen into the same dottage (De aecumenico Pont. lib. 10. Cap. 3.)

Arnoldus in his Lux in tenebris, on Act. 20.17. (he called the Elders) presents the Orthodox opinion thus, That Bishops and Presbyters are not Names of diverse Gifts in the Church, but of one and the same Office, because those who are called Presbyters v. 17. are called Bishops. v. 28. This Man it seems, had got the new Notion in his Head too. He adds, The p. 43Papists Object (had he enjoyed the time and opportunity of seeing our Antique Drs Enquiry into the New dangerous Notions of Scots Presbyterians, he had not been so ill manner'd, as to term the Reasons of our Venerable Dr. an Objection of Papists) Well, what do they Object? 'That in these times, the Names were Common, but yet the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters diverse. Now, let us hear Arnoldus answers to our profound Enquirers great argument, wherewith he has filled up so great a part of his Pamphlet. 1. This is, saith he, to affirm, not to prove. 2. When Offices are distinct, there also the Names are diverse. 3. There was one Office, both of Bishops and Presbyters, viz. the Office of Teaching. 4. Saith he, upon the Papists supposition (beware of the Venerable Dr. again; what! could this Blind Novelist see none who maintained this Ancient Doctrin but Papists?) there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one City; but so it is, that there were here many: Therefore Bishops signify Presbyters.

After the premised account of these doting Presbyterians, who notwithstanding are judged by many, to be men of very Venerable Name, may I presume to trouble our profound enquiring Dr, in giving him a view of some bigot Confessions of the Reformed Protestant Churches, who, its like, have asserted this New Notion and Opinion of Scots Presbyterians. The Confession of the French Church, upon this head, runs thus (credimus veram Ecclesiam, &c.) We believe, that the true Church ought to be Governed, by that Policy, which Christ hath ordained. Mr. Dr. will no doubt acknowledge this is sound. Well, what next? They add, That there be Pastors, Presbyters, or Elders, and Deacons. This is fair. But is there no distinction of Bishops and Pastors in their Sense? The enquiring Dr. will tell them; that the two Classes of Elders and Deacons, admits of a subdivision. But the unmannerly froward Confession, is bold to contradict his Reverence, proceeding thus: And again, we believe, that all true Pastors, wherever they be, are indued with equal and the same Power, under one Head and Bishop, Christ Jesus. Here is the Scots Presbyterians New Notion in grain. Shall we try the Dr's. Patience with another such Instance.

The Belgick Confession, is no better natur'd to our Dr. but are as bold to contradict him in this point, and it seems do hold the same New Scots Notion: For, thus they assert, Art. 30. All Christs Ministers of the Word of God, have the same and equal Power and Authority, as being all Ministers of that only Universal Head and Bishop, Christ.

In the Point of Ordination, which the Dr. appropriats to the Bishop, the latter Confession of Helvetia ▪ (Harm. Confes. Chap. 11. P. 232.) do assert, 'That the Holy Function of the Ministry, is given by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters. No word of Prelats Hands. So (Chap 18. P. 236.) they are to be Ordained by publick Prayer and laying on of Hands: Which Power, p. 44they say, is the same and alike in all: Citing that Passage, Luke. 22. He that will be great among you, let him be your Servant. Thus crossing the Dr's Sense of this, and other paralel Passages. They also Cite Act. 15. And Ierom on Tit. 1. Concluding thus, Therefore, let no Man forbid, that we return to the old Appointment of God (so they call the Presbyterian way of Ordination,) and rather receive it, than the custom devised by Men (so they call the Episcopal Method.)

Thus the Confession of Boheme, Cha. 9. (Harm. Confes. Sect. 11. P. 246.247.) after setting down the qualifications of Ministers, as to Ordination, they say, that after Prayer and Fasting, they are to be Confirmed and approved of the Elders, by the laying one of their Hands. So The Confession of Saxony, Chap. 12. (Harm. Confes. Part. 2.) affirms, That it belongs to the Ministers of the Word to Ordain Ministers, Lawfully Elected and Called. Where, we have asserted at once, both the Presbyters Power in Ordination, and the Peoples Interest, in the Call of Pastors, in opposition to Prelacy. But as to this Point of the Equality of Pastors, and their joint Interest in Ordination, it is long since Dr. Reynolds hath told the Dr. and his Fellows that this is the Common Judgment of the Reformed Churches; Viz. Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Polland, the Low Countries; Citing the Harmony of Confessions.

Well, Whoever own these Opinions of the Parity of Pastors, and their joynt Interest in Government, The Dr. tells his Friend, he Charges them with Error and Novelty, tho a Current Opinion among his Country-Men, whom the enquiring Dr. Labours to undeceive, and he assures his Friend (a sure Demonstration no doubt, if it admit no other Measures, but his Assertion) That they are altogether New, and were never propagat in any part of the Christian Church, till these last days of Separation and Singularity. I could wish, he had Condescended upon the measures of these last days, wherein this Separation Reigns, as also, of these New Opinions. We know, the Scripture calls the whole Gospel times, last times and latter dayes; And some will alledge there has been Separation and Singularity, Old enough in years: But, if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick New Testament High Priest and Patriarch, and the standing of the Old Testament Oeconomy, as Exemplary to the New, and who has for several Ages, pretended to follow this Copie, and who he is, who has been for some Ages separat from, tho once Universally wondered after, and followed, viz. The Good Old Gentleman with the Triple Crown; I think Protestant Schismaticks, as well as these their forementioned Opinions, may be supposed to have been in this Assertion, much in the Dr's. View. But that I be not tedious, and may hasten to consider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Answer to the premised Scriptures; and the New Protestant Glosses upon them, which moves his p. 45Spleen to such declamatory anger against his Poor pur-blind Countreymen; one thing I would suggest to him (if I may do it without putting him into a Chaff) which is this; 'Tis known, that there is a certain English Dr. of as great Figure and Reputation (almost) in England, as he is in Scotland, and of a great Name to this day, who having got this New Scots Notion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters, into his unwarry head, was bold to exhibit a great many Testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers, for this New Opinion; his Name is Doctor Reynolds, in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls; the Dr. would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity, and undeceive his Countriemen and others, in the Point of this dangerous Error, in examining his Citations. Its long since the Epistle was Exhibit to publick view, and is in many hands, and upon a little enquiry, the Dr. may easily have a view of this dangerous Piece. For, if these Citations hold, the Opinion is not so New and Singular, as the Dr. Suggests, but it seems is an Old notion revived again: As the Dr. knows the Waldenses revived Old Points before them, and from them the Protestant Schismaticks, have taken up the same; and in special, so Learned an Antiquary, as the Dr. cannot be ignorant, that this very Scots Dangerous New Notion, against which his Pamphlet is levelled, was condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff, and the Waldenses, as testifies Michael Medina, lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine & eminentia, Cap 5.

But now, that my hand is in, before I come to examin the Dr's. Answers to the premised Scriptures, I must be bold to Exhibit to him some more of the Heretical assertors of Presbyters Power and interest in Government, in correspondence to the New Scots Notion.

Festus Hommius Disput. Theol. Adversus Pontificios Disput. 25. De Minist. Eccles. Ordin. Thes. 1. He calls the Office of Apostles and Evangelists Extraordinary, and holds it to be expired: Thes. 2. [primus itaque ordo Ministrorum Ecclesiae Novi Testamenti ordinariorum est ordo Pastorum, qui etiam Episcopi, Presbyteri, praesides laborantes, Ministri Praedicantes, servi, dispensatcres, praesides & duces in Sacra Scriptura appellantur] That the First order of the Ordinary Ministers of the New Testament, is that of Pastors, who in Scripture are called Bishops, Presbyters, Labouring Presidents, Dispensing Servants, Leaders Rulers, &c. Thes. 3. [inter Episcopum & Pastorem seu… Presbyterum in verbo laborantem, Respectu Muneris seu ministerii nullum in sacra Scriptura; verum & essentiale discrimen reperitur; haec enim vocibus hisce Promiscue utitur, cum unum eundemque Ministrorum Novi Testamenti ordinem designat: Quia in una Ecclesia & Civitate plures tempore Apostolorum Episcopus fuisse diserte Scriptura Sacra Testatur. That betwixt the Bis…op and Pastor or Presbyter labouring in the Word and Doctrin, there is no essential or Official difference found in Scripture, which uses these words promiscuously, pointing out thereby the same Order of the New Testament Ministers: Since it doth clearly Testify, that in the times of the Apostles, there were many Bishops p. 46in one City. From whence he draws this Conclusion [quare Epsicopi jure Divino Pastoribus, neque gradu, neque dignitate, neque ordinis potestate, neque Iurisdictione majores sunt] That therefore Bishops by Divine Right are neither in Degree, Dignity, Power of Order nor Jurisdiction greater than Pastors. Here is extensive Scots Bigotry.

I cannot but also observe, how Crabbed and unlucky expressions he has Thes. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination, of the Gospel Ministry by the term of Priesthood, because Christs Priesthood is Eternal, and admits of no Successors, he doth upon this ground Reason thus [quare Ministri Novi Testamenti nusquam in sacra Scriptura Sacerdotes proprie dicti appellantur] That the Ministers of the New Testament, are no where in Scripture called Priests. Adding [proinde pontificii Pastores cum nomen & munus sacerdotis sibi arrogant, non tantum palam judaizant, sed etiam blaspheme & sacrilege in Sanctissimum munus Domini— in v…lant] That therefore the Popish Ministers, in arrogating to themselves, the Name and Office of Priests, do not only palpably Judaize, but also, make a Blasphemous, and sacralegious Invasion upon the most Holy Office of Christ.

Musculus (loc. Commun. de Offic. Minist.) is Scots Presbyterian in grain, in this Point (P. mihi. 360, 361, 362.) after he has asserted from Scripture Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office, and the identity of the Pastoral and Doctoral office with Ierom: Because the Apostle Eph. 4. says not, that our Lord gave some Pastors and some Doctors, but Conjunctly Pastors and Doctors, he adds [eosdem esse Presbyteros & Pastores ex eo patet, quod 1 Pet. 5. Legimus Seniores ab Apostolis admoneri, ut gregem Dei pascant] That Elders and Ministers, are by the Apostles admonished to feed the Lords Flock [3tio. saith he, eosdem esse Presbyteros quoque & Episcopas & Pastores, ex eo patet, quod Act. 20. Legimus adhunc modum. A Mileto autem missus Ephesum nuntius accersivit Presbyteros Ecclesiae, qui cum venissent, dixit iis; vos scitis a primo die, &c. Et aliquanto post. Attendite igitur vobis & toto gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos ad pascendum (foreign) Ecclesiam Dei. Quos Lucas vocat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae, hos Paulus vocat Episcopos, & dixit eos ad hoc esse a Spiritu Sancto positos, ut pascant Ecclesiam Dei, sic palam videmus eosdem esse Presbyteros, Episcopos & Pastores] He adds for his Third Reason, that it appears from Act. 20. that Presbyters, Bishops and Pastors are the same; because Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church, who being come to him, he enjoins them to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, to Feed (i. e. to Rule and Govern, as the Original Word imports) the Church of God. Those whom Luke calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, those Paul calls the Bishops, for this end constitut by the Holy Ghost, to Feed the Church of God, whence it evidently p. 47appears, that Bishops, Presbyters, and Pastors, are the same. He adds [de inde in una & eadem ecclesiae simul & conjunctim plures fuisse episcopos, &c.] That it appears, the Spirit of GOD, placed at once and joyntly a Plurality of Bishops, in one and the same Church. [Quem admodum ex eo quoque videri est, quod Phil: 1.1. Legimus Paulus ac Timotheus servi Iesu Christi, omnibus sanctis qui sunt Philippi, una cum Episcopis & Diaconis. Ecce & Philippis plures simul erant Episcopi, erant autem illi Seniores Ecclesiae] That in the Church of Philippi a Plurality of Bishops are saluted by the Apostle, who are supposed to be the same with Pastors. He thus proceeds [Et ubi in Epistola ad Titum Cap. 1. Legimus, Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta, ut quae desunt pergas corrigere, & constituas oppidatim Presbyteros, sicut ego tibi ordinaram, si quis est incupatus, &c. Opportet enim episcopum inculpatum esse, &c. An non hic quoque videmus eosdem esse Presbyterum & Episcopum. Et 1 Pet: 5. Loco supra citato, tres hae voces foreign, & foreign Ad eosdem ab Apostolis Scriptae leguntur, unde videas Apostolorum tempore in ecclesia Christi eosdem fuisse Presbyteros, Pastores & Episcopos] That the Apostle in the Epistle to Titus, Chap. 1. shewing that he left him to place Elders in Crete, who must be Blameless, &c. Because a Bishop must be such, doth shew, That the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same. And 1 Pet. 5. the three Original Words, which signifie Presbyters, Feeding, and Overseeing, or Acting the Bishops, are by the Apostle, Written and Ascribed to the same Persons; Whence, it is evident, that in the Times of the Apostles, Elders, Pastors, and Bishops, were one and the same in Gods Church. He adds [Est itaque prorsus indubitatum (Alas! this Poor Man wanted the Venerable Dr's Instructions, to have Corrected this Bigotrie) in prima & Apostolica Ecclesia sic fuisse ab Apostolis Dispositum, ut Seniores Ecclesiae foreign i. e. Gregis Dominicae Curam gerentes, Communi Opera Ministeria Docendi ac R…gendi obirent, essentque, ut ita dicam, foreign i. e. Nulli Capiti ac Praesidi subjecti, quales h… die quoque in nonnullis Ecclesiis Verbi Ministri reperiuntur, inter quos nemo caeteris est superior Officio & Potestate, &c.] That it is beyond all Debate, that the First and Apostolick Church, was by the Apostles so Constitute, that the Elders of the Church, did Exercise a Common Episcopal Care over the Lords Flock, and the same Function of Teaching and Governing the same, and were therein subject to no Head or President: Like unto whom, are found several Ministers now in some Churches, who owne no Superior in either Office or Authority, &c. Afterwards speaking of the Exalting of a foreign with the peculiar Name of Bishop, and of Ieroms Account of this Practice, viz. for Eviting of Schism, which he calls Emphatically [Tentatio illa] that Tentation. He adds, [Profuerit ne Consilium hoc Ecclesiae Christi — melius est posterioribus saeculis declaratum, quam cum baec Consuetudo primum introduceretur, cui debemus omnem illam Principalium & Equestrium Episcoporum Insolentiam, p. 48Opulentiam, & Tyrannidem, imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi Corruptionem, quam si Hieronimus cerneret, dubio procul Consilium agnosceret, non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata, sicut praetexebatur, sed ipsius Satanae ad Vastanda ac Perdenda prisca Pascendi Dominici Gregis Ministeria, quo fieret, ut haberet Ecclesia, non veros Pastores, Doctores, Presbyteros, & Episcopos, sed sub Nominum istorum Larvis Otiosos Ventres, ac Magnificos Princepes, qui non modo non pascant ipsi Populum Domini Doctrina Sana & Apostolica, sed & Improbissima Violentia vetant, ne id per quenquam alium fiat. Hoc, sciz. Consilio Satanae factum est, ut habeant Ecclesiae pro Episcopis Potentes Dominos ac Princepes magna ex parte, ex Ordine Nobilium ac Satrapum Saeculi Delectos, &c.] Whether this Counsel or Method of Eviting Schism, was profitable for the Church of Christ, was more apparent to the After-Ages, than when this Custom, was first introduced. For, thereunto is owing all that Grandure, Insolency and Tyrranny of those Knight-like and Princely Bishops, yea, the Corruption of all the Churches of Christ; which, if Ierom had discerned, he would, no doubt, have acknowledged, that this was not the Counsel of the Holy Ghost, for the Removal of Schisms, as was pretended, but the very Project of the Devil, to Wast and Destroy the Primitive Ministry, appointed for Feeding the Lords Flock, that thus the Church of God, might not have true Pastors, Doctors, Presbyters and Bishops, but under the Disguise of such Names, Idle Bellies, and Magnificent Princes, who, not only, Feed not the People of God themselves, with the Sound and Apostolical Doctrine, but by most Wicked Violence, hinders the same to be performed by any other: And that by this Engyne of Satan, its come to pass, that the Churches, instead of true Bishops, have Powerful Lords and Princes chosen for the most part, out of the Order of the Nobility and Grandees of this World. Thereafter, he Inveighs against their Gorgeous Stoles, Girdles, &c. which he says, is to them, instead of the Spiritual Armour enjoyned Eph. 6. calling them the foreign or Counterfeit Bishops, and the Pastors, the true ones. Thus he P. 362.

