Light I shall endeavour to let you see warrant from the word for Bishops D. I am not so settled in my perswasion against Bishops as to stand out against light that is offered to me from the Word for this were a great fault in me or in any man else yet I believe it will be hard for you to let me see any convincing Scripture Evidence for them I. Under the Old Testament setting aside the High-priest who was a Type of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention is often made of the Chief-priests 2 King 19.2 Ezra 8.29 Mat. 2.4 Act. 19.14 and over these again there was a Chief or High-priest under the Highest of all who only was Typical hence sometimes two High-priests are mentioned Luk. 3.2 So there was a subordination among the Levits Ex. 6.25 Num. 3. vers 18 19. compared with vers 24 30 32 35. and in other places Neh. 11. We find one over the Levites vers 22. named Episcopus by the Greek and another over the Priests vers 14. So you see subordination among Church-men is no such new nor odious thing as some would make the world believe D. I see indeed there was a subordination under the Old Testament but that proves not that there ought to be the like under the New I. I know no reason why the Lord would have a subordination under the Old Testament but to maintain Order and Unity in his Church and this reason is still the same for a subordination under the New yea is now stronger because the Christian Church is of much greater extent than the Jewish was and so the danger of divisions and schisms and the necessity of preventing them greater And what better way for this than Gods own way which he prescribed under the Old Testament whereby the same way and course is examplarly pointed out to Christians although the New Testament gave no other ground for the like What better pattern for modelling of Church Government can we now have than his own pattern who knows best what is most behoveful for his Church and this you see was a subordination under the Old Testament D. Yet I desire to hear what warrand you can produce for Bishops out of the New Testament I. First I produce to you the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy two Disciples as is granted by Divines generally D. That was extraordinary personal and temporary and to expire with the Apostles I. Indeed in some things the Apostles were extraordinary and their priviledges to cease with themselves such as their immediat calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility Gifts of Tongues or whatever else was necessary for the first founding of the Christian Church But in some other things wherein they were superiour to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporary but was necessary and still to be continued in the Church after they were gone such as Ordination of Ministers and governing of them by Ecclesiastical Authority Those things which were thus necessary they transmitted to others after them even to the Bishops says Augustin on Psal 45.16 In stead of thy fathers shall be thy children By the Fathers he understands the Apostles by the Children the Bishops who followed after the Apostles Hodie enim saith he Episcopi qui sunt per totum mundum unde nati sunt that is the Bishops who are this day over the whole World Whence are they born and addeth that the Church calleth the Apostles Fathers and did bear the Bishops as Sons and placed them in the room of the Fathers In the next place I produce to you Timothy and Titus both Bishops the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. All the Ministers who were at Ephesus and Crete were Bishops too for so Paul names them in these Epistles I. It s true Paul names Ministers not only Presbyters but also Bishops yet I say Timothy and Titus were Bishops in that sense that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward ordinarly taken in that is they had a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over and above inferior Ministers Our debate is not about the Name but about the Office D. That Timothy and Titus had a power in those matters over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete I grant for they are taught by the Apostle how to ordain Ministers what qualifications to require in them how to proceed in their tryal and censures c. But this power they had as Evangelists that is they were companions to the Apostles in their labours and travels and appointed by them to settle and water those Churches they had planted I. Then it seems you would unbishop Timothy and Titus and make them extraordinary Officers whose Office was not to continue in the Church D. I think so Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 wileth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist therefore I think he was an Evangelist and no Bishop I. Indeed he was an Evangelist in a large sense that is one who preached the Evangel or Gospel but that he was an Evangelist in the strict sense can no more be proved from that Scripture than that he was a Deacon because the Apostle in that same place saith Fulfil thy deaconship so the Greek word signifieth we have it translated Ministry or that Philip was an extraordinary Evangelist because he is called an Evangelist Act. 21.8 For he was a Deacon Act. 6. And vve read Act. 8.5 that upon the dispersion he also preached the Gospel but find no ground that therefore he was one of those extraordinary Evangelist whose Office was to cease in the Church and besides Ordination and Jurisdiction is properly no work of an Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the Gospel D. Philip might be both a Deacon and an Evangelist I. If you will have him so why might not Timothy and Titus as well be both Evangelists and Bishops if you will needs have them Evangelists in your sense even as Jerom in Epistola ad Euagrium and de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis maketh Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria D. Bishops they could not be because we find them very unsetled especially Timothy had he been Bishop of Ephesus he had been confined to his charge but 1 Tim. 1.3 He was left there only for a season and upon an occasional business I. Timothy and Titus were rare and singular persons and useful to the Apostle in those first beginnings of the Gospel and so no wonder though the Apostle seeth fit now and then to call them from their particular charge when the good of the whole Church required it Phil. 2.19 20. 2 Cor. 8.23 Hath it not been usual in any time and have we not seen it practised in our own time that a Bishop or Minister be called away from his settled charge for a season when the good of the Church requires their service elsewhere and to return when that service is over Gerhard Locor Theologic Tomo
