Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
ordinary Power exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops compared with the Apostles Whitaâ—… I say bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle from these Characters of an Apostle and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself proving his own Apostleship that he was not called by men Gal 1. 1. Now saith he the Pope is called by men so say we of Bishops that he had his Doctrine not by mens teaching but by Revelation Gal. 1. 2. Eph 〈◊〉 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope nor Bishops that he had seen Christ 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists that they giâ—e other Characters of an Apostle which they make essential to him and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have Calvin Inâ—… lib. 4 cap 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle his universal Charge and not being tyed to a particular Church and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19 20. where he observeth that there was no bounds set to their Labours but the whole world was given them to labour in and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ but how he had travelled through a great part of the World preaching the Gospel He mentioneth also another Character that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architecâ—â— qui â—jus â—und 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or be 〈◊〉 They were the first Planters of Churches of which afterward If it be objected that these things belonged to the first and extraordinary Apostles not to these that are secondary and permanent or ordinary Apostles This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church but giveth no account of other Apostles therefore these other are not Apostles except in the general Notion as they are sent to do Church work Gersom Bucer dissert de gubern Eccles. Episceps 70. p. 269. proveth that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers from 1 Cor 12. 29. are all Apostles so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus making the Apostles such a distinct Office to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office that their Calling was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediate The same hath Paul Bayâ— Dyoces â—ryal p. 52. Didoclav altar Damascen C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker and Junius to this purpose and even Tilenus who was no friend to Presbyterie Petrum saith he unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere de Pontif lib 2 C. 4. Not 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not 7. he hath these words neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati tanquam globae ascriptus fuit quod Gregarli est Episcopi non Apostoli Also lib. 2. C. 12. § 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church now deceased which by an accident hath stuok in the Birth I mean the Press for some time the design of which is to prove and I think he doth it solidly that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way to gather and to plant Churches and to institute all Christs Ordinances in them to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded So he p 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it and administring the Ordinances of it And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church Ministerially under Christ whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all inferior Officers He further sheweth that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church in the beginning of the Gospel particularly the Evangelists whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles the one was immediatly from Christ the other was from Him by the Apostles though their Gifts were sometimes immediate and extraordinary 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit as the Apostles were but were directed and ordered by the Apostles 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly as the Apostles as appeareth from the Epist to Tim and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands as the Apostles had My design in all this is to shew that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office how ever confidently asserted by him on his bare word seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith we look on it as a groundless Fancie that he can never make out I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops and some of them call Presbyters Apostles in a large sense that is Christs Ambassadors but that some of them think or say that the Office of them who now rule the Churches is the same with that of them who at first planted them I find not when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform they shall be considered § 6 I cannot pass over without correction an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour but by the Apostles who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World A. It is most absurdly said that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle why made they use of Lots They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it his words are Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum prout Presbyteros ordinabant sed sorte utuntur quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum Nor doth it make against this that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Dr. Hammond who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be and understood as well what could be said for it saith constat Matthiam
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
Contentions of Priests and Bishops Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author p. 27. maketh an Observation that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord in Solâ— vero Ecclesia Dei pro qua Christus est mortuus in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde opulenter â—ffudit maximum dissidium vehementem multorum tum inter ipsos tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obsâ—rvari quod horrendissimum est ipsos Ecclesiae prâ—sides in tanto Animi Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare gregem ipsius absque ullâ— commiseratione perturbare ut ipsis nunc si unquam prodeuntibuâ— florentibus iniquis impleatur illud Apostoli ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes ut abstraâ—ant post se discipulos The Learned Owen of Apostacie p. 500. observeth that the Scandaloâ—â— Divisions among Christians especially among their Leaders was the first â—tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen § 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality whether it were Injunctions Reproofs or Censures The Breach of this Unitie was when any one or moe of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said much more when they did that by themselves which should have been done by the whole as when Foelicissimus and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage absolved some of the Lapsed neglecting Cyprian the Bishop or Praeses and the Body of the Presbyters which Cyprian did Highly and Justly Resent Or when they or any of the People refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth I insist no further on it for it is the same Thing as to Church Unity whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop if that be the right Government of the Church or against the Synod Presbyterie Classical or Congregational if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed Yea it is the same Breach of Unity to set up another Bishop beside the true Bishop of the Church or a new Synod or Presbyterie beside these which one was before a Member of or Subject to yea or to gather a Church and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish beside what was orderly there settled Wherfore the last sort of Unity or