I must here again present to our Dr, some further Account of the Sentiments of the Learned Iunius upon this Point, in his Animadversions on Bellarmin ad Controver. 4. de Concil. in Cap. 15. Par. 9. Art. 7. [Non sunt Pastores Laici, nec Ecclesiastici quicunque, sed soli Episcopi] That the Bishops only are the Pastors, and no Inferior Officers. He thus Animadverts and Answers [Distinguenda Assumptio haec, nam si anguste Episcopos ex Pontificiorum usu intelligas, falsa est; sin autem latius Communiterque Presbyteros Operam dantes Administratione Verbi ex Dono & Vocatione Dei, vera est Assumptio: Recte enim Magister Sententiarum, Lib. 4. Disput. 24. Excellenter inquit, Canones duos tanquam Sacros Ordines appellari censent, Diaconatus, sciz. Et Presbyteratus; quia hos solos Primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis Preceptum Apostoli habemus; p. 49enim vero si soli Episcopi Pastores essent, profecto neque Episcopi faciunt officium qui non pascunt gregem, &c.] That the premised Assertion, that the Bishops only are Pastors, is rightly understood, if applyed to Presbyters, who Labours in the Administration of the Word, who are thereunto Called of God, and have Correspondent Gifts. That the Master of Sentences, does rightly assert, that the Canons do only owne Two Orders as Sacred, Viz. The Diaconate and Presbyterate: Because we read, that the Primitive Church had these only, and of these alone, we have the Command of the Apostle. Moreover, if Bishops only be Pastors, these Bishops do not their Duty, who Feed not the Flock. He adds after, [nam illa Episcoporum distinctio a Pastoribus & Presbyterorum ordine, juris Divini non est, sed humani instituti— Nos de Iure solum communi Divinoque agimus: Presbyteris ergo qui dabant operam administrationi verbi jus commune fuit, ut Conciliis interessent, &c.] That the distinction of Bishops from Pastors, has no Divine Warand, but is of Human Institution only; That Presbyters who Labour in Dispensing the Word, had an Interest to Sit in Councils. Where its evident, that he calls the Dr's Notion of the Bishop, as its distinct from the Pastor, and Superior to him, Popish and an Human Invention, and Asserts the Identity of Pastor an… Bishop by Divine Right, they being Members of Councils: And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen, as Lombard, &c. (10. ibid.) [Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei] That the Holy Ghost set up Bishops to Rule the Church of God. Thus Iunius animadverts [aequivoce: nam Episcopos dicit Apostolus communi significato, i. e. inspectores & Curatores Ecclesiae esse Presbyteros illius. Agit autem cum Presbyteris unius Ecclesiae, puta Ephesinae, quos accersi ad se curaverat, quod si unus tantum esse debet (ut volunt Pontificii) in una Ecclesia Episcopus, & ejus est solius pascere, cur Paulus per omnia plurali numero usus est in hoc suo protreptico ad Presbyteros Ephesi] Adding [falsa ex aequivocatione sententia] that the premised Assertion, anent the Establishing Bishops in the Church by the Holy Ghost, when applyed to the Prelat Bishop, is not found, since the Apostle, according to the common use of the Word, calls the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church, her Inspectors or Bishops: Because, in that place, viz. Act. 20. the Apostles Speech is directed to that one Church of Ephesus, for whose Pastors he had sent; but if (as the Papists would have it) there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church, and it is proper to him alone to Feed, how comes it, that Paul, all along, makes use of the Plural Number, in this his Exhortatory Speech, or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephesus? After, in Art. 9. [Passim asserunt Concilia Episcoporum esse] That Councils were made up of Bishops. Thus Iunius animadverts in his Third Answer [quod Episcopi plurimum adessent, non ideo factum est quod Episcopi essent, sed quod eruditione & Doctrina praestarent plerumque aliis de Presbyterio, & qui propterea suffragiis p. 50Presbyterii praefecti essent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecclesia singuli: Nam qui erant ejusmodi, eos ad Consilia generalia communibus Ecclesiae suffragiis mitti, erat aequius, quam rudiores, &c.] That the Bishops were for most part present at Councils; this was not upon the account of their being Bishops or as in that Character, but because they for most part, were beyond others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning, and that for this Reason every such Bishop, was by the suffrages of the Presbytrie, made President of their Collegiat Meeting; for, such as were in this capacity, it was more equitable they should be sent to General Councils, by the Churches common suffrages, than those, that were less learned, &c. He adds [tanquam perpetui juris statuae Episcoporum pontificiorum sibi Assumpserunt, sicut & omnem autoritatem Ecclesiae & Presbyterii] That the Popish Bishops, as if founded upon a standing Right and Tittle, have Usurpt and assum'd to themselves, the whole Authority of the Church, and the Presbytrie. In Art. 10. he Corrects Bellarmin's absurd Gloss, as if Theodosius and Valentinianus had intended only the Bishops to be Received in the Council— And 15. ibid. he shews, that the Chorepiscopi & Presbyteri Subscribed and Voted in the Council of Nice: And in Art. 11. [inveni…ntur soli Episcopi Subscripsisse) That Bishops only did Subscribe: He Answers, that this is false (De Niceno modo Diximus Not. 15. Constantinopolitano p…no Subscripserunt aliquot Presbyteri, Alpius Presb. pro Philomuso Alexandrino Cappadociae, Paulus Presb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Isauriae, &c.) That in the First Council of Constantinople, Presbyters Subscribed. Thereafter, he shews, why the Bishops were Chosen to General Councils— (in singulis Presbyteriis cujuscunque Provinciae, Communibus suffragiis Episcopi eligerentur ii, qui Pietate, Doctrina, Iudicio— praestare viderentur. Adfuerunt autem & Presbyteri juarum Ecclesiarum singuli Communi Synodorum particularium calculo ad actionem illam deputati, tum Ecclesiae suae, tum Provinciae totius nomine▪) That in every Presbytrie of the respective Provinces, these Bishops were Chosen by common suffrage, who were judged more Eminent in Piety and Learning, but Presbyters were also present, being deputed to that Work, both by the Vote of their own Churches, and the common suffrage of Particular Synods, and thus, in the Name, both of their own Church, and of the whole Province. He had said before, that of the whole Province few were laid aside from Councils. Upon 19. ibid. Where it is alledged, that the Interest of any other than Bishops in Councils is [contra morem omnis Antiquitatis] Against the Custom of all Antiquity: In Opposition to this, Iunius produces the Pattern of that Council, Act. 15. where it is said, Paul and those with him, were received by the Apostles and Elders; that the Apostles and Elders met in Council — Citing v. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, to send Chosen Men — and v. 23. where the Apostles and Elders wrote to the Churches. Adding [atque …ita p. 51diu in Ecclesia fuisse observatum, demonstrat Exemplum Romanae Synodi, quae contra Novatum fuit habita a 60 Episcopis, Presbyterisque & Diaconis pluribus, qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum, Apostolici illius Concilii Exemplo, ut refert Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. Et Ruffin. Cap. 33. Item Alexandrinae Synodi contra Arrium apud Gelasium Cyzicenum] That it was thus of a long time observed in the Church, is demonstrat by the example of the Roman Synod, which was held against Novatus by 60 Bishops, and many Presbyters and Deacons, who gave Sentence against Novatus, after the Example of that Apostolical Synod, by the Testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus in their Histories: As also, by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria against Arius, according to Gelasius, &c. By this time, its evident, what the Judgment of this Great Divine was, as to the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, both the Name and Office, and their Interest and Authority in Church Government, yea, and in Councils, both de Facto and de Iure.

Franc. Gomarus Explic. Epist. ad Gal. Cap. 2. P. (mihi) 487. having asserted the extraordinary Ecclesiastick Function of Timothie and Titus, and upon the common Ground of their various Travels with the Apostle Paul, proved, their Evangelistick Office to be inconsistent with the Function of a Bishop, who is tyed to a certain Post: He adds, deinde illa Episcopi significatio, quae post Apostolorum tempora introducta, in Sacris literis omnino insolens est, in quibus idem quod Presbyterum notat, ut Paulus Tit. 1.6. ostendit: quos enim, v. 5. Presbyteros Ecclesiae, eosdem, v. 7. Episcopos vocat, &c. That the signification or designation of Bishop, introduced after the Apostles times, is unknown to the Scriptures, wherein, it signifies the same thing with the Presbyter, and Pastor, as the Apostle, Tit. 1.6. shews; for, whom, in the 5, v. he Calls the Presbyters of the Church, the same he calls the Bishops in the 7. v. as also the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, so termed by Luke, Act. 20.17. Paul calls, the Bishops. v. 28. and Philip. 1.1. he writes to the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons; Where, by Bishops, he understands the Presbyters, not the Prelats set over Presbyters, otherwise, which were absurd, in one and the same Church, of Ephesus, and Philippi, there had been a plurality of such ordinary Bishops, of which every one had been set over many Pastors. Finally, where Paul recites the several kinds of the Gospel Ministers, he acknowledges no such Bishops, distinct from Presbyters, and superior unto them, as Eph. 4.11. To which purpose Ierom's Judgment is memorable, which is extant, Comment. in Ep. to Tit. 1.1. where comparing the 5. and 7. v. he infers, that the Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same; which Point he doth likewise (in the same manner as we have done) demonstrat from Philip 1.1. and Act. 20.28.29. and other Passages adjoined thereunto; concluding all with this weighty assertion, that with the Ancients, the Bishops and Presbyters were p. 52one and the same, untill by Degrees, the care and inspection was put upon one — and that the Bishops were set over Presbyters, rather by Custom than by Truth of Divine appointment; which Custom (saith the Author] did at last bring upon the Church, the mischievous dominion of Bishops, contrary to the Apostles Command, 1 Pet. 5. Thereafter he reasons the Ruling Elders Office from these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Tim. 5.17. Rom. 12.8. 1 Thes. 5.12.

P. 526. explic. Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1. Consect. 1. Cum Paulus, & hic, & alibi, ut Act. 20. Uni Ecclesiae plures Episcopos tribuat; nec ullum inter Episeopos ordinarios, & Pastores, statuat discrimen: sequitur, adversus pontificios, Episcopum non significare Pastorem & praefectum Pastorum, sed Ecclesiae Pastorem, ut docet Hieron. in Ep. ad Evag. & Comment. ad Titum probat. v. 1. Since Paul both here, and elsewhere, as Act. 20. ascribes unto one Church a Plurality of Bishops, neither places any difference betwixt the ordinary Bishops, and the Pastors, it follows against the Papists (and thus against this Dr. in Gomarus Sense,) that the Word Bishop, doth not signifie both the Pastor and Prelatical Inspector over Pastors, or a Pastor of Pastors, but a Pastor of the Church, as Ierom learnedly proves in Epist ad Evag.

P. 704. Explicat. in 1 Pet. 5. Consect. 8. Quandoquidem Presbyterorum officium hic statuitur foreign, quemadmodum Paulus Presbyteros Ephesinos dictos, Act. 20.17. vocat deinde Episcopos v. 28. & Philip. 1.1. Ecclesiae unius Urbis Philippensis, tribuit Paulus Episcopos, & Diaconos: Neque ullibi in Sacris Literis Episcopus Presbyteris praefertur: Inde sequitur, non ex Divina Institutione, sed Humana Traditione; cui deinde accessit superbia, Episcopos a Presbyteris fuisse distinctos, iisque Potestate & Authoritate praelatis. That is, since the Office of Presbyters is here held out, to be an Episcopal Inspection, as Paul doth accordingly call the Pastors and Presbyters of Ephesus Bishops, Act. 20.28. who are likewise termed Presbyters, v. 17. and Philip. 1.1. mentions the Bishops and Deacons of that one City Philippi, neither is there a Bishop found set over Presbyters in any place of Holy Writ: It hence follows, that the distinguishing of Bishops from Presbyters, and setting them over Presbyters, in a Potestative and Authoritative Prelacy, had its Rise from no Divine Institution, but from Humane Tradition, which was the Foundation of Pride.

