Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
The Informers answers to our Argument from Act. 20. and from Tit. 1: 5, 7. Philip. 1: 1. Ephes. 4: 11. For the identitie of [Bishop] & [Presbyter,] win nowed, the insufficiencie, and inconsistencie thereof, together with his begging of the question, discovered; and these texts at some length improven against him.
THE Doubter in the nixt place objects [That in the new Testament, Bishop and Presbyter signifie one and the same office bearer, that in Act. 20: the elders in the 17. v. are called Bishops in the 28. v. So in Tit. 1: 5, 7. And therefor Bishop and elder are the same in Scriptur, and the word elder signifies no more then a Minister of a particular Congregation] Heer he touches a parte but not the strength of our argument from these texts. We argue not meerly from the Samenes of the Names, but the identitie of all the essentiales of the office, Duties, and Qualifications of the office bearer expressed by these names, when applyed to ane ordinarie office bearer; Particularly f. om Act. 20. We draw forth these weapons. 1. The Apostle speaking to the elders, tells them that the holy ghost had made them [Bishopes over the flock,] shewing that the Scriptur Bishop set up by the holy ghost, is the Minister or elder who feeds and rules over the flock. 2. The Apostle gives them not only the Name of Bishop, but also the thing, commanding these elders or Ministers foreign and foreign which takes in all the power of order and jurisdiction, and whatever the Diocesian Bishop may pretend unto. 3. (Which is very remarbable) he gives this Charge so these elders befor Timothy, who was now present with the Apostle, and after the first Epistle was written to him, for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia, and after this Paul haveing Timothy with him came to Miletum, and gave the elders of Ephesus this charge. Finallie. This was Pauls last charge to them, for they were never to see his face more; So that we have here a pattern of the mould of the Gospel-Church in relation to Government as this great Apostle of the Gentiles left it, and consequentlie as all the rest left it; which is convinceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1: 14. Hence we exterminat the Diocefian Prelat thus. 1. The Holy Ghosts Bishops were Ministers which he set up to feed and rule the flock immediatly. These, and these only, the Apostle and the Apostolick Church knew, therefore he dissownes the Prelat, who pretends to be set over some hundreds of Pastoures and flocks, and is bound to feed no flocke himself. 2. These who watch over the flocks immediatly, and only, have all the Episcopal power, both the key of doctrine, and Government committed to them by the holy Ghost: Therefore the Diocesian Prelat, taking and arrogating to himself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, and leaving Presbyters nothing but the Doctrinal key, as his deputies, while he himself preaches to no flock, is ane Antiscriptural Sacrilegious robber. 3. The elders or Pastoures of Ephesus got all Episcopal authority as to order and jurisdiction, committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghosts Bishops, & the highest ordinarie officers of that Church, in the presence of Timothie, without the least hint of any interest that Timothie had in or over them, as their Bishope or Overseer therein, or the least hint of any direction anent their dutie to Timothie as in that Capacitie, and this after he had gotten all his directions in the 1. Epistle written to him. And therefore Timothie was never set up as a Diocesian Prelat over that Church (as this Informer would perswade) and the inspection which he is supposed to have in that Epistle, was occasional, transient, and extraordinarie, and by conseguence layes no ground for Prelacie. Finallie, Paules directions here were his last and farewel directions, therefore this Church was to continue thus governed by these elders or Bishops in common: and the Prelatists Plea [that the Apostles set up Presbyters at first, keeping the reyns of Government in their own hands, till towardes the end of their life, and then sett up Prelats over these Presbyters] is here convict of falshood, since neither Paul, nor Peter, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, or the great Apostle of the Circumcision, doe in the least hint any such Super-institution, but both of them in their last directions to the Churches, commit the wholl power both of order and jurisdiction, to the Pastoures of the flocks, in common, as the only Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost.
