in Philippi there had been a Bishop superior to the plurality of Bishops saluted by the Apostle Yet on Acts 20. and 17. gives this Paraphrase Because many are ignorant of the Manner especially of the New Testament whereby Bishops are call'd Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops This much may be observed both from this place and from the Epistle to Titus and to the Philippians and 1. to Timothy From this place therefore of the Acts we may arrive at the certainty of this Matter For thus it is written from Miletus he sent and called the Elders of the Church it is not said the Bishops And afterwards he subjoins over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church and from the Epistle to Titus that thou mightest appoint Elders in every City as I ordain'd thee and from the Epistle to the Philippians to all that are at Philippi with Bishops and Deacons and as I believe the same may be gather'd from the frist to Timothy If any Man saith he desires the Office of a Bishop he desires a good Work a Bishop therefore should be blameless And shortly after let not a Widow be taken into the number under threescore years which the Transcriber of OEcumenius hath out of negligence inserted from the 5. Chap. and 9. ver in stead of the 8. verse of the 3. Likewise let the Deacons be grave c. For this is the Church Canon directing what manner of Man such an one viz. the Deacon ought to be Thus far OEcumenius and not a word more to this purpose where having really proposed the now much tossed Question mustres up four of the chief Places from which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter is commonly inferr'd and directs us to learn the Solution of this Doubt therefrom Hence 't is certain that OEcumenius no less than Hierome and Aërius of old and Presbyterians now believ'd the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter seeing he having brought up these Scriptures which even in the Judgement of our Adversaries creat to the Hierarchicks a vexatious Scruple and pungent Objection is so far from glossing them as thereby to leave any room for a Diocesan Bishop that he plainly informs us that these Scriptures only suffice to dissolve all our Scruples and period the Dispute 'T is evident then that OEcumenius commenting on Philip. 1. 1. or wherever he seems to say nothing against a superiority of Diocesans spoke only out of compliance with the Custom of his time or some such weakness Neither is the matter less clear of Theodoret who altho' he ascribes an Episcopal Dispensation over the Philippians to Epaphroditus yet even then he looks on him as no ordinary or fixed Officer which is really yeelded by Petavius and is plain from Theodoret himself The Apostle saith he calls a Presbyter a Bishop as we shewed when we expon'd the Epistle to the Philippians Which may be also learn'd from this Place For after the Precepts proper to Bishops he describes the things that agree to Deacons omitting the Presbyters But as I said of old they call'd the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters but these who are now call'd Bishops they then call'd Apostles But afterward the name of Apostle was left to the real Apostles And the name Bishop giv'n to these that were of old call'd Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thus was Titus the Apostle of the Cretians Timothy of the Asians Thus the Apostles and Presbyters at Hierusalem write to the Antiochians And on 1 Cor. 12. 28. first Apostles The Apostle saith not God hath sent onlie Twelve Apostles but also the Seventy And these who also received the like Grace For Paul himself after his Calling was of the same Order and Barnabas and many others And again he calls Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians Where 't is clear as the Sun that Theodoret by these his Bishops or Apostles understands only the real Apostles themselves together with Timothy and Titus and other such Evangelists and extraordinary Officers who never had any fixed Station And this was well perceiv'd by the Jesuite Medina who therefore really yeelds Theodoret with Hierome Aërius Augustine c. to the Presbyterians and warmly recented by Petavius who besides many other places spends at once near a whole Chapter to prove Theodoret a self repugnant blunderer Hence it 's clear that they cann't rent Theodoret from us untill Tullus-like they first rent him from himself Wherever therefore these Ancients so spoke as that they seemed not to oppose the Divine Right of Episcopacy 't is clear they did so out of carelesness or unwarrantable Compliance but mostly as may be gather'd from the handling Aërius mett with out of fear least they had derived on their Heads the hate of much of the then degenerating Church and secularizing Clergy Section VIII Moe clear Testimonies of the primitive Doctors against the Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy and for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter produc'd and vindicated THE Bishop saith Ambrose or rather Hilary the ancientest Commentator save some Fragments of Origen now extant because he opens the hidden sense of the Scriptures is said to Prophecy chiefly because he