Well, shall I weary our Profound Dr, with another of the same Stamp with the Scots Presbyterians? Antonius Sadael Operum Theol. Tom. 1. De Legitima Vocatione Pastorem Ecclesiae. In the beginning of that Dispute, he professes to deal with such as profest to owne the Reformed Doctrine, but studied to evert the chief part of Discipline—[rejectis iis quibus ex officio incumbit ipsius Disciplinae Administratio] rejecting such, who by their Office, have the Administration of Government committed to them. P. (mihi) p. 5365, 66, 67. He thus proceeds, having Answered an Argument of one of the Sorbon Doctors, he proposes his Second, which is this — [objicit primos nostros Doctores fuisse quidem Presbyteros, sed non Episcopos, itaque non potuisse alios Ecclesiae Doctores constituere, cum soli Episcopi Ius Ordinandi habeant] That our first Doctors were Presbyters, and not Bishops, and thus could not Ordain other Ministers of the Church, since only Bishops have a Right to Ordain. [Quae Sententia, saith Sadael, quam falsa sit, jam videndum est] The Falshood of which Opinion, he undertakes to discover: And thus he confutes it, [Patet ex Verbo Dei Episcopum & Presbyterum (qui quidem Ecclesiam docent) reipsa atque munere eundem esse: Atque ita variis nominibus rem eandem fuisse significatam; sic enim Paulus ad Titum. Cap. 1.5. hujus rei causa, inquit, reliqui te in Creta ut constituas oppidatim Presbyteros, sicut tibi mandavi, si quis est inculpatus— opportet enim Episcopum inculpatum esse] It is evident from the Word of God, that the Bishop and Presbyter (such as Teach the Church of God) are upon the Matter, and in Office one and the same; and that by these Names one and the same thing is signified: For, thus the Apostle to Titus Cap. 1. v. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City— If any be blameless— For, a Bishop must be blameless, &c. He adds [idem Apostolus ad Presbyteros Ephesinos, Act. 20. attendite vos ipsos & totum gregem in quo Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos ad pascendam Ecclesiam Dei. Et in Epist. ad Philip. Cap. 1, v. 1. Salutat Sanctos qui erant Philippis una cum Episcopis & Diaconis. Ex quibus omnibus satis patere arbitror, Paulum, eundem fuisse Episcopum qui Presbyter esset ad docendam Ecclesiam institutus. Deinde cum Apostolus agit de muneribus Ecclesiasticis in Epist. ad Eph. Pastores quidem recenset & Doctores, nullum autem superiorem gradum Episcoporum Assignat: Imo ne meminit quidem illius nominis, adeo ut necessessit eos nomine Pastorum comprehendi: Quod quidem Presbyteris convenire patet ex Cap. 20. Actorum & ex 1 Pet. 5. Ne alii loci mihi commemorandi sint] That the same Apostle Paul, Act. 20. Thus Enjoins the Presbyters of Ephesus; Take heed to your selves, and to all the Flock, over which, the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to Feed the Church of GOD. And Philip. 1.1. he Salutes the Saints which were at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons. From all which it is evident, that with the Apostle Paul, the Bishop is the same with the Presbyter, who is appointed to Teach the Church. Moreover, when the Apostle, is Treating of Ecclesiastick Offices, in the Epist. to Eph. he reckons up Pastors and Doctors, but Assigns no Superior Degree of Bishops; nay, he doth not so much as mention such a Name; so that of necessity, he must needs Comprehend them under the Name of Pastors: And that the Name and thing is Competent to Presbyters, appears from Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. that I need not mention other places.

p. 54But now let us hear what the Sorbon (and our Reverend Dr. his Associat in the Cause) do Reply to what is premised. Thus our Author proceeds, [Respondet Sorbonicus nominum quidem esse, sed non munerum, confusionem. Verum enimvero quando Presbyteri vocantur Episcopi, ibi agitur non de nominibus ac titulis, sed de ipsa muneris functione; cum enim Paulus hortatur Presbyteros Epheseos ad suum munus legittime obeundum, hanc addit rationem, quod illos Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos: Non igitur ait eos vocari tantum, sed esse constituos Episcopos ex quo efficitur tot revera tunc fuisse Episcopos Ephesi quot erant Presbyteri & Pastores Ecclesiae; adeo ut plane jaceat illa responsio de sola nominum confusione] i. e. The Sorbon doth Reply, that there is indeed in the premised places, a confusion of Names, but not of the thing it self, or the Office. But when Presbyters are called Bishops, the Apostle is in such places, treating not of the Names or Titles only, but of the Office and Function it self. For, when the Apostle exhorts the Presbyters of Ephesus, to the right Exercise o… their Office, he adds this Reason, that the Holy Ghost had constitute them Bishops, and therefore, he says not, that they were only called so, but that they were in very deed Constitut such Bishops, From whence it evidently follows, that there were then at Ephesus, as many Bishops, as there were Presbyters and Pastors of the Church; So, that this answer, touching the Confusion of Names only in the premised places, is quite overthrown. Well, thus he thinks, he has laid all along, and aboard the Topgallant of the Sorbon; and consequently our Dr's great Answer. The Author proceeds to a New Objection [sed objicit, quod ait Paulus ad Timotheum. 1 Tim. 5.22. Manus inquit, ne cui cito imponito, additque mandatum illud Pauli ad Titum de constituendis in Creta Presbyteris: Utrumque enim Episcopum fuisse atque eo ratione jus ordinandi habuisse contendit] That Paul saith to Timothy, 1. Tim. 5.22. Lay Hands suddenly on no Man. And that he adds that Command of Paul to Titus, anent the Ordaining Elders in Crete, and thereupon contends, that both the one and the other were Bishops, and upon this account had the Right of Ordination. Here, no doubt, the Sorbon presented much of the Strength of our Dr's Reasoning; so that we see how much the Popish Agents, are in Love with our Prelatical Arguments, and that there is no new thing under the Sun. But let us hear our Authors Answer, [respondeo, nomine foreign & impositionis manuum tota significatur electio] That the whole Election of Pastors is signified by this Phrase of the Imposition of Hands. And after some what, in Confirmation of this, he adds— (electionum vero curam …ni Timotheo, incubuisse ne ipse Doctor Sorbonicus dixisset, qui ex frequenti veterum Lectione Dedicerat olim antistites Ecclesiae non aliter fuisse electos quam judicio totius Cleri, &c.) That the Sorbon Dr. himself, will not be Bold to say, that the whole care of Elections, was incumbent upon, and Committed p. 55to Timothy alone, who from the frequent reading of the Ancients, had Learned, that Church Rulers, were not of old chosen otherwise than by the Judgment of the whole Clergy, &c. He adds (merito dicere possumus in unius Timothei persona praefectos omnes Ecclesiasticos esse sui officii common… factos) That all Church Rulers, are in the person of Timothy admonished of their duty. And hence, he further Argues, that this Reasoning and Conclusion of the Sorbon, is most absurd (Paulus Timotheo praecepit ne cito manus imponat: Nemo igitur praeter Timotheum illic habuit jus ordinationis) Paul enjoins Timothy, not to lay on hands suddenly; therefore none but Timothy, had the Right of Ordination: Which he confutes from this (jubetur Timotheus, fabulas rejicere, attendere Lectioni exhortationi, Doctrinae, &c. Num igitur illa omnia sibi uni Timotheus vendicavit— nonne pertinebant ad Presbyteros, quos Paulus ipse testatur laborasse in Sermone & Doctrina] That Timothy is enjoyned to reject Fables, give Attendance to Reading, Exhortation and Doctrine, &c. Did therefore Timothy arrogat all these things to himself alone? Did they not belong to Presbyters, who by Pauls Testimony Laboured in the Word and Doctrine? He adds, that Timothy's Episcopacy at Ephesus [Nullo Scripturae Testimonio confirmari potest] can be made good by no Testimony of Scripture, which he proves from these Words [Rogavi te ut maneres Ephesi cum profisiscerem in Macedoniam, 1 Tim. 1.3.] I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3. Which shews, says our Author, he was left there, for some time, for this end — [Quemadmodum ipsa Historiae series evincit] As the very Tract of the History makes evident. And this he proves from Timothy's attending Paul, when to go to Asia; As also from this Ground, that Paul was ordinarly attended by Timothy and Titus, in this Exercise of his Apostolick Function. Adding further, that if we suppose him Bishop of the Churches, to which he was sent, we will make him Bishop of the Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians, &c. He after puts the Querie to the Episcopalians: Who (upon their Hypothesis) Ordained at Ephesus, when Timothy was gone thence? And whether the foreign [apud Ephesios inter mortua jacebat] the Ordaining Power at Ephesus, lay dead in his Absence? He shews, that his Transient Unfixed Ministry, could not Consist with a Fixed Episcopal Station; And that this Razeth [C…mmentum illud de Timothei Episcopatu] that Fable concerning Timothy's Episcopacy. He after, improves the Argument from Paul's Farewel Sermon to the Elders and Church of Ephesus, in Timothy's Presence, and Committing the Episcopal Charge over that Church to them, and not to him, [Ecquando potius elucere debuit, saith he, Splendor Episcopatus Ephesinae, quam cum Paulus tam pie de Ecclesiae salute disserebat, & tam fancte Praefectos omnes, cohortabatur ad intercludendum Lupis viam, alioquin totum Gregem dissipaturis] When was there a fitter p. 56Season, for Illustrating the Splendor and Authority of the Episcopacy a Ephesus, than when Paul was so Piously Discoursing of that Churches Safety, and so Holily Exhorting all the Governours thereof, to Stop the Way against the Wolves, who were otherwise ready to Scatter that Flock. He adds [Huie Disputationi (he means anent Timothy's Episcopacy) Paulus ipse modum imponit cum expressis verbis Timotheum vocat Evangelistam, 2 Tim. 4. (qui gradus tantum ad aliquod tempus in Ecclesia locum habuit) alios autem fuisse Evangelistas ab ordinariis Ecclesiae Pastoribus aper…e doc…t Ap. in Epist. ad Eph. Cap. 4.] That the Apostle Paul himself, put an end to this Dispute, in Calling Timothy, expresly, an Evangelist (which Degree and Office, was to continue for a time only in the Church) The Apostle also, shewing evidently (Eph. 4.) that Evangelists were distinct from the ordinary Pastors of the Church. He adds thereafter, that the Sorbon Dr. commits a Twofold Error, in Arguing from Timothy's Imposing Hands, to an Episcopal Prerogative in this Matter. First, In that this is Sophistically made Exclusive of Presbyters Interest — which can no more be said, than this can be inferred from the Command of Exhorting, Reading, delivered to him, which he Confirms by the Scripture Instances of a Plurality of Church Officers Imposing Hands; As upon the Deacons, by all the Apostles; upon Paul and Barnabas, by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch; upon Timothy by the Presbytrie. Secondly, In that, tho it were granted, that he Imposed Hands solely, he did this, as an Evangelist, in Paul's Absence, not as a Bishop. But, saith he, (Si absque contentionis studiorem ipsam intueamur, facile videbimus in unius Timothei persona omnes Ecclesiae Praefectos sui officii admoneri) That to such, as are not Contentious, but considers the thing it self, all Church Rulers, in the Person of Timothy, are Admonished of their Duty. He after Cites several of the Ancients, to Confirm this his Sense and Exposition; such as Irenaeus, Lib. 4. Cap. 43. where he sheweth, that Presbyters have the (Successio Episcopatus) Succession of Episcopacy. So, ibid. Cap. 44. (Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in justitia) That the Church has such Presbyters, of whom the Prophet said, I will give you Rulers and Bishops in Peace and Righteousness. (Ecce (saith our Author) eosdem vocat Episcopos, quos antea Presbyteros appellavit, & Presbyteris tribuit Episcopatum) That he calls the same Persons Bishops, whom before he Named Presbyters, and Ascribes to Presbyters an Episcopacy. Afterwards, he Cites Ambrose on Eph. 4. shewing, that the P…esbyters were called Bishops, and in Egypt Ordained, if the Bishop were not present. So, Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. shewing, that the same Persons were called Bishops and Presbyters, that the one, is the Name of Dignity, the other of Age. And Epist. ad Oceanum, where he asserts, that (Apostolus p. 57perspicue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos) So Epist. ad Evagrium. Likewise, his Famous Testimony upon Tit. 1. (Presbyter idem est qui Episcopus — & antequam Diaboli Instinctu, &c.) So also, Augustin. Ep. 19. [Quanuqam secundum Honorum Vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit, &c.] Where Augustin asserts, that his Episcopal Distinction from Ierom, and of a Bishop from a Presbyter, was only in some Titles of Respect, which the Churches use had obtained. Likewise that Passage [in Alexandria & per totum Egyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter] That in Alexandria, and through all Egypt, Presbyters did Ordain in Absence of the Bishop. These, he tells his Popish Adversary, he Cites [quia pluris faciunt Autoritatem Veterum, quam ipsos plane Scripturae Locos] Because they esteem more the Authority of the Ancients, than plain Places of Scripture. I cannot but add what he has further▪ If, saith he, we all allow to Presbyters, the Authority of Preaching the Gospel, the Administration of Baptism, the Celebration of the Lords Supper, and if, by their Judgment, Ecclesiastical Elections are to be made [Ecquid erit Causae, quam ob rem non possunt Electum Sanctis Praecibus, & Manuum Impositione Deo Consecrare] Upon what imaginable Ground can we suppose, they cannot Consecrat and set apart to God the Person thus Elected, by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, when the other parts of this Work are brought [tanquam ad Fastigium] to the Accomplishment or Copestone, as it were? Wherefore are they [ut Indigni & Inutiles] as Useless and Unworthy Forbidden [Manum Operi Imponere] to set the last Hand to this Work, in its Accomplishment? He adds, that we oft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching of the Gospel, which is the Pastor or Presbyters Function, Magnifying his own Authority therein, [Cur non ille potius summum hoc Ius Ordinationis in medium proponit] Wherefore presents he not rather his chief Interest in Ordination? He afterwards Cites Ieroms Notable Saying [Ad quorum Preces, Corpus & Sanguis Christi conficitur, atque interim Ius Ordinandi ipsis Presbyteris denegant] That Presbyters are absurdly denyed the Right of Ordination, by whose Prayers notwithstanding, the Sacramental Elements are Consecrat, to Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. The Author adds [Obsecro utrum majus est, Manus Imponere, an Christi Corpus & Sanguinem Precibus conficere? Itaque qui Presbyteros a foreign excludunt, ipsi profecto Vim ac Naturam ipsius foreign, & quod sit ipsum Presbyterii Munus, penitus ignorant] Whether is greater, I pray, to Impose Hands in Ordination, or in Prayer to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ? Therefore, such as exclude Presbyters from this Imposition of Hands, do shew themselves to be grosly ignorant, both of the Nature of Ordination, and the Pastoral Office. And thus, we dismiss Sadael, whom we have found sufficiently to Combat and Worst our Dr.

p. 58But to proceed, Dr. Reynolds, in the forementioned Epistle, after Citing several Fathers, for this Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, such as Ierom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, Theophylact, Occumenius 1 Tim. 3. Yea, Gregory, Pellic. Lib. 2. Tit. 19, 39. & Grat. Cap. Legimus Dist. 39. & Cap. olim Dist. 95. He adds, that these, who have Laboured in Reforming the Church, these Five Hundred Years, have Taught, that all Pastors, be they Entitled Bishops or Priests, have equal Authority and Power by Gods Word. Citing first, the Waldenses in Aeneas Silvius Hist. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next, Marsilius Patavinus Defens. Pacis Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff. &c.

