must be received as the Infallible truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholic Church in former Ages from the combinations of Hereticks these are new in their several Errors and Delusions and upon that very account of their Novelty were expos'd and refuted by the Ancients they neither agreed amongst themselves nor with the Orthodox But the Uniform Voice of Christendom in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors If it appear then that the Opinions which we oppose and are propagated by the Presbyterian Societies are such as were never entertain'd in the Christian Church for fourteen hundred Years after our Saviour's Incarnation then I leave it to every sober Christian to consider whether he may safely continue in the communion of that Party that despises the whole Catholic Church both Ancient and Modern CHAP. I. The Novelty and Insufficiency of those Pleas and Arguments managed by the Presbyterians in defence of their New Doctrine of Parity THE first Opinion that I charge with Error and Novelty amongst our Country-men is this That they affirm upon all Occasions that our Saviour hath appointed his Church under the New Testament whether Provincial National or Oecomenic to be govern'd by the several classes of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ecclesiastical Senate above a Presbyter in the modern and current Notion of the word Such a Doctrine must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new and never propagated in any part of the Christian Church until these last days of Separation and Singularity In this Opinion they differ not only from the Uniform testimony of Antiquity but also from the first Presbyterians amongst ourselves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church-Polity is variable so far they were at that time from asserting that indispensible divine and unalterable right of Parity All that the first Presbyterians pleaded was that their new form was allowable and not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament and Primitive Institution and that it came very near to the Original Model of Churches but they never thought to advance such a bold and rash Assertion as to affirm That the Christain Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be govern'd in all Ages by a Parity of Presbyters or that there was no other Officer in the Church could pretend to any share of Ecclesiastical Government above a Presbyter When a Society of Men set up for Divine Absolute and Infallible Right they ought to bring plain Proofs for what they say else they must needs be look'd upon as Impostors or at least self-conceited and designing Men. To propagate a Doctrine under the notion of a probable Opinion though it should happen to be an Error is consistent with Modesty and the practice of Learned Men in all Ages But to affirm a new Notion to be established by Divine Right and to require Obedience to that Scheme as a thing that is due to Supreme and Infallible Authority is much worse than Speculative Enthusiasm If a man only entertains himself with his Visions and Fancies he alone suffers by it but if I meet with a company of head-strong Fellows who must needs persuade me that they see so many Armies in the Air fighting and with the exactest Discipline of War nay their Banners the shape and colour of their Horses their several Squadrons and the whole order of their Encampment and will certainly knock me in the head unless I take my Oath upon it that I see all this who never saw any such thing in my Life I think I have reason to complain that my Circumstances are very unlucky I had certainly rather fall into the hands of High-way-men than amongst those Spiritual Robbers who divest me of my Senses and the exercise of my Reason If you inform our Country men that their New Doctrine is thus represented they will tell you that none but wicked men oppose their Government that it is Establish'd upon the express Institution of our Saviour that it hath been asserted and prov'd by several Learned Men of their Party beyond contradiction But if you ask by what particular argument you may be convinc'd of the Truth of their New Doctrine then they begin to lead you into a Labyrinth of dark and intricate Consequences obscure and perplext Probabilities several Texts of Scripture they will alledge but sadly wrested and distorted from their genuine Meaning and Design and the uniform Suffrages of all the Ancients And if you are not satisfied with such proofs as they advance you must be contented to submit to their Censure and the New Discipline must be Obey'd where-ever their Power is equal to their Pretences I can give you but a short History of their Arguments by which they endeavour to Establish their Divine Right of Parity When you read their Books I think all their pleas of whatever kind or force may be reduc'd to these three heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour or secondly They endeavour to support it by consequences from several Texts of Scripture or thirdly from the Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church First I say they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters exclusive of the Superiority or Jurisdiction of a Bishop is expresly commanded by our Saviour This indeed promises veryfair For if our Saviour hath plainly and positively Commanded that Ecclesiastical Affairs shall be managed in all Churches and Ages communi Presbytero'um consilio and by such a College of Presbyters as excludes the Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop then without all Controversie all Christians are oblig'd to submit to it The Consequence is plain and undeniable and because our Country-men do insist upon this more frequently than any of the foreign Presbyterians we ought to hear them calmly and deliberately and when they plead the Authority of our Blessed Saviour we must view those Texts with reverence and attention and see if any thing can be inferred from them that may probably support the now Scheme of Presbytery The Parallel Texts of Scripture are Matth. 