sexto pag. 358. Thinketh that Timothy and Titus were first Evangelists and afterwards settled Bishops by Paul the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. Paul Act. 20.27 Gives a charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus and not to Timothy which he would not have omitted had Timothy been their Bishop and it is very probable that Timothy was present at that time for vers 4. we find him in Pauls company I. May be according to Gerards opinion Timothy was not as yet settled Bishop of Ephesus 2. Iraeneus who lived not long after the Apostles and vvas Bishop of Lions in France lib. 3. cont Valentin cap. 14. is of the mind that there were of the Asian Bishops mingled vvith the Elders of Ephesus and vvith Timothy their Bishop and that to them all in common Paul made that exhortation and Bishops might very vvell be comprehended under the name of Elders in that place since I shevv you before that Apostles are sometimes called Elders D. How prove you that Timothy and Titus were Bishops for I have great doubt about it I. I prove it first from this because in these Epistles more particularly and fully then any vvhere else in the Nevv Testa directions are given by Paul to Timothy and Titus how to carry in Ordination and Jurisdiction which two comprehend the Episcopal Office He sheweth them what qualifications they must require in those that are to be ordained that they lay hands suddenly on no man and giveth them sundry directions anent Church Government how to rebuke offenders no to receive an aecusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses how to deal with Hereticks c. 1 Tim. 5.1 19 21. Tit. 3.10 and 1. v. 5 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.22 17. also ch 3.10 And in other places of these Epistles Now these are directions which concern not that Age only but all Ages of the Church and therefore were given not personally to Timothy and Titus but in them to their Successors Why I pray you will any have Timothy and Titus to be extraordinary Officers in their acting of these things which they cannot deny are of ordinary use in the Church What wonder as the King in his last reply at the Isle of Wight hints that some have affirmed those Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction vvere in themselves extraordinary for ye have led them the vvay in saying that Timothy and Titus in their exercising those Acts vvere extraordinary Officers Then I prove it from this because their commission at Ephesus and Crete vvas not voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places and therefore their Office vvas to be constant For if meerly as Evangelists they vvere to settle a Church there then as soon as some fevv Ministers had been ordained Timothy and Titus vvere to cease and give vvay to the Presbytrie there settled frustra fit per plura c. but they did not so nor did their Commission run so Titus vvas left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1.5 that is Ministers vvhich had been needless if some fevv Elders after they vvere ordained themselves might have ordained others Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici pag. 185. Defending Ordination by Church-men against such as claimed that povver to the people says Why was Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City or Timothy at Ephesus might not the people have done that themselves if they have a right to do so May not the Argument be turned against the Authors of that Book themselves thus Why vvas Timothy left at Ephesus or Titus at Crete after Ministers vvere there ordained by the Apostle himself vvhen on the place or after some fevv were ordained by Timothy and Titus if those Ministers so ordained could have ordained the rest 3. I prove it from 1 Tim. 6.13 14. Where Paul solemnly charges Timothy to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Jesus Christ Now the Presbyterians in their Jus divinum Ministerij pag. 74. say that the directions given to Timothy were not for that age only but for all ages of the Church and bring this place to prove it which is like Mat. 28.20 I am with you always even unto the end of the world and they compare the foresaid charge with 1 Tim. 5. ver 7 21. Whence it would follow that Timothy and Titus were not extraordinary Officers but were to have successors in those Offices they then administrated which we see were superiour to ordinary Ministers and pag. 160. they say Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which carry a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a rule Now the Apostle his setting Timothy and Titus single persons over those Churches is an Apostolical example done for the good of the Church and hath a perpetual reason and equity in it Lastly I could prove this by the Testimony of many great men in the Church both Ancient and Modern Polycrats born within fourty years after John wrot his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2. In an ancient Treatise de Martyrio Timothei as