If the Testimony of Bishops will please the Dr, we will find Bishop Iewel, fully Combats him in this Point: Defens. Apol. cont. Hard. Edit. An. 1570. P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding, saith he, to make it an Heresie to say, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop and Priest, are all one? Knows he, how far, and to whom, he reaches the Name of an Heretick? Then he Cites Chrystos. on 1 Tim. Hom. 11. shewing, that [inter Episcopum & Presbyterum interest ferme nihil] Betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter, there is almost no Difference. Ierom ad Evagrium, asserting that [Apostolus perspi…ue docet eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos] The Apostle clearly Teaches, the Bishop and Presbyter, to be one and the same, calling the contrary Opinion, a Vecordia or Folly. Also August. Quest. Vet. & N. Test. Quest. 101. [Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter] That the Bishop is only the first Presbyter. Amb. de Dignit. Sacerd. [Episcopi & Presbyteri una est Ordinatio] Asserting, that the Ordination, and consequently the Function of the Bishop and Presbyter, is one and the same. All these and many more Holy Fathers, saith Bishop Iewel, together with St. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr. Hardings Advice, must be holden for Hereticks. I will add, and all these; and many more, together with the Apostle Paul, by this Dr's Advice, must be holden for Novelists, and Scots Schismaticks. But there are other Bishops, will yet enter the Lists with our Dr: Bishop Pilkinton, on Revelation, and in the Treatise of Burning of Pauls Church. Bishop Bilson Perpet. Gover. Cap. 2. Yea, more of the Famous English Drs. Fulk against the Rhemists on Tit. 1.5. Dr. Humphray in Campian. & Duraeum Iesuitas Part. 2. Ration. 3. Whittaker above Cited. So also, ad Rationes Campiani Ration. 6. Confutat. Duraei. Lib. 6. Chemnitius & Gentiletus, the great Examinators of the Council of Trent, the one a Divine, the other a Lawyer, doth both Condemn, as a Trent Error, our Dr's Assertion, anent the Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter; the one by Scriptures and Fathers, the other, by the Canon Law. We have heard, that Dr. Reynolds, for this Parity of Bishop and Presbyter, tells us, Its needless to speak of the particular Persons, since, its the common Judgment of the Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countreys, and our own; Witness the Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 11.

p. 59Now, from all that is said, whether the Body of Protestant Divines and Churches, be not for the Official, as well as Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter: Whether this be not likewise the Judgment of the most Ancient and Purer Church: Whether our Argument be only a Confusione Nominum, and Sophistical and Childish; Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and Impartial Readers, who shall Weigh what is said, in the Ballances of Scripture and Sound Reason.

Before I proceed, I cannot but take notice of this Dr's petulant impertinency in proposing our Argument. He says, this is our great Argument, That there is no distinction betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture — And therefore, we conclude that our Argument, a Confusione nominum, is demonstrative and solid. As if, when we maintain, that in Scripture, there is no distinction betwixt these Offices, we meant a Nominal only, and not a real diversity. Had he ever perused the Authors he Cites, or conferred with any Presbyterian, who understands the Controversy, he would have found, that from the Scriptures Cited, and many Paralels, its an Official oneness, not a Nominal only, we plead for, and that our Arguments therefrom, has such Nerves, as he durst not medle with.

The Dr. tells us (P. 23.) That whether the Bishop be of an Higher Order than the Priest, falls not under his enquiry, nor is it very Material— considered with Respect to the common Priesthood, and Subordinat Officers, they might be of the same Order, tho at other times, when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named, the Bishop (with regard to his Dignity and Power) is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter. Here, I must say, is a strange Confusion, and that not Nominum but Rerum. 1. The Dr. is so much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Bishop to the Presbyter, that he affirms the Contrar Assertion to be a New opinion, got into the Heads of his Countrymen, and some others, but never heard of this 1400 years; For curing of which, he has sent down this Learned Pamphlet; yet he will not enquire, whether a Bishop be of a higher Order, or not, to a Presbyter, i. e. He will not enquire whether his Country-men or he, have the Right in this Debate. If the Bishop be not of an Higher Order, his Countrey Presbyterians are Right, their Arguments, which ly level to this scope, are good and Conclusive, and do batter his Principle of a Superior Order of Ministers above the Pastor, and in especial under this Designation and Character of Bishop: The Antithesis whereof (viz. that there is an Officer called a Bishop, of a Superior Order eo no nine) the Dr. Contends for tanquam pro aris & focis; yet he says, the enquiry into this Point (which to all men of Sense, is the Cardo Questionis) is not in it self Material. Let any ponder, whether this stout pretended Signifer, doth not here let fall his Standart, and even flees at the First alarm. 2. He tells us, when p. 60Authority and Iurisdiction is named, the Bishop with regard to his Dignity, is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter. Now, I do appeal to all Men of Common sense, whether the Dr dos not here Assert. (1.) A Divine Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter. (2) By clear Consequence, that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter; or else, how can he be in Jurisdiction and Authority above him? (3.) That the Bishop, under that Character, and eo nomine, is thus Represented in the Scripture Accounts of him. Now, all this being his Assertion, in opposition to his Country-mens supposed Errors, how can he decline the enquiry, whether the Bishop be of an higher Order? Let any Judge, if he says not this, upon the Matter, the thing is Clear in it self, in the Scripture Accounts; and this I maintain in opposition to the Scots Presbyterians, whom I do hereby Charge with a new Opinion on this Ground, but am not Concerned to Examin their Arguments, or make good my own. 3. He tells us they are sometime considered, as of the same order, with respect to the common Priesthood. I Answer we have proved that Presbyters or Pastors, have both name and thing of all ordinary Ministerial Authority appropriat to them, and that with Relation thereto, the Bishop and the Presbyter, are in Scripture made one and the same. (2.) When he says, they are made of the same Order, with respect to the Priesthood, common to either: He speaks Confusedly and Ignorantly; For will he say, that the attributing to Two Church Officers, who are different, the same Geneal or (to speak to the Dr's Scope) the same Generical Priesthood, or Ministry, will inferr, that they are of the same order therein, or specifical Office? If so, then Apostles, who are called Presbyters or Elders, he must say, are of the same Order with them; yea with Deacons also, since sometimes their Office and Ministry is represented by such a term, as Represents a Deaconate or common service. Further, I must here warn the Doctor. to take up his Shield, and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow: Was our Lord of the same Order, with the Prophets or Servants of God, because in the capacity of Mediator, and with Respect to a general Ministry or Service of the Father, he gets the Designation, name and thing of Prophet, Messenger, and Servant of God? Will the Dr. thus Blasphemously degrade him into the same Order with mere Creatures, who are Prophets and Servants? In a word, let us hold the Dr to his affirmative, and challenge his proof of this Point, viz. That in Scripture, there is an ordinary standing Church Officer, exhibit under the Character and designation of a Bishop, who is alwise Reckoned above a Presbyter or Pastor, when Authority and Iurisdiction is Named. And according to the scope, measures, and extent of this Assertion, let his ensuing Discourse, Answers, and proofs be examined, wherein, I am sure, he has fair dealing, according to all acknowledged Laws of Disputation.

p. 61Well, proceed we then to his Proofs of this Assertion, and the ground of his ensuing Answer to this Argument, taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter. He tells us, that the inspired Writers, as the Iews Dichotomotized, or made a bipartit Division (Reader, be not so ignorant, as to start at this term as a Goblin, the Dr. as an English Orator, may cast his Greek into an English Mould: And you must know, he is against new stan…t Opinions not Phrases) Well, what did they Dichotomtoize? The Clergy, saith the Dr. into Two Orders, (here he has soundly exponed his term) like that of Priests and Levits, tho as among the Jews— So, among Christians, this admitted of a Sub-division and subordination of Church Officers among themselves, as were the Priests of the Old Testament— This, he says, was suitable to the Language of the Helenistical (or Graecian) Tribes (high Oratory!) of the Apostolick Age— the Name of Priest and High-Priest being Confounded, Levit. 1.7. The Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put Fire, &c. v. 8. the Priests, Aarons Sons shall lay the parts, &c. Now, saith the Dr. if Priests and High-Priests got the same Name, without any distinction of Order, notwithstanding the High-Priests extraordinary priviledges, the Name of High-Priest likewise being never affixt to Aaron or Eleazar, and the term but Twice or Thrice mentioned in the Books of Moses while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not against the Subordination of Priests; Could it be thought strange, that Apostles or Apostolical Men in mentioning Presbyters of the New Testament, might not make use of the current Phraseology of their Countreymen, in speaking of Priests and Levites, Dividing them into two Orders, as if there were no more?—Tho the meanest Jew knew the high Priest was very Honourable, and by all marks of eminency and Authority, Disstinguished from ordinary Priests. Thus he Pag. 23.24.25.

I Answer, Quod haec ad rhombum? What says this to the Point? Or how lyes this Discourse level to his scope, either to prove the Bishops Jurisdictional Authority above a Presbyter or Pastor, as Bishop in the Scripture Sense, or to prove, that we Argue sophistically, when alledging that the Scripture makes the Bishop and Presbyter one in Name and thing, and that therefore, the discriminating of both, by Episcopalians, is antiscriptural. How, I say, this lyes level to the Dr's Conclusion, or can in solid Reason reach the same, I must Confess, passes my Comprehension. For, 1. Tho all the Dr. says be granted, it is palpably evident, that this pleading, if it prove any thing, levels merely against such as would draw the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter only from this, that there is an homonymie of these two Names, whereas, it is the Identity of the Qualifications, Gifts, Duties, and every essential of the Office, which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from, not merely the confusion of Names, 2. The Dr. himsef acknowledges, that notwithstanding of this supposed confusion of Names, o… Dichotomotizing the p. 62Old Testament Church Officers, yet the High-Priest, was distinguished from the other Priests, by marks of Eminency and Authority; for instance, [that he is called High-Priest] And therefore, before his Discourse can have any shadow of Answer, he is bound to Exhibit, in a just Paralel, the same Scripture marks of Eminency and Authority of the Diocesan Bishop, above the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop, as the Scripture Exhibits in reference to the High-Priests, above the ordinary Priests, or the Priests in reference to the Levites, else, this Answer, by his own Confession, and in the Sense of all men of Sense, is but a pitiful Begging of the Question: For, upon this Ground, he might alledge a Distinction betwixt the Pastor and Preaching Presbyter. He alledges P. 25. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings, the High-Priest is frequently distinguished by his proper and special Character. Well then, he is obliged to let us see in Scripture, such a frequent distinction of the Prelatical or Diocesan Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter, by such a Character as the Dr. makes special and Peculiar to him, and exhibit his special Official difference therein, and super eminent Authority over Pastors, else he never touches the Point. We hold that the Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture alwise one, Name, and thing: The Dr. grants, that the High Priest, and other Priests are not so, but distinguished; and therefore, he brings an impertinent Paralel and exception anent the sometimes Community of Names of Priests and High-Priests, unless he can otherwise than thus disprove and answer our Assertion. Besides, the Critical Disputant will here put him to prove, that the inspired Writers of the New Testament, followed the Phraseologie of the Iews, in speaking of the New Testament-Church Officers, especially since we find frequent recitations of them, in a far other strain and Phrase, and that in their several Classes and Degrees, both ordinary and extraordinary, as 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. Eph. 4.11. Moreover, when in that place, Levit. 1. Aaron, is called not merely the Priest, but emphatice, Aaron the Priest (whose eminent immediat Call to the Priesthood, is so clear) and distinguished from his Sons the Priests, mentioned in the plural, in that very Passage, his Super-eminency above them, is insinuat, yea Asserted. The Dr. is bold to assert, that when Authority and Jurisdiction is Named, the Bishop, with regard to his Dignity, is alwise reckoned above a Presbyter. Of this alwise, we demand one instance, the Dr's extensive Phraseologie, boasts of a Plenty of Instances, but in not offering so much as one he shews great penury, especially, when, as the affirmer he stands so clearly obliged thereto: But here, as often elsewhere, he plys us with generals, alien from the purpose.