From 1 Tim. 1: 5,—7. The great Argument is not only from the promiscuouse use of the Name [Bishop] & [Presbyter] but from the forme and mould of the Apostles reasoning; which inferres not onelyonly the identitie of names, but of the office also. For the Apostle shewing Titus how the elders are to be qualified, gives this reasone for a Bishop must he blameles. This [foreign or causal For] expressing the knot and connexion of the Apostles argument or reason, doth clearly Import that the office, expressed by both these words, is one and the same; for there is neither sound matter or forme, in such reasoning as this [Presbiters must be so and so qualified, because a Bishop, of a Superior order and degree must be so qualified] So that from hence it is evident that the [elder] is the [Bishop], & vice versa, and that no higher Bishopes were by the Apostles constitut in the Churches. Here then, as in the preceeding text, we have not only Bishops and elders getting the same designation by the Holyghost (who knew best the nature of the things themselves, and how to express himself thereanent) but likewayes the same qualifications, work, and office; and so the office is supposed to be every way one and the same. Now let us hear, what he sayes to the argument. [He grants that the two words oftentimes doe point out one and the same officer, but denyes that the officer meaned by these words, is never understood above the degree of ane ordinarie Minister. Or that the word [Presbiter, or elder] signifies only the Minister of a single Congregation, & no more.] The insufficiencie and prevarication of which answer euidently appears. For 1. He grants that these two words Bishop and elder signifies one and the same officer, oftentimes, supposeing that sometimes they express diverse officers, but where can he shew us that the word Episcopus signifies one officer, and Preshiter another, when the Spirit of God is pointing out therby the Churches standing Officers and Ministers, and not when either the one or the other is in a generall sense applyed to ane Apostle. 2. The state of the Question is [whither the scriptur foreign designe a higher ordinary officer then a Presbyter] And this Informer should have adverted, that the drift of the argument from the texts mentioned, is to prove the Apostles promiscuous use of these words in describing the office of the highest ordinary office bearers in the Church. Moreover, the Diocesian [Episcopus] is ane ordinary officer, haveing the inspection over some handereds of flocks, and the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination in the diocesse, & is by him held to be ane officer of Gods appointment, & by this designation of Bishop, as the Characteristick of his office, is distinguished from Pastoures or elders. Now, if presbyterians doe prove that wherever the word Bishop is used to point at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church, it imports a pastor or presbyter & no higher officer, they sufficiently over throw the diocesian Episcopus or Bishop of his mould, as having no scripture warrand. And if he grant that in the forementioned Scriptures, & other passages where the word Bishop is used to point at a necessarie standing Church officer, it signifieth no higher officer then ane elder or ordinarie Minister, he grants enough against himself, & all that the presbiterians desire: for there from it followes necessarly that their diocesian Episcopus or Bishop contradistinct from, & superior to the preaching presbyter, is apochriphal & antiscripturall: Since the preaching presbyter & Bishop, are the same ordinarie highest officer in all the Holy Ghosts expressions theranent. 3. Whereas he denyes that we con prove [That the officer meaned by these words, is never understood of any above the degree of ane ordinary minister] Let him add this necessary limitation [when the words are applyed to designe ane ordinary standing officer (which he must admit, if he speak to purpose) and the proofe is very easy] since the forementioned Texts, and all the parallels where elder or Bishop is thus used, doe evince it. Again 4. Since this Informer with his followes have diversified the Bishop from the elder in the manner above exprest, we challing him as the affirmer, to shew in all the new Testament where the officer meaned by this Word Episcopus or Bishop, when pointing at ane ordinary standing officer in the Church, is to be understood of any above the degree of a Presbyter or Pastor of a congregation; This lyes upon him to mak good, else if Episcopuss denotte only a Presbyter, sure the cause of the Diocesian Prelat is lost. He fortifies his answer with two Reasons. 1. We find the name [elder] given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet: 5: 1. Iohn. 2. 1. & Epist. 3: 1. And if Apostles be called [elders] why not also [Bishops]. Ans: 1. The pointe debeateable is [whether the word [Bishop] and [elder] doe Import the same, officer, when applyed to a constant standing officer in the Church.] His Presbyterian doubter offers the forementioned Texts to prove this, and he answers, That one of these names are sometimes attribut to ane extraordinary officer whose formal office is ceased. Now how impertinent this is to the pointe and Queston let any judge? To prove that Episcopus or Bishop, imports ane ordinary standing officer above [a Presbyter,] and that the Word Bishop and Presbyter signify not the same ordinary officer, because sometimes the Word elder may be applyed to ane Apostle, is a consequence, as we use so say, a baculo ad angulum, and known to no logik. 