it is cited by either in his original of Episcopacy pag. 58. affirms that Timothy was Bishop of that Church Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms the like Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the general council of Chalcedon Act. 11. declareth that from Timothy there had been a continued Succession of twenty seven Bishops in the Church of Ephesus Jerom de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. doth the like Abraham Scultetus on Titus affirmeth that Timothy and Titus were properly Bishops in their several places and that the directions given by Paul to them in these Epistles were given to them and to their Successors Gerhard Tom. 6. maketh them both Bishops as I told you before I might produce moe Testimonies but these may suffice D. Albeit you say much to make Timothy and Titus Bishops yet Paul sayeth that Timothy was ordained by the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Therefore I think he could not be their Bishop for a Presbytrie which is but a company of Ministers cannot make a bishop I. Some among whom Calvin think that by Presbytery the Apostle meaneth not a company of Ministers but the Office of a Minister or Presbyter But suppone the company of Presbyters be meant yet these might be not the inferior degree of Presbyters or Ministers but the Superior degree who are bishops and that bishops be called presbyters ought not to seem strange since I told you the Apostles themselves are sometimes called Presbyters 3. 2 Tim. 1.6 The Apostle sayeth Timothy was ordained by the laying on of his hands so that what was substantial in that Ordination as Interpreters of good note think was from Paul although the Presbytry of Ministers if you will might share in the ceremonial part of it 4. If you say Timothy an Evangelist was ordained by inferior Elders you
must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers might ordain a Supeâ—ior cxtraordinary Officer which is absurd D. Have you any proof more for bishops out of the New Testament I. The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. chap. 2. and 3. were Bishops for it is undenyable there were many Ministers for example at Ephesus Act. 20.27 28. Yet Revel 2. When that Church is written to which was long after Pauls exhortation Act. 20. and the Church was on the growing hand yet I say we find but one Angel among all these Ministers and he alone spoken to and commended for what was praise-worthy in that Church and blam'd for what was faulty as he who had the chief hand in that Churches affairs So may be said of the rest the Epistle always directed to the Angel and he commended for what was right and discommended for what was wrong seing by his place and authority he ought to have seen to the preventing or reforming of those things D. The word Angel Rev. 2. and 3. denoteth not one single person but is taken collectively for all the Ministers that were in each of these Churches I. I know that is the answer usually given but have oft wondered at it No doubt this Scripture pincheth sore when ye flee to such a shift Scultetus a learned Protestant in his observations upon Titus hath these words doctissimi quique interpretes per septem ecclesiarum angelos intenpretantur septem ecclesiarum Episcopos neque enim aliter possunt vim nisi textui facere velint that is the most learned Interpreters all expound the Angels of the seven Churches to be the Bishops of those Churches neither can they expound the words otherwise unless they offer violence to the text D. But Rev. 2.24 Christ by John speaks to moe then one for it is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vobis Hence it is clear to me that by the Angel of that Church he meant all the ministers I. Will you be content to stand to Beza's exposition of the place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to you the President and to the company of ministers and to the rest of the people You see the word Angel in his opinion is still to be taken for a single person and that in this place moe then the Angel are spoken unto This is as some think an Apostrophe which is an ordinary Figure in speech when the speaker turns his discourse to some other than he had at first been speaking to but that which I think should put it out of question is the Light we have from antiquity declaring to us that these Angels were single persons and condescending upon some of their Names for I suppose the practise opinions and assertions of such as followed hard after these Angels should by any rational man be acquiesced in as a sufficient commentary on this and the like Scriptures that speak of Church Governours D. Well What say they I. I told you before that Polycrates who was Bishop of Ephesus and born near to the Apostles times speaks of seven of his predecessors who had been Bishops there before him and Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon speaks of twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus successively from Timothy We find the Bishops of those seven Churches of Asia present at the first Council of Nice and designed by their several Churches Ephesus Smyrna c. and subscribing the Acts of the Council with the rest of the Bishops Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesias tells us that Polycarp who had been John's disciple was by him made Bishop of Smyrna so Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. So Tertullian praescrip cap. 23. And Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. contra Valentin sayes Polycarp was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna and that he saw Polycarp when he himself was a child for says he Polycarp lived long Now should not these testimonies think you have weight with any man that 's free of prejudice And further among Ignatius his Epistles who was contemporary with the Apostle John we find one written to