dispenses the words of future hope Behold the very Idea the Ancients still retain'd of a Bishop and yet it 's nothing but the real Notion of every true Pastor or Dispenser of the Word and Sacraments Which Order may now be that of the Presbyters For in the Bishop are all Orders for he is the first Priest that is the Prince of Priests and Prophet and Evangelist And whatsoever else is for fullfilling the Office of the Church and Service of the Faithfull And The Apostle calls Timothy a Presbyter whom he had instituted a Bishop for the first Presbyters were called Bishops so that one Dying the next succeeded And lastly in Aegypt the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop's absence where we see what he means by the Prince of Priests and that with him a Bishop was nothing but the first either in Age or in respect of Ordination amongst the Colledge of Presbyters without any other Preheminence or Power over the rest but what these respects gave them Which I 'm sure exceeds not the Dignity of a Moderator of a Synod or Presbyter But because the following Presbyters were not found worthy of the first place this way was changed by a Council that none by his being first in order but by his desert might be made a Bishop and that by the Votes of many Priests least an unworthy Man should rashly usurp the Office to the offence of many There were born Priests under the Law of the Race of Aaron the Levite but now all are Priests according to the Apostle Peter and therefore Priests may be chosen out of the People And on 1 to Timothy 3. But after the Bishop he straight way subjoins the Ordination of a Deacon and why But because of Bishop and Presbyter there 's but
capable of another Translation Thus only in the Matter of Ordination they have got up or set themselves above them Secondlie Of the Power of Ordination it 's being proper to Bishops he speaks most doubtfully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they seem c. saith he Thirdly Had he believ'd that the Power of Ordination by Divine Right belong'd to Bishops above Presbyters he had never said that there 's notwithstanding in a manner nothing between them surely Epiphanius thought the Power of Ordination made a most large and notable Difference Once again I shall with our Adversaries suppose that Chrysostome allows that Power of Ordination by Divine Appointment was appropriated to Bishops they cann't with reason deny but that in all other things to a hair he asserts the Equality yea the Identity of Presbyters with Bishops Now will they stand to Chrysostome herein Surely they will not for thus they should be oblig'd to let go all the Prerogatives and Priviledges Bishops both claim and exerce over their Pastors all their Power Paramount of Governing the Church and her Pastors all their exorbitant Wealth Grandeur Pomp and Splendor and in a word whatsoever renders to them the Hierarchie amiable or desireable and so should be really reduc'd to the condition of an ordinary Parish-pastor And were things so little I 'm sure would they care or stickel for upholding of any Distinction between these Officers hence let them blush any more to pretend to Chrysostome's Patrociny seeing all they can with the least colour plead for being giv'n not granted he really subverts their Cause and levells their Diocesan Prelat with a parochial Pastor § 4. Bellarmine Answers that Chrysostome and others while they say that onlie in Ordination a Bishop is above a Presbyter speak onlie of such things which no way agree to Presbyters for Iurisdiction and Confirmation may be performed by Presbyters by vertue of Commission from the Bishop But thus he really makes Chrysostome contradict himself Chrysostome said they differ'd nothing save in Ordination Bellarmine compells him to say that they have another Difference no less conspicuous than is between the King and his Commissioner who can do many regall Acts being warranted by him thereto Does such a Power lodg'd in the Bishop which agrees to none of the Presbyters make no Distinction between him and them Or rather does it not make up the far greater and more conspicuous part of the prelatical Eminency above the rest of the Clergy Add hereto Chrysostome's Books of the Priest-hood wherein altho' he expresly professes he was to treat of the Office of a Bishop yet in these Books there 's nothing but what concerns a congregational Pastor nothing but what concerns publick prayer dispensing of the Word and Sacraments and such Duties that terminat on the People alone but not a word of the Duties of the Bishop or Prelat over inferiour congregational Pastors as their Object which is a sure Demonstration that with Chrysostome Bishop Priest and Pastor were Synonymous Terms § 5. To these add Pelagius a grand Heretick indeed but never branded as such for ought he said of Church-Government who restricts all Church-Officers to Priest and Deacon And asserts that Priest without any Discrimination or Restriction are the Successors of the Apostles And Here saith he by Bishops we understand Presbyters for there could not have been more Bishops in one Citie but we have this Matter also in the Acts of the Apostles Where it 's