2. We told him already that we prove enough against him when we prove that the Scripture-Episcopus, or Bishop, is never found to Import any ordinary officer above the Presbyter, and that the Office, Work, Qualifications, & Duties of these officers, as ordinary standing officers, are one and the same. 3. The Instance of the Apostles assumeing the name of elder, doth in this further appear to be ane impertinent exception to the Argument adduced, in that the office of ane Apostle, is in Scripture both by a proper name, work, qualification, call, &c. diversified and distinguished from that of ane ordinary elder; so that though in a general sense the Apostles be called elders, their Specifick difference from the ordinary elder is apparent: But this Informer will never shew the least vestigies of the Diocesian Bishops distinction from the preaching elder or Presbyter in any of these respects? And therefore his reason added here viz. The Bishop may be called ane [elder] as well as ane Apostle, and yet be ane officer superior to him, is a begging of the Question, since he cannot shew that there is a higher ordinary officer then a Pastor or Presbyter, appointed in the Word, nor can he shew any designation, qualification, work, or ordination of his Diocesian Bishop, as distinguished from the Presbyter by the Prelatists; And therefore the Apostles being called elders can no more ground a distinction betwixt the Bishop and the elder, then betwixt the Pastor and the elder, whom he acknowledges to be one and the same, or betwixt the Minister and the elder. I suppose one should alledge the Pastor to be a higher officer then the preaching elder and Presbyter, notwithstanding that in Scripture their names, and qualifications are one, as of the Bishop and Presbyter, and should ground his opinion on this Informers reason here, (viz.) [that though the two words are promiscuosly used often times of the same officer, yet the officer meaned by one of these may be somtimes understood of one above the degree of ane ordinary Minister] what will he say to his own reason, pleading for this foolish distinction? Would he not say that the [Apostle] and [elder] are elsewhere clearly distinguished on Scripture, not the Pastour and the elder, which answer he must here bestow upon himself. Sure this man will not deny but that the various Church officers both ordinary and extraordinary have their proper formall office is deciphered, and distinguished from other offices and officers, As Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors: and particularly he will not deny that there is such ane ordinary Church officer as the Pastor or Presbyter, distinguished by his proper designation from others, notwithstanding that the Apostles took this name in a general sense: So that from this it followes that if the Bishops proper designation, work, ordination, qualifications, as distinct from a Presbyter, cannot be produced, he must be alwayes understood in that sense (viz.) ane ordinary Pastour and no more: And not as the Apostles when termed elders, whose distinct Superior office, and proportioned designation, is clearly extant in Scripture.
His 2d. Reason and exception to the Argument is that with us the word [elder] signifies both the preaching, and ruling elder, and that he can, upon as good, and better ground say, that it signifies the [Bishop] & the [Minister] both being elders, but of different dogrees Ans. 1. When he shall make as evident from Scripture, the Diocesian Bishopes distinction from, and Superiority unto the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop or Minister of a congregation, as we have shown the superiority of the preaching elder, abov… …he ruleing elder, and the distinction of the one from the other, then his parallel will pass current, but till then it is a meer nonsequitur. The Scripture clearly distinguishes, as we have seen, the elder that rules only, and the elder that both laboures in the word and doctrine, and rules also, clearlydiversifying the offices, and allowing honour to the one above the other. Now, let this, or any thing like this, be shown as to the Diocesian Bishop and Presbyter-Bishop; where will this Informer point us to such a distinction of Bishops, & their office and honour as there is here of the elders? Nay, since in all directions as to peoples obedience to Pastors, their is not the least intimation of his supposed different degrees of pastours we strongly con-
the contrare: So that we inferr the distinction betwixt the preaching and ruleing elder, from the Scriptures clear specifying of different offices, Acts, and degrees of honour accordingly, among elders, but the sucks out of his fingers the different degrees of Pastors, and the distinction of the Bishop from the Presbyter without the least Scripture-warrand. 2. He grossly belies our princples and the truth, when he maks his Presbyterian doubter alledge That the word [elder] signifies no more but [a Minister of a particular congregation] which he forged to bring in, and give some colour unto, this his 2d. Answer or reason. But saltem mendacem opportet esse memorem. A liar, they say, should have a good memory; He be contradicts himself, while suggesting in the objection, that we hold that elder signifies no morethen a Pastour, yet telling us for his answer, that we hold the Word elder to signify, sometimes the preaching, sometimes the ruleing elder. It is enough for our purpose that neither the word Bishop, nor Presbyter, doe signify any ordinary standing Church officer higher then a Pastor or Minister of the gospel labouring in the word & doctrine (whither indiscriminatim, or in fixt particular congregations, in the Apostolick …s, we need not determin as to our defence here) an… untill he prove that either of the names doe signifie a higher ordinary officer (which will be ad calendas Graecas) the argument stands good against him. We may here mind this Informer that hereafter he alledges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Diaconship is in a general sense attribut to Timothy ane Evangelist, yet he would reject