20. 25. But Jesus called them unto him and said ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them v. 26. But it shall not be so great among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister V. 27. And whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant v. 28 Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministred unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many See also Mark 10. v. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. From these parallel Places they plead that the Officers of Chirist's House were by his own express Command establish'd in a perfect
prevail'd there was a Praeses to whom the Protocathedria or Locus in Cosessu Primarius was constantly due and that during life And there are such mainfest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to the one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolical Age that the Learned'st Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it The Apocalyptic Angels amongst whom we justly reckon S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops suceeding the Apostles in several Sees gathered at least towards the middle of the Second Century make it Evident beyond all Contradiction It is impossible to let us see from any Ancient Record either Genuine or Suppositious that there was ever any thing of Moment Canonically determin'd in the Ecclesiastical Meetings without their Bishop his particular Advice and Authority And since Clemens Romanus Origen and S. Cyprian do compare the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical how is it that we can pretend to Conclude an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies us'd in Christian Writings no more than we can Dream of a Parity among the Jewish Priests because they are frequently Dichotomiz'd especially since the Ancient who sometimes divide the Clergy only into two Orders do again upon other occasions Subdivide the Highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from all Subordinate Presbyters It is true that Clemens Romanus a Writer of the Apostolical Age Divides the Clergy into two Orders but so he Divides also the Jewish Ministers of the Sanctuary into Priests and Levites which no Man will allow as a Proof of the Equality of Priests under the Old Testament but I shall have Opportunity hereafter to consider the Testimony alledg'd by Blondel from S. Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians more particularly in its proper Place I have formerly said that the most Ancient Writers who Dichotomize the Clergy when they speak of them with regard to the Laity do yet distinguish them by a Tripartite Division when the Hierarchy is consider'd in it self and with regard to that Prostasia and Jurisdiction which distinguishes one Priest from another Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo hath these Words Jus quidem dandi baptismum habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi Authoritate quâ salvâ salva pax est Yet Monsieur Blondel runs away with another Testimony cited from his Apologeticks as if he had found there a perfect Equality of Presbyters because the Seniores are said to be in the Government than which there cannot be a more absurd Consequence for he neither affirm'd that those Seniores were all Equal among themselves nor is it certain whether by the Seniores he understood all Presbyters in General or those only who were advanc'd to the Episcopal Dignity for it was no part of his Business in an Apology Address'd to the Heathens to insist on the Subordinations of one Priest unto another for he only pleaded that there was nothing in the Christian Meetings contrary to the strictest Rules of Morality and Decency and that they were Men of Approv'd and Exemplary Lives who were advanc'd to any share of the Ecclesiastical Government Clemens Alexandrinus is brought as a Witness to serve the same Design but then unluckily he reckons up the three Orders of the Clergy and calls them Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this Occasion it is needless to name S. Cyprian who Asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal Power upon all Occasions with great Courage and Assurance and S. Polycarp the Famous Doctor of the Asiatic Church Bishop of Smyrna and Disciple of Saint John who flourish'd long before S. Cyprian though he Divides the Clergy into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians yet he honourably mentions and recommends the Epistles of S. Ignatius in which the Apostolical Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon is so often and so expresly mention'd and S. Polycarp in the Epigraphe of that Epistle distinguishes himself from his Subordinate Presbyters according to the Modest and Usual Sâ—ile of those days Pelycarp and the Presbyters that are with him who if he had stood on a Level with those Presbyters would never have distinguish'd himself from the Community of his Brethren by his proper Name plac'd at such a distance yet with Visible but very Modest Marks of Distiction and Precedence according to the humble Practice of those Glorious Martyrs From what hath been said it is very evident that there can be nothing more Foolish and Extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because some Ancient Christians us'd the Jewish Phraseology for even these upon other Occasions frequently Assert the Jurisdiction of one Bishop over many Presbyters and Hermas who was Contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproves the Ambition of some in his own time who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment And if there was no such Precedence then in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension The sum of these Reasonings amounts to this that when the Hellenist Jews would distinguish the High-Priest from the Levites they thought the common Name of a priest was sufficient as is evident from several places in Phylo the Jew And as it was unreasonable to conclued from thence that he had not a singular Authority and Jurisdiction over subordinate Priests so now-a-Days an Argument founded upon the same Topic is equally Impertinent and Sophistical When the priests were compar'd among themselves one with another then their Dignities and Subordinations might be seasonably mentioned If we compare the priests of the New Testament with the Deacons we need say no more than Priests and Deacons but when we compare the Priests among themselves we must acknowledge their several Subordinations The Priests under the Old Testament were only allowed to offer the Sacrifices and by their Offering of Sacrifices were distinguish'd from the Levites So under the New Testament the Priests both of the highest and subordinate Order offer the Eucharistical Sacrifice and by so doing are sufficiently distinguish'd from Deacons yet this is no Argument against the Subordination of one Priest unto another Thus we see there was the same Reason for those Dichotomies of the Clergy both under the Old and New Testament From what hath been said we may easily see that the Jews us'd such Dichotomies of their Clergy both under the Mosaic Oeconomy and in the Apostolical Age when the superiority of the High-Priest was past all Contradiction And there can be a very good account given of this Phraseology and way of speaking from the different Considerations that engag'd both Jewish and Christian Writers to use the Bipartite or Tripartite Division of the Clergy for the very same Christian Writers who only mentioned two Orders do in other places reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon as plainly as is possible From
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE New Opinions Chiefly Propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland Together also with some Animadversions on a Late Book Entituled A Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk In a LETTER to a Friend at EDINBURGH By A. M. D. D. Jeremiah 6.16 Ask for the Old Paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your Souls but they said we will not walk therein LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's-Head in St. Paul ' s Church-yard 1696. THE CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE THE Introduction inviting all the true Sons of the Church especially the Afflicted Clergy to the most serious Exercise of true Repentance and Humiliation P. 1 2 3 4 5 c. The Doctrines and Principles that we contend for against the later Sectaries are Primitive Catholic and Orthodox p 9 10 11. CHAP. I. The Insufficiency of those Pleas and Arguments managed by the Presbyterians against the Catholic Church in Defence of their New Doctrine of Parity p. 12 13 14. Their Arguments reduc'd to three general Heads p. 15. 1. Their Pleas from the Pretended immediate Institution of our Saviour considered p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 2. Their Arguments from the Confusion of Names observable in the New Testament proved to be Vain and Sophistical p. 22 23 24 25 c. 3. Their Arguments from the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Writters examined p. 39 40. The Testimony of St. Clement the Apostolical Bishop of Rome Vindicated from the Wilful Mistakes of Presbyterians p. 41 42 43 44 c. The Testimony of St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and Disciple of St. John the Apostle enquired into particularly p. 49 50 51. The Testimony from Hermas impartially viewed and the Disingenuity of Monsiour Blondel reproved p. 52 53 54 c. Pope Pius his Epistle to Justus Viennensis Censured as Spurious and if it was Genuine cannot serve the Presbyterian Design p. 56. The Instance of Marcion the Heretic as unfit to support the New Doctrine as the former Testimony from the Spurious Epistle of Pope Pius p. 57. The Testimony from Justin Martyr impertinently alledged by our Adversaries p. 58 59. The Testimony of the Gallican Martyrs p. 62 63. The Testimony of St. Cyprian p. 64. The Testimony from the Authority of St. Jerome p. 65. The Error of St. Jerome discovered to be very different from the New Doctrine of the Presbyterians p. 66. St. Jerome never acknowledged any Interval after the Death of the Apostles in which Ecclesiastical Affairs were managed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ibid Seqq. St. Jerome taught that Episcopacy was the Apostolical remedy of Schism from p. 65. to p. 80. The Testimony from the Authority of Saint Austin examined Saint Austin reasoned from the Succession of single Persons governing the Church of Rome from the days of the Apostles and by this Argument overthrew the Doctrine and Schism of the Donatists p. 81. to p. 94. CHAP. II. Of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles p. 94. Some Presbyterian Concessions preliminary to the true State of the Controversie p. 95 96. The Apostolical Office considered with regard to its Permanent and Essential Nature 2ly As it was adorned with Extraordinary and miraculous Advantages The First was to continue for ever in the Church the Second was Transient and Occasional with regard to the first Plantations of Christianity The Apostolical and Episcopal Office the same in its Original Nature Essence and Design