clear that Pelagius altho' in conformity to the introduc'd Custome of distinguishing Bishops from preaching Presbyters he endeavour'd accordingly to expone this place with as little dammage thereto as is possible deduceth nothwithstanding the Ground of the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter from the Churches latter Custome of having but one Bishop in one City and not from any Scripture-Warrant and indeed when he brings to clear his Comment the 20. of the Acts 17. and 28. he plainly intimats that even when he and others of that Age seem most clearly to hold forth a Difference betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter they then believ'd no such thing to flow from Divine Institution And There is a Question saith he why the Apostle made no mention of Presbyters but comprehended them under the Name of Bishops because answers he this is the second yea in a manner the very same Degree with that of Bishops as the Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Philippians To the Bishops and Deacons when yet one City cann't have more Bishops than one and in the Acts of the Apostles Paul being to go to Hierusalem and having gathered the Elders of the Church saith among other things take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops Hence it 's most evident that he believed both Offices to be by Scripture-Warrant one and the same and not a meer Communication of Names only But the thing most observable here is that to prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he brings Philip. 1. and hereby shews us that some of the Ancients from whose accustom'd Phrases he departed not while he exponed it when they seem to inferr from that place only a Community of Names did really believe no such thing but were perswaded that Philip. 1. 1. quite overthrows all Distinction betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter And Sedulius asserts and proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and concludes from the Example of the Ephesian Elders or Bishops that there were many Bishops in one City contrary to the Practice of his Age and that among the Ancients Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same And Primasius proposeth the Question why the Apostle comes to the Deacons without any mention of the Presbyters And Answers in the very words of Pelagius Thus it 's clear even these whom the Hierarchicks take for the prime Pillars of Prelacy being Judges that there 's no Divine Warrant for Diocesan Episcopacy and that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture in Apostolick times are one and the same For saith Augustine with whom I begin tho' Younger than Hierome being longer to insist on the other tho' according to these Names of Honour which the Custome of the Church hath now brought in fashion the Office of a Bishop be greater than that of a Presbyter yet in many things Augustine is below Hierome where we see that the whole Difference was in Expression rather than reality and that even that was only by Custome not by Divine Appointment These words hath now brought in fashion answers Bellarmine are not opposed to the ancient time of the Church but to the time before the Christian Church so that the sense is before the times of the Christian Church these Names Bishop and Presbyter were not Titles of Honour but of Office and Age but now they are Names of Honour and Dignity D. M. follows his Master Bellarmine in this wretch'd Detortion and adds that this was but a
went thro' the World for the Commodity of that Church and was never absolutely ordain'd a Bishop by the Apostles for James himself was an Apostle Of the same Mind is Salmasius that James resided not at Jerusalem as one of their Hierarchick Bishops but as an Apostle And yet D. M. is not asham'd to tell his Reader as the Concession of Salmasius that we have a Diocesan Bishop establish'd in the person of St. James the Just in the City of Jerusalem Now that Hierome understood James's Episcopacy in the sense giv'n by Junius and Salmasius against the Jesuites is most apparent especially if we consider how the Ancients us'd to speak of the Apostles and Apostolick extraordinary Church-Officers in the Stile of their own times and how positive Hierome was for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter during the Apostolick age and first primitive Church Add hereto that Hierome as he shews in his Preamble to Dexter was altogether uncertain of much of what he wrote in his Catalogue of Writers which is yet more clear from his account of Paul for the writes that he was a Native of Gischalis and during the Wars between the Jews and Romans sted with his Parents to Tarsus when Gischalis was taken Which I 'm sure Hierome a Man so well acquaint with the Affairs of the Jews who had no Wars with the Romans for many years after the time wherein the Fabler whom Hierome transcribes suppos'd these Wars to have been commens'd and Gischalis taken could never believe but only because he could light on no better transcrib'd things as he found ' em Which removes tho' no more could be said D. M's Objection from Hierome's mentioning of Ignatius his Epistles whereon