it as ane absurd inference to conclude from this that there are different degries of deacons allowed or appointed in Scripture Which notwithstanding is his own consequence here, and the strength of his answer to the premised Argument. As for what he adds. That Bishops were afterwards sometimes called Presbyters of their Churches, thogh unquestionably Bishops in his sense, in rembemberance of the indifferencie of the names in the times of the new Testament, though they were ordinarly called Bishops, We say it is certane that the first supposed Bishops, named in the pretended Catalogues from the Apostles and Evangelists (of which afterward) were meer Presbyters; and if they were called Presbyters in rememberance of the new Testament tymes, the more guilty were they who afterward made the word Bishop (contrare unto the new Testament times and language) the Characteristick of ane office Superior to a Pastor or Presbyter, and the rather in that whereas the word Presbyter or elder is severall times assumed by the Apostles in a general sense, the word Episcopus or Bishop alwayes denots ane ordinary Pastor (if we except that Episcopatus in Act 1. Which our translators on the Margin renders office or charge in a general sense) so that when Prelats ambitious invention was upon the wheel, it seems they should rather have appropriat to themselves the word Presbyter or elder, a fit designation for Fathers of the Church, as this man calls them.
The doubter, nixt offers ane Argument against prelacie from Philip. 1. [where the Apostle speaks of Bishops in the plural number in that Church, who were only Ministers, since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that …nChurch.] we shall take up here with this hint of argument, only adding, that by confession of Prelatists, there was never in one city more then one Bishop even when the inhabitants were all professed Christians, much more here where the generalitie of the inhabitants were Heathens and the Christians but a small remnant. So that the Apostles saluting here the …ishops in the plurall number. Bishops of that one Church of Philippi, and contradistinguishing them from the Deacons whom he immediatly subjoyns to them, he must needs be understood of the Pastoures, and Presbyters, as the highest ordinary officers of that Church. To answer this Argument, the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions. 1. He tells us that Ambrose takes these Bishops, not to be the Bishops at Philippi, but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote, & in whose name he writs to the Philippians, joyning them with himself. But this gloss, as it is cross to the current of expositores, so to common sense. Paul, who only was the Spirit of Gods penman, joyns here Timothie with himself in the inscription, as in severall other Epistles, and having taken to himself, and Timothie, the designation of Servants of Christ, he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothie, according to his usual Methode, describe these to whom he writes, (viz.) [to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons] viz, there, at Philippi, not with Paul, they being ranked among these to whom he writes, who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy, the directors of the Epistle, and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp; Otherwayes there is no sense in the Text to read it thus, Paul and Timothius, to the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops with Paul. Had the Apostle joyned them with himself, as he doth Timothy, in the inscription, they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse together with him, and not cast after the adress, and the description of these to whom he writes. The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolick authoritie, he nixt adds, and all the brethren that are with me, to the Churches of Galatia. Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription, before he describe these, to whom the Epistle is addressed. And should not these supposed eminent Bishops, have been after this manner joyned with him; Besids, will any say that the Deacons, joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse, were not at Philippi, or belonging to that Church, but with Paul? But they are mean men, and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this. All the fear of that Father was, …east these Bishops at Philippi, be found meer Presbyters of that Church; And how to ward off this blow, hoc opus hic labor ese. Well, what further answers he? He tells us nixt. That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about, conveened at Philippie, which Paul knowing of, salutes them with the Church: Since he first salutes [the Saints] as intending mainely to write to them; and then [the Bishops.] So wee see the Prelatists saile every point of the compasse, to save the credit of these Bishops. If Bishops cannot be gotten sett beside the chaire with Paul, when addressing the Epistle (this gloss standing clearely antipod to the Text) the nixt shift is, rather then these Bishops be degraded to meer Presbyters, to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing, that this casual Mustere of Bishops of other Churches, may warde off the deadly blow which the cause will gett, by seating all these Bishops at Philippie, as officers of that Chuch; and to compass this designe, they must be but occasionally saluted here, and not as fixed members or officers thereof; upon the Apostles Information (comeing to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows) that there were several Magnates there, besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi. But, which also odd, they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints, the persons mainely written to. Had our Informer left out this clause (which notwithstanding his answer did require) Our Prelats Parliaments order, Who are before, because behind the most, would have saved their reputation still. But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous. Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood, because their could not be many Bishops in one-city, on Philip. 1. Oecumenius, on Philip. 1. Tells us, That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one citty, but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters, Bishops. Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges, That they were Presbyters who were called thus, because the names were then common and the Bishop, himself was called Deacon, and that the distinction of names came afterward. This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument. from Act. 20. viz. [That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus onelyonly, but the Bishops of all Asia mett together at Ephesus, and sent for by Paul from thence] least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus, at Pauls last farewel, it breake the Diocesian Prelat all in peeces. But as it is well replyed that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church, it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent, and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancie is as fond when applyed to this passage, and may receave the same reply. What shaddow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church? And what Logick, I pray, or sense is there in this inference, that because the Apostle first salutes, all the Saints or the Church collective in bulke, and then the Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons, or the Church representative in special, that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there, and not as Officers of that Church. Beside, had the Apostle saluted them as casually present, they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ, Chap. 4: 21. rather then in the inscription. The English Annotations thus sense it [That by the Bishops and Deacons, we are to understand the whole Ministery at Philippi consisting of Presbyters, to whom the government of the Church was committed, and Deacons, who not only had the care of the poor, but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastick function.]
But our Informer hath a third Answer, wherein, He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were [Officers of this Church] and askes where were the ruling Elders] here, and if we say they are included in the word Bishop, then he tells us that upon better ground he can affirme, that Bishops here signifies both the superiour Bishop and the ordinary Minister, who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane [Apostle.] Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like, beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop, is, That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified, that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer then a meer Presbyter, which is most manifast here, It being impossible that a multiplicity of Bishopes could be at Philippi, as is universally acknowledged. And if he grant that these Bishops were officers, of that Church in Philippi, he must either say they were meer Preebyters, which is all wee seek, and the yeelding of his cause, or he must prove that either here or els where, the word Episcopus or Bishop designes the diocesian Bishop, and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons, particularly that of Nice. But 2. As to what he sayes of the ruleing elders, it is utterly impertinent and answered already. We proved the ruling elders office, as distinct from the preaching elder, by clear Scripture grounds, and did shew that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders, giving them both this generall name of elder, & then distinguishing them into such as rule, and such as labour in the word and doctrine: But this Informer will never prove that [Episcopus, or Bishop]. designes two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower, or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office: So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginarie Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent. As we may, the elder in the Bishop. And till he make the Diocessian Prelat appear in Scripture, we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops, they get the proper specifick designation, and characteristick of their office, & are not called …o in a general figurative, sense or Catachrestice, as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle, or messenger. But how? viz. their messenger sent to Paul, who ministered to his wants. Phil. 2: 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the Corinthianes viz (as it is there inumar) in that bussines of the collection for the Saincts at Jerusalem, for which end they were sent to the Corinthians. So the Spirit of God in Scripture, both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called (for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors) and likewayes in the very manner of these designations, and their circumstances, when atribut to such inferiour officers, doth state the distinction betwixt them and ane Apostle in his proper acception, clearly holding out that they had neither name nor thing of the apostolick office properly so called, but that Ministers are so improperly only called Bishops, He will never prove. But now what is his last shift? It maybe (saith he) their were no Bishops settled as yet at Philippie, & so it may very well be. But our Informer here supposes two things in Question which he will prove ad calendas graecas 1. That their were Bishops, superiour in office & degree to Presbyters, appointedby the Apostles. The first and second Answer tells us of Bishops (he means diocesian Bishops) either with Paul when he wrot to Philippi—Or come from their diocesses (forsooth) and present accidentally there: And haveing told us that the diocesian Bishops were among the rest of the Presbyters Bishops in his third answer, His last shift is, that they were not it may be, yet sett up at Philippy, But remark, that as all these proteus like shifts and answers contradicts one another, So they all lean upon this Egyptian reed, that the Diocesian Bishop is ane officer divinely appointed, and then existant. Now, how impertinent dealing this is, let any judge. We prove from this and many such like texts, that the scripture Bishop is a meer presbyter, they in all there answers doe coyne glosses of these Texts, which doe suppose the Jus & existence, of the diocesian prelat, which is the very quaesitum, & the thing in Question. 