being under his Jurisdiction He was requir'd to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on the disobedient and set things in order in many Churches His Office therefore or Power was Episcopal To prove this I have not urged any thing from the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus and therefore I am not concern'd at your exception against it or to enquire into its Authority What is manifest from the Epistle it self and confirm'd by the Testimony of the Fathers is sufficient for my purpose That however there were many Churches in Crete yet they were govern'd by a single Person as their Chief Pastor or Bishop What you object against his Episcopacy from the multitude of Cities in Crete looks like one of the Efforts of Mr. Prynne and is so confus'd that I can make no coherent sense of it You suppose that every Church or Congregation must have a Bishop for which you give no other reason but that some are confident of it and I confess if matters between us had been to be determin'd by confidence you had often put me to a loss Yet here I do not see what service it can do you For I would demand whether the Bishop you assign to every Congregation was a mere Presbyter or a Prelate If you say the first what is it to the purpose unless you could prove that he was not subject to another Pastor who had the Charge of many Congregations If the last what is become of the Cause for which you contend If Titus say you was a Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops that is of Prelatical Bishops as your words import and consequently if they express your thoughts you must believe that at that time there were such Bishops And now methinks our Controversie appears a little oddly For the Tables are turn'd and you are got on the side of Prelacy You contend that the Cretian Elders were Prelatical Bishops when I cannot allow that they were more than Presbyters I cannot be convinc'd but that Titus being left in Crete was the only Bishop in the modern sense of the word of all the Churches there Nor do I see any reason why this should be thought inconsistent with an Episcopal Function Theodoret had eight hundred Parishes under his Care yet this did not cause a Nullity in his Ordination And however there were many Cities in Scythia yet anciently one Bishop had the Charge of them all without any loss of his Episcopal Office Inconveniences indeed may arise from such large extent of Dioceses but this was not the case when as Rabanus Maurus tells us Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles or when Titus remain'd in Crete For then 't is certain there were many Churches under his Care and Administration and by what Title soever he was distinguish'd it is not material as to the Nature and Ends of Government But if he was Bishop of so many Churches you would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where he resided To which I can say nothing but that it seems probable he visited all the Churches of his Diocese and resided chiefly in the Metropolis If this satisfies not your pang of longing as I have no ability so I have no inclinati to gratifie it any farther For could I name with the greatest certainty the City where he commonly dwelt you might also enquire what part of that City or what Street he inhabited and propose many other Questions of the like importance to which I am not prepar'd to give any Reply It is sufficient that he was a Pastor of many Churches and had Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons For if this be true it strikes at the Root of the Presbyterian and Independent Opinions about Church-Government And I know not what can be said in Vindication of them unless it be that he was an Extraordinary Officer This you insist on and to prove it you tell me he was an Evangelist But the Scripture says of him no such thing From the Scripture indeed we learn that Philip was an Evangelist and yet he wanted Power either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd or to Ordain Officers by Imposition of Hands But Titus could perform the last of these which was the greater and consequently he was something more than an Evangelist and could be no less than an Apostle or a Bishop But that he may be reckon'd amongst the Pastors Extraordinary you likewise urge That he was only left in Crete as the Deputy or the Delegate of the Apostle and that but for a time till he should have established Churches in every City and Organiz'd them with Elders which having done you say 't is very probable that he return'd again to S. Paul to give an Account of that Affair and then you think his Commission expir'd Not that you have read any such thing of him in Scripture But since he was oblig'd to act as the Apostle had appointed from hence you collect that his Deputation was but Temporary And you might as well have concluded that since it was the Duty of Presbyters and Deacons to walk as the same Apostle appointed or according to the Rules he gave for their Conversation their Offices also were Temporary and design'd for no long continuance You think his Case differ'd from theirs in this that he was employ'd in frequent Travels but in answer to that I need only tell you That his Journeys to Jerusalem to Macedonia and to Corinth were undertaken and finished before he was left in Crete That he died there as we are inform'd by Paulinus and Sophronius and that the Government of the Church has been Episcopal in that Island ever since his days When I had proceeded thus far I had the satisfaction to peruse some Printed Papers of an Eminent Person wherein amongst other things he treats of this subject and I was glad to find that I had not differ'd from the Sentiments of so great a Man which he hath express'd in these words We are not to suppose says he that the Power of Titus extended not to a Jurisdiction over Elders when he had ordain'd them For if any of those whom he had ordain'd as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to wine can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercis'd ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual Vse did thereby suppose the same kind
