Sect. 26. Object. Those that you have to deal with say not, that [There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days, but only that in the Apostles writings, the word [Bishops] always signifies Bishops, and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters. But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings; and the Apostles times were larger then their writings, as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist. p. 106.] Ans. 1. The words I cited (from Annot. in Act. 11.) faithfully, which you may peruse: which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted.] So that it is not Scripture writings only, but Scripture times that's spoken of. And 2. If there be no evidence of it, the Church cannot believe it or affirm it; for it judgeth not of unrevealed things; and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence. 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times: So that they must be instituted by John only: And John dyed the next year after Scripture times, as the chief Chronologers judge: For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14th year of Domitian, so his Gospel the year before Trajan, and dyed the next year, being after the commoner reckoning, An. D. 98. and some think more. And what likelihood, or proof at least, that John did institute them the year that he dyed? when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant ⟨p. 22⟩Elders (before that year, it's like.) 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time, then no testimony from Antiquity c•n prove them then instituted. But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self, we should take it as little to our purpose. For 5. doth Antiquity say that the Institution was Divine, of Universal obligation to the Church, or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office (the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Dioceses, Metropolitans, &c.) If only the later, it binds us not, but proveth only the licet, and not the oportet at least, as to all the Church. And then every Country that finds cause, may set up another kind of government: •ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity, then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Universal Laws;
Sect. 26. Object. Those that you have to deal with say not, that [There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days, but only that in the Apostles writings, the word [Bishops] always signifies Bishops, and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters. But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings; and the Apostles times were larger then their writings, as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist. p. 106.] Ans. 1. The words I cited (from Annot. in Act. 11.) faithfully, which you may peruse: which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted.] So that it is not Scripture writings only, but Scripture times that's spoken of. And 2. If there be no evidence of it, the Church cannot believe it or affirm it; for it judgeth not of unrevealed things; and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence. 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times: So that they must be instituted by John only: And John dyed the next year after Scripture times, as the chief Chronologers judge: For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14th year of Domitian, so his Gospel the year before Trajan, and dyed the next year, being after the commoner reckoning, An. D. 98. and some think more. And what likelihood, or proof at least, that John did institute them the year that he dyed? when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant ⟨p. 22⟩Elders (b•fore that year, it's like.) 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time, then no testimony from Antiquity c•n prove them then instituted. But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self, we should take it as little to our purpose. For 5. doth Ant•quity say that the Institution was Divine, of Universal obligation to the Church, or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office (the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses, Metropolitans, &c.) If only the later, it binds us not, but proveth only the licet, and not the oportet at least, as to all the Church. And then every Countrey that finds cause, may set up another kind of government: •ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity, then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws;