D. M. with no small Ostentation insists He follows also Bellarmine objecting that Hierome makes Bishops the Apostles Successors But Junius Replies that Hierome denies not this to be also the priviledge of Presbyters It 's also objected by Dr. Pearson that Hierome in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaks of the Deacons as the third Order And seeing this of all the passages of Hierome produc'd by the Papists to involve him in self-repugnancy is most plausible take it at full length If a Man saith Hierome desires the Office of a Bishop he desires a good Work These things we know but add what follows A Bishop then must be blameless c. and having express'd the rest of the things which there follow concerning a Bishop the Apostle uses no less diligence in setting forth the Duties of the third Degree saying Likewise let the Deacons be grave c. But passing that he was scarce more than a Child when he wrote that Epistle and wrote clearly for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in his riper years it 's certain he pretends no Divine Warrant for this Tripartition Yea from the very words they would now detort it 's most evident that tho' Hierome following the Custome of his Age mentions a third Degree he notwithstanding takes both Paul's Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same thing Moreover in this same Epistle Hierome makes all who had the Power of Dispensing the Sacraments Successor to the Apostles which the Jesuites and their Supporters appropriat to Bishops hence they are baffl'd with the very places of Hierome they endeavour to abuse § 7. But I return to Hierome Philippi continues he is a single Town of Macedonia and truly in one City there could not be called are they as moe Bishops But because at that time they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters therefore he spoke indifferently concerning both Bishops and Presbyters From these words saith Petavius It can be evidently demonstrated that Hierome believed that Bishops and Presbyters were not one and the same Order yea even in the Age of the Apostles For had he so believ'd he had never said that there could not be a plurality of Bishops in one City when surely there was a plurality of Presbyters As if Jerome's whole discourse scope and conclusion were not directly opposite to what the Jesuite impudently fathers on him who in the words Petavius abuses only meets with some Wranglers as he elsewere terms them who to elude the proof Jerome brought for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Philippians 1. 1. absurdly contended that in the City of Philippi alone there were a multitude of Bishops distinguish d from and superior to other Pastors But yet this may seem doubtfull continous Jerome to some except it be confirmed by another Testimony It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Apostle was come to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he said take heed to your selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of Christ. And observe this diligently how the Apostle calling the Elders of Ephesus which was but one City afterwards names them Bishops if any receive the Epistle which under Paul's Name is written to the Hebrews there also the care of the Church is equally divided amongst a plurality For he writes to the People Obey your Governours and be subject to them for they watch And Peter who received his Name from the strength of his Faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder We have enlarged on these things that we might shew that among the Ancients Bishops were all one with Presbyters Hierome then never as Petavius and his Followers impudently pretend thought that there had hapned no alteration or that Bishops bore greater bulk in his time than they had done in the Age of the Apostles but by little and little to the end the seeds of Schism might be remov'd the whole care was devolv'd upon one wherefore as the Presbyters know that by the Custome of the Church they are subject to their prefect so let Bishops know that rather by Custome than by the Truth of Christ's Institution they are greater than Presbyters and ought to Rule the Church in common with them imitating Moses who when he alone had Power to Rule the Israelites chused other Seventy with whom he might judge the People Here say they is a proof of Superiority of Bishops by Divine Right but they should remember that Hierome here undertook to prove the quite contrary And it 's most injust to fish and search for self-contradictions in any Author when with ease he may be understood otherways as the Matter is here Hierome is arguing a majori ad minus from Moses his Practice who tho' he had sole Authority by Divine Right yet shar'd it with others to that which ought to have been done by the Bishops of his time whom only Church Custome not Christ's Appointment had raised over other Pastors And indeed they might on equal grounds inferr from John 13. 14. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your