you much insist as if it afforded some great advantage to your Cause Whereas the Fathers who us'd that expression which you so well approve had no such Notion of a First Presbyter as you have entertain'd but made the same distinction between him and his Clergy as there was between the High Priest and the other Priests that were under his Authority Another thing for which you cite this Commentator is the information he gives us that the Eldest was always the First Presbyter till the inconveniences of that course occasion'd the change which he says was made by a Council But to this I know not how to assent because it appears from Scripture and the Writings of the most Primitive Fathers that they who in the early times of Christianity were advanced to the Charge of Bishops were commonly qualified for it and distinguish'd by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost or their own personal worth and there is no probability that a meer number of years was then held sufficient to recommend a person to the highest Office in the Christian Church Yet if there was sometime such preference given to seniority and such a change made in some particular Country as the Author mentions I am not concern'd about it But if you think the Ancient Custom he speaks of was universal and that a departure from it over the World was decreed by a General Council I would gladly know where it was assembled Blondel thinks the alteration was introduced by the Council of Nice and for this he directs us to the fourth Canon of that Council in which there is not a word of this matter nor are there any footsteps of it in Antiquity But whatever was the ground of advancing persons to the Office of Bishops manifest it is that this Commentator believ'd the Office it self was of Divine Institution and superior to that of Presbyters For he declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and that the Apostles in general were Bishops He affirms that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were Bishops also And in the Bishop says he all Orders are contain'd because he is the Prince or Chief of the Priests And yet this is one of the Fathers by whose Testimony you are content matters between us should be determin'd Another of them is S. Jerom who informs us I confess that originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the common Counsel of Priests But it must be consider'd that according to him the Churches were only under that Administration till by the instigation of the Devil divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas And it may seem not a little for the advantage of Episcopacy if as he intimates it was the best means of extirpating Schism when a Presbyterian parity was found insufficient for that purpose and if it was therefore establish'd over the world by universal Decree and that whilst many of the Apostles were alive Blondel I know assigns a later date to that Decree and would have us believe that it was not made before the year 140. But I am much more inclin'd to think that it was never made at all than that this project was first set on foot to remove the seeds or beginnings of Schisms almost a hundred years after they were sown at Corinth or after it was there said among the people I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas Blondel saw this absurdity and to avoid it he falls into another He would persuade us that the Schisms here mention'd are such as did not disturb the Church till a long time after the decease of Paul and Apollos and Cephas and did not arise amongst the Corinthians but others that imitated their example But by this exposition he does not only force the words of the Author from their plain literal meaning without any necessity but also makes him contradict his own avowed sense say in effect that Episcopacy was not instituted before the year 140 notwithstanding in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and other parts of his works he hath left us an account of several Bishops distinct from Presbyters that were ordain'd by the Apostles themselves 'T is true S. Jerom sometimes in his heats of which the cause is sufficiently known let fall such words as seem inconsistent with the Rights of Episcopacy yet if those words had been assaulted by his Adversaries he would not have been at a loss but had made provision for a vindication of himself or a safe retreat either by other expressions or the secret meaning of the same He may seem to oppose the subordination of Presbyters to the Bishop as an innovation or a departure from a former institution of Government yet he allows as we have seen that this departure was made about the time that S. Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians He intimates that it was necessary and in his Treatise against the Luciferians he declares that the welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Bishop to whom says he if there be not granted a certain peerless Authority there will be as many Schisms as there are Priests He may seem to believe that Bishops were not Constituted by any Divine order or disposal and perhaps he thought that they were not appointed by any Precept of Christ himself yet he denies not that they were Ordained by those that had Commission from him and acted in his Name and by his Power He may seem to be of Opinion that the Episcopal Praeeminence or Jurisdiction was at first a meer prudential Contrivance and afterwards confirm'd by Custom Yet in the production of it he ascribes no more to Prudence than the laying hold on a sad occasion when it was offer'd for its establishment And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition and this he grounds on Scripture That we may know says he that the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple That may the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Church And this is as much as I demand Another of your Authors is S. Augustin who acquaints us indeed that the Titles of Bishop and Presbyter were distinguish'd by Custom But it does not follow that there was not the same disparity of Officers when those words were of promiscuous use as there was afterwards when they were limited in their signification If this gives you not satisfaction Grotius will tell you what is agreeable to that which has been said already That when the Fathers speak of Custom they do not exclude an Apostolical Institution Nay S. Augustin says that what hath been always held by the whole Church and was not appointed by Councils is most
Baume in the Bishoprick of Geneva and that Luther and Melancthon were Spiritual Princes of the Empire and Electors of Germany We are now almost at twice the distance from the beginning of Luther's Reformation as Tertullian was from the days of the Apostles And we are more remote from the coming of King James the First to the Crown of England than Irenaeus was from the death of S. John when he argued against the Valentinians from the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles in the Government of the Churches And what he said of it must then have appear'd either so palpably false that it would have expos'd him and his Cause to derision or so evidently true that your Exceptions against it would at that time have been to the same effect as if a Dissenter should now declare That the Conformists had in this last Age introduced several Corruptions into the Church and Episcopacy amongst the rest That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth all the Ministers in the Kingdom were equal but after her decease the Defection began and was afterwards gradually carried on till the Prelats arriv'd at their present Greatness That one need but some Experience in the use of things and a little proportion of mother wit to discover this and to make a clear and distinct conception of it That however the Bishops might pretend that they had Predecessors in the last Century and produce for it the Testimony of many Authors yet those Authors were tainted with partial humours and there were Fob Traditions passed for current in their time so that we are under no obligation to believe them And now Sir I leave you to judge whether a person that should discourse seriously in such a manner were fit to be argued with or to be managed another way according to the Rules of Art You have another Bold Stroke yet remaining which is that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought you see deserves but little more credit as being but little better ascertain'd than the Catalogues of the British Kings deduced from Brute And this falls heavy upon S. Jerom as well as others for he approv'd such Catalogues and hath helpt to convey them to Posterity When you press'd him into your service you made honourable mention of him under the Titles of Pious and Learned of which he must make a forfeiture when he stands in your way and though he only confirms by his own suffrage what was generally believ'd in former Ages yet in that câ—…se for ought you see his word deserves little more Credit than the most absurd or groundless Fables For such are the Stories of Brute and the Kings of his Line They have no foundation in any Ancient History or Authentick Records but about two thousand years after the time of Brute's reputed Landing at Totness they were first publish'd to the World He that gave the first reputation to them was Geoffrey of Monmouth who is call'd by one of our Antiquaries the English Homer and the Father of Lies And as for his Brutus some have observ'd as Mr. Camden acquaints us that he was never hoard of till in a Barbarous Age one Hunibald a foolish Writer feign'd that Francion a Son of Priamus was the Founder of the French Nation But then a report was rais'd that our Country-men were descended from the Trojans and our Princes from this Brutus who was said to be the Son of Sylvius and Grand-Son of Aeneas and 't is no wonder that in the times of the thickest ignorance a fiction so agreeable was entertain'd and propagated amongst our Ancestors who disdain'd that their Neighbours should excel them in extraction whom they equal'd in courage And now if any shall affirm that as much or near as much may be said against the Testimonies of the Fathers asserting the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles I must beg your excuse if I tell him in the words of a late Author for whom I know you have some fondness that he has not wip'd his eyes but is moist with prejudice and passion It is not any want of clearness or strength in the Testimony which the Fathers give concerning the Original of Episcopacy that drew