2. He supposes that the Bishop over presbyters (the Chimaera of his own braine) though he was not settled at this tyme, yet was to be Settled afterward at Philippi. But how proves he that the Apostle was to setle after ward such a prelat there? This is another of their shifts, that the Apostles first sett up prebyters, keeping still the government of the Churches in their oun hand, till at last towards their end they sett up prelats, committing the government to them. But how doth he or they prove this after-institution of the diocesian Bishop? we have already abundantly evinced the Contrary, both that the presbyters were the highest ordinary officers established by the Apostles, & that without any such fancied reserve as this is, the wholl power both of order & jurisdiction was committed to them, & exercised by them, & supposed by the Apostles to continow so in their last farewelles to the Churches: and therfor may conclude that the Bishops of Philippi were meer presbyters: and that Paul acknowledged, & knew no other.
Arnold: in his Lux in Tinebr.: (on Act. 20. 17. He called the elders, &c. represents the Orthodox opinion, thus, Episcopos & Presbyteros, &c.—That Bishops and Presbyters are not names of diverse gifts in the Church, but of one and the same office, because they who are here called Presbyters, verse 28. are called Bishops. The Papists object (saith he as this Informer that in these times the names were common, but yet the [office] of Bishops and Presbyters diverse. he answers 1. This is to affirme, 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. Upon the Papists supposition there can and ought to be only one Bishop in one city, but so it is that there were here many, therefore [Bishops] signifie [Presbyters.] Thus Arnold. classes our Informer among the Papists in this point, and represents our principles as the Orthodox principles of the Protestant Churches, and so in several other passages as we may after shew. Chamier, (de Oecum: Pontif: lib. 10. cap. 3.) Haveing represented the Papists glosses upon Matth. 20.-25 [the Kings of the Gentils] &c. the same with our Informers, viz. That our Lord discharged only that sort of Tyrannical Domination, & haveing answered and confuted them, as we heard Iunius and Whittaker did before; and haveing prefixed to the 7. chap. this cirle, An jure divino &c. [Whether the Bishop be greater than the Presbyter by divine right] he represents the affirmative answer as Bellarmins, together with his arguments and confuts them, and haveing proved Presbyters power in ordination, from [their imposeing of hands upon Timothy], he afterward confuts the Papists, (& this Informers) pretences for Prelacy from the Government of the jewish Church, & the Apostles Superiority to the seventy disciples: and adducing Bellarmin's argument from this passage (act. 20: 28.) to prove that the Holy Ghost sett up Bishops, he answers thus - locus exactis alienus est, &c.—that place of the acts is impertinently cited, for from thence it is evident that Bishops and Presbyters are the same, Witnes Ierom. and others, for they whom Luke before called elders, or Presbyters of the Church, those Paul afterward affirmes to have been made Bishops by the Spirit, and indeed for feeding, and (as the latine Interpreter) for governing the Church.] So we see Chamier: classeth also our Informer among the Papists in those his prelatick principles and glosses upon those Scriptures. Calvin upon Tit. 1: 7. Collects the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from the Apostle's calling them Bishops, who were before called Presbyters, and (as we heard above) reprehends, upon this ground, the distinction placed betwixt them, as profane and antiscriptural. The same he inferrs upon Act. 20. where the Presbyters of Ephesus are called Bishops, makeing our Informer's great topick anent the calling of such Ministers Bishops, qui primas tenebant in singulis civitatibus, or had a precedency in every city, a corruption and sin of those times. The Dutch annot: on Act. 20: 28. observe that those termed Bishops in this verse, being called elders in the 17. verse [it doth then appear that in the Holy Scripture there is no difference made betwixt elders and Bishops.] referring us to Phil. 1. 1. verse, upon whch passage they assert the same thing: and especially from the plurality of such Bishops in one and the same Church, conclude this, referring us to 1 Tim. 3. 1. verse. and Tit. 1 chap. 5, 7, v. upon which places they obserue, that by Bishops and Elders one kinde of Ministry is signified, viz. the labourers in the word and doctrine, citeing 1 Tim. 5: 17. 2 Pet. 5: 1, 2. and from the Apostles description of the Bishop in the 1 Tim. 3. they conclude that by Bishop we are to understand all teachers of the Church without difference, referring again to the forementioned places. The english annot. expresse the same sense of these places under debate, and upon Acts 11. 30, v. adduce both fathers and councells to prove this point.