62 Knox alloweth no Prelacy to England 66 He exhorts the English to embrace a Church-government and Discipline altogether Antiprelatical 67 The Assemblies letter 1566. vindicated from this Author 's pretended allowance of Prelacy 69 Knox acknowledged by the fiercest Prelatists to be truly Presbyterian 70 Superintendents in Scotland a temporary expedient The nullity of this Author's reasons to the contrary detected 72 The falsness of his Gloss of our first Book of discipline largely demonstrated 76 Superintendency not really inconsistent with parity This Authors unchristian rallery his overthrowing of the great principle of Hierarchicks are discovered and his bottomless cavills enervated 77 The stock of Prerogatives he pretends to have belonged to Superintendents evinced to be unserviceable to his design of giving Superintendents a superiority over their Pastors 81 He at once yields the whole cause and clasheth with himself Our first Reformers their opposition to and hatred of Prelacy's being damnable demonstrated The Helvetian and other 〈◊〉 Churches opposite to Prelacy as beeing destitute of Scripture-foundation 86 SECT IX The forraign Reformed Churches truly Presbyterian The Judgement of Luther and Lutherans 89 The mind of Calvin and those called Calvinists both in their private capacities and confessions of the most famous Churches 90 Specimens of the chiefest objections adduced and removed where the uncandide dealing of our Adversaries is unfolded 91 Who yet are forced to acknowledge the truth of our assertion 95 The eminent Opposers of Popery before Luther truly Presbyterian 96 The first Reformers and body of the Church of England at that time for no divine right of Prelacy where some of Saravia's qualities are noted Ibid. SECT X. Some of the manifold Inconveniences attending Prelacy briefly mentioned A Spirit of Persecution still attended it 98 The Principles of Prelacy and practise of Prelatists most Schismatical Ibid. It 's native tendency to introduce Popery 99 And to a Papal Domination and enslaving of the Kingdom 100 The spite and hatred the Hierarchicks shew against our Reformation from Popery their impiety and affection to Popery Ibid. Dr. Burnets exceptions from the Regulars theâ—r trampling on the Bishops and the dealing of the Papalines at the Council of Trent enervated 102 Another exception or retortion of this Author cashier'd 105 Lousness and Prophanity the constant attendent of Prelacy 106 PART II. SECT I. Of Ignatius and his Epistles Papists and other Hierarchicks make a fairer appearance from humane than from Divine Writings 109 A short account of Ignatius and of the Epistles bearing his name 110 Various Editions thereof Ibid. Our Adversaries now acknowledge to be spurious that they once gave out for genuine where of the Florentine Copy 111 Debates among the Learned concerning it Ibid. The unhandsome arts of our Adversaries to free themselves of further dispute 112 The great Confidence they place in Ignatius 113 Three Hypothese laid down according to each whereof Ignatius becomes unserviceable to the Prelatists Ibid. SECT II. The first Hypothesis viz. that Ignatius is at best interpolated Writings pretending to greatest proximity to either Old or New Testament carry most manifest signs of spuriousness in which Divine Providence is observed 114 Their Epistolick Ignatius's want of Apostolick Gravity and Humility his enslaving of the People and flattering yea deifying of all Church-men 115 Dr. Pearsons Exceptions removed 119 Du Pin's self-repugnancy 121 Dr. Wake 's Error discovered 122 A brief sum of the Arguments evincing our assertion 124 Other things very early falsly father'd on Ignatius Ibid His Journey to Rome uncredible 125 SECT III The second Hypothesis viz. That the Antiquity of the true Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes nor serve to prove that there were no declension in his time Whole Churches suerving during the life of the Apostles themselves They grew worse after their death 126 Papias's mistakes and multitude of Followers 127 The failings of Justine Martyr and Irenaus Ibid. The influence they had on the Church The common mistakes of these times in Practicks no less than in Dogmaticks which is instanc'd in their debate about Easter 128 Both parties went contrare to the Apostolick practice which is proved by clear Testimonies of Iranus and Socrates 129 Their strange conduct in managing this debate who Metamorphosed some Apostles into Jewish High-Priests 130 The Credulity and Oseitancy of Hegesippus 131 We are to hearken to God before the chiefest of Men. Divine providence observable in the mistakes of the Ancients 132 SECT IV. The third Hypothesis that there is no real disagreement but a true concord betwixt the Doctrine of Ignatius and that of the present Presbyterians They are reconcil'd by sustaining the Hypothesis of ruling Elders which Office is vouched to be of greatest Antiquity and where Ambrose or Hilary is vindicated against Dr. Field 134 Ignatius most express for the reciprocation of a Bishop and a Pastor of one Congregation 136 Our Adversaries yield the whole Controversy where Dr. Maurice's Mist is dispelled 138 Vindiciae Ignatianae destroy their Authors ultimate design 140 SECT V. The Objections they pretend to bring from Scripture against the Doctrine now deduced from Ignatius