صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

nefs, Sufficiency, and all perfonal Endowments. And if all these were not fufficient to Chrift himself, without an outward Commiffion, what Man can pretend to it upon the Account of any perfonal Excellencies in himself, without an outward Commiffion?

III. AN D, as Chrift was outwardly Commiffionated by his Father, fo did not He leave it to his Difciples, every one's Opinion of his own Sufficiency, to thrust himself into the Vineyard, but chofe twelve Apoftles by Name; and feventy others of an inferior Order, whom he fent to preach.

IV. AN D, as Chrift gave outward Commiffions while he was upon the Earth, fo we find that his Apofiles did proceed in the fame Method, after his Afcenfion. Acts xiv. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church.

LET this fuffice to fhew what facred Mounds are thrown up by Divine Appointment, a round this boly Calling: And tho' much more might be offer'd, I be lieve this will be fufficient to affright the Headtrong, and to keep him from feizing with his facrilegious Hands upon the facred Office:

V. BUT had they, who were thus ordained by the Apoftles, Power to Ordain others? Yea, Tit. i. 5. For this Caufe left I thee in Crete, that thou should st

ordain Elders in every City. 1 Tim. v. 22. Lay Hands fuddenly on no Man, &c. Clement in his first Epiftle to the Corinthians, writing concerning the Schifm which was rifen up amongft them, fays Parag. 44. That the Apoftles fore-knowing there wou'd be Contests concerning the Epifcopal Name (or Office) did themfelves appoint the Perfons: And not only fo, left that might be faid to be of Force only during their Time. But that they afterwards established an Order bow, when those whom they had ordained fhould die ; others, fit and approved Men, should fucceed them in their Miniftry. Parag. 43. That they who were intrufted

trusted with this Work by God, in Chrift, did conftitute thefe Offices.

BUT this Matter depends not upon the Tefti mony of him, or many more that might be produced. It is fuch a publick Matter of Fact, that I might as well go about to quote particular Authors, to prove that there were Emperors in Rome, as that the Minifters of the Church of Chrift were ordained to fucceed one another, and that they did fo fucceed.

BUT here is a Difpute, whether this Succeffion was preferved in the Order of Bishops or Presbyters? Or whether both are not the fame ?

To which I anfwer, that this Succeffion from the Apoftles is preferv'd and deriv'd only in the Bishops: As the Continuance of any Society, is deduc'd only in the Succeffion of the chief Governors of the Society, not of the inferior Officers. Thus in Kingdoms, we reckon by the Succeffion of the Kings, not of Sherriffs or Conftables; and in Corporations by the Succeffion of the Mayors, or other chief Officers; not of the inferior Bailiffs or Serjeants: So the Succeffion of the Churches is computed in the Succeffion of the Bishops, who are the chief Governors of the Churches, and not of Presbyters, who are but inferi our Officers under the Bishops.

BUT this you will fay is gratis dictum. Here is no Proof. Therefore to proceed. I anfwer that in this, the Matter of Fact is as clear and evident, as the Succeffions of any Kings or Corporations in the

World.

To begin with the Apostles, we find not only that they conftituted Timothy Bishop of Ephefis, and Titus of Crete, as in the Subfcriptions of St. Paul's Epiftles to them: But, in Eufebius and other Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, you have the Bishops nam'd who were conftituted by the Apostles themselves, over the then famous Churches of Jerufalem, Antioch,

Rome

Rome and Alexandria, and many other Churches and the Succeffion of them down all along.

St. Polycarp, Bihop of Smyrna, was Difciple to St. John the Apoffle; and St. Ireneus, who was Difciple to St. Polycarp, was conftituted Bishop of Lyons in France.

AND fo it was in all other Churches; throughout the whole World, wherever Chriftianity was planted, Epifcopacy was every where Eftablished, without one Exception, as is evident from all their Records.

IT was fo with England, whither it is generally fuppos'd, and with very good Grounds, that St. Paul firft brought the Chriftian Faith. Clemens Romanus, who was a Companion of St. Paul, in his firft Epifle to the Corinthians, Paragr. 5. fays, that St. Paul went preaching the Gospel even to the utmost Bounds of the Weft, om To Tipμa Tus Auotas, by which Term Britain was then underftood. And Theodoret exprefly names the Britains among the Nations converted by the Apoftles. (Tom. 4. Serm. 9. p. 610.) And Eufebius in his Evangelical Demonftration, (L. 3. c. 7. p. 113.) names likewife the Britains as then converted.