this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the very same Angel to whom John writeth Rev. 2. D. I think indeed much of these testimonies especially of that of Irenaeus who says he saw Polycarp and so knew the better that he was a Bishop And I have heard that Irenaeus himself was a Bishop too but for Ignatius his testimony I am not much moved with it because I hear say that these Epistles of his are forged and counterfit I. Of these Epistles we may have occasion to speak afterward but if you will be at the pains to see what the most part by far and with all the most learned of Protestant Writers and Interpreters think of these Angels you shall find Beza Diodat Marlorat Bullinger Gualter Piscator Sibelius Pareus Aretius Fulk Our own Countreyman Napier of Marchistoun Cartwright the learned Reynolds in his conference with Hart yea and Blondel in the preface to his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi all expounding the Angel in each of these Churches to be a single person So true is it what I told you Scultetus observes doctissimi quique interpretes per septem Ecclesiarum Angelos interpretantur septem Ecclesiarum Episcopos D. Beza and may be others of these Divines though they interpret the Angel to be a single person yet they never thought that person to be a Bishop but meerly a Moderator and President among the rest of his brethren I. He could be no less than bishop because the Epistle is still directed to him though it 's true the whole Church be concerned in what is written yet I say the Angel is chiefly commended or discommended according as matters were right or wrong which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business and so he chiefly capable of what Christ by John says to him And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus above inferiour Ministers may oblige us to think no less can be allowed to the Angels And further most of the Divines I have named do say that these Angels were Episcopi Bishops And Beza himself de Minist Grad doth in effect cap. 13. give to the Angels an Episcopal power for he saith Horum authoritas in Ecclesiae regimine fuit eminentior that is their authority in governing the Church was more eminent than the rest's I might also shew you how Mr. Mede is misunderstood as if in his Key of the Revelation he did teach that the word Angel is commonly through the Revelation taken collectively that is not to signifie one person you may see the contrary in his Key Apocal. 9.14 and 14.6 7. And he sayeth the twenty four Elders about the Throne do represent the Bishops and Prelats of the Churches You may also see Brightman on cap. 7 8. and ordinarily through the Revelation he expounds the word Angel of some single person I shall produce one place more from the New Testament
to prove Episcopacy viz. John Epist 3. ver 9. Diotrephes loveth the preeminence D. I have heard that place brought against Episcopacy But never for it till now The Apostle there speaks against preeminence I. Not at all He only speaks against ambitious seeking after preeminence and finds fault with Diotrephes that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did ambitiously love to be first or to have the chief place An Office may be good and lawful and yet an ambitious desire after the Office sinful Look what the most judicious Interpreters say on the place Beza renders the Greek word thus qui primatum ambit Now your selves confess it was authority over other Ministers he looked at and from this ye infer that the Office he aimed at was unlawful which will not follow but rather that there was such an Office then in the Church and at this time void unto which he meant to put himself or had already done so out of an ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end It was not the good of the Church but himself he lookt after Blondel confesseth as much in his Apologia pag. 54. Saying that Diotrephes would be Primus Presbyter to which place he willingly grants authority over the rest did belong though he will not call him Bishop yet he grants to him an Episcopal power in effect Quis enim saith he praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet pag. 39. But of this and the like Concessions of his I may have occasion to speak to you afterward D. If Bishops were by the Apostles left to rule the Church as you seem to prove from the New Testament why then do we not find them in the Church after the Apostles left the world I. We do find them after the Apostles left the world D. But not for a long time after the Apostles were gone I. You are mistaken we find Bishops immediatly after the Apostles which confirmeth what I have been saying for Episcopacy from the New Testament For the Bishops found in the Church immediatly after the Apostles or even before all the Apostles were gone are a good commentary on Timothy and Titus and on the Angels of the seven Churches and on the passage anent Diotrephes D. I would gladly hear what you can say for Bishops about or immediatly after the Apostles times I. If you will credit Jerome whom you take for the Patron of your cause he de Scriptor Eccles speaks of sundry of these first Bishops of James made by the Apostles the first Bishop of Jerusasalem whose successor he saith on Galat. 1.19 was Simeon c. Epaphroditus Bishop at Philippi and Mark Bishop of Alexandria c. Eusebius lib. 3. Hist. Cap. 4. Cap. 33. Cap. 31.36 lib. 4. Cap. 14.25 and in other places is very express to this purpose It 's known there were in some of the Churches many Presbyters or Ministers yet in these most ancient Records we can read but of one Bishop at a time and after him another succeeds in his place and that by a new Ordination For Jerome says Jacobus ab apostolis Episcopus ordinatus est Of Episcopal Ordinations see also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 5. But passing these I produce to you