p 98 99 100 101 c. The true State of the Controversie whether the Apostles left the Government of Particular Churches to single Successors or to a College of Presbyters acting in Parity and Equality p. 105 106 The first is affirmed by all Records whether we consider the inspired Writings of the Apostles or the Ecclesiastical Histories of after Ages p. 107 c. The true Notion of an Evangelist altogether different from the Permanent Office of Timothy or Titus p. 111. Saint James the Just Established Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and he in that City was the Centre of Unity and Episcopal Succession in that See p. 112 113. The Episcopal Power lodged in his person ib. The Angels of the Asiatic Churches Bishops in the strictest Sense p. 114 c. The whole Question reduced to three Enquiries p. 118 c. The Force of the Primitive Argument against Hereticks from the Succession of single Persons p. 123 124 125. The Ancients could not be deceived in an affair of this Nature p. 128 129. The Impossibility of changing the Ecclesiastical Government from Parity to Prelacy in the Primitive Ages all things duly considered p. 136 137. This proved at length from the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians Salmasius blondel and Bochartus Ibid. The Peevishness of our Adversaries in this Controversie p. 150. The Epistles of St. Ignatius overthrow the Pretences of Parity even upon Salmasius his own Hypothesis P. 152 153 c. The whole Controversie reduced to Nine plain Queries p. 157 158 159 160. The Power of Bishops over the Subordinate Clergy and Lay-men in the Primitive Ages p. 161. The Presbyterian exception against large Diocesses discussed p. 162 163 164. Saint James the Just a Diocesan Bishop in the Strictest Sense p. 164 165. CHAP. III. Of several other New Opinions propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland p. 168. Their Doctrine concerning the Holy-Days of our Saviour's Nativity Resurrection and Ascension Ibid. Anniversary Solemnities not founded upon any Divine or Express Institution observed in the Jewish and Christian Church p. 172 c. Presbyterian Exceptions removed p. 175 176 177. This further Prosecuted from several other Considerations p. 179 180 c. The Festivity of Christmas more particularly considered p. 185. The Vindicator's Mistakes exposed by the Anniversary Commemoration of the Martyrs celebrated by the first Christians p. 188 c. The New Explications of the Vindicator insisted on p. 196 c. Some other ridiculous Fancies examined viz That Christmas was observed in honour of Julius Caesar p. 205. The Testimony cited from Buchanan cannot serve the Presbyterian Design p. 207 208. CHAP. IV. Of the Presbyterian Notion of Schism and their fabulous Stories concerning a Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the first Ages of Christianity p. 211. Several Considerations proposed to prove our Scotish Presbyterians Schismaticks from the Catholic Church in the strictest Sense of that Word p. 213 214 c. A Particular Enquiry into that Fabulous Story propagated by our Adversaries viz. That there was a Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the First Ages of Christianity p. 228 229. The Authors cited by the Vindicator of the Kirk to support this Dream particularly considered p. 230. The Authority of Prosper mistaken and the Testimony cited by our Adversaries from his Chronicon Consulare more narrowly enquired into p. 245 c. CHAP. V. The Presbyterian Doctrine concerning Rites and Ceremonies examined p. 250 251. Their Notions contradict the Practice of all civiliz'd Nations Ibid. The frequent Allusions
very Solid and Demonstrative To this purpose they cite Act. 20. 17. 28. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. and several other places Whether a Bishop be of a Higher Order than a Presbyter does not now fall under our Enquiry nor is it in it self very material Sometimes they might be consider'd of the same Order with regard to the Priesthood common to either by which both Bishops and Presbyters were distinguish'd from the body of the People and other Subordinate Officers of the Church though at other times when Authority and Jurisdiction is nam'd the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is always reckon'd above a Presbyter Here we are carefully to Observe that when the Inspir'd Writers Dichotomiz'd the Clergy into two Orders they but follow'd the Dialect and Example of the Jews who thus divided their Ministers also into Priests and Levites though the Highest Order was again Subdivided both by the Jews and the Christians when the Priests were consider'd with regard to that Subordination establish'd among themselves and without any regard to the Body of the People This is very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Jews as well as to the Idiom of the Hellenistical Tribes of the Apostolical Age The first confounded the name of the High Priest with that of a Priest without any other distinguishing Charcteristic or Discrimination For Proof of this see Levit. 1. 