He tells us, (P. 26.) Tho neither Aaron nor Eleazar, in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy, were called High Priests, it had been Madness from this Confusion of Names, to have inferred an Equality, since their p. 63Offices were distinguished by their special Ministries and Iurisdiction. Here again, a Poor Repeated General, Alien from the Point; If this Dr. had intended to Dispute, not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk, he should, instead of Begging Poorly the Question, in Supposing it, have made that good, in the Case of the Bishop and Presbyter in the New Testament Church Government, which he here asserts of the Priests in the Iewish Oeconomy, viz. That as the special Ministries and Jurisdiction of High Priests and other Priests, were distinguished, and what was appropriat to the one, denyed to the other under that Dispensation, so there is exhibit in the New Testament, the same Discriminating Distinction, betwixt the Bishop and Pastor or Presbyter, in point of Ministry and Jurisdiction. It is pity to see a Man Represented in the Frontispiece of his Book, in the Character of a D. D. proceeding with such Big Words, in a Dispute and supposed Confutation of the Presbyterians, yet as an Officiperda, so far mistaking his Mark and Measures, that he never comes near the Point, which they deny, and he undertakes, or stands obliged to prove.

He adds (ibid.) Bishops were called Presbyters, who had Presbyters under them, in the Days of the Apostles. If he mean this of ordinary Officers, distinguished as Bishops from Presbyters, I deny it, and that there were any such ordinary Officers, with such Authority over Pastors, under the Denomination of either Bishop or Presbyter. He tells us, that the Presbyters signifie the Priests, who assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastick Administrations. A New Begging of the Question. I deny either that Priests is the New Testament Designation of Ministers, and do consequently hold, that this his Designation is Popish and Anti-Scriptural, or that the Term Presbyter or Pastor, doth ever signifie in the Scripture such an Officer, as has a Relation to a Bishop of his Mould. The Dr. is bold to tell us, That tho all Bishops are Presbyters, yet not all Presbyters Bishops; and therefore, to infer an Equality from the Promiscuous Use of Names, is neither good Logick nor Good History. But since the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor History, for this his Forged Distinction betwixt the Bishop and Pastor (wherein I dare appeal to all who ponders these his Answers) he shews himself no good Historian, in Obtruding such Doctrine: And since, instead of proving, he still beggs the Question, and that doubly: First, In supposing that we ground our Assertion of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, upon the mere promiscuous Use of the Names, without respect to the Official Identity, exhibit in the places which we plead: Next, In supposing the Scriptural Official Distinction of Bishop and Presbyter, and grounding all his Answers thereupon, without the least Offer of a Proof, it is evident that his Logick is as bad as his History and Divinity.

He runs on in the same Carreer of a Petitio Principii, (P. 27.) He will p. 64not be thought to conclude the Bishops Superiority to Presbyters, from the High Priest among the Iews. But since this is all the Scripture Proof he has yet offered, what then would he prove? Tho we meet with the same Dichotomies in the New Testament, we ought not to conclude an Equality among them of the higher Order. I have often told him, that we conclude the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, not from his Fancied Dich…tomies, but from the Scriptures full and constant Assertion of the Equality and Identity of the Official Power. And where there is such a Dichotomie, as he alledges, (as Philip. 1.1.) our Argument proceeds not merely upon this, but also upon this Ground and Topick, that the Office and Officer do there stand so described in the Context, as necessarly infers this our Conclusion. The Dr. tells us next, That the Jewish OEconomy was never abrogated in the New Testament, and that their Taxis was Divided into Supreme and Subordinat Priests. Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he would prove from this, at least, what the Series of his Reasoning concludes, even a standing Primat over the Catholick Church: And therefore, needs Stumble no Protestants, nor Amuse them, tho he set the Cross upon the Frontispiece of his next Pamphlet, or upon his Breast, as a Devout Catholick Dr. of his Holy Mother Church. He adds, That still the Jews subdivided the Priests into highest and Subordinat, as is clear from Philo the Jew. He told us the Scripture distinguishes them, pray good Mr. Dr. what need is there of Proofs or Instances from Philo, since the Presbyterians, are satisfied in the first, and think themselves not concerned in the Proof it self?

But to proceed (P. 28.) He is still upon this Idle Repeated Begging the Question, telling us, of the Apostles speaking in the Jewish Phrase, Classing the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Division, as reckoned either among themselves, or with relation to the People, as the Priests were by a Tripartit, while reckoned by their Distinctions: That Community of Names, was as observable when the Offices were as truly distinguished as could be. But still we are Wearyed, Calling upon our Triffling Dr, to come Home from his Prodigal Wanderings, to the Point, which is to shew us in the Scriptures of the New Testament, such a true Distinction of the Bishop and Presbyters Office, as is exhibit in the Offices of the Iewish OEconomy, in the Old. The Dr. affirms, That the Proestos in the Apostolick Age, was as much above the Subordinat Presbyters, as the High Priest among the Jews, above other Priests, who yet was Ranked among them, without a Nominal Distinction. But, as in the rest, so here, the Dr. presents us his Magisterial Dictats for Proof and Argument: He should have given us a Scripture Instance of such a Pr…estos, or first Presbyter, Vested with a Prostasie of this Nature in the Apostolick Age, and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity. 2. What if we should grant the Matter of Fact, or such a Proestos in that Age? Will that p. 65merely prove the Ius? If the Dr. say so, (and he does say it, in his Way of Arguing) then he Claps the Lawful Mitre, or a Divine Warrand at least, upon the Head of a Diotrephes, and Stamps this Ius Divinum, upon the begun Mystery of Iniquity, and other Tares, which the evil one was then Sowing among the Wheat. 3. That such a Proestos was as much above the Presbyters, as the High Priest above other Priests, is as Ignorant an Assertion, and Arrant Untruth, as the Dr. could readily have let fall: Whereof I will (1.) Convince him out of his own Mouth, unless in the Point of this foreign, he still begg the Question. (2.) From the Scripture Accounts of the High Priests Office. First, He does acknowledge, that the High Priest was thus Termed, upon the Ground of Special Ministries, which were Essential and Peculiar to him: Now, I pray, what were the Special Ministries of this Proestos, and even in the Point of Order, in the Apostles Days, above his Fellows? Next, the High Priest entred every Year into the Holy of Holies, with Blood and Incense, and had this Prerogative above other Priests, the Priesthood was Hereditary to his First Born, Tyed to his Family, &c. And would not the Dr. Blush, to Assert such like Prerogatives, as Applicable to the Proestos, or Supposed Fixed President in the Apostles Days? But he adds, Salmasius grants, That when the pretended Equality prevailed, a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Consessu during Life — And that there are such palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and Iurisdiction of one of the Ecclesiastick Senat, in the Apostolick Age, that the Learnedst Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it. But if Salmasius assert, that while this pretended Proestos had the Chair, an Official Equality of Pastors was existent and prevailed, it is undenyable, that he denyes to this President or Chairman, such an Episcopal Preheminence and Dominion as the Dr. pleads for, and allows him only the Chair of Presidency, not Principality: A Moderator's Chair, and no more. Again, I Challenge our Dr. to prove this Consequence. Salmasius asserts, that even an Official Equality prevailed among Pastors, when there was a Proestos set up, during Life: Ergo, he asserts, that this Proestos was ab initio, in the Apostolick Age, or approved by the Apostles. For what he adds, P. 29. That the Learnedst Pleaders for Parity, do acknowledge a peculiar Iurisdiction appropriat to one of the Ecclesiastick Senat, in the Apostolick Age: He should have Named them, and where they assert this: For, as for what he adduces of Salmasius, I have shown how far it is from reaching his Conclusion. And Beza, I am sure (whom no doubt, the Dr. will owne, as an Eminent Pleader for Parity) condemns this Humane Prostasie, as the Episcopus Humanus, distinct from the Divine, much more a Peculiarity of Jurisdiction in one Pastor over another. For the Dr's Inviduous Character of Sticklers for Parity, which he bestows upon Presbyterian Writers, the premised Account of them, discovers what a Black Theta he p. 66marks himself with, who dare thus asperse the Body of Reformed Churches and Divines. No doubt, if they were such Sticklers for Parity of Pastors, or Preaching Presbyters, (for this is the Parity, which he thus ignorantly represents in such a Confused General) as he is for Imparity, and the Prelatical Hierarchy, their Stickling were not to be Valued.

But what are these palpable Evidences, which convinces our greatest Sticklers? — Something, saith the Dr, that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction. Some mighty Evidences then we must expect. The first, which he adduces, is, That of the Apocalyptick Angels, among whom, he tells us, we justly reckon St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. But, 1. How has he proved, that these Angels were single Presidents, and that the Term is not taken Collectively? 2. How does he prove, that such as acknowledge them single Persons, do hold them to be any more than Presidents pro tempore? Beza, I am sure, acknowledges them only such. Whom the Dr, or any other, do reckon for the Angel of Smyrna, when Iohn wrote the Epistle to that Church, is not the Question, but whom he can prove from Scripture, to have been such, and what the Bishops Character is in Scripture.

The Dr's. next supposed evidence, is drawn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and the Catalogues of Bishops, succeeding to the Apostles in their several Sees. To which I Answer in short, First, That the Dr. can neither prove. 1. That the Apostles, or Timothy and Titus the Evangelists, exercised an ordinary Episcopal Authority, to be continued in the Church. Nor, 2. Can he prove or conclude from these Catalogues, such an Authority: Since (1) They are found to consist of Officers of diverse Cutts and unequal Authority. (2) Inconsistent and contradictory to one another. (3) They are found resolving in Apostles or Evangelists, whose Office admitted of no Succession, and upon this very account, can found no shadow of an Argument for what he intends, far less, make the thing evident beyond contradiction. What the Dr. adds further in this Page, Of our concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Testament, from the Dichotomies used in Christian VVriters, and of the Ancients, dividing sometimes the Clergie into two Orders, &c. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in Ecclesiastick Meetings without their Bishops — That Cyprian compares the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical: Is the same nauseating repeated begging of the Question, with the former, wherewith, instead of solid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bishop and Presbyter, he fills up idle Pages. How often shall we tell him, that the point in question, is not what Dichotomies were used in Christian Writings, or who determined Canonically in Ecclesiastick Meetings, after the Apostolick Age? What Comparisons Cyprian, Clemens, or Origen used in setting out the New Testament Ministry? But what Answers the Dr. has to offer p. 67to the premised Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians, for the Paritie of Bishop and Presbyter, Iure Divino? And what proof from Scripture, from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, he can produce for such a Jurisdictional Power and Authority of a Bishop, under this Character, above the Pastor or preaching Presbyter, as he is bold to assert? We often tell him, that we plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies. And tho that were made one Ground, and say further, he had disproved it, in these his pityful Tautologies and Repetitions, what says this to the many other Nervous Pleadings above rehearsed?

But proceed we. P. 29.30. He presses thus his often Repeated Notion anent Dichotomies; Especially, says he, since the Ancients sometimes divide the Clergy into two Orders▪ yet upon other occasions subdivide the highest Order, and distinguish the Bishop from subordinat Presbyters. Ans. He should have Exhibit these Ancients, and their words, thus distinguishing the Bishop under that Character, from all subordinate Presbyters. 2. The Dr. is obliged (this being the substratum and supposition of all his Answers, and insinuat Argument) to exhibit the Scriptures subdivision of the Pastoral Office, into higher and inferior Orders, and the Scripture distinction of such an ordinary Officer, as comes under the Character of Bishop, from Subordinat Preaching Presbyters or Pastors. As for determination in Councils, he did well to add to his bold Assertion, his two Limitations, of Matters of moment, and Canonically, which must be referred to his Explication. But we have made appear from the Learned Iunius and others, what was Presbyters interest in Councils; and he must be posed who concurred and Acted Authoritatively in that Council, Act. 15? As for the Comparison of the Old and New Testament Ministry, used by some of the Ancients, we have seen what a pitiful Argument it is, in reference to his Conclusion, and that the Comparison, is only with reference to a similitude, in point of of a Distinction and Subordination of Courts and Officers, not a Parity or Identity of both OEconomies: For, this were to make an illustrating similitude or allusion to infer an Identity; with absurdity, if the Dr. should draw upon himself, who will not hiss him? I desiderat still, and call for the Dr, s. Scripture-proof of the Diocesan Bishops Superiority to the Pastor or Presbyter, according to the true State of the Question, and his undertaking, and supposition in his Answers, but there is no scent of it, tho I am still in Quest of the same.

Pag. 30. He is still repeating again his Notion and Phantastical Conceit of Dichotomies. Well, what more to this scope? Clemens Romanus saith the Dr. divides the Clergy into two Orders, and so he doth the Jewish Ministry into Priests and Levites, tho in either there is no equality. But to this nauseous repeating Dr. I must Repeat again. 1. Tho he should exhibit Clemens's p. 68Assertion of his Hierarchical Bishop; it touches not the Point in Question, which is anent a Scripture Assertion, of such an Officer, not what any Human Writers have Asserted. 2. He has not made appear, Clemens's subdivision of the Pastoral Office into his fancied Orders, nor the Assertions of any Writers else to this purpose. For Tertullians Testimony, if it prove any thing, it proves too much, and beyond his Assertion, Viz. The Deacons Power to Baptize, which the Dr. cannot own, without disowning the Scripture-accounts of this Office, and the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines.