Schism is that which belongeth to a particular Congregational Church This Unity if we take Schiâ—m in a large Sense is broken by Diversitie either of Opinions or Affections among the Members of the Church when they Disagreee and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion At Corinth there was such a Schism they came together and yet the Apostle saith there were Divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them But Schisms in the Church were of old and now are taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion either by withdrawing only or by setting up another Religious Society also This the Fathers Expressed sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop or withdrawing from him that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie So it is sometimes Expressed by them but even when the Presbyterie or Church is not named it is so to be understood and the Bishop is so often Named because he was in these times the constant Praeses of their Meetings and even this Praelation though without sole Jurisdiction into which it did at last Issue began early to be too much taken Notice of as I have more fully shewed else-where § 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often yea ordinarilie thus understood by the Ancients Next that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism but allowed it to be done in some Cases and for some Causes For the former Cyprian in many Places condemneth this as Schism Ep. 40. § 4. Edit 1593. Deus unus est Christus unus una Ecclesia Catâ—edra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata aliud Altare constitui aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum Altare unum Sacerdotium non potest Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterium est impium est quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur ut Dispositio Divina violetur Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church also Ep. 55. § 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata quam unde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him and the Church What he saith of one Priest and one Judge cannot be meant that the Presbyters were no Priests for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar likewise Ep. 64. § 4. Hâ— sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra Pacem Christi Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought Ep. 69. § 7. he calleth the Church Plebs Sacerdoti unita Pastori suo Grex adhaerens and Ep. 38. § 1. saith of Schismaticks â—um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere id est a Pastore oves Filios a Parente separare Christi Membra dissipare And de Unitate Eccles. § 10. he saith of them Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt so also Ignat. ad Mag nes p. 32. Edit Vossii quarto 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conveened not firmly that is it would not hold in Law according to the Command and Ep. ad Smyrn p. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth any thing viz. in Religious Matters without the Knowledge of the Bishop that is in a Parish without the Pastor or in a Presbyterie without them orderlie met with their Praeses he serveth the Devil The second thing above-mentioned is to shew that there were some Causes for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop or the Church that they were Members of I find but three expressie mentioned 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith as in
no cause to think otherwise of them and I think this will not be Contested between him and me All the Question that remaineth is whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power and Ruled in Parity or had Bishops set over them who had the Power of Ruling the Church the rest having only Power to Teach We are for their Equality of Power my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been even then in the Church of Scotland I do agree with him that this is questio facti and must be determined by Testimonie and that of Credible Witnesses who might know the Truth of what they Assert I have brought Credible History for what we say all which he Rejecteth as fabulous some of his Party particularly Spotswood bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland at that time without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth Which of us then go on the best grounds Our Author had in the Apology which I take to be his pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head First Vindic. Question 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology I Answered Deff of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me endeavour to Answer part of what was said as he had also done in the Apology overlooking what he thought not fit to touch I shall now Consider what he here saith omitting nothing that is Material He hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks Boetius and others or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan nor any Monk save Fordon who was far removed from his Age wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated nor Answered by any thing said in this or his former Book It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought as incompetent Witnesses was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation which he Answereth by shewing that it is the Establishing not Razing of History to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe This is to divert into another Question what was blamed in him was not that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive must be Competent but whether these adduced by me in the Debate were such I only Mark here not Examine being aside from our present Debate what he saith p. 230. that if History be Destroyed and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony he must mean Humane Testimony then the Authority of Revelation falleth and Atheism is Introduced at least boundless Sceptecilm and uncertainty Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony let it be Considered If the Vindicator said that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent he Pleaded that Buchanan Boetius Major Fordon Usher the Centuriators Baronius Beda and Prosper had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church and if none of these be Competent Witnesses our Historie is lost and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians who spake of our Affairs obiter § 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains from p. 231. to Prove that no History is to be Believed unless it be â—ttested by sufficient Witnesses who had occasion to know what they Affirm I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body so far as I know nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits I mean without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses which are thus incompetent for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Passages by Consequences drawn from Scripture in his Excellent Book Historia Patriarcharum Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work de Authoritate Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti to be of good use and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused I confess also that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius because not sufficiently Attested Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History a little more clearly than he hath done And 1. I observe that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined The contrarie of which I have already shewed viz. that it may be Determined in some cases by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact Next he saith ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate about our ancient Church-Government this is Questionable if it be not downright a Mistake it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time