7 8. And the Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar and lay the wood in order upon the fire v. 8. And the Priests Aaron's Sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the Altar Here we plainly find that in the first Establishment of the Mosaic Oeconomy in which the Patriarchal Subordination of Priests was still retain'd the High Priest is nam'd by the same appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the Title of a Priest was promiseuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinate Yet it was never question'd but that there were extraordinary Privileges and Dignities reserv'd to the High Priest amongst the Jews though thus plac'd amongst the other Priests without any Nominal Distinction nor do we find the Title of High Priest ever affix'd to the particular name of Aaron or Eleazar in all the Pentateuch nor is the word High-Priest it self mention'd in the Books of Moses but either twice or thrice and that only with regard to the Administration of after days Yet this Homonomy of names could not be reasonably pleaded then against the Subordination of other Priests to Aaron nor against the Deference due to his Pontifical Character Was it then to be expected that the Apostles or Apostolical Men when they occasionally mention'd the Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the currant Language and Pharaseology of their own Country-men who divided their Clergy into Priests and Levites as if there were no more but two Orders even when the meanest of the Jews knew that the Dignity of the High Priest was very honourable and distinguish'd from all Subordinate Priests by all marks of Eminence and Authority It is true that in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High Priest is very frequently distinguish'd by his Proper and Special Character yet in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy neither Aaron nor Eleazar were called High-Priests when they are particularly nam'd and if in those days any had been so mad as to have infer'd from this confusio Nominum an Equality between all Priests he would certainly have been expos'd for the Offices themselves were sufficiently distinguish'd by those Special Ministries and Jurisdictions that were peculiarly appropriated to the one and deny'd to the other such as were visible to the observation of the meanest among the Jews We do not at all deny but that Bishops might be call'd Presbyters in the days of the Apostles and justly so too though they had other Presbyters under their Government and Inspection for the use of the Word Presbyter was another thing then than now if we consider it in its full Latitude and Extent With us it signifies such Priests as assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastical Administrations and are accountable to him for their Performances And though all Presbyters are not Bishops yet all Bishops are Presbyters and to infer an Equality of Offices from the promiscuous Use of Names I think is neither good Logick nor good History We do not now Plead as some Ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtain'd in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the New and though we meet with the same Dichotomies of the Clergy in the New Testament as are frequently seen in the Old we ought not to conclude from thence that there was an Equality among them of the Higher Order in that Division no more than there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testment for that same Highest Order or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was again divided into two viz. the Supream and Subordinate And not only they but the Jews also of the Apostolical Age divided their Clergy into two Classes when they spoke of them only as in Opposition to the People they made no other distinction amongst them than that of Priests and Levites But then again upon other Occasions they Subdivided the Priests into the Highest and Subordinate Order when they consider'd the Hierarchy in it self and distinguish'd every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priesthood from one another of this we have clear Instances from Philo the Jew Was it not then reasonable that the Apostles should speak the Language of the Age in which they lived and that of their Predecessors Whether then the Clergy be divided into their several Classes by a Biparite or Triparite division both is very Agreeable to the Custom of the Jews If they compar'd the Priests amongst themselves and reckon'd up their Distinctions and Subordinations to one another then they were Divided by a Tipartite Division but if they spoke of them with regard to the People then the Bipartite Division was more Convenient so that the Community of Names was very observable when the Offices themselves were as truly Separated and Distinguished a they could be In like manner the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolical Age he that was Vested with a Prostasia was a much above the Subordinate Presbyters as the High-Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Subordinate Presbuyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Ranked without any Nominal Distinction or Discrimination Nay Salmasius himself grants that even when the pretended Equality
Men who have sufficiently expos'd the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this Head particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester yet I may be allowed to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity that are alleg'd by those Men to support their Doctrine of Parity that the Reader may have a Sample of their Partialities and Prepossessions and if none of the first Worthies of the Christian Church appear for the New Doctrine of Parity we may safely infer that there are little hopes to defend their cause by the Suffrages of after Ages And in the next place I will particularly examine Blondel's Argument from the Authority of St. Jerome and Demonstrate that he mistakes or which is much more probable hides and misrepresents the Doctrine of that Learned Father and if St. Jerome be not his Friend he and his Associates may despair of any other First I will examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity and the first that is nam'd is S. Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians This is the Celebrated S. Clement so Honourably mentioned by S. Paul himself Philip. 4. 