But to proceed with the Dr. P. 31. In stead of a solid Answer to our Scripture Arguments, for the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter, or our demanded Scripture-proof of his supposed Imparity, I find the Dr. is still casting up his pityful recocted Crambe of Dichotomies, and telling us trifflling quibles of Tertullian's sense of the Seniores mentioned in his VVritings; he tells us, he is not at a Point in it, whether by Seniores, Tertullian understood all Presbyters, or those only advanced to the Episcopal Dignity: And what this signifies to the point in question often mentioned, the Appeal is made to all considering persons to Judge; And whether in such pretended Answers to our Scripture Arguments for Presbyterian Government (long since offered to the view of the Learned World) and to our demand of a Scripture proof of his supposed Impariity, this Man be not a poor Beggarly Trifler, and a Skirmisher with his own Shadow. Besides, Tertullian asserts, that [praesident probati quique Seniores] if the Dr. is not sure, but that such in Tertullian's sense, might be Pastors, he must acknowledge, that according to Tertullian, such presided, or had the Authority of a Proestos, in Church Judicatories, as were not of his Hierarchical Order: So, that he did not well to raise this frighting Ghost. What more to our Question? We are told next, That Clem. Alexan. Stromat. Lib. 6. reckons up Three Orders of the Clergy. What then? We reckon up Pastors, Ruling Elders, Deacons. The question is, what Degrees he assigns of the Pastoral Office? And further, upon what Scripture VVarrand? How long will scorners delight in scorning, and fools hate Knowledge? VVhat more? Are we yet arrived at the Dr's. Answer to Presbyterian Scripture Arguments, or his own Scripture Proofs of what he here beggs? No. We hear next, that Cyprian asserts the Episcopal Jurisdiction. But all who have read Cyprian, can tell him, that he also ownes the Presbyters as his Collegues, without whom he could do nothing; And therefore, that he owned no sole Episcopal Iurisdiction. VVhat more? Polycarp troubles the Dr. who divids the Clergie into two Orders, in his Epistle to the Philippians. VVhat will remedy this? VVhy? He recommends Ignatius his Epistles, where the Apostolick Hierarchie is often mentioned. But what assurance gives the Dr. that these were his genuine Epistles, which now go under p. 69his Name, there being Passages in these Epistles, which the Dr. himself cannot but be ashamed of. But Polycarp, in the Dr's. Opinion, was a very modest humble Man, whose useual Stile was, Polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him. Which the Dr. will needs have to express his Episcopal Distinction from them. A proof, which, if you be a Friend, you may take off his Hand, when the poor empty Man has no better. I see it is now dangerous for any Minister to say or write, I and the Pastors that are with me, least the Dr. fasten an Episcopal Gloss upon it. The Dr. profoundly supposes, that nothing but an Episcopal Jurisdiction and Priority, could warrand this Phrase, and order of his Words: The contrary whereof, can be cleared, by so many Instances, as renders this Reason obviously ridiculous. What more? we are told P. 32. That there can be nothing more extravagant, than to conclude a Parity among Priests, because the Ancients used the Jewish Phraseology, since they frequentlie assert the Iurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters. But what can be more extravagant, than this Dr's. Trifling in this Debate, and telling over and over, ad nauseam usque, this pityful quible, not to the purpose and the point in question, and in stead of an Answer to our Nervous Scripture-Arguments for the Official Parity of Bishop and Presbyter, Iure Divino, presenting idle repeated Stories of the Ancients Phraseologie, anent the New Testament Church Officers, which all Men of Sense, cannot but see, to be as far from the purpose, as East is from West; While pretending to run the Carrier of a fierce Assault upon Presbyterians, he doth nothing but chase empty insignificant quibles, with his back to his Adversaries, and to the point, and in such a faint declining of a closs and true Scripture-Dispute, upon this Question, according to its genuine Nature and Terms, as all Judicious Persons, who read his Pamphlet, may see that the Presbyterians have this pityful cowardly Braggard in Chase, who dare not encounter them, and fairly deal Stroaks upon the point. The Scripture Assertion of the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop, under that Character, over the Pastor or Presbyter, as an ordinary New Testament Officer, is that which we are still seeking from this Dr. not the Assertion of Humane Writers, Ancient or Modern, which last notwithstanding, so weak is his Cause, he has not produced.

What more Answers? P. 32.33. Hermes contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproved their ambition, who in his time, strove for Dignitie and Preferment. Reader, here is a mighty proof of Bishops their Precedencie and Official Dignitie above Presbyters, and Answer to our Arguments to the contrary. Marr not your Modesty, in laughing at a Venerable Dr's. Arguments and Answers, while you read them. The Dr. tells you, he was contemporary with Clemens Romanus, who was of the Apostolick Age. And he will probably be got perswaded, that Clemens in this walkt up to the p. 70Sense of that Eminent and very Ancient Father, the Apostle Iohn, who reproved Diotrephes, for his aspiring after this manner. But least you abuse this Citation, to infer the dangerous consequence and Heresie of the official parity of Bishop and Presbyter, the warry prudent Dr. precludes your mistake, by adding this Salvo, If there was no such Precedencie then in the Church, there was no Ground for his Reprehension. Mighty Reason! And well correspondent to his Reverend Father Bellarmin's Sense and Pleading against our Divines, for the Papacie. It should seem, Men were never tempted to strive for a Dignity and Preferment, in the Dr's. Sense, but what was Lawful; And that this very seeking and enquiry, proves the Lawfulness, and supposes it. It seems also, that a foreign Diotrephes was seeking a Lawful Preheminence, when he resisted the Apostle Iohn, and the only fault was, that the Man did not modestly stay till the place was for him, and he for it. And in correspondence to the Dr's. Sense of this Reprehension, when Petter exhorted, not to be Lords over GOD's Heritage, he rebuked only an ambitious seeking of a Lawful Lordship. Our Saviour also, in His great Command and Prohibition above mentioned, relative to the Apostles seeking a Primacie and First Dignitie (as the Dr. calls it) supposed and established a Primacie in the Church; otherwise, ye will wrong and expose the Dr's. Consequence, if you admitt not this Reasoning: For, he will tell you, That else there was no ground for such a Reprehension.

But now, (P. 33.) The Dr. tells you, he is come (after this long Travel and Pains, these Way-ward and Stubborn Presbyterians has put him to) and arrived at the Summ of all that these Reasonings amounts unto. We expect then, the Distilled Spirits, the Nerves of what goes before, Epitomized, if this be the Epilogue and Summ Total of what we have heard. Well, what is that Summ of all? Why? The Helenist Jews (the Grecian Jews) distinguished the High Priest from the Levites, by the Name of Priest (for which again Philo the Iew stands Vo…cher) yet none will conclude, he had no Subordinat Priests; as now adays, Presbyterians argue upon the same Topick Sophistically,— for when the Priests were compared among themselves — then their Dignities and Subordinations were mentioned — when we compare the New Testament Priests and Deacons, we say Priests and Deacons, but when we compare them among themselves, we acknowledge their Subordinations. Really, if this be the Comprehensive Account of all, it is pity, the Dr. has spent so much Discourse upon it, and run himself out of Breath, to catch a Nothing. For, I am of the mind, that every Reader, will judge that this his Summ, might have very well served for all, and saved him the Labour of the Tedious Discourse, we have heard. But to the point, we often tell him, (I know not how often we must) that our Argument from Philip. 1.1. which all this his Quible mainly p. 71aims at, is not merely drawn from the Division and Dichotomie: The Sense of the place, already exhibit by our Divines, evinces the contrary. Nay further, (which discovers this Mans Vanity, and Quibling Folly in this Matter) we acknowledge, that sometimes general Divisions of Church Officers in the New Testament, admits of a Subdivision, as particularly Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. is generally acknowledged; As also in that of Philip. 1.1. But this we assert, that these general Divisions and Subdivisions, and the several Recitations of the New Testament Church Officers, still supposes the Pastor-Bishop, or Preaching Presbyter, to be the highest ordinary Church Officer appointed of God, and that the Pastor or Preaching Presbyters Office, admits no Subdivision of Superior and Inferior Degrees, no more than the Office of Apostles and Evangelists: And we are still seeking from this Dr, the proof of his supposed Affirmative, that it doth. I confess, the Dr. Words it in so far well, When we compare, saith he, Priests among themselves, — we must acknowledge their Subordinations — We cannot help what the Dr. must, but he must have better Prespectives to give us, ere we can see his Subordination of Pastors in the New Testament: And as for his New Testament Priests, we owne them not. We know there is an Holy Priesthood and Brotherhood, whereby the Scripture points out Believers joynt Priviledges, who are a Kingdom of Priests; and that there is a Glorious High Priest of our Profession, whose Priesthood is Unchangeable, and passes not to others: But for New Testament Priests, thus Characterized as Church Officers, we are yet to Learn their Warrand from our Dr, among others his Mysterious Points. I know the Prophecie of the Old Testament, as to Ministers of the New, runs thus, I will take of them, for Priests and Levites; But, if the Dr. Strain this Allusion, to bear the Conclusion of a suteable Name of New Testament Officers, he will also upon Malachie's Prophecy anent purifying the Sons of Levi, in order to offering a pure offering in in every place, draw the pretty Popish Conclusion, with his Friend Bellarmin, of a New Testament Sacrifice, for his New Testament Priests. And really, when I consider his continued constant Designations of Ministers of the Gospel, after this manner, I do judge the Cardinal and he, are much one in this Sense and Conclusion: And that which follows confirms me; For, P. 33, 34. the Dr. tells us, That the Old Testament Priests, were by their offering Sacrifices, distinguished from the Levites; and the New Testament Priests of the highest and subordinat Order, are distinguished from the Deacons, by their offering the Eucharistical Sacrifice. Now, we all know, that Priests and Sacrifices, are Correlates — But the Dr. knows, that his Novell Divines, the Protestants (tho they did pass with a Charitable Construction, some of the Ancients Allusive Expressions this way, yet) do disowne the Name and Thing of a Sacrifice, as appropriat to the Celebration of that Sacrament.

p. 72P. 34. The Dr. has not yet done with his Dichotomies: And the Sum of this Page is, The Iews used their Dichotomies of their Clergy, in the Apostolick Age — and the Bipartite or Tripartite Division upon this Ground, was used by Jewish and Christian Writers— yet these, who Reckon the two Orders, in other places, reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. I have heard of a Beggar, who pleased himself, as possessing a great Sum, by telling a piece of Money often over. How often shall we have this more than recocted Crambe, these often boyled Colworts, repeated? I am of the mind, that Battologie, was never better exemplified, than in our Dr's Arguings. We are still seeking from our nauseous Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite or Tripartite Division of Pastors or Preaching Presbyters, in the Scriptures and inspired Writings of the Apostles; And we do again, as often before, Challenge one Instance of this. We have already told him, and that not once, That we hold, that there is a Subordination of Officers, and Courts of Judicature, Represented in the New Testament; yea, and a tripartite Division of Officers, viz. Pastors, Ruling Elders, and Deacons: But that Officers, Ordinary and Extraordinary, Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, &c. are of one Official Authority, and equal in their own kind, we maintain, and are still challenging his contrary proof. And to this Point, it is palpably impertinent to tell us of Ecclesiastical Writers, distinguishing Bishops, Elders and Deacons. Besides, that the early Prostasie that obtained, and the Bishops Nominal distinction thence ensuing, might easily be productive of such a Division, or Phraseology, in some of the Ancients, as he mentions, who never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head; and the Authority, which Presbyters are clearly found to exercise in Judicatories, after the Proestos came in; together with the First Bishops acknowledgment of Presbyters collegiat Power with them (as Cyprian particularly) Besides, the acknowledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, as having one and the same Ordination, especially by Chrisostom and Ambrose, doth evince this beyond contradiction. I might add, that the Office of the Presbyter or Senior, who Rules only, acknowledged by the Ancients, as Presbyterians have made appear, might easily in some Writers, have produced this Tripartite Division of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, wouthout the least Shadow of advantage to his Cause.

The Dr. in the close of this Page, soares aloft in a Triumphing Vein; telling us, That we may easily perceive that our Argument against Episcopacy, founded upon Dichotomies, is not only weak, but foolish and extravagant. But truely, the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments against Episcopacy, upon this head, to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies, and offering in Answer thereto, such trivial babling Repetitions, has discovered to all judicious Readers, that weakness, folly & extravagancie, which he imputes p. 73to us. To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing person hereof, let it be considered, that he Cites Smectymnus, Ius Divin. Minist. Ang. The unbishop. of Tim. and Tit. Alt. Damasc. Mr. Dur. on Rev. He would be thought to answer these Authors; and their great Argument, he represents thus, That it is taken from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter. There is no doubt, but that this is one great Topick and Argument, and Mr. Durham makes use of that Term of Identity, in the Title of his Digression upon this head. But dare this Man say, or tho he should have the Brow to say it, will any who ever Read so much as one, much less, all of these Authors, believe it, that it is a mere Nominal Identity, that they plead from, and not an Official, in all the parts and ingredients of the Office? Or, that the Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a confusione Nominum, as he expresses it; and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds, which in the Texts mentioned by him, and other Paralels, do evince an Official Identity? Why then, bottoms he all his Answers and impertinent quiblings upon this palpably false Supposition? To make what I assert, evident to conviction, one of the Authors he names, viz: Ius Div. Minist. Ang. proposes the Question thus, We undertake to prove, that according to the Scripture Pattern, which is a perfect Rule, both for Doctrin and Government, a Bishop and Presbyter, are all one, not only in Name, but in Office; and that there is no such Officer in the Church, Ordained by Christ, as a Bishop over Presbyters. Then they propose, no fewer than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments▪ all running to this issue, to prove an Official Identity: The Topick of the Fourth whereof, is thus proposed, They who have the same Name, the same qualifications for their Office, and the same Ordination, and the same work and duty required of them, are one and the same Officer. Then subsuming, that thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bishop and Presbyter. They subjoin Scripture-proofs, to every one of these Clauses and Assertions, and thereupon conclud, that they are one and the same Officer. Now, upon this small view of but one of these Authors, let the World Judge of this Mans Impudence, in asserting, that not only, that Authors Arguments, but all the Arguments of the Authors he mentions, concluds only a confusione nominum (as he expresses it, in a distinct Character) and whether his founding of all his supposed confutation of Presbyterian Arguments, upon this supposition and quiblings about a Dichotomie, be not extravagancy with a Witness. Moreover, let the Serious & Impartial, Judge, since these Authors he mentions, presents so considerable a Number of Scripture-Arguments, For that which this Man calls a New Foolish Opinion, in order to his design of making men believe he has fully Confuted them, and convinced them of folly, whether he was not in Conscience and Reason, obliged p. 74fairly to present their Arguments to his Readers view, and offer formal Replys to them. I may further pose the Impartial Reader upon it, whether this Man, who has never encountered their Arguments, nor tryed their Strength in a fair and formal Dispute, and yet would fain Triumph in this boasting Pamphlet, charging all their Arguments, with weakness, folly and evtravagancy, has not Written himself a Fool of the first Magnitude, and a personat Thra…o in Disput? I must not forget, that while I view that Fourth Argument of the Ius Div. Minist. Ang. I find they have upon the Margin, Ambrose's Testimony upon 1 Tim. 3. [post Episcopum Diaconi ordinationem subjicit, quare? nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est] After the Bishop, the Apostle subjoins the Ordination of the Deacon, and upon what other ground but this? that the Bishop and the Presbyter have one and the same Ordination. One would think that this is a little more than the assertion of a mere Confusio Nominum, and that both from Scripture and Antiquity.