[ocr errors]

BUT whether St. Paul, or, as fome conjecture, Fofeph of Arimathea, or any other Apoftolical Perfon was the firft who preached Chrift in England, it matters not, as to our prefent Purpofe; who en quire only concerning Epifcopacy; and it is certain by all our Hiftories, that as far up as they give us any Account of Chriftianity in this Ifland, they tell us likewife of Bishops; and the Succeffion of the Church of England has been deduc'd in the Succeffion of Bishops, and not of Presbyters. And particularly in the Diocefs of London, which was the firft Archi-Epifcopal Seat, before Auguftin the Monk came hither, after which it was establish'd in Canterbury. And the Saxon Writers have tranfmitted the Succeffion of their Bifhops in Canterbury, Rochester, London, &c.

AND

[ocr errors]

AND in Countries fo remote and barbarous as Iland it felf we find the fame care taken; Ara or Aras, an Ilandifh Prieft Sire-nam'd Hinfrede the Learned, who flourish'd in the eleventh Century, and was 25 Years old when Chriftianity was carry'á thither, in his Book of that Country written in Iflandish, has tranfmitted to Pofterity, not only the Succeffion, but the Genealogies of the Bishops of Skalholt and Hola (the two Epifcopal Sees of Inland) as they fucceeded one another in his Time. I mention this of Ifland, to fhew that Epifcopacy has extended it felf equally with Chriftianity, which was carry'd by it, into the remoteft corners of the Earth; upon which account the Bishops of Skalholt and Hola, and their Succeffion, are as remarkable Proofs of Epifcopacy, tho' not fo famous as the Bishops of Canterbury and London.

IF the Presbyterians will fay (because they have nothing left to fay) that all London (for Example) was but one Parish; and that the Presbyter of every other Parish was as much a Bishop as the Bishop of London; because the words Emonon and geo ßUTEPO, Bishop and Presbyter are fometimes us'd in the fame Senfe; they may as well prove that Chrift was but a Deacon, becaufe He is fo call'd. Rom. xv. &. Aláxov, which we rightly tranflate a Minifter: And Bishop fignfies an Overfeer, and Presbyter an ancient Man, or elder Man; whence. our Term of Alderman. And this is as good a Foundation to prove that the Apofles were Aldermen, in the City Acceptation of the Word; or that our Aldermen are all Bishops and Apoflles, as to prove that Presbyters and Bishops are all one, from the childish Gingle of the Words.

IT wou'd be the fame Thing, if one fhou'd undertake to confront all Antiquity, and prove against all the Hiftories, that the Emperors of Rome were no more than Generals of Armies,and that every Roman General was Emperor of Rome; because he cou'd

find

find the Word Imperator fometimes apply'd to the General of an Army.

OR as if a Common-wealth man fhou'd get up and fay, that our former Kings were no more than our Dukes are now, because the Stile of Grace, which is now given to Dukes, was then given to Kings.

AND fuppofe that any One were put under the pennance of anfwering to fuch ridiculous Arguments; what Method wou'd He take, but to fhew that the Emperors of Rome, and former Kings of England, had Generals of Armies and Dukes under them, and exercis'd Authority over them?

THEREFORE when we find it given in Charge to Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephefus, how He was to proceed againft his Presbyters, when they tranfgreffed; to fit in Judgment upon them, examine Witnesses against them, and pafs Cenfures upon them, it is a moft impertinent Logomachy to argue from the Etymology of the Words, that notwithstanding of all this, a Bifhop and Presbyter are the fame thing. Therefore that one Text 1. Tim. v. 19. is fufficient to filence that pitiful clamour of the Pesbyteri ans ; our English reads it, against an Elder, which is the Literal Tranflation of the Word Presbyter, rad geo Burips against a PRESBYTER receive not an Accufation, but before two or three Witnesses, and, them that fin rebuke before all,that others alfo may fear. Now, upon the Presbyterian Hypothefis, we must say that Timothy had no Authority or Jurifdiction, over that Presbyter, against whom He had power to receive Accufations, examine Witnesses, and pass Cenfures upon Him: And that fuch a Presbyter had the fame Au thority over Timothy, which is fo extravagant and against common Senfe, that I will not ftay longer to confute it; and think this enough to have faid concerning the Presbyterian Argument from the Etymology of the Words Bishop and Presbyter.

AND

« السابقةمتابعة »