removed D. M's reasonings for the Diocesan Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus annihilated 140 No power properly Apostolick ordinary and permanent in the Church 143 Willet's answer to the Iebusites vindicated against their Advocat D. M. 147 The Office and nature of an Evangelist declared out of the Ancients 148 D. Mâ—s mutilation and perversion of Eusebius 149 That Timothy Titus were Evangelists and not Diocesan Bishops made out from Scripture Ibid. Apostles and Evangelists degraded by the Hierarchicks 150 Their Arguments for Timothy and Titus their Diocesan-ship houghed by the very Authors in whom they most confide both ancient and modern Ibid. Their Argument from the Asian Angels several ways overthrown and D. M's shifts and perversions expunged 151 Malach. 2. 7. vindicated against Dr. Hammond 153 His Correction of the receiv'd Greek Coppy of Rev. 2. 24. corrected D. M's strange and wild Gloss. Ibid. Salmasius vindicated against him and the mind of Presbyterians concerning Apocalyptick Angels fully sustain'd by Scripture and Fathers 154 The best of our Adversaries really acknowledge Episcopacy destitute of Scripture warrant Dr. Hammond wholly destroys Episcopacy while he attempts to establish it 155 SECT VI. Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the writings of the Apostles his immediate Ancestors Acts 20. v. 17 28 vindicated against Dr. Maurice and others who are by the ears among themselves 157 Philippians 1. 1. vindicated where the Diocesanists their Digladiations are exposed 158 Philippi no Metropolis where Dr. Maurice his weakness is detected the fiction of the existence of Metropoles in the Apostolick age exploded by the Hierarchy's truest friends Dr. Maurice's slippery dealing 159 The first to Timothy 3. vindicated against Bellarmine and his Friend D. M. 162 As is also Titus 1. 164 SECT VII The grand objection taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients The primitive Doctors
temporary Bishops Paroch-ministers by the first Book of Discipline head 8 were deposeable by the Superintendent and the Elders of their Parishes The Superintendent was to be Judged by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province But the fraud is palpable the words of the Book of Discipline are that if a Minister be worthy of Deposition the Elders of his Parish may with consent of the Kirk and Superintendent depose him Where you see the Kirk or Minister and Elders of the Province are no less interested in the Deposition of a Minister than in the judging of a Superintendent He suppress'd therefore all mention of the Kirk which even Spotswood whom he cites expresses to the end he might make his Reader believe no Minister save the Superintendent only had any power in Deposition of Ministers But privat Ministers saith he were to be admitted by their Superintendents but the Superintendents by the Superintendents next adjacent and the Superintendents had the Power of Ordination The first Book of Discipline and several Acts of the Assemblies But had only the Superintendents the Power of Ordination yea not only was there no plurality of Superintendents present at the Action but also John Knox who was no Superintendent ordain'd or admitted Spotswood Superintendent of L. yea every particular Minister when commissionated by the Assembly had no less Power of Ordination or any other thing whatsoever than is either in the Book of Discipline or any where else giv'n to the Superintendent Neither might any one particular Minister while he was a Commissioner more than the Superintendent be translated from one district to another without the Counsel of the whole Church or Assembly neither were there meaner Qualifications requisite in any Commissioner And I think Knox who was never a Superintendent was in these not inferiour to any of ' em But he had a living five times so much as another Minister But then I 'm sure he had five times as much to do with it being perpetually to Travell Preach and Exhort far and wide c but if this Rule had been keep'd our Bishops had got five times less than any other Minister for rarely did they any such Duty either at home or abroad In the mean while The Power of Riches and the baseness of Poverty maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower But Superintendents saith he were constant Members of General Assemblies had Power to Visit and to try the like c. of the Ministers of all the Churches of the Diocess and were to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministry had Power of granting Collations on Presentations But whatsoever he had of these belong'd also to every particular Pastor when commissionated by the General Assembly but tho' the Superintendent or Commissioner is only nam'd in such Cases as in trial of the Candidats granting Collations Deposition of Ministers c. He is to be understood as the Moderator and mouth of the Synod where he Superintended for Example the Assembly in the case of transportation chargeth the Ministers to obey the Voice and Commandment of their Superintendent and yet by the very same Act none can be translated without the Consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks conveen'd in the Synodal Assembly and yet from this very Act he adventnres to conclude the Canonical Obedience of Pastors to their Superintendents But he had Power to nominal Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly For Assembly 1562. 