the Question is either whether they were Bishops or not we hold the Negative or if he Word it thus whether they were any more than Presbyters we say no or whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees or not we are still for the Negative wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative I further Object that in the end of the same page he insinuateth that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded We do not so with any thing of Moment far less with all things Yea we do not so in the Case now under Debate Another Remark I make on what he hath page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said â—o have happened it is to be lookt on as a Fable and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China This may suffer a little Correction and must not be taken as a Principle neither on his Authority nor Du Launy's more than a Storie of 200 years old can be 1. It is hard to fix a Period how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie especially if it be not about the Credenda of Religion If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old from a grave and wise Author whose veracity I do not Question I know not why the Addition of 50 or a 100 years more should make it incredible if it come from the same hand Wherefore this is too peremptorie a Decision there are on the other hand many cases in which Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
Knox in this matter which meerly to save time I shall not concern my self in Ans. It being evident that in our first Setlement of Discipline our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie negative Arguments from the Writing or sayings of private Men are insignificant and it is less to the purpose to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said or Written any thing to the contrarie directly or indirectly For his Debate about John Knox I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing and against Christs Institution That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline is falsly supposed p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it of which after § 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount of what influence England had on our Reformation from Popery whence he inferreth that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England Here he undertaketh two things 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Policy of the Church For Ans. to this Argument it is wholly inconsequential if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned except the last about the Government and Policy of the Church and even that signifieth nothing unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy and not for Paritie and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things and shall consider his last Article and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it The Reader without my Animadversion will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey and fawning on another Nation This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England which he insisteth on from p. 7. it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy is less to his Question which is only about Government We never thought that our Reformers at first were all of the same Principle with us in all things I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church Yea themselves had afterward other thoughts of some things than they had at first as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first which afterward he rejected I observe further that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers his best ground for what he affirmeth is it is not to be imagined that they did so and so or it is to be presumed We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy that so it must be If I thought it worth the while I would Examine these Histories more narrowly But I could easily yield him all without prejudice to our Cause seing the Principles of our Reformers are better known by their publick Deeds than by the private Sayings or Practices of two or three of them and these not sufficiently attested These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies by which she had been burdened but that all or most of them were satisfied with their Government and Discipline is the Question and is not Proved by what he hath said It is least of all Concludent that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland which he laboureth to Prove p. 80. and it is unaccountable that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England that they were of the same Religon with us which he puteth in majusculis we say the same of them at this day and I hope they think not otherwise of us and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini If he can find a Contradiction here let him try his Skill to discover it It is an odd method that he useth p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy because it was natural for the English who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it And I Prove they were not for it because de facto they did not setle it but a way inconsistent with it Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent We do not find that the English made such a Demand and if they did not they acted like discreet Neighbours not to impose on their Brethren who had other sentiments of the Matter and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion And if they made such a Demand the Event shewed that it was not listned to For his Citation of Buchannan p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions who can hope to find the place I know not what Buchannan could mean by it but it is evident if the Scots did so subscribe they did not act accordinglie which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way It is nauseous to repeat with him so often the Godly Conjunction the Unity Peace and Christian Concord that was then made between England and Scotland and to set forth this as a Demonstration Yea a Set of Demonstrations that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate in the Face of Matter of Fact that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church § 6. He undertaketh p. 96. and forward to prove that at the Reformation the English Lyturgy was used in this Church If this should be granted it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also they wanted qualified Ministers so that there was need of some help to them in Praying and Instructing the People publikly and it may
be there was no other that they could at that time use and they had not so fully discovered what might be and afterward was excepted against in it and therefore used it for a time but I think he will not deny that as soon as they could they laid it aside and made use of that more Unexceptionable Form of Geneve till at last that was difused also as a Man layeth by his Crutches when he getteth Strength to go by himself He sheweth wonderful Skill in Logick p. 98. Calderwood had said that the English Lyturgy which was read in the new Colledge in Saint Andrews was not of any continued Practice in time by past since the Reformation Ergo it was practised at the Reformation Whatever may be said of the Consequent the Consequence is no better than this I never used to smoak Tobacco in any continued Practice since I was born Ergo I did it when I was born p. 101 c. he telleth us of another Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with them of England that the Church had a great Dependence on the State that it belonged to the Civil State to reform the Church that the People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrat c. this is still extra oleas vagari I shall not so far digress from the purpose in hand as to consider what the present Presbyterians hold as to these Assertions nor