But to proceed, our Dr. P. 35. Censures Blondel, Salmasius, Dallie, as …mploying their Learning to support their own Hypothesis with this Argument of the Confusion of Names: And the Dr. regrats, that Sir Tho. Craig, a Man otherwise learned in Law, was deceived with this fallacy. We see, that in the Dr's Sense, learned Men have been imposed upon, by this Scots Notion, but when he has exhibit and answered their Pleadings, whom he here mentions, then, and not till then, his Censure is to be admitted. But he tells us, That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius. Good Mr. Dr. ye know the Answer of Protestant Divines to the Papists Objection, where was your Religion, your Church and Doctrin before Luther? viz. That it was from the beginning, and is to be found in Scripture. The same I affirm of the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter: And many Learned Protestant Divines think they have made it good, whom the Dr. may please to advise, if his leasure from Pamphleting work, together with some piece of petty interest, and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles, will admit of the perusal. If it be found in Scripture, it was a pretty while, it seems, before Aerius. But there is an English Divine of some considerable account (good Old Whittaker if it were not, that he had got the Scots new Notion in his Head) who hath a Saying somewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum Aerio s…sit Hieronymus quo minus curandum est toties nobis objici Aerium ab insulsis hominibus. Si fuit in hac re Haereticus Aerius socium haereseos habuit Hie…onymum nec illum modo sed alios etiam veteres patres Graecos pariter & Latinos quemadmodum Medina confitetur. Thus he, Controv. … 4ta quest. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Here we find, he spares not to call these of the Dr's. Judgment Bl…ckish Men, in objecting this anent Aerius, affirming that not only Ierom, but likewise both Greek and Latine Fathers, were of Aerius Judgment in this p. 75point. The Dr. might likewise have found, that Michael Medina Lib. 1. de Sacr. Hominum Orig. & continen. Cap. 5. holds, that not only Ierom, but also Ambros. August. Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysost. Theodoret, OEcumen. and Theophylact. were of the same mind with Aerius; As also the Waldenses and Wickliff. What more? P. 35. Apostle, Bishop and Presbyter, are sometime remarked without a Distinction, yet the Government of one among many, is particularly demonstrated. This is somewhat obscure. No doubt, Apostles, Bishops, and Presbyters, have general and common Names. For the Government of one among many, in his Sense, I do still call for the Dr's Proof, but have no Return.

We are told next, (P. 35, 36.) That our Saviour is called an Apostle, Heb. 3. That the Names seems restrained to the Twelve, and yet Matthias is called an Apostle, that the Name was bestowed on several others, besides the Twelve, as Paul, Barnabas, Adronicus, Junius, Epaphroditus: That our Saviour is called a Bishop, 1 Pet. 2.25. And the Government of the Apostles, Episcopacy, Act. 1.20. That Priests of the Apostolick Power and Iurisdiction, are called Bishops; That thus all the Fathers understand 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1.7. That the Bishops, Philip. 1.1. are by Chrysost. OEcum. Theoph. Theodo. understood of Priests (still Priests) of the second Order: For, they conclude Epaphrod. Bishop of Philippi from Philip. 2.25. The Dr. is never wearied of this Nominal Argument, which seems one of Achillean Strength to him. I am sorry he is put to so much Pains in Print, to raise such Formidable Batteries against this New Notion, and am afraid, some Facetious Witts will alledge, he is but getting himself a Heat, in Cudgelling and Beating a Man of Straw of his own Upsetting. But in short, it passes much my Comprehension, what he would make of all this, if not to prove that palpably distinct Officers, do sometimes come under general Names: And who knows not, that this Argument and Answer is still ex ignoratione Elenchi? None of us doubts of this, which he offers in Thesi; But the Dr. will easily acknowledge, that these Officers mentioned, have, in the Scripture Accounts, their Marks of Distinction clearly set down, which makes it evident, that their Communicating in the same general Name, will not conclude an Identity in the Office: And thus the Dr. and we are easily agreed in the Application of the Answer, when he has exhibit to us, such Scripture Discriminations of the Office of the Bishop and Pastor, or Preaching Presbyter, such a clear Official Imparity and Difference, as is betwixt the Office of an Apostle and Presbyter, and betwixt our Saviours Apostolate, and that of his Disciples; and betwixt his Episcopacy or Overseeing Care, and that of Apostles. For the Denomination of Apostle, I need not tell one, who sets a D. D. to his Name, in the Frontispiece of his Book, how Protestant Divines understand the Name, properly taken, and do define the Office as distinct p. 76from all others: That first, Matthias, and thereafter Paul were added to the Number of Apostles, none doubts: That the Name is sometimes taken improperly, when attribute to certain Persons, is as little doubted. As for Adronicus, Iunius, who are said to be of Note among the Apostles, the Phrase imports in the Sense of some, that they were well known to the Apostles; Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy, Luk. 10. Others to be of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty, mentioned Act. 1.15. Or of these Converted by Peter, Act. 2.14. See Pool Annot. That 1 Tim. 3.1. and Tit. 1.7. are understood of Priests of the first Order, with Apostolick Power by all the Fathers, must pass current only, with those, who will take the Dr's ipse dixit for Proof: But let them at their Leasure, Pose him, whether St. Chrysost. and Ierom, upon these Passages, were of that Judgement, and whether he reckons them among the Fathers. That the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip. 1.1. Understood it of the Priests of the second Order, he should have proved from their Words, and that they understood Epaphroditus to be Bishop of Philippi from Chap. 2.25. Our Translators renders it with the current of Protestant Divines (as I have made good) your Messenger, which the Context convincingly discovers, viz. The Messenger that ministred to Paul's wants. But the Dr. has no shift, but to censure them as following Beza: A pityful shift indeed. The Episcopal Translators, who in their Translation, so Zealously patronize that Cause, that the Term foreign is with the utmost endeavour translated to that Scope, yet are so befooled (in the Dr's. Sense) as to translate this passage, so advantagious to Episcopacy, contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Fathers, yea, and the Greek Fathers, so well seen in that Language, and all this to follow a Presbyterian Novelist. But the Dr. preferrs Salmasius to his Episcopal Masters, who thinks the word Apostle, signifies Legatum Dei ad homines: He is now become of sudden Fond of Salmasius: But should have given us a better Account, than a bare naming of Walo Messalinus, putting us to search all the Book, in order to an enquiry of what he here asserts. I might tell him further, that the Complex Phrase [your Messenger] and the Explication of [ministring to Paul's wants] sufficiently restricts the Term Apostle, in this place, tho it were granted, that ordinarly it is thus taken.

But one Word more, before I part with the Dr. on this Passage: If, in the Sense of these Fathers, the Bishops mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle, were Priests of the second Order only, and Epaphroditus, the Chief Priest or Bishop; Then 1. It seems the Apostle Paul was somewhat rude in his Salutation, to mention only these inferior underling Priests, with the lowest petty Deacons, passing quite over the High Priest, without any Hint or Note of Distinction. 2. It seems that either Ambrose, or some of p. 77his late Episcopal Pleaders, are pityfully bemisted, who do cite Ambrose, as holding that the Bishops saluted by Paul, were not Bishops of that Church, but extraneous Bishops accidentally present; Thus the Author of the three Dialogues, P. 9. But Theodoret, saith the Dr. did judge, that when in the Apostolick Age, Bishops were named as contradistinct from Priests, they were called Apostles. Behold our critical Dr. censuring again the Apostle Paul, in his Salutation; It seems also there were none of the Apostles of the Dr's. Mould, when this Apostle gave his last Farewel to the Elders of Ephesus. nor in the Church, which Peter wrote to; For, Ministers there, are called to act the Bishops, and nothing is heard of an Apostle-bishop: And really I think this inadvertant Man, Paul, is further to be blamed, in that describing of set purpose, 1 Tim. and in the Epistle to Titus, which are in the Dr's. Judgement, the great Charter of the Episcopal Authority, the Qualifications and Duties of Church Officers, he was so leavened with his Notion of Dichotomies, that he passes quite over in silence, the High Priest & Apostle-Bishops, whose Office was chiefly under this Name and Character to have been discribed, that the Churches then, and in after ages, together with all inferior Priests, might understand their Duty towards them: But since, in all their Descriptions, Recitals, and Accounts of Church Officers, he and other Apostles, were so foregetful, as to pass over in silence, the absolute High-priest of the Christian Church, the Pope's Holiness, notwithstanding that the Iewish OEconomy of Church Government was never repealed, but still standing as a Patern to the New Testament Church, it is no wonder that they fell into this Mistake also.

P. 37. He tells us, That he only mentions this transiently, not insisting upon it. What this extends to, is somewhat dubious; many, it is like, will be of Opinion (of whom I am one) that what ever he has offered hitherto, is a Digression, and but obiter to the point. But his business, he tells us, at present, is to prove that community of Names will not prove community of Offices. Truely, if this be all his business, he is a mere Officiperda, and has foregot his Episcopal Errand in this eloborat Pamphlet: For, no Presbyterian ever concluded this, from the mere community of Names simplely, and abstracted from other Grounds, drawen from the Scope and Circumstances of such places, as we do plead from Scripture upon this Point, and from many other clear Scripture Arguments, long since exhibite to him, in the Books, which he mentions, and there needs no more, than the reading, to convince any person, that he is acting the Thraso, in this his pretended Confutation of the same, which doth rather confirm, than weaken the perswasion of any Man of Sense, who have perused these Authors. The Dr. tells us (ibid.) That Peter calls himself a Presbyter. Well, if this Apostle writing to Presbyters, and dehorting them from acting the Bishops, p. 78and Lording over the Flock, put himself, as to an ordinary Office and Ministry Pastoral, among the number, making this one of his Arguments; It is evident that he thus asserts their proper Succession to him, tho not to his Apostolat, yet to his Pastoral Office of feeding by the Word and Discipline: For, his Command imports both. But why did he not address the Chief Bishop, or High-priest, under the Apostolick Designation, after this manner? [The Apostle and inferior Presbyters among you, I exhort, who am also an Apostle] or thus [The Super-eminent Bishop and Presbyters I exhort, who also am a Bishop] But the Dr's. correcting information, is come far too late to him. I might further tell him, that when he shall exhibite as clear a distinction betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter, as there is betwixt the Office of Apostles and Presbyter, then, and not till then, his paralel Argument will appear of some force, which he draws from Peter and Iohns designing themselves Elders, and shall be acknowledged conclusive to his Scope.

The Dr. will next preoccuppy our Argument from 1 Tim. 4.14. And tells us, That the Presbytrie mentioned in that place, was a Senat, composed of Apostles and other Priests, but whether of the first or second Rank, he is not certain. And really, the Dr, in my poor Judgment, might have added, whether there were any other Apostles in that Senat, than the Apostle Paul, is equally uncertain: And let me humbly intreat his Reverence, by his next, to give us an Account of the Scripture Grounds of his Certainty of the one, rather than of the other. That the Apostle Paul was present, and concurred in this Presbytrie, I know is pleaded by his Episcopal Brethren; tho Collating the two places, 1 Tim. 4.14. and 2 Tim. 1.6. the different Phra…eology in both being pondered, they will find the Work pretty hard, to make it good against a Critical Disputant, and the admitting of this, rather Confirms, than Weakens our Pleadings from that place, as Presbyterian Writers have made appear. Some have alledged, that by the Presbytrie, we are to understand the Office: Which Pleaders, have been long since told, that the Office has no Hands to lay on. But that other Apostles were there than Paul, is a Notion, I am sure, much, if not only, beholden to the Dr's Fertile (that I say not Fond) Invention. It were needless, and but to burden Paper unnecessarly, to recite Interpreters, in Opposition to this his Gloss: This is known to all that are acquaint with them. But let us hear the Dr's Argument upon these Passages; He tells us, It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that Paul was of the Number; and that in the other place, 1 Tim. 4.14. he is exh…rted not to neglect the Gift given him, with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie: In the last, he is put in mind, to stir up the Gift, which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands. There is none doubts, that these Passages, thus stands in the New Testament, but had he, instead of this Dark Insinuating Hint, drawn out a Formal Argument, lying level p. 79to his Scope and Conclusion, it would have deserved our Consideration. However, to prevent his Mistake, Presbyterians have long since told him, 1. That the different Phrase in both places, viz. foreign in the first, foreign in the second, makes Paul's presence, at least, Debateable, but clearly proves, that the Laying on of the Presbytries Hands is evidently Diversified in a distinct Comma, as a distinct Priviledge, in its self considered, from the Gifts given by Prophesie, and ascribed to the Laying on of Pauls Hands. And 2. That tho Paul's presence in this Action were admitted, it clearly proves, that even an Apostles Laying on of Hands upon an Evangelist, did not exclude the Presbytries Authoritative Imposition: And that therefore, (by a clear Consequence, from the Greater to the Less) that Priviledge, much more belongs to them now, with relation to ordinary Pastors or Ministers, when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased. But, if I might be bold with a Person of the Dr's Reverence, I would ask him this Question: He holds Timothy was Consecrat a Bishop; here we find a Presbytrie, Laying Hands upon him with Paul, whom the Dr. holds to be here Acting the Bishop; How comes he then to say, It is uncertain whether they were Presbyters or Priests of the first or second Rank? Really, if he be uncertain in this, he holds by clear Consequence, that mere Presbyters, might have laid on Hands upon a Bishop at his Consecration, yea, and this by Apostolical Warrand, tho Bishops superior to them, were present at this great Work: And what Consequence in Doctrine and Practice, this will further amount to, I leave to the Dr's Melancholick Reflection. But further, in mentioning this last Text, the Dr. says, He is put in mind to stir up the Gift, which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands: He has also told us, and positively asserted, that this Senat was composed of Apostles in the plural: How many there were, I think, the Dr. found it hard to determin; but in this, he is clear and positive, that there were other Apostles with Paul, and consequently of equal official Authority with him in this Action. Now, upon this, I would desire his grave Judgment, how comes this Apostle to mention the laying on of his own hands solely, and of no Apostles else? We find him so humble an Apostle and Biishop, that in the inscription of several Epistles, he takes in the Inferior Clergy and Presbyters with himself; whence then comes this singularity of expression, herein attributing to himself solely, what was equally applicable to other Apostles concurring with him? What he adds further of the Work and Ministry of Apostles and Pastors, sometimes exprest by the General term foreign; I have already made appear, how insignificant it is to his scope, so that it is here Idlely repeated.