from you the odious Reflections which you cast on them but the force there is in it to demonstrate that the Strokes and Lineaments of your Scheme of Church-Government are meerly the work of Fancy and that you have employ'd your Pen in the service of a bad Cause This appears from what has been said already and I shall here add nothing more to confirm it but one Instance which I think I may safely oppose against all that ever was written for the Presbyterian Equality of Ministers from the days of Aerius to this very moment The Instance I intend is that of Polycarp who is not only said to have been Bishop of Smyrna by Polycrates and Tertullian who flourish'd not long after him and by Eusebius Jerom Socrates Sozomen Victor Capuanus Suidas and many others who liv'd at a greater distance from him but by such as knew him and could not be ignorant of his Character There were many that had the advantage of his Ministry Many that had liv'd under his Government in the Church of Smyrna and were Eye-witnesses of his Martyrdom who expresly declare that he was their Bishop This they do in an Epistle which is yet extant and which the famous Joseph Scaliger Critical as he was so highly approv'd and valu'd that he reckons it amongst the Noblest Monuments of Christian Antiquity and professes that he could not read it without something of Extasie S. Irenaeus who was his Scholar informs us likewise that he was Bishop of Smyrna And the same is attested by S. Ignatius who was not only his Contemporary but his Friend as also by Philo and Agathopus who acquaint us further that Ignatius on whom they attended being in his way to Rome where he was about to be torn in pieces by Wild Beasts for the Christian Faith paid a Visit to Polycarp at Smyrna and that both these Excellent Men had been train'd up under the same Master and were the Disciples of S. John But if S. Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna he was not the only Minister there for he begins his Epistle to the Philippians thus Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him And from these Presbyters he had no reason to distinguish himself as he does if both of them had born the same Office But in what manner he stood related to them may appear from hence that there was not one of all the Ancients I have cited to prove that he was a Bishop who meant not that he was a Prelate And if enquiry be made how he obtain'd his Office from Tertullian and Jerom and many others we learn that it was convey'd to him by S. John But S. John it seems was not alone in that
Bishops should be confin'd within their proper and certain bounds Yet when their circumstances resemble those of the Apostles and the great work is to convert Infidels to the Christian faith doubtless it is then fit that they should make freer Excursions And therefore the Great Council of Constantinople that so strictly limited Bishops within their own Dioceses excepted those from their general Rule who liv'd among the Heathens and gave them liberty to attempt their Conversion and that within the bounds of other Bishops as Balsamon and Zonaras explain the Canon And yet I cannot think that they to whom this Liberty was indulged were Bishops of a distinct Species when they only differ'd from others in a particular Circumstance Nor can I believe that they were Bishops at home and something else abroad or that they forfeited their Episcopal Character when they were making Converts or confirming them in a forein Province It is farther observable that the Canons by which Ecclesiastical Officers were restrain'd within certain Precincts being made in Times of Peace did not bind in Cases of Necessity On which account Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople determin'd that it was lawful to communicate with the Presbyters who were ordain'd at Rome and Naples and in Lombardy without the Acclamation or a Title And this he confirms from the Examples of Athanasius and Eusebius who when Arianism prevail'd confer'd Orders out of their own Dioceses A plain Argument that they had contracted no such Relation to a particular People but they remembred they were Bishops of the Catholick Church and thought they might on some occasions exercise their Episcopal Power in any part of it without a breach of Catholick Communion To conclude As the Office of Presbyters was the same when they were severally appropriated to distinct Congregations as it was when they had the Care or Government in common of many Congregations under the Presidence of the Bishop So is the Office of Bishops the same whether they are limited or not within certain Dioceses And to serve the Necessities of the Church some of them may be the more strictly confin'd and not suffer'd to pass their Line and others may be left to greater freedom in the exercise of their Function without any essential difference 2. It was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should constantly be engag'd in Travels S. Paul who was so abundant in his Labours remained two years at Ephesus and S. James resided much longer at Jerusalem as I shall shew in the following Chapter In the mean time let me tell you that all the Arguments by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers perform more than you would have them or nothing at all If they prove any thing it is that the Apostles could have no Successors in Teaching and Instructing the People which yet you say was a standing and perpetual part of their Office So that you must be content I think either to yield up the Cause or you will be concern'd as much as I to answer your