need I compare the Opinion of our Reformers with ours in this matter if he can charge us with Hetrodoxy on this head we shall Answer him when he will This whole Discourse is impertinent it doth not prove that our Reformers were for Episcopacie and if it did it is no good Consequent that we should be for it too I have alreadie said that we never thought our Reformers were in all things of the same Opinion with the present Presbyterians and I am sure that he hath far less cause to think that they were for all that the present Prelatists hold Another thing more he sheweth that the Scots and English Reformers agreed in this p. 105. that they took for the Rule of Reformation the Word of God interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church And here he enlargeth in the Commendation of this Rule and obliquely chargeth the Presbyterians with all the Horrid Rebellions and Unchristian Divisions unaccountable Revolutions both in Church and State which have Unbinged all the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty and Disabled nay eaten out the Principles of Christianity among us that now we are not so much disposed for any thing as for Atheism Which Strain I find is common with Men of his Stamp but it is most disingenuous Dealing for the World knoweth where the Fault of our Divisions dothly and whether Atheism Immoralitie and Injustice have thriven more under the Influence of Prelacie or of Presbyterie For the Revolution that he seemeth to be so angry with the Presbyterians think it their Glorie to have Countenanced it and the Bodie of the Prelatists in England I mean not in Scotland will not disowne their Accession to it nor will they look on it as this Author and some others do to have Unbinged the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty The Rule of Reformation that he had mentioned he saith he will bring in again by and by where we shall attend him § 7. He telleth us p. 106 c. of his Performances which he recapitulateth and concludeth in the highest Measure of Confidence that Words can express that our Reformers were not for the Divine Right of Parity I am so dull that I cannot see this Point proved for all that he hath said and if it were proved it is nothing to our main Cause we never said that they were in all things either as Presbyterians or as Prelatists are now in their Opinions all that we assert is that they were for Paritie and practised it as the Government of the reformed Church of Scotland and it is more than probable that they were for its Divine Right In what followeth his Confidence ariseth yet higher and that in the Entrance of what now he is attempting and about which he maketh very large Promises p. 108. where he pretendeth to give plain positive direct and formal proofs of his Assertion to as high a degree as the nature of the thing is capable of or can reasonably bear For performance of this his first Attempt is in a Petition of the Reformers to the Government this is one Article as it is set down by Lesly de rebus gestis Scotor lib. 10. p. 504. Ut Episcopi deinceps Pastores illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque Diocesis hi parochorum assentione ac voluntate ad beneficia cooptentur There is nothing Answerable to the Evidence so confidently promised by him it is no positive plain c. Proof the matter could bear more viz. if Lesly had said that however the Schismaticks as he calleth them were for abolishing the old Doctrine that they were for keeping up the ancient Hierarchie But that this is no sufficient Proof of his Conclusion I shew 1. Supposing Lesly's Veracitie and fair Representation of the Address that the Reformers made no more can be concluded from it but that it is supposed that the Revenues of Bishops could not quickly be alienated and that some must be chosen to enjoy them that they might be so and so chosen here is not a Word of chusing Bishops to Exercise that Office over or among the Protestants and it is well known that the Rents of Bishops Abbots Priors and other Dignitaries of the Church of Rome did continue and Men were chosen to the Name and Rent of these Places who did not Exercise the Power that Men under these Names had in Popery 2. Himself confesseth that this Article of the Petition is otherwise rendred in Buchannan and Spotswood viz. Ut Ministrorum electio juxta antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset Here is no Word of Bishops and one may think that we have more Cause to Credit these two Protestant Historians than Lesly a Papist who on all Occasions sheweth his Spite against Protestants especially Spotswood an Arch-Bishop would not have neglected to make use of this seeming Countenance to his Cause This Author hath no other Shift to take off the Edge of this Exception but to tell us that Buchannan minded Matters of State most in History and Spotswood is very defective in many parts of his History which is indeed to say that neither of them is to be much regarded but Lesly is the Man if it be so we must look on the whole of our Reformation with a very unfavourable Eye Whither this will seem absurd to this Author or not I know not He is at a great deal of Pains to prove that Lesly did not Forge this Article and bringeth no fewer than six Arguments to prove it which I judge not worth my Labour of Examining
Diligence to the next Assemblie which last our Author overlooketh 16. His Translating of Ministers is no more but that his Consent or that of the whole Church must be had to a Transportation it was then necessarie when there was no Presbyteries to Judge of such Matters 17. He greatly mistaketh when he saith that the Assemblie Enacteth that Ministers for the General Assemblie should be brought with the Superintendents c. which he will have to be Nominating them and he alloweth the rest of the Synod but a Consent whereas Spotsw p. 219. words it such as the Superintendents shall choose in their Diocesan Synods If he could choose them by himself there needed no Synod for this end that Expression can signifie no less than the Synods suffrage in the Election My Lord Glaâ—… Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick 18. He held Diocesan Synods because he was their Moderator 19. They might appoint Fasts is their bounds but with Advice of the Ministers 20. Modifying of Stipendâ— is no Spiritual Power and therefore impertinently here brought in 21. Appeals was made to him and his Synodal Convention here is no sole Jurisdiction 22. His power of Fineing is no Spiritual Power 23. Determining Cases of Conscience and otheir Questions was never committed to him alone but in the Synod and to them Yea Questions so determined were to be reported to the General Assemblie next ensewing so that Manuscript that he so often Citeth p. 14. 