We are next told (P. 38.) That if any infer the Community of Offices from the Community of Names, he confounds the highest and lowest Rank of Officers. p. 80The Presbyeerians are of his mind, when the inference is from a mere Community of Names, while the Offices are otherwise distinguished in Scripture, but when both Name and Office in all essentials thereof, are identified, they think the Argument from hence for an Official Parity, concludes well; and they pity this Dr's continued Repetition of his mistake, in stead of an Answer to their Argument. He tells us next, That it is certain, the Offices were carefully distinguished and separated in those days. This is true when understood of Church Officers in general; and hence we conclude that the Spirit of God has left us clear distinguishing marks of the Superiority and distinction of such Officers, as do communicat in General Names with (the inferior; and this to prevent the mistake which he instances: And therefore, unless the Dr. will fasten a blasphemous Reflection upon the Spirit, who dictat the Scriptures, he is obliged to let us see therein the distinguishing marks and Characters fixt to the Bishop and Pastors Office, to shew the Official difference of the one from the other: And this he cannot but acknowledge necessary to prevent the bad consequence of an Official Identity, drawn from the Community of Names. And no doubt, had he as sincerely designed to give and receive light in this Point, as to present a vain prattling Pamphlet, he would have examined the Presbyterians Arguments for the Official Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and endeavoured to produce the Scripture distinguishing differences, discriminating the one from the other.

What more? We are told (ibid.) That the Humility of Superior Officers, hindered them not to distinguish themselves from their subordinat Brethren. Right; Paul, no doubt owns, and strenuously pleads for the Authority of his Apostolick Office, notwithstanding of his often instanced Humble Respect to Officers of inferior Rank. What then? Why? Bishops in the second Century transcribed this, tho they preserved the distinction betwixt Priests (still Priests) of the first and second Order. But we are wearied, seeking from this Dr. the Scripture Distinction of Pastors and Presbyters into a first and second Order: Besides, it is odd, that no Bishops were so modest and humble in this point, and prudent withal, but those of the second Century. We must know, the Dr. prefaced thus, that he might tell us, That they studied humble modest Expressions, and of Condiscension, which he instances in the Inscription of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. But since this modest Condescension, the Dr. will acknowledge, did not prejudge his care to distinguish the Offices of Bishops and Priests, of Priests of the first and second Rank, he must either exhibit this in the place cited, or he puts this Reflection upon Polycarp: He may also remember, how that afterward (p. 84.) he makes Augustine to pass from his Episcopal Authority, in a Complement to Ierom, in his foolish gloss on that passage of Ep. 19. [Episcopus Presbytero major secundum p. 81honoris vocabula, quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit] That he was distinguished from Ierom, by a customary Title only of a Bishop. As for the Elegy of Apostolick Martyr, which he bestows upon Polycarp, we let it pass, as capable of a sound Sense; But for that of Prince of the Asiatick Church, I remit him to 1 Cor. 3.5. 1 Pet. 5.2.3. 2 Cor. 1.24. to be censured for his vain precipitancy.

The Dr. (P. 38.) drawing to an end of these impregnable reasonings, must needs give us a touch of his pulse and humour, in concluding with high Rantings; This Argument, he tells us, he has considered the more carefully, in that he Finds it over and over again in all the Writings of the Ecclesiastick Levellers, as their first and last refuge. Truely, if these Disputers he calls so, had as inspidily proposed it, far less repeated it so often, as he has Parat-like, c…nted over and over, in so many Pages, his babling repetitions of an impertinent quible, instead of an Answer, they had as much exposed their Judgment and ingenuity in this Controversy, as I am sure, his, now is, in the Sense of all men that understand it, and have Read the Authors mentioned by him, whereof this petulent Scorner discovers he knows no more but the Names. As for the Character of Ecclesiastick Levellers, which he bestows upon the Presbyterians; I think indeed his experience; together with that of his Fellow, has taught him, that in this respect, they deserve it, Viz. That their nervous Scripture Reasonings, which he dare not encounter, has so levelled and laid along, and aboard the high Top-gallant of the Hierarchical Prelat, he so zealously fences for, as all his Wit and Learning, will never erect it again: which in this place, is convincingly apparent, since among the many Argumnts used by them, he has upon this head insisted so long upon (if not solely singled out) this one, anent the Community of Names of Bishop and Presbyter, which is none of the most considerable; and after he has disguised it, and spent Eight or Nine Pages, in exhibiting the outmost of his wit to answer the same, the expense of all his endeavours, has only amounted to such pityful impertinent Repetitions, Battologies, and beggings of the Question, that it is evident, this one Argument has Mastered him, and with its Weight, born down his poor strength to the ground.

The Dr. adds (P. 38.39.) That nothing is more frivolous and triffling than this Argument — that the Names of the lowest Officers of the Christian Church were frequently assumed by the highest; and distinction of Offices is rather to be inferred from peculiar Ministries and Acts of Iurisdiction, than any Names we can fix on. But what can be more triffling and frivolous, than this Dr's endless canting over and over this Quible and begged Supposition, without giving us any shadow of the peculiar Ministries and Iurisdiction, distinguishing in Scripture, the Bishop from the Pastor or Presbyter?

p. 82The Dr. having (P. 39.) discussed all our Scripture Arguments for Parity, as he invidiously calls it, from the Command of Christ, and the Consequences of Scriptures, drawn a confusione nominum — tells his Reader, That if we cannot establish our new Doctrine thus, we endeavour to support it, by some Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers. I am satisfied that his Reputation stand or fall upon this Tryal, Whether he has so much as proposed, far less answered the Scripture-pleadings of the Authors, whom he cites for the Parity of Bishop & Presbyter. As for his alledging that we endeavour to support the Government we plead for, by Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers: He has in this, as in many other things, exposed himself, and is blotted as a gross Calumniator: For, it's the Scriptures of Truth only, and no Humane Testimonies, upon which we found the Ius, the Divine Right of the Government, we owne and contend for. As for Humane Testimonies of the Ancients, we look upon them as confirming Appendices of Matters of Fact only, as Testes facti in some Respect, but not as Iudices veri, it being the Divine Scripture's Barr and Tribunal only, to which we bring our Cause to be decided. And to discover to all Men, this Dr's. impudence in this point, one of the Authors he cites, viz. Ius Divin. Minist. Ang. in their learned Appendix, in the point of Antiquity, consisting of eight Propositions, and nine, in the Matter of Ordination in special, not one of which this Man has dared to medle with. The very first is, That whatever may be said for Prelacy out of Antiquity, yet (as they have proved) it hath no foundation in the Scriptures — That, as in the Matter of Divorce, Christ brought the Iews to the first institution of Marriage, so we must in point of Episcopacy, say as Christ [from the Beginning it was not so] Thereafter, they cite several of the Ancients, in proof of this, that it is not the Custom or Practice of the Church, but the Divine Scriptures; which must herein determin us, and that all Human Writings must be examined by the Canonical, and Customs never so ancient, the Scriptures being perfect as to all Credenda, Petenda, Facienda. In the second Proposition, so far are they from making the most ancient Testimonies, or Practice of the Church, the Foundation of our Government, that they affirm and prove by clear Testimonies and Instances, that many Corruptions crept into the Church, in the Infancy of it, and were generally received as Apostolical Traditions, which yet Episcopal Men themselves confess to be Errors; instancing the Millenary Error, with diverse others: Whence, they conclude— That there are Doctrines and Practices, pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical Institution, which are rather to be accounted as Apocryphal.

But to proceed, upon this false Foundation (ibid.) the Dr being about to blot some useless Sheet, with his Trifling Quiblings, upon several passages of p. 83Blondel and Salmasius, must needs, e're he fall to work, disgorge some more of his Venom and Gall against the Presbyterians, his Countrey-Men, as well as Blondel. For Blondel, he would needs make us believe, That in Complyance with Cromvel his Enthusiasticks, he imployed his Skill to make the Ancients contradict themselves, and all Contemporary Records. A bad design no doubt, and so bad as well as irrational, that its hard to believe the Dr: For, Blondel his Writings, as well as those of Salmasius, has obtained the Testimony of Men of the best note in Protestant Churches; as the Learned Professors of Saumer, and many others: So that his barkings will never touch or stain the same. But for his Countrey-men, Presbyterians, he is bold to tell his Reader, That they Concluded Blondels Book, to be pure and undenyable demonstration, before ever they Read it. If I should return him the Words of the Psalmist [What shall be given thee thou false Tongue?] I think I should merit no severe Censure. What a fore head, must this Man have, who durst suffer his Mouth to utter, much less dare to Print and exhibit to the World, such an impudent Calumny, yea, so Vilely to asperse his Native Countrey? Two things, do sufficiently discover what sentiments upon this Assertion, the World may have of this Person. 1. His Conscience can tell him, yea, its known to all Men, who know Scotland, that since our Reformation, there hath been, and are Hundreds therein, not only of Ministers, but others of the most Considerable Note and Character, Men of Conscience and Learning, who adhere to the Presbyterian Government, as having a Divine Warrand, and who have concerned themselves in a Search of this Controversie, in the Writings upon both Sides; And if the Dr. know not this, he is a pitiful Peregrinus Domi. 2. That to conclude any Mans Writings and Book, to be pure and undenyable Demonstration, before a Person has Read the same, is such a Sottish, Brutish Practice, such an Irrational Conclusion, as cannot befal any Per…o…, that has the most Common Exercise of Reason: So, that he might with the same Veracity, have told the World in his Pamphlet, that his Countrey Men, Presbyterians, are Idiots, Dunces, or Brutes, and in Point of Judgment and Integrity, much of a Size with the Popish Vulgar, who Hang upon an Implicit Belief, and have but a Plagiary Faith, depending upon Mens Dictats and Hear-say; yea, and that they are all such, none excepted. But that the Dr. may not (since he is in his Ranting, Calumniating Vein and Humor) be satisfied with one single Lie, but make a Lusty Complicated One, and let flee a whole Vollee of this Hell-Shot, at his Countrey Men, he adds, That his Countrey Men think, they need no other Answer, to any thing written against them, than to say, that Episcopacy, and all its Defences, is quite Ruined by Blondel and Salmasius. Poor pitiable Soul▪ p. 84Had he gone to Iamaica, or to some places; where neither the Persons, nor Matter he speaks of, was ever heard or known, he might hope to get this believed. Some of the Books he mentions, P. 22. his Conscience could tell him, are Written by Scotsmen, viz. Didoclav. and Mr. Durh. And we know of no Answer returned to this Day, unto either of them: It should then seem, that his Countreymen should rather alledge these. Doth he think indeed we esteem, that we need no other Answer, than to tell of Blondel and Salmasius? But yet more of this Hellish Blusterings, Tho there are, saith the Dr, (ibid.) few of them that ever read them, and that every Line of their Writings, that hath Colour of Argument, has been frequently exposed, yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality, that they shut their eyes against the clearest Evidences produced by their Adversaries. Here's a Deep Charge: 1. His Countreymen, Presbyterians, becomes such Peevish Ignoramus's, that few of them read these Books. 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices against Truth, that they shut their Eyes against all Convictions thereof, so, that a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them, if this Man may be believed. But I will be bold to ask him, what are these Evidences, I mean Scripture-Evidences, produced by him, or any of his Party, which we have not considered? Dare he say, that all in Scotland, Embracing the Presbyterian Perswasion, do thus shut their Eyes? And may we not easily Retort his Charge, and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by Didoclav. Mr. Durh. and others, whom he mentions? And besides these, many not Named by him, to whom, neither he, nor any of his Gang, have offered an Answer to this Day. Why do they shut their Eyes against the Light produced by them? Presbyterians, no doubt, need no other Evidence, than this Pamphlet, to convince the World, that the Power of Prejudice, has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes against Light. He pretends therein, by his mighty Arguments, to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen from their Principles; He presents in the beginning of his Famous Work, some considerable Authors, whose Writings and Arguments, he tells the World, they ground their Perswasion upon, yet never offers to Scann so much as one of them, when fairly presented in their genuin strength: And let all men Judg what prejudice and partiality, this savours of. And if he be not wholly a Stranger thereunto, he cannot but know, that our Judgment in this Point, is the Sense of the whole Body of Protestant Churches and Divines. And are they also thus Hardned? But more yet, (ibid.) the Dr. tells us further, That it is enough for us, that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages, and this, in our Iudgment, may barr all Dispute. Indeed, Mr. Dr. if there were no more Strength or Nerves in them, than in your 339 Pages, Stuffed with Blustering Talk, and Empty Quiblings, the Defence were no Defence. We are again told, That when we are bidden Name the Place, which p. 85proves the New Doctrine, we refuse any such closs Engagement. Really, the good Narcissus here sees his Picture in the Well — Decline a closs Engagement! Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names, judge what closs Engagement, this Man has made with them, and if he has not as evidently Snaked away from their Arguments, as ever did any Coward in Disput. For Ierom, that he was of this Judgment of the Parity of Bishop and Presbyter, the Learned have sufficiently discovered. But, saith he, Salmasius and Blondel, have been exposed by the Incomparable Bishop of Chester. Had Presbyterians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers, they had been posted up for Admirers of Mens Persons. But now, our Dr. will Examine some of his most Remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity: Some, no doubt, not all, and in the same manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments, i. e. so as to convince all Readers, that he Traces but Phantastick Quiblings, instead of Answer. But being closs in my Examining his Scripture Pleadings, that I interrupt not the Series thereof, I must here pass over to his Second Chapter.