own Objections CHAP. IV. S. James was an Apostle and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there AMongst the Arguments by which some would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers I find none more frequently produced than that which is taken from their unsetled condition And this you urge after the example of others but something you have in the management of it that is peculiar and must be ascrib'd to to your own invention Sure I am say you Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms the Office of the Apostles to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare But excuse me Sir if I tell you that sure I am you never saw any such Comment of Athanasius nor any such Translator as you have mention'd nor have they any Being but in your Imagination The use you make of the words you have cited is almost as surprising as the Quotation it self In the judgement say you of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers as if you had a mind to depress them now as much as you exalted them before I leave you to clear your self as well as you can and I come now to prove what I have already propos'd that it was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should be constantly engaged in Travels And this I think is very clear from the example of S. James the Just I know that many Learned Men have deny'd that this James was one of the Twelve which others notwithstanding of great Eminence have affirm'd But I have no need to be interessed in that Controversy I think it sufficient that he had both the Name and Authority of an Apostle And I shall shew that he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there I join these things together because of their Affinity If I prove either of them it will be for my purpose if both the truth will be more confirm'd and they will give mutual light to one another That S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem appears from the Testimony of a whole Cloud of Witnesses amongst which Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus are the most commonly produced and chiefly depended on by the Assertors of Episcopacy as being the most Ancient and best qualified to gain an assent to their information S. Clemens flourished in the next Age after the Apostles and as Blondel says truly of him he was eminent for Holiness and all manner of Learning But Divine Learning was the highest in his esteem to acquire which he travel'd into many Countries and as himself acquaints us he had Masters to instruct him that were of several Nations One of them he tells us was of Coelosyria and another of Egypt the third he mentions was an Assyrian and the fourth a Hebrew And these having preserv'd the Doctrines and Institutions of the Apostles pure which they receiv'd from Peter and James from John and Paul as Children from their Parents communicated them to him and others in his time We have therefore reason to think that he was not deceiv'd nor design'd to impose on Posterity when he left us this relation for which I now make use of his Name That although our Lord had prefer'd Peter and James and John before the rest of the Apostles yet they did not contend about Honour but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem Jerusalem was the principal Place wherein our Saviour himself exercis'd his Office and taught personally when he was upon Earth It was the Metropolis of the Jews who afforded Converts to the Christian Faith before Salvation was brought to the Idolatrous Gentiles The Church of Jerusalem therefore was justly styl'd by the Council of Constantinople the Mother of Churches and it consisted of a
rightly believ'd to proceed from Apostolical Authority And that he did not believe Episcopacy was introduced into the Church after the Apostles decease appears from several instances and particularly from hence that he thought the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were their Bishops Thus far your Witnesses have appear'd against you and with them you have fitly join'd S. Chrysostom who says not as you pretend that there is no difference in a manner between Bishops and Priests but that the difference is not great Thereby intimating that some difference there was even in the Apostles days for of these he he speaks And in this he tells us they were distinguish'd that only the Bishops had the power of Ordination A thing so destructive of the cause for which you are concern'd that the Dissenters doubtless had rather see all the Volumes of Chrysostom in a flame than be concluded by his testimony After all you must depend I think on the testimony of such as Danaeus Buchanan Johannes Major and Hector Boethius and of what Authority these men are I come now to enquire If we may believe Danaeus say you Epiphanius himself was at last compell'd to confess that in the Age of the Apostles no such distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as I contend for was to be found To which I reply If we may believe Epiphanius himself he confess'd no such matter On the contrary when he had represented Aerius as the plague of mankind when he had expos'd and condemn'd his detestable ingratitude towards Eustathius and shew'd how he loaded his Benefactor with calumnies because he was advanced to a Bishoprick to which that modest Leveller aspir'd he then gives an account of this opinion of the Heretick That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter which he censures as extremely foolish and proceeds to the confutation of it That a Presbyter says he cannot be the same with a Bishop the sacred word of the Apostle declares For thus he writes to Timothy Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder but that he had Authority over him He admonishes him ver 19. Not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses But he did not give direction to any of the Presbyters not to receive an accusation against a Bishop not to rebuke a Bishop This then is a manifest Argument of the disparity of those Officers in the judgment of Epiphanius But if you can make him confess what he denies if you can make him approve what he confutes and bring him to an agreement with one whom he represents as a prodigious villain and a monster then you may believe Danaeus But his credit labours much at present and you have said nothing to relieve it It hath been little for the honour of the Presbyterian Government that the Father of it hath been thought to be Aerius But you think it is of more ancient and better extraction The Scots you say who receiv'd the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age had not any knowledge for many Ages after that appears of any but Presbyterian jurisdiction And for this you quote Buchanan who tell us that no Bishop ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Palladius his time and that the Church unto that time was govern'd by Monks without Bishops with less pride and outward pomp but greater simplicity and holiness And if his word may be taken for it this would be something to the purpose But Camden says that his History was condemn'd of falshood by the Parliament of Scotland and that Buchanan before his death bitterly accus'd himself of the Calumnies he had divulged So that however I have a great value for his wit and learning I think no great credit is due to his testimony since he wanted that veracity which is essential to a good Historian But here it seems we need not depend on his word alone for he is warranted by the Authority of Johannes Major whose words you set down and they are to the same effect as the former And really say you this testimony given by Johannes Major is very full And who would not now think that this Johannes Major was an Ancient Father that could give such a full and exact account of the Primitive times Yet did this man draw down his History of Great Britain as far as the Marriage of K. Henry VIII of England with the Princess Catherine of Aragon and dedicated it to K. James V. of Scotland He was alive says Labbe in the year 1520. And one that would undertake to declare what men were doing above a thousand years before he was born had need to vouch better Authority than his own to gain belief But John Major is not the only Evidence Buchanan might have cited Beda you tell me says that Palladius was sent unto the Scots who believ'd in Christ as their first Bishop How great an advantage is it to have the faculty of close reasoning Yet so dull am I that I do not perceive how the words of Bede prove those of Buchanan to be true For 1. Palladius might be sent into Scotland and yet not into the Country now call'd by that name and intended by Buchanan It might be into Ireland of which Beda himself says that it is properly the Country of the Scots and accordingly in Claudian the Scot is the Irish man And that Palladius was sent to the Irish Scots hath been prov'd by those great Antiquaries the Bishops of S. Asaph and Worcester to whom I refer you for satisfaction 2. The Christian faith hath no such dependance on Monkery but the Scots might believe though there had never been any Monks in the world And I take it to be manifest that there were none so early as you imagine Polydor Vergil ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died as he tells us in the year 361. Danaeus says that it began to be in request in Egypt after the year 300 and that it was later before it was receiv'd in Europe He attributes the invention of it to superstition and an idolatrous admiration of external things He compares the Monks to swarms of drones and says that in the year 500. they were dispers'd and multiplied like the Locusts in the Revelation upon the face of the whole Earth You see Sir what sentiments your friend Danaeus had of these men and of their institution and little did he think that the Church of Scotland was so happy in an excellent sort of Presbyterian Monks in the best and purest Ages S. Jerom himself who had such a zeal for the Monastick way of living that he was willing to say as much for the honour of it as he was able carries the original of it notwithstanding no higher than Antony or Paul the Thebaean But which of them soever was the Founder of it
is such a Society as should have its own Spiritual Officers chosen out of the rest of the faithful of any Nation and remaining distinct from them 2. That the Titles of Priests and Levites which have been so often attributed to the Officers of the Christian Church had not their Original from the meer fancies of the Ancient Fathers much less were they an invention of later times but are founded on an expression of the Holy Scripture 3. That amongst these Officers there should be such disparity as had been under the Law amongst the posterity of Levi. 2. You pretend to discover by what degrees Prelacy grew up to its present Grandeur And you tell me one need but some experience in the course of things and a little proportion of Mother wit to make a clear and distinct conception of what you have said on this Subject You believe that all Presbyters were equal by a Divine Institution Yet notwithstanding that appointment of Heaven it was requisit you say for orders sake that in every Assembly one should have the direction and 't is most probable the Eldest Presbyter had the first place and the first direction of matters Yet probable as it is if one should affirm that 't is a meer conjecture of Mother Wit you have said nothing that may be sufficient to confute him However this must be made the first prudential reason for a departure from a Divine Institution and the first step towards the degeneracy of succeeding times But this State of Affairs did not long continue Another prudential reason appears to justle out the former and introduces another step to corruption For it was found by experience you say that the eldest was not always the worthiest and fittest for the direction of matters A very notable discovery But it may seem a little strange that men inspir'd or but of ordinary capacity did not foresee this and that no care was taken to prevent the inconveniences of the last contrivance It also seems incredible that the old men should be so easily degraded from their accustomed precedence and suffer their juniors to be pearcht into their places They must be suppos'd to be persons of a very complaisant humour tho they had no great proportions of Mother-Wit seeing they would yield up their Title and Dignity of first Presbyters without the least murmur or complaint But that 's no matter Once upon a time all the world over it came to pass that the place devolv'd not by seniority but was confer'd by Election made by all the Presbyters and not unlikely but with Prayer and imposition of Hands Things very piously reckon'd amongst the means of depraving the Institution of Christ And now the first Presbyter by this new Ordination begins to look pretty like a Bishop yet he had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is by all Protestants allow'd to Peter in that of the Apostles But one step more brings him to the Episcopal Throne For the best men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions liable to rust and canker There was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own times and those that follow'd after improv'd upon the example And so the first Presbyter soon became advanced into another order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters A great and sudden change And the thing was managed with so much fineness that it was conceal'd many hundred years above a thousand and it may seem strange that it should be discover'd at last not from any Ancient writings or credible informations but by experience in the course of things and some proportions of Mother-Wit Authors indeed you quote and several Arguments you have by which you would prove that corruptions were introduced into the Church in such a manner as you have describ'd but you had much better have left us to depend wholly on your own word than at all have produced them Since they can only serve to expose the weakness of your Cause One of those Arguments you ground on 1 Tim. 5.17 where S. Paul says Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine From hence you gather that there was a distinction of Elders and that some of them being better at Ruling and some at Preaching they exercis'd themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrine And you farther conclude that there was always a first Presbyter and make no question but he was of the number of those that labour'd in the Word And I make no question but here you have put together several things that might better have been omitted For you suppose that the Elders who labour'd in the Word and Doctrine were excell'd by others in Ruling whereas all that the Apostle mentions in this place are such as Rule well And then to those that you conceive were better at Preaching than at Ruling you attribute the praeeminence in Ruling or that chief direction of matters in the Consistories which belongs to the place of Presidents And this I think is sufficiently absurd But what is worst of all is you make a Text of Scripture a foundation of one of the steps to Corruption An instance of some that were better at Ruling than at Preaching you think you have found in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians and if you had the matter is not great since all that you would infer from thence is that others were prefer'd before them who were not so well qualified as themselves for the Administration of the Government I am willing however to see the exercise of your Critical faculty You think then that they who are said by Clemens to have Politiz'd well were the Presbyters that Ruled rather than Preach'd well But you might have found that in another place this Father tells us that Peter and Paul Politiz'd divinely if I may borrow your expression and doubtless did not mean thereby to distinguish them from Preaching Apostles You might also have found that when he upbraids some for not Politizing as they ought he meant not to reflect on them as Bad Governours but in general as persons that did not walk worthy of Christ These things so plainly shew your mistake that you will not I believe review your Criticism with any great satisfaction For an example of one that was better at Preaching than at Ruling and was a first Presbyter you produce the President mention'd by Justin Martyr And 't is true that Preaching was the work of that President for so it appears from Justin And it is as true that he govern'd in chief For he was a Bishop as Grotius will inform you whose Learning you with so much reason admire But of what use this can be to you unless it be to overthrow what you would establish by