24. To judge of Divorces is a civil Power and not to our purpose 25. It is clear by his own Relation that the Injunction of Pennance as he calleth it is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod 26. Restoring of Criminals or Absolution did the same way belong to him 27. Notifying Criminals to the Magistrat is no part of Jurisdiction 28. Excommunication was not to be done by his sole Authority but by his Advice 29. His Power over Colleges And 30. His Licensing of Booke both of them Depend on the Civil Power and are not to our present purpose These short Notes may shew how little cause there is for his Triumph with which he concludeth this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives They prove a Disparity between him and other Ministers I confess which the Church in that her State thought necessarie for a time but on the other hand it is evident that some of them Prove as much Disparitie from and inconsistencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocesan Bishop which our Brethren plead for as belonging to him Jure Divino § 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dissipat the Mist wherewith the Paritie Men are so very earnest to darken the Prelatical Power of the Superintendents he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions The 1. Is it was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office but was Temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church For this he Citeth Calderwuod and Petrie asserting this with whom I do cordially joyn Against this he thus reasoneth p. 142. whether it was Temporary or not it was Prelacy and this is all that I am concerned for And to Fortiâ—e this he taketh in by force a Similitude from the Presbyterians making Address to King James a rare but useless piece of Wit Ans. If he be concerned for no more than this we are agreed And he yieldeth that our Reformers were not Episcopal but Presbyterian who in a case of extream Necessity gave for a time more Power to one Minister than another but made them all equal assoon as that Necessity was over It is such an Argument as if there were but one Congregation with their Minister and Elders in an Island they manage Church Discipline by themselves but assoon as they encrease and there are moe People and church Officers and more Congregations they set up a Presbyterie to which all the Congregations and their Pastors are Subordinate will any say that they are Independents because they were forced to Act Independentlie at first there is as little reason to conclude that our Reformers were Episcopal though they were forced to use a kind of Prelacie for a time Beside that I have above shewed some considerable Differences between the Prelacie of Superintendents and that of Bishops which our Brethren plead for § 13. His second Undertaking is to shew that we have no sufficient Ground in the Records of these times for pretending that the Office of Superintendents was designed to be Temporal To prove his Assertion he saith he hath seen no more insisted on to make out this but a Phrase in the first Head of the Book of Discipline at this time He transcribeth the whole Passage out of Petrie Cent. 16. p. 218. and so must I what was their the Superintendents Office saith he appears by the first Book of Discipline wherein it is written thus we consider that if the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make continual Residence that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should be not only the occasion of great Murmure but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient at this time that from the whole Number of Godly and learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected ten or twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks to set Order and appoint Ministers as the former Prescribed to wit the former Head to the Countries that shall be appointed to their Care where none are now Afterward it is added these must not be suffered to live as their idle Bishops have done neither must they remain where they gladly would but they must be Preachers themselves and such as may not make long Residence in one place till the Kirks be Planted and provided of Ministers c. To this our Author replyeth by giving us a Sense of his own of these Words in the first Book of Discipline viz. that because there were then so few Qualified for the Office of Superintendencie the Ten or Twelve were by far too few for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to Establish no more and though when the Church should be sufficiently Provided with Ministers it will be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that Juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling into their Districts to Preach and Plant Churches Before I Examine what he saith to Prove this to be the true Gloss of that Passage I shall Prove it to be contrarie to and inconsistent with the Passage it self And 1. There is nothing in that Discourse that doth so much as insinuate the scarcitie of Men fit to be Superintendents but of Ministers fit to Preach to the People they no way hint that this Setlement
short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews in March 6. it hath but little Assembly 1572. at Perth a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops Deans c. as scandalous Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed as well as others to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk in her Assemblies which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them And it is Enacted that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers that it was Enacted Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year In the beginning of that Assembly when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops Superintendents and other Ministers was mentioned John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion and Reasons that he and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy as he calleth it came to from 1571. to 1575 when we deny not there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government endeavoured by some Courtiers and Ambitious Church Men their Tools But from this time Presbytry began to Revive and gather Strength till at last it was fully setled For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock where they must ordinarily Labour Assembly 1576 p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick without the Kirk Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter and to Discharge him to Visit any more till he be Admitted by the Kirk Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names and called Brethren p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops Assembly 1578. held in June extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away And Commands all Bishops that now are to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication Assembly at Dundee July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason The whole Assembly in one Voice did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland to be unwarrantable in the Word of God and unlawful in it self and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God All Bishops are Charged to Dimit and to use no part of the Office of Pastors without new Admission by the Assembly Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean that the Government of Bishops as now in Scotland is wholly Condemned After which Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation For his false Citations out of the Manuscript I shall mention but two tho the Reader may observe many moe by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly unless he have Complaint to make or be Complained of or be Warned to it by the Superintendent whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents Commissioners and Ministers brought with them together with Commissioners of Shires Burghs and Universities And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention with Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod Whereas the Manuscript it is p. 10. saith that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction cause warn the Shires Towns and Parish Kirks to send their Commissioners to the Assembly declaring to them the Day and Place Here is nothing like what he Citeth and if it were so as he saith it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority than if it had been said it must be done by their Vote These things out of that Manuscript I have here cast together because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places § 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie than to make some short Remarks on it hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press from which we expect a full Account with more Truth and Candor than what is to be found in his Discourse 1. I deny not nor do I know any that ever denyed but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church that the first Endeavours of the Reformers for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery met with some Interruption and Opposition the Causes were evident the Covetousness of some Courtiers and other States Men and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy and they had some degree of effect but they were always opposed and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed as they wished but at last after much Wrestling Presbytery was settled in its Vigour in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions was needless Labour which I do not envy him the Pleasure of seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages with the same Author if I mistake not nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new save insolent Contempt and ill Words which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements 2. I observe that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that
meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland by saying and that frequently that no Error could get footing there in Scotland while Kirk Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies stood in their Force He concludeth his Second Enquiry with making a great Improvement against us as he thinketh of our saying that the Bishops set up in that he calleth his second Model had no more Power than Superintendents whence he Argueth Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power but the Assembly at Dundee 1580 Condemned Episcopacie and they Condemned also Superintendencie whence it followeth that they and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this not only forsook but condemned the Principles of our Reformers This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand But the Answer is plain and easie and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed That Assemblie did and the Presbyterians do condemn Superindendencie as what ought not to continue in the Church nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time in an extraordinarie Exigent And we affirm which our Author hath not yet disproved that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church § 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is whether Prelacie and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People ever since the Reformation He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true this Question will soon be dispatched for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed He might if so it had pleased him saved the labour of this tedious Debate in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said unless we could which is impossible have the Vote by Pole of all the Individuals of the Nation and that in all the Times and Changes since the Reformation The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs he may for me abound in his own sense I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians yea of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest â—…minencie for Vertue Understanding and Rouk and yet not Presbyterian that Presbyterie was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie I judge they mistake but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt I would have him also consider that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie and Establish Presbyterie the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow and countenance by their Authority this Government of the Church but we think it standeth on a surer bottom than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth which Grounds I have laid down in this Work if he can Beat us from these we shall become his willing Proselyts and quit though we will not Revile it as he doth this Act of Parliament as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State or of the Church or was more designed to ridicule or to refute Presbyterie that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done but we are in utrumque parati to despise his Mocking and to Answer his Material Arguments though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done about Matters that be remote from the main Question § 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576 and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had Beza also and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church Ans. I believe so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence it was no small Mercie and Matter of Joy that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church when as many as were needed could not be had and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem yet it is no good Argument the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful therefore they inclined to have them or Bishops perpetuated in the Church Another great Argument is even in after times and the more advanced State of Presbyterie when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London for their forwardness in that way yet all things went peaceably in Scotland as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie and their Inclination to Presbyterie seing the Nation have these years past been in Peace though he and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be That Episcopacie prevailed 1610 Proveth no more for the one side than the prevailing of Paritie 1592 and again 1690 Proveth for the other side Yea submitting to Episcopacie so far as to sit in Synods and Presbyteries with a Bishop was no Argument of Approving it in the case of the Church that then was when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie and Bishops thrust in on them It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority and were called again only by the Bishops Authority He Chargeth Calderwood and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie that he had said that it was Statute in Parliament 1565 that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth
only Schism to depart fâ—om a Church without just cause that we have been joyned to but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without Sin the former may be called a â—ositive this a negative Separation 4. Schism may be also called Positive or negative in another Sense the former when a Partie in a Church doth not joyn with the Church yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church whereof they were Members the later when they set up such a distinct Societie there may be just Causes for both The first When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to because of some Corruption that I must partake of if I joyn but I partake with some other more pure Societie The second When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin nor can they have the occasion of a Societie where they might joyn they must either live without Ordinances or set up another Religious Societie on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches 5. There may be a partial Separation when one Ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot joyn in it and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion and a total Separation when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service unless we joyn in all or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous The former by most wise and sober Men is not reckoned such a Schism as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account but the Author I now Debate with aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism as also do many of â—is Partizans driving many Consciencious and good Men from them for the sake of some Usages which themselves count indifferent and the others apprehend to be unlawful 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters especially when Managed with heat and animosities may be called Schiâ—m according to the import of the Word yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism they are not to be so reputed unless some kind of separation or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another follow upon them Diversitie of Opinion and of Affection are sinful evils but it is diversitie of Religious Practice following on these that maketh ChurchiSchism 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other and often neither side is wholly innocent they who have cause to separate may manage their Good cause by evil Methods and in a way that is not wholly Commendable now to know on which side the blame of the Schism â—ieth we must not always conclude that they are in the fault 1. Who are the fewer Number otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful Nor 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers themselves being in Possession of Church Authority for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis Nor 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority and hath the Law on its side not only because it is the Gospel not the Law of the Land that is the Rule of our Religion and Church Practice but also because that is variable and by that Rule they who were the sound Partie one year may be Schismaticks the other without any Change in their Principles or Practice which is absurd Wherefore the blame of Schism in that case lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide or who though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause every thing that we may justly blame not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church Hence it plainly followeth that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is there is the Church and they who have most of these are the soundest Church § 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism and where the Blame of it lieth I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church about Schism it is evident that they did Oppose it and set forth its Sinfulness and sad Consequences with a great deal of Zeal and that justly for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side or the other but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order of the inward and outward Practice of Religion and of Mens Souls and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians that they think well of Schism that is truely such or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard and Fatal Effects of it nay our Principle is that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church yea that nothing can Warrant or Excuse it but the Necessity of shuning Sin It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks as also of Heretick and that often proceeded from a true though mistaken Zeal for lovely Truth and beautiful Unity at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities that they as all Men are were Subject to Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Father 's called several Practices Schism and shewed a great dislike of them all As 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church as Schism and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed under this Head which I shall not now mention it being my Work at present only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about and blameth People for as Schismaticks and Sectaries which they laid no such stress on They bare with one another though they Dissered in Rites and several Customs They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent but maintained Peace and Concord notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus reproving Victor of Rome where Usurpation and imposing on others early began for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind and yet they did lovingly Communicate together The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some think they should
in former times Presbytery continued only Bishops were superinduced therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations till driven from them but at the last Settling of Episcopacy Presbytery was razed so far as Men could and what Shew of it was left stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to it being an owning of a Power in the Church which they are convinced is unlawful His fourth Argument is No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History to whom that Name is more agreeable than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Answer to this the Donatists were mentioned as Schismaticks more justly reputed such than the Scots Presbyterians can be And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance to whom I confess what was said agreeth more directly viz. That they separated because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists in many Circumstances that do no way concern the present Purpose and in which are some Mistakes as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records as that Lapse of Memory is ascribing somewhat to the Donatists which agreeth better to the Novatians and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks they both had the same Rise Donatus in Africk and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome together with one of the same Name who upon Discontent came from Carthage to Rome and joyned with him in making a Schism both of them were as they thought disobliged by the Election of a Bishop the one that Caeciliaenus was Elected who as he alledged was ordained by a Traditor yea was a Traditor himself that is in time of Persecution had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt the other that Cornelius was made Bishop both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church than the rest of the Pastors had the one that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy through their Communion with them who had been Traditors the other that they who so had fallen or otherwise in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to Church Communion again nor get Absolution though he nor his Followers did not deny that they might obtain Mercy from God upon true Repentance the contrary of which some impute to them both of the Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Puritans both of them separated from all the Churches of the World and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour especially the Donatists and among them the Circumcelliones who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them Both of these Schisms spread far and wide It is observed by some that there were of both sorts Men of strict Lives Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith of the Donatists Cresconius said they confessed the same Jesus born dead and risen again they had the same Religion and the same Sacraments and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head but about the Body not about Christ but about his Church Augustin de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith they were agreed in the Creed in Baptism and other Sacraments of our Lord also Ep. 162. he telleth us that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome and his Brethren â—ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Caeâ—ilianus had ordained which Condescendence is also evident from Collat 1. Carthag Art 16. apud Optat. Milevit p. 45. 