3. together with some others whose Names are Written in the Book of Life who was fellow Labourer with the Apostles and Third Bishop of Rome by the Testimony of Irenaeus and probably sat in the Chair of Rome from the Year 64 until the Year 81 or 83. He wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to compose the scandalous Divisions and Schisms that had risen among them by the Pride and Vanity of some turbulent Brethren who valu'd themselves upon the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to the Contempt of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors It is thought by some that this Epistle was written towards the end of Nero's Persecution before he was advanc'd to the See of Rome It is very observable that Blondel before he produces any Testimony from S. Clement acknowledges that by the universal consent of the Ancients this very S Clement succeeded S. Peter in the Government of the See of Rome and thô they vary as to his Order of Succession yet all of them agree as to the thing it self His first Argument for Parity is founded on S. Clement's Inscription of his Epist to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From this Inscription he concludes that the Church of Rome was then Govern'd by a Colledge of Presbyters because the whole Church of Rome wrote to the whole Church of Corinth not mentioning the Distinction of the Clergy from the Laity when the Learned Blondel Reasoned at this rate he design'd it seems to please the Independent Party who were then most Numerous and Potent in England rather than the Presbyterians For if his Argument proves any thing it proves too much viz. That the Laity hath an equal share of Jurisdiction in the Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs with Bishops and Presbyters And thus he might conclude that when S. Paul wrote an Epistle together with Sosthenes Timotheus Sylvanus and all the Brethren that were with him that he had no greater Authority in the Ecclesiastical Senate than the meanest of the Laity Our Learned Country-man Junius gives a far more reasonable Account of this Ancient Simplicity of the Writings of the Apostolical Age than such Childish Reasonings and he tells us that St. Clement did not prefix his Name ut modestiae humilitatis posteris aetatibus exemplar imitandum proponeret and this was very subservient to his Design that he might Teach the Corinthians whom he exhorts to Concord and Humility by his own Example that true and undisguised Modesty which was then so visible in the Practice of the first Christians when both Clergy and Laity were of one Heart and one Mind The next attempt that Blondel makes to support his imaginary Parity in the Primitive Church is from St. Clement's dividing the Clergy into Bishops and Deacons according to the current Phraseology that prevail'd in the Apostolical Age. When they considered the Clergy only in opposition to the body of the People I have answered this already when I examined their Argument founded upon such Dichotomies But when we consider this particular place of S. Clement with regard to that Latitude and Promiscuous use of Names that was very current in those Days the Word Deacon may be understood to comprehend all those Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the modern Notion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables and then his Argument vanishes into nothing nay rather it is a strong confirmation of that which he would most willingly destroy for by Bishops and Deacons we may understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendants upon Tables for the Word Deacons in the Language of the Holy Scriptures is taken in the greatest Latitude that may be not only for such as were appointed by the Apostles particularly to the Ministry of Tables but also the Apostles themselves the highest Officers in the Christian Church are called Deacons Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Deacons by whom they believed even as the Lord gave to every Man And again who hath made us able Deacons of the New-Testament c. And upon other occasions they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And those who were ordain'd to the special Ministry or Tables were Originally constituted that the Apostles themselves might not be diverted from the Ministry of Deaconship of the Word And Tychicus is called a faithful Deacon as also Timothy so likewise Arthippus is commanded to take heed to his Deaconship thô it be not expresly determined what room he held in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy weather he was Bishop Presbyter or Deacons nay such was the Latitude of the Word Deacon in the Apostolical Age that it was applyed promiscuously to all the three Order of the Christain Hierarchy So that if we understand St. Clement according to the current extent of the Word we may safely judge him to have meant by Bishops the Ecclesiastical Governors and by Deacons all subordinate Ministers of Religion whether such as were promoted the Priesthood or the Deacons who were confin'd to their Attendance upon Tables What advantage then does Monsieur Blondel gain to his cause for though Presbyters in the modern Notion are not perhaps the only Persons who may be understood by the Word Deacon yet they may be comprehended as well as other Ministers of a lower Rank Let it be observed also that S. Clement speaks not of the Ecclesiastical Polity such as it was brought to perfection after wards by the Apostles but rather of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of our Saviour For thô all the Degrees and Subordinations of the Apostolical Government were founded upon divine Right yet they were not in one moment established in their True and Everlasting Figure but had their beginning as the Jewish Church went on from lessen steps to