't was ordain'd that no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly except he have Complaints to make or be complain'd off or at least be warn'd thereto by the Superintendent And the L. Glamis in a Letter to Mr. Beza saith that after the Reformation it fell out by custom that the Bishops and so many of the Ministers Pastors and Elders as the Bishops appointed came to the General Assembly But touching what he alledges as said by the L. Glamis I can find it no where save in the Works of Saravia and Beza's Answer to Glamis his second Question wherein these words are found neither meets with nor presupposes any such Clause But be it that L. Glamis said so what will they hence infer he says indeed that this came to pass after the Reformation but how long 't was after the Reformation before this was practis'd he says not ' T was saith he receiv'd by Custom by no Decree of the Church then or Acts of the Assembly And lastly he speaks of Bishops not of Superintendents And I never find that any about these times gave Superintendents the name of Bishops and so this makes nothing for our Author's purpose Wherefore if ever L. Glamis had any such Expression whereof I much doubt in my mind he mean'd it of the Tulchans who for some space after the Leith-convention made some steps toward such a Superiority otherwise all the accounts we have of these times and in special the Acts of our Assemblies demonstrat that there was no such Power or Priviledge giv'n to any then in Scotland yea so much our Author himself presently proves and overturns this his own Argument by citing another out of the Assembly July 1563 1568 he should have said viz. Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies They all voted and concluded as followeth viz. that if the Order already received pleases not by reason of the plurality of Voices it be reformed in this manner First that none have place to Vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks and Ministers brought with them presented as Persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge with the aforenamed shall be joined Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with Commissioners of Vniversities Secondly Ministers and Commissioners shall be Chosen at the Synodal-convention of the Diocess by the Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal-convention c. From this Act 't is clear that the former in 1562. has only been mention'd never concluded or at least cass'd and repeal'd by some intervenient Assembly otherways there had been no place or ground for the Act of 1568. which presupposes that ev'n these that were not at all thus Chosen at the Synod were free to come and Vote at the Assembly So far was this liberty from being put in the Superintendent or Commissioner's Power And indeed from this Act 't is most evident and 't is left on Record also by the Vindicatour of Philadelphus that before the time of this Act all Ministers who pleased were free to Vote at the Assemblies yet with our Author Petrie must be a mixer of lies for saying so much But Calderwood saith our Author leaves out intirely these words brought with them i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks presented as Persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge whereby the Power of Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of
seeing as Blondel at large shews the phrase natively yealds only this sense viz. Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that Colleage And thus D. M. may as well inferr Peter's Superiority and Power over the rest of the Apostles from Acts 2. 37. To Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Moreover Blondel demonstrats how on diverse accounts Polycarp without any Eminency and Power over the rest may be particularly nominated rather than others as because he was first in Order and Years But I insist not herein but referr to Blondel who hath nervously baffl'd this their pitifull Coujecture D. M. adventures to ingage with nothing of what he saith and yet is not asham'd to bring to the Field so blunted a weapon I pass also D. M.'s two Arguments for Polycarp's Diocesan Episcopacy drawn from the pretended Succession of Diocesan Bishops in Smyrna and the Epistles of Ignatius mention'd by Polycarp having overthrown both of 'em already and proceed to the Testimony of Hermas who thus speaks Thou shalt write two Books thou shalt send one to Clement and one to Graptes and Clement shall send it to foraign Cities for to him this is permitted and Graptes shall admonish the Widows and Orphans but thou shalt read it with or relate it unto the Presbyters in this City who govern the Church Where we see that not any one Bishop but a Colledge of Presbyters call'd doubtless afterward by the same Author Bishops govern'd the Church of one City Yet D. M. pretends to find here a palpable Evidence of Episcopacy For saith he the sending of the Encyclical Epistle to foraign Cities is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of Clement then Bishop of Rome But if he conclude from this place of Hermas that Clement had any Power over these to whom he was to send that Book or Epistle as for Clement's being Bishop of Rome it 's so far from being insinuated here that the quite contary is from this very place most evident he may as well inferr from Col. 4. 