The Nixt Scripture argument which the Doubter bings against prelacie, and the Last too, is taken from Ephes. 4. 11. [where the Apostle reckons up Church officers, & makes no mention of Bishops]. Our argument from the Scripture enumeration of Church officers here, and in the parallels 1. Cor. 12: 28. Rom. 12: 6, 7, 8, Is this [That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers, and speaking of the office of the pastour, makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour, nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat, although both ordinary and extraordinary officers, be enumerat, even the ruleing elder and the deacone: from which silence of the Scriptur, as to this imaginarie Bishop, we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting, by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such. To this our Informer answers. 1. That it is ill reasoning, that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place, or, enumeration, that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture, for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place, a cempleat enumeration Ans: he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here, whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only, as if we held, that there is here a full enumeration, wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats, as also protestants in opposition to the papacie, doe, together with this passage, joyn the parallels. 1. Cor. 12: 28. Rom. 12: 16. In which places collated, there is found a compleat, enumeration of all Church officers ordinary, or extraordinary, and adiscoverie of their duties, and gifts who are ordinary officers, even of the very Deacon. Lykwayes, we take in with these Texts, the several descriptions of ordinary officers, and particularly of the Bishop, & his gifts and duties, found in any other places of the new Testamament. And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles, or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated (Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found) our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places, stands firme by his own Confession, until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary. 2. Wee might tell him also, that upon his own ground, even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat, will prove our point; for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church, for her grouth and edification, as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven: and upon the other hand, the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration; as the Pastor, and teacher, whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat, Certainely upon both these grounds, he would have mentioned him in order to this scope, had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed. And as for this Text, it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all, yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church, amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement. How then (I pray) can he be here ommitted, and ane inferior officer named, His 2d. Answer is. That Bishops are comprehended under [pastoures] and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures. Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher, is certan, but that the Diocesian should be so, is Impossible, and by him gratis dictum. For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations, the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior, now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor. Nixt this were no proper enumeration, as he acknowledges there is here, of distinct & officers offices, if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations. And since Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, are proper designations of distinct officers; and offices, why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet, and to have come in between the Evangelist, and the Pastor, for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer. Againe, This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope, for they answer our divines Argument from this Text, that he is included in the office of the Apostle. But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him, he ought to have had a more peculiar designation, So we may say to this Informer here. Besides, may not Patriarches, and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them, that they are included in some of these officers? Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus, This man would tell him, that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising, & then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations, which answer suites his own case, Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture, And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it. Lastly. Hetels us [That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers, we must comprehend [ruleing elders, and deacons] in some of these words, and why may not he doe so with [Bishops.] Ans. 1. We need not, in order to our scope nor argument from this text, alledge either a full enumeration of all officers, or goe about to includ [elder] and [Deacon] under some of these words, It being, enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification, are here enumerat, & that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat, in this mans esteem…, down from ane Apostle; which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable. 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon, in one of these words, we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior, which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture. But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing: and likewayes, if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher, ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour, both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer.