the Menaces utter'd in the Old Testament against Tyre and her King had for their Object Parmenianus the schismatical Bishop of the Donatists who lived at Carthage that had once been a Tyrian Colony but in the time of Parmenianus was inhabited by Romans who had either quite extirpated or expelled thence the whole Race of the Tyrians With no less lightness but more danger did Justine Martyr long before Optatus endeavour to perswade the Gentiles that all Mankind were Partakers of Christ because they were Partakers of Reason and Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also signifies Reason Where we see that Justine leans only on a pitifull Equivocation the deceit of which could not be unknown to him who natively spoke Greek Neither were Origenes Methodius and others as Hierome witnesseth more solide in their Writings Yea Hierome himself distinguisheth between Progymnasticks and Dogmaticks alledging that in the former of these a Disputant hath liberty to muster up many Arguments in which he hath no confidence § 4. To these we may add both their Homilies and Expositions wherein it 's not easily determined when they spoke their own minds or when they gave us only Transcripts of others to believe and defend which they held themselves but little obliged Yea Hierome oftner than once tells us that it was the common Practice of the Writers of these times to give the Expositions of others and yet conceal the names of the Authors and so involve the Reader and make him take for their judgement the things they never believ'd § 5. If we search into the causes of so strange dealing we have heard out of Hierome that one of 'em was meer sloath and neglect See much more to this purpose in Dallaeus de usu Patrum Another Cause why they both spoke wrote and practised otherways than they knew could be warranted by Scripture was their unjustifiable Compliance with both Jews and Pagans good perhaps intentionally being out of design the better to Proselyte them but eventually proved as unhappy as its Practice was unwarrantable and destitute of Scripture ground Hence their Deacons were named Levites their Bishops Priests and High-Priests the Lord's Table the Altar and the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice and at length Diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops were instituted in imitation of the Pagan Flamines and Protoflamines Another Cause thereof which especially takes place in their Homiles and Expositions was the multitude of Alterations and Corruptions well grown before any of these Homilies and Commentaries we now enjoy were extant these were too deeply rooted to be opposed and therefore they believed themselves under a kind of necessity to accommodat their Comments and Declamations thereto at least so to temper and compose them that they should not thwart therewith Of this sort of Conduct we have a clear instance in Augustine who sometimes commends and praises several unscriptural Ceremonies But elsewhere speaking his Mind more freely disapproves them as both unwrantable and burdensome He indeed there intimats that some things commonly observ'd throw the World tho' they were not written yet might be kept as having come from the Apostles or general Councils such as was the Observation of the Lord's Passion Resurrection and Ascension But even this as is most probable he yeelded out of humane Weakness and Fear to oppose the then prevailing Innovations for the needlesness of such preterscriptural Observations he evidently declares elsewhere saying that all things which belong either to Faith and Manners are plainly contain'd in Scripture From all which is clear that we cannot at all be sure if the Fathers Commenting on the places in hand either knew their true meaning or if they did sincerely gave us what themselves believed § 6. And that in their Explications of these Texts we have not their genuine Sentiments is to me evident First because they gave such Reasons of their Exposition as the greatest Prelatists count stark nought Thus Bellarmine rejects and overturns the Grounds of every one of these Expositors in particular except these of Chrysostome only who yet hath nothing of any moment above the rest for Chrysostome exponing Philip. 1. 1. alledges only in defence of his Exposition that the sole Title and Name of Bishop was common to both Orders but this is refused by Dr. Hammond and others and as we shall hear by Chrysostome himself But the Jesuite intending to retain that Exposition thought himself obliged to embrace some of their Defences whereas in truth they themselves never believ'd them to be solide but only the growing Corruptions being too strong to be opposed and some of 'em having got an Episcopacy which was then creeping in and which they depending on the Churches Authority thought they might retain they believ'd that for the fashion they might so gloss the Scriptures whereby Episcopacy is wounded that the People should not perceive the unwarrantableness thereof Secondly The main ground common to all these Expositions why they expone any of these Texts as if they condemn'd not a Diocesan Bishop is a sufficient evidence that they were far from being in earnest in their Glosses for they still alledge that there behoved to be a Bishop above these Bishops in Philippi whom Paul salutes because there might not be Plurality of Bishops in one City This Practice indeed was for the most part current in this time tho' not universal as we learn from Epiphanius informing us that even in these times there used to be a Plurality of Bishops in one City Yet quite contrary to this Text which they either carelesly or timourously shuffl'd They judged saith Dr. Stillingfleet the Practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the sense of their Age because their could be but one Bishop in a City And Petavius grants that many true Bishops were sometimes at once in one City And altho' the Episcopal Order be of Divine Right yet at 's not of Divine Right that there should be only one Bishop in one City this was only brought in by the Authority of the Church and Councils and accordingly Hierome and Ambrose are to be understood By what Law saith J. Taylor speaking of Philippi and that not as a Metropolis may there not be more Bishops than one in a proper sense in one Diocess Where 't is not unpleasant to hear so great a Prelatist by one Interrogation overthrowing the whole Episcopal Cause and propugning the main Plea of the Presbyterians viz. that in Philippi alone there were many who had not only the power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments but also of Ordination and Jurisdiction and were every way Bishops in a proper sense Thirdly Some of these Expositors proclaim what we alledge for OEcumenius who like the rest intimats as if
he superintended and let him use it as he pleased yet neither can the Imparity be counted considerable not the harm he could do very hurtfull for within half a year at most for there was a General Assembly twice at least every year they had a prospect of a General Assembly to right their wrong wherein every Pastor was to have no less Power than any Superintendent and no less capable to sit judge and censure the Superintendent than the Superintendent was on the other hand to exerce the like Power over him yea any Minister in the Assembly such sometimes as were none was as fair to be chosen Moderator as any Superintendent By the frequency of these Assemblies it came to pass that few or no matters of importance were determin'd in the inferiour Synods but came thither for their final Decision Wherefore if we narrowly look on these times we shall find that the Superintendents were rather appointed as Observers and Delators of Matters to the Assembly than any proper Judges thereof save when a special command was giv'n him to cognosce on such and such particular Matters He was frequently also charged with execution of the Assemblies Determinations all which was common to him with other Commissioners to whom the Assembly gave the like Charge and sent them not rarely to these very Provinces where there were Superintendents with equal Power and Authority to that of the Superintendent Sometimes they ordain'd Causes to be handled by the Superintendent with the assistance of these Commissioners sometimes by the Commissioner with the assistance of the Superintendents which Commissioners were sometimes Ministers of another Province and sometimes of that Province wherein was the Superintendent with whom they were join'd with equal Power Authority From all which 't is evident how much they are taken with the humor of cavilling who dare to ascribe to the Superintendents any real Superiority or Power over other Pastors or any thing repugnant to a compleat Parity But there is yet more even in his own Synod he could do nothing contrary to the Majority for he was to act nothing without the Synods Consent neither could he impede ought done by the Majority for he had no negative vote Yea he was made subject to the Tryal and Censures of the Synod of the very province where he superintended And here our Author is compell'd to acknowledge that there was a considerable difference between Superintendents and Bishops and indeed 't was considerable with a witness and so considerable that it really sets them on even ground with each Pastor of the word He adds that this was a great wrong and error in the Constitution and on this ocasion has a long invective against our Reformers in speciall Knox counting them Children Idiots Ungovernable and of bad Principles and spares not to flegg at all Scots men or Scotch mettal as he speaks But this is but a kicking against the pricks He knows all this helps him nothing nor is to the present Question which is not de jure but de facto what our Reformers freely and joyntly did Not on what grounds they did so He next retorts that according to the book of Discipline the Elders are allow'd to admonish correct and with the consent of the Church and Superintendent depose their Minister But First tho our Reformers had spoken just alike of the Elders and Ministers as they did of the Synod and Superintendent their words will not bear the like inference the power they give to the Elders could certainly be a spurr to the Ministers and yet they might be sure the few Elders of one parish would never make so bold with their Minister as the whole Synod might with their Superintendent Secondly There is no such allowance giv'n to the Elders concerning their Minister as to the Synod over their Superintendent the former much act only with the consent of the Kirk and Superintendent but nothing of this injoyn'd to the latter Yea our Author himself will have the power of Deposition to be a prerogative of the Superintendent and no doubt he or the Commissioner did in the Churches name execute her sentence To Depose therefore here and that with allowance of the whole context of that 8 head of Discipline which he cites is nothing else than to delate to the Church and Superintendent the crimes of the Minister and in their own sphere assist them in that action He adds he hath no where found that de facto the Superintendent was judged by his own Synod And it may be so for litle do we find of any thing was then done by provincial synods every thing of moment being left to the General Assemblies which were then most frequent Such a Constitution adds he inferrs no such thing as Parity among Church-Offices Those who maintain that the King is inferior to his Subjects in their Collection are not yet so extravagant as to say he is not Superior to every one of them in their Distribution But where Superiors or Equalls can be gotten the Men of this Principle will freely yeeld that none who are Inferiours in the Distribution ought to judge the Actions of their Superiours providing other Judges can be had who in this Case cann't there being but one King only in a Kingdom Hence they believing that none may live lawless think the King's Actions are cognoscible by these who are his Inferiours but altering their capacity in the Collection But is it so in the Case of the Superintendent whereof there were severals not one only as there is one commonly King in a Kingdom Seeing then he was to be judged by the Synod notwithstanding that there were other Superintendents in the Church 't is evident they counted every Brother in the Ministry his equal § 19. But the Superintendents saith our Author had a stock of prerogatives above other Pastors But be it so yet notwithstanding hereof if we suppose which I trust at the narrowest search shall appear the truth of what we have now adduc'd and the self consistency of the actings of our Reformers whom he would fain set at variance with themselves whatsoever Prerogatives he has really brought can never prove that the Superintendent had any Dominion over other Pastors or that they acted not in a true and real Parity so that from what is now said these his pretended Disparities are prevented and remov'd For example he tells us that Superintendents had a larger district were nominated by the Council elected by the Nobility and Gentry 't was not so with the Paroch Ministers But the Commissioners had no less districts and were appointed by the General Assembly which I 'm sure is of no less weight in the case than the Councils Nomination even tho' the Gentlemens Election be added thereto and yet who in his Wit will take him for any other Officer than is every Parish-minister or fall into the rovery of our Author who calls these Commissioners
Office for which they were separated was neither new nor perpetual § 17. Having overthrown the Reasons of his Gloss it must yeeld to the Text expresly telling us they were erected only for that time and that for the paucity of Ministers endowed with singular Graces But this reason says he is nought For suppose we 20 30 40 Men in the Kingdom qualifi'd for the Office of the Ministry could not these have divided the Kingdom into a proportionable number of large Parishes And still as more Men turn'd qualifi'd could they not have lessen'd these greater Parishes But he with whom our Reformers were all most contemptible Idiots and more especially in Church-policy needs not wonder tho' they had fall'n into a much greater Solecism But he forgets that many in these most dark times were made Ministers who yet needed the Assistance and Direction of the better qualifi'd for a while in Church-policy and matters of such importance till they should be able to go hand in hand with them and that the main end of Superintendents was the perpetual Travelling Preaching and Instructing where there were no Pastors and planting of Churches As well continues he as our Presbyterian Brethren now unite Presbytries A strange mistake as if where Presbytries are united any Minister took for his proper Charge a multitude of Parishes He here insinuats that in the Superintendents there was established a Prelacy But the present Question is only about the sentiments of our Reformers and that they never thought the use of Superintendents croffed the Doctrine of Parity is most clear were there no more from their using Superintendent-commissioners even after they had declar'd Episcopacy unlawfull in it self But all this their jangle is the fruit of meer prejudice or worse for none near these times look'd on Superintendency as perpetual Not the Court Party seeing they endeavour'd to change Superintendents for Tulchan Bishops not the rest of the Church who as the necessity of them decreased suffer'd them to wear out And after that in an unanimous Assembly they had ordain'd that the whole Church should be divided in a competent number of Presbytries declar'd that Superintendents were no longer expedient And good ground had they even from that very Book of Policy so to do for if the whole tenor of that Head of Superintendents appointing them almost constantly to Travel to Preach thrice a week at least and beside that to examine the Life c. of the Ministers the Orders of the Kirks the manners of the People care how the Poor be provided how the Youth be instructed admonish where it 's needfull by good Counsel compose Differences note and delate to the Kirk hainous Crimes and all this because of the paucity of qualifi'd Ministers evidently proclaims not that this Superintendent was a kind of Evangelist expedient only at that juncture of the re-entry of the Gospel into Scotland I appeal to the candid Judgement of the impartial Moreover if 't were otherwise why should they not as punctually have described his Duties after the time of his perpetual Travels his Preaching thrice a week and other such vast Labours were ended for he grants these were to indure but for a time after which he insinuats that the Superintendents were to remain quiet in their chief Towns but no word in all the account we have of them of such distinctions of times of such perpetual rest not a word therefore of their perpetuity Lastly which he wisely i. e. sutably to his purpose omitted for like the Council ask'd at Abel it ends the matter see this Head of Superintendents Because say they we have appointed a larger Stipend to them that shall be Superintendents than to the rest of the Ministers we have thought good to signifie to your Honours such Reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt Preachers at this time Now pray may not he that runs read here that had it not been for some forcing Circumstances and Exigencies of the then present time they had made no difference at all between one Minister and another And then after a few lines they laid down their Reasons in the very words the sense whereof is now under Debate If the Ministers c. § 18. In the mean while we need not be much concern'd whether these Superintendents were to be temporary or perpetual there being nothing therein that made any real difference between the Church-government which was then and that which is now And indeed these vast Travels and Pains in preaching thrice a week c. are sure enough Tokens that the Superintendent could not be much distinguish'd from an ordinary Pastor save in these extraordinary Labours and was far from the Episcopal Eminency and Grandour seeing he was so far from the Episcopal ease and idleness without which the former but rarely obtains This and other such Proofs of the vast difference between the Superintendents and their Diocesans and of the likeness between the Government under the Reformers and that which is now our Author slides over with rallry saying it may be as well told them that Bishops wore black Hats and silk Superintendents blew Bonets and tartan as if most constant and hard labour in the Gospel were no more valuable for distinguishing one Minister from another than highland Plydes and blew Bonnets He meets you with the like Drollery if you mind him that the Superintendents had no Metrapolitan and Episcopal Consecration or Ordination but it 's risus sardonius And his Questions What is this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governours of the Church Do these differences distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of Power flow from deep dissimulation of the mortal Wound giv'n to his Cause seeing without Episcopal Ordination which was never requir'd to a Superintendent For Knox as for example who with our Author was only a Presbyter ordain'd or admitted as they then spoke Spotswood Superintendent there can be no Episcopal Power no not so much as the very essentials of a Bishop These Superintendents were also without any Civil Places power or emoluments that way which make up the far greater part of the Episcopal greatness and still subject and accountable to the General Assemblies And there was reason for it saith our Author supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted were sit to be supream Judicatories of the National Church For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes Then surely either were our Prelats Popes or most vehemently covetted a papal Power seeing above all things they fear'd abhorr'd and studi'd the ruine of these our General Assemblies And no wonder if they did so and that our Author intimats his dislike of these our Assemblies For if this one thing viz. the subjection of the Superintendents to these Assemblies as they were then constituted be duely weigh'd it 's fair to â—et them on the very same levell with their Brethren For give him never so great a Power in the Province where
Kirks is quite stiffled and the whole sense of the Act perverted For what sense is it I pray to say that the Ministers were Chosen by Consent of the rest of the Ministers when you tell not who was to choose or who they were to whose choice or nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that Consent But to stiffle the Power he pleads for to Superintendents was a Work impossible either to Calderwood or any man else the very Act it self most irrefragbly shewing they could have none save such as is in any meer Moderator of our Synods or Presbytries For be it which yet the Assembly expresses not that the Superintendents were to nominate Ministers for the Assembly yet they could do no more but only as the Synod by their Votes assented or choosed the nominated Persons whom if the Synod or its major part rejected these could not go to the Assembly yet some behov'd to go and consequently the Superintendent or Commissioner was to make a new Lite and name again and if these did not yet please another Lite and so on untill the Synod was satisfi'd and choosed some Persons or other according to their pleasure for the Assembly This much is undeniably contain'd in the Act and I 'm sure no Moderator of any Synod or Presbytry injoyes any less Power providing it deserve the name Seeing then Brought with them cannot possibly mean any peculiar Power I see not wherein Calderwood by ommitting them can be culpable Neither can he be accused of nonsense seing 't is sufficiently intelligible and plain how these Ministers and Commissioners could be chosen by the consent of the rest of his Brethren the Ministers and Gentle-men members of the Synod who by joynt and mutual consent chused them after the Superintendent or Commissioners nominating or liting which by a fraud too palpable he confounds with Election And here it 's observable in how much torment and perplexity this so clear an Act involves all of ' em Spotswood adduc'd it in his latine Pamphlet but is so soundly chastis'd by the Vindicator of Philadelphus that our Author finds not a syllable to say in his defence He pretends also to relate it in his History but with an essential Depravation for he leaves out these words Ministers and Commissirners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocy with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention For he saw it quite spoil'd his Cause and really left the Superintendent no Power but what was equally in any of the rest and foists into the Text these such Ministers as the Superintendents should chuse in their Diocesan Synods Neither can our Author be blameless in suppressing the following words Commissioners of Burghs shall be appointed by the Council and Kirk of their own Towns none shall be admitted without sufficient Commission in write And least this should turn to perpetual Election of a few and certain Persons it is concluded Ministers and other Commissioners be changed from Assembly to Assembly Whereby appears the Churches great care that neither Superintendent nor any other might have ought like an Episcopal Power and that all fit Persons might have equal priviledge of Voting at the Assemblies There yet remain many of his pretended Disparities but are no more significative of eminency or superiour Office no less communicable to the rest of the Ministers when Commissioners than were the former as will be evident to any who reads the Acts of the Assemblies among which he reckons the Superintendent 's modifying to Ministers their Stipends as if because Judas had the Bagg and bare what was put therein he had been Bishop over the rest of the Apostles In the mean while the Superintendents could do nothing of this but only as Moderator of the provincial Synod Another Deduction of no better metall is that the Laird of Dun Superintendent of Angus not as such but by vertue of a particular Commission giv'n by the Assembly to him and others join'd with him deposed a Regent of Aberdeen a place intirely without the bounds of his Superintendency therefore Superintendents as such had a Power Paramount and Episcopal And was not such an arguer a man of sense I pass the rest of his thirty Disparities not without admiration that such a fertile brain could not invent one other for one and thirty used to carry the Game Add to all this that tho' some that had been Popish Bishops in Scotland and imbrac'd the Gospel as Mr. Gordon of Galloway a man of no contemptible Gifts were by our Reformers allow'd without any new Admission to dispence the Word aud Sacraments yet they were never allow'd to exercise what they counted their Episcopal Function or looked on as Bishops of these Dioceses yea Mr. Gordon tho' he earnestly sought for it could never be admitted to Superintend in Galloway which is a clear Demonstration that our Reformers looked on the Episcopal preheminence as a meer Popish Corruption otherways why did not Mr. Gordon verbi causâ remain in the Power and Character he had enjoyed while Romanist It 's most clear also from all the accounts we have of the Tulchan Bishops that all men of all parties look'd on a Bishop as a thing altogether diverse from a Superintendent § 20. And now at length hear him yeelding the whole Plea There was saith he a Principle had then got too much footing among some Protestant Divines viz. That the best way to reform a Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in common with them but the essentials the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian Religion whatever was in its Nature indifferent and not positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as a Corruption as having been abused and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry This Principle John Knox was fond of and maintain'd zealously and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his influences In pursuance of this Principle therefore when they compil'd the first Book of Discipline they would not Reform the old Polity and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it keeping still by the main draughts and lineaments of it But they laid it quite aside and in stead thereof hammer'd out a new Scheme keeping at as great a distance from the old one as they could and as the essentials of Polity would allow them establishing no such thing however as Parity as I have fully proven And no wonder for as Imparity has obviously more of Order beauty and usefulness in its aspect so it had never so much as by dreaming entred their tboughts that it was a limb of Antichrist or a relict of Popery But was not Episcopacy in fashion in the Popish Churches And dare he yea or any mortal say that ever
so much or been altogether silent thereof neither of which they did but gave to the World solemnly as the Confession of their Belief that Christ gave to to all Pastors equal and the same power and yet if we believe this Interpreter this that Christ gave may according to the Authors of that Confession be relinquish'd when Men will and Inequality it 's quite contrary introduced in the place thereof Is not this too like the dealing of the Romanists who when they are compell'd to acknowledge that the Apostles gave the Cup to the People yet pretend that they may deprive them of what Christ and his Apostles gave them Divers indeed have said that Church Government was among the Adiaphora and things indifferent But these were more wary then to say as he would have the Authors of these Confessions to say that Christ gave equal and the same Power to all Pastors yea such used not to grant that Christ gave either Equality or Inequality of Power but left all to the Churches management Moreover as he does us no dammage so I 'm sure he does the present Hierarchicks as little service for if this Hypothesis that no kind of Church Government is juris divini stand then the jus divinum of Episcopacy is lost and therefore I 'm sure they shall give him as little thanks as we 'T is also observable that when ever the Authors of these Confessions or other Divines of their Perswasion said that Communion with Churches of a different Government was not to be broken or any thing of that kind he presently inferrs that they judg'd any other form no less agreeable to the word of God than their own And here I cann't but take nottice of what I have met with somewhere in M. Claude's historical defence of the Reformation for at present I have not the book viz. that Diocesan Episcopacy is no less condemnable than Pilgrimages Purgatories or some such Romish dotages which he there names and how averse he was from Diocesan Episcopacy is observed by the Prefacer to the English Translation and yet if we believe some he gave large Testimonies of his great affection to the Diocesan cause And this brings to mind another Artifice for when any Protestant Divines considering the great Power of Popish Bishops and vehemently desiring Peace for the free Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel strain'd their Judgement and seem'd at any time to do or say somewhat that appear'd to comply with Episcopacy our Prelatists anone Infer that such Divines were great Lovers of their Hierarchy Thus for Example they abuse the Words and Actions of Melancton but they should remember that sometimes driving the same Design some of these Divines seem'd no less to comply with the Papacy it self as appear'd at the pressing of the Interim The same end drove Melancton when in a Conference at Ausburg as Osiander relates he seem'd to yeeld somewhat of Jurisdiction to Bishops for be hop'd that if Jurisdiction were granted them they would not so much oppose the Gospel But Philip consider'd not continues Osiander that the Fox may change his hair not his Temper Melancton granted also to the Pope provided he would admit the Gospel a superiority over other Bishops founded only on humane right and yeelded for procuring of the Peace of Christendom Thus Melancton through his extream desire of Peace forc'd his own Judgement for with Luther and the rest he subscribes the Smalkaldick Articles wherein as we have heard the Scriptural Idenity of Bishop and Presbyter is most clearly asserted But what ever they say to perswade us that these or other such Divines favour them we are little oblig'd to believe it for they believe it not themselves and these of our Adversaries that speak out their mind freely tell us that all the transmarine reformed Churches are really Presbyterian It were too much I 'm sure to transcribe what D. Heylin says of this for he freely grants it and then through a whole large Folio as such bespatters with the blackest of Railings and Calumnies every one of the reformed Churches in particular No less positive is Howell who makes Calvin the first Broacher of the Presbyterian Religion And a little after Thus saith he Geneva Lake swallowed up the Episcopal See and Church Lands were made secular which was the white they levell'd at This Geneva Bird flew thence io France and hatch'd the Huguenots which make about the tenth part of that People it took wing also to Bohemia and Germany high and loe as the Palatinate the land of Hesse and the confederat Provinces of the States of Holland Yea Bellarmine being to write against Presbytry lays down in the entry as undeniable that ' t is the common doctrine of both Calvinists and Lutherans § 5. To these may be added all such as were valiant for the truths of God and stoutly oppos'd themselves to Antichrist before Luther as the Waldenses and Albigenses of whom Alphonsus de Castro relates that they deny'd any difference between Bishop and Presbyter and herein differ'd nothing from Aërius This same may be learn'd from Thuan who compares them with the English Non-conformists So far from truth was D M. when he says that these only declaimed against the corrupt Manners of the Church of Rome but never declaim'd against the subordination of one Priest unto another This same doctrine held Wicklef and his followers denying that there is any difference between Bishop and Presbyter The Waldenses and Wicklef were in this as in the rest of their Articles follow'd by J. Huss and his Adherents who also asserted that there ought to be no difference between Bishop and Presbyter or among Priests Yea so Catholick and universall hath this doctrine of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter still been that it hath all along by the Romanists been justly reck'n'd a prime doctrine of Romes Opposers Nor shall yow readily find one before Luther for of such I now speak of Truth 's Witnesses who condemn'd not all distinction between Bishop and Presbyter § 6. And even in England it self after the Reformation the famousest Bishops and lights of that Church as Hooper Latimer and others could not without great difficulty and reluctancy admitt the exercing of the Episcopal Office the using of their Priestly vestments c to be in any sense lawfull so far were they from believing a Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy But as Voëtius observes the use of it was excus'd rather than defended The first or at least the Standard-bearer among the first that either in England or any where else in the reform'd World had the brow to assert its Divine Right appear'd in the latter part of Queen Elizabeths Reign neither was he a Native of Britain but a Flemming I mean Hadrian Saravia once a Pastor in the reform'd Netherlands but as Maresius witnesses reject'd by them as being an Enemy to both their Church and State Neither was
seeing as Blondel at large shews the phrase natively yealds only this sense viz. Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that Colleage And thus D. M. may as well inferr Peter's Superiority and Power over the rest of the Apostles from Acts 2. 37. To Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Moreover Blondel demonstrats how on diverse accounts Polycarp without any Eminency and Power over the rest may be particularly nominated rather than others as because he was first in Order and Years But I insist not herein but referr to Blondel who hath nervously baffl'd this their pitifull Coujecture D. M. adventures to ingage with nothing of what he saith and yet is not asham'd to bring to the Field so blunted a weapon I pass also D. M.'s two Arguments for Polycarp's Diocesan Episcopacy drawn from the pretended Succession of Diocesan Bishops in Smyrna and the Epistles of Ignatius mention'd by Polycarp having overthrown both of 'em already and proceed to the Testimony of Hermas who thus speaks Thou shalt write two Books thou shalt send one to Clement and one to Graptes and Clement shall send it to foraign Cities for to him this is permitted and Graptes shall admonish the Widows and Orphans but thou shalt read it with or relate it unto the Presbyters in this City who govern the Church Where we see that not any one Bishop but a Colledge of Presbyters call'd doubtless afterward by the same Author Bishops govern'd the Church of one City Yet D. M. pretends to find here a palpable Evidence of Episcopacy For saith he the sending of the Encyclical Epistle to foraign Cities is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of Clement then Bishop of Rome But if he conclude from this place of Hermas that Clement had any Power over these to whom he was to send that Book or Epistle as for Clement's being Bishop of Rome it 's so far from being insinuated here that the quite contary is from this very place most evident he may as well inferr from Col. 4. 16. that they had Power over the Laodiceans whither they were to send and cause to be read the Apostle's Letter Secondly D. M. ascribing to the Bishop of Rome Power over foraign Cities erects a Pope rather than a Bishop But I 'll assure him he came not in so early for seeing there was undoubtedly one Bishop at least in every particular City so soon as there were any in the World this place of Hermas if it bear D. M's Inference and give a Power to Clement over foraign Cities insinuats nothing of a Bishop's Dignity above Presbyters but of the power of one Bishop over another or rather of a Pope over other Churches A falshood most unanimously exploded by Cyprian Jerome Augustine and the rest of the Ancients D. M. seeks also for his Prelacy in these words of Hermas viz. The Earthly Spirit exalts it self and seeks the first seat Some contend for Principality and Dignity But what if Hermas had said that some contended to get an Empire and Popedome over the whole Church would D. M. hence conclude that it was lawfull or then practised in the Church or when the Apostles contended who should be the greatest Had Christ before that time assured them of the lawfulness of such an Office and told them that they were to have one to be a Prince over the rest By no Logick therefore can it be inferred for Hermas his words that a chief Seat or Principality for both are one and the same with Hermas was then either exercised or held lawfull Again tho' both had been then in Custome no Power of one over the rest can be hence concluded seeing the chief Seats are given to the Moderators of Synods and other Presidents of Assemblies who have no primacy of Power but only of Order And again The polished and white Stones saith Hermas are the Apostles and Bishops and Doctors and Deacons who walked in the Clemency of God aâ—d exercised the Office of a Bishop and taught and served And Such are some Bishops that is Governours of the Churches and these who have the Charâ—e of the Services § 7. In both places saith Blondel he makes only two Degrees that of the Bishops who governed the Churches and that of the Deacons who had the charge of the Services for it 's acknowledged by all that the Doctors are all one with the Bishops when they are said to have performed the Office of a Bishop and that the Apostles as they are opposed to Bishops were placed above the whole Clergy This repons D. M. is Tergiversation with a Witness and a fraudulent Trick in Blondel since Presbyters in the primitive Church are frequently distinguished by the Name of Doctors and Blondel's Commentary is a manifest violence offered to the Text for Doctors are not said to have performed the Office of a Bishop but to have taught and this is very agreeable to their Character being so much imploy'd by their respective Bishops in teaching the Catechumeni and the natural position of these words will allow of no other meaning Which Answer D. M. hath learned from the Practice of our late Bishops during whose Epocha the Buffund might have hid himself well nigh the whole year from the Bishop's fury in the Bishop's pulpit seeing he scarce ever came thither to play the Doctor or ought else As for the Ancient and true primitive Bishops they perpetually preach'd or taught saith Le Moyn Moreover the Fathers generally take Pastor Bishop and Doctor for one and the same as Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Sedulius and after them Aquinas Haymo Benedictus Justinianus with others on Ephes. 4. 11. Of the same mind are Hierome Augustine and Anselm and the pretended Clemens Romanus cited by Gratian and Benedictus Justinianus and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage Of the same Mind are the ablest of our Episcopals as Field Hammond and Heylen So truly did Blondel say that Bishop and Doctor is universally taken for one and the same Neither was ever the Presbyter either in Cyprian or any other Ancient called Doctor in opposition to the Bishop but to other Ecclesiastick Presbyters who taught not of whose existence as was before touched we have most sufficient assurance But D. M. in contradiction to the Apostle would have a Bishop who is no Teacher or Preacher like the Droll who said he mett with Priests who were no Clerks And seeing with Hermas there are but two Orders of Church-men and Bishops and praesides Ecclesiarum Church Governours are reciprocal Terms taken for one and the same and seeing that his Presbyters are expresly term'd Church-Governours it 's most evident that he takes Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same and that the word Doctor is purely exegetick or explicative of the word Bishop and that both of them which I 'm sure is not unfrequent in all sorts of Authors evidently signifie one and the same thing § 8. I now