6. Edit Paris 1631. § 13. Our Author tells us that we ought to have named Schiâ—maticks in the Primitive Church whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians which I shall shew in these Three things 1. They had no good nor sufficient Ground to separate we declare that we will never separate because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion as the Novations did nor because some Ministers and People are not so innocent as they should be as the Donatists did we condemn their Schism as much as he doth What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact as was made appear First By some Judges appointed by the Emperour to try the matter next by a Synod held at Arles And lastly by the Emperour after a full Hearing of the Matter and if it had been true it was no just ground of Separation though it had been a great Grievance The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all because the Church was not culpable in such Admission which they did unreasonably blâ—me Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable What we dislike is an usurped Power set up in the Chuch and humane Ceremonies imposed on us and our owning of these formally in Words or materially in our Practice is made a condition of our Communion with the Church It is true if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable and that what we dislike is Warrantable he may blame us for none Complyance but what is the Question between him and us if we Scruple without cause the blame lieth on us if not the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things Wherefore the Determination of this Point who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present dependeth on the Question now under Debate about Episcopacie and Ceremonies 2. We always were willing to unite with them if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways which themselves confess to be indifferent I mean the Ceremonies and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie directly nor indirectly The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace It is not what they do that skareth us from them but what they will needs force us to do 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion as the Schismaticks of old did Who either of their Clergy or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate 4. We do not condemn their Church as no Church as the Donatists did to all beside themselves we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of which had to do with the Donatists that Church was willing to forbear them even in their most unreasonable Separation and to indulge such as were of
a Religious Conversation but differed from the Church without cause in matters of lesser moment The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies acknowledged to be such but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these which they could not do without wounding their Conscience If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church on on frivolous pretences as he supposeth p. 222 he gaineth what he contendeth for but he findeth it easier to suppose this than to Prove it It was said by his Antagonist that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors which Presbyterians do not the Bishops being none of our Pastors He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians in their Erecting Altar against Altar Answer 1. That is not all that we plead for as is clear from what hath been said I have shewed § 8. Cases in which even lawful Pastors may be forsaken and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them But I say 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule And I am willing that Matter be Determined 1. By the strength of Argument if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to we must yield 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church which was positive plain and unanimous in this that the People should chuse their own Bishop and other Church-Officers see Instances Enquirie into the Constitution c. of the Primiiive Church c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog Test veritat p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation in any Man to a People on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical and without their own Consent This is our case the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government the Magistrat not the Church made a Change and set Men over the People to be their Bishops whose Office they could not own and whose Persons they had no concern in I Question whether the Primitive Church I mean the first Ages would have counted it Schism to disown such and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors who had been called by them setled by Church Authority among them and laboured among them to their Comfort and Edification His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris is contrarie to Petavius rationar tempor lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him his Assertion p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church is so false that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it If he understand it of Preaching Deacons he should have said so and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church § 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks is from the Doctrine of Cyprian of which he is so confident that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator not a Diocesan to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings If I had read much more than either he or I have I should not so often nor so superciliously vilisie others If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now undertaketh to refute Which Book I have Answered with such reading as I could attain both of Cyprian and other ancient Writers in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written before I saw it I am not willing to Transcribe it being the most part of that Book He may read it if he thinketh fit and if he or any other will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age I shall be willing to be Informed by him His Triumphant Conclusion p. 225. evanisheth into smoak if what hath been said be duly Considered He begineth another Debate about Preaching Moralitie which he passeth in a Word overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head While it was told him that not all the Clergy but he and such as he was so blamed Also that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured but Applauded and lookt on as necessarie but what we Quarelled was that some do only Preach Moralitie and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit by which they should obey the Law acceptably and the Righteousness of CHRIST on account of which they and their Works that are moraly Good should be accepted and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed to shew his Mistakes in that Matter to all which he maketh no Return but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print nor heard him and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it but much more occasion was given for so thinking from a large Discourse in his Book that I was then Refuting Vindicating their way of Preaching in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST and the influence of his Spirit by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing as he hath done the Third time an Error of the Press which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author this I say sheweth the Mans temper I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious than it will on the Person whom he would Defame SECTION XI Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed whether by Bishops or the Pastors of the Church acting in Parity We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way in this Matter because of the Silence and Defectiveness of the History of these times and therefore it is a Mis-representation when he saith that we hold that they were Presbyterians if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense as made up of Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies we suppose they had a Government in that Church and that it was Managed by Church Officers and directed by the Word of GOD as they then understood it for this we can bring no other Proof but that they were Christians and we owe them that Charity having
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in