16. that they had Power over the Laodiceans whither they were to send and cause to be read the Apostle's Letter Secondly D. M. ascribing to the Bishop of Rome Power over foraign Cities erects a Pope rather than a Bishop But I 'll assure him he came not in so early for seeing there was undoubtedly one Bishop at least in every particular City so soon as there were any in the World this place of Hermas if it bear D. M's Inference and give a Power to Clement over foraign Cities insinuats nothing of a Bishop's Dignity above Presbyters but of the power of one Bishop over another or rather of a Pope over other Churches A falshood most unanimously exploded by Cyprian Jerome Augustine and the rest of the Ancients D. M. seeks also for his Prelacy in these words of Hermas viz. The Earthly Spirit exalts it self and seeks the first seat Some contend for Principality and Dignity But what if Hermas had said that some contended to get an Empire and Popedome over the whole Church would D. M. hence conclude that it was lawfull or then practised in the Church or when the Apostles contended who should be the greatest Had Christ before that time assured them of the lawfulness of such an Office and told them that they were to have one to be a Prince over the rest By no Logick therefore can it be inferred for Hermas his words that a chief Seat or Principality for both are one and the same with Hermas was then either exercised or held lawfull Again tho' both had been then in Custome no Power of one over the rest can be hence concluded seeing the chief Seats are given to the Moderators of Synods and other Presidents of Assemblies who have no primacy of Power but only of Order And again The polished and white Stones saith Hermas are the Apostles and Bishops and Doctors and Deacons who walked in the Clemency of God aâ—d exercised the Office of a Bishop and taught and served And Such are some Bishops that is Governours of the Churches and these who have the Charâ—e of the Services § 7. In both places saith Blondel he makes only two Degrees that of the Bishops who governed the Churches and that of the Deacons who had the charge of the Services for it 's acknowledged by all that the Doctors are all one with the Bishops when they are said to have performed the Office of a Bishop and that the Apostles as they are opposed to Bishops were placed above the whole Clergy This repons D. M. is Tergiversation with a Witness and a fraudulent Trick in Blondel since Presbyters in the primitive Church are frequently distinguished by the Name of Doctors and Blondel's Commentary is a manifest violence offered to the Text for Doctors are not said to have performed the Office of a Bishop but to have taught and this is very agreeable to their Character being so much imploy'd by their respective Bishops in teaching the Catechumeni and the natural position of these words will allow of no other meaning Which Answer D. M. hath learned from the Practice of our late Bishops during whose Epocha the Buffund might have hid himself well nigh the whole year from the Bishop's fury in the Bishop's pulpit seeing he scarce ever came thither to play the Doctor or ought else As for the Ancient and true primitive Bishops they perpetually preach'd or taught saith Le Moyn Moreover the Fathers generally take Pastor Bishop and Doctor for one and the same as Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Sedulius and after them Aquinas Haymo Benedictus Justinianus with others on Ephes. 4. 11. Of the same mind are Hierome Augustine and Anselm and the pretended Clemens Romanus cited by Gratian and Benedictus Justinianus and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage Of the same Mind are the ablest of our Episcopals as Field Hammond and Heylen So truly did Blondel say that Bishop and Doctor is universally taken for one and the same Neither was ever the Presbyter either in Cyprian or any other Ancient called Doctor in opposition to the Bishop but to other Ecclesiastick Presbyters who taught not of whose existence as was before touched we have most sufficient assurance But D. M. in contradiction to the Apostle would have a Bishop who is no Teacher or Preacher like the Droll who said he mett with Priests who were no Clerks And seeing with Hermas there are but two Orders of Church-men and Bishops and praesides Ecclesiarum Church Governours are reciprocal Terms taken for one and the same and seeing that his Presbyters are expresly term'd Church-Governours it 's most evident that he takes Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same and that the word Doctor is purely exegetick or explicative of the word Bishop and that both of them which I 'm sure is not unfrequent in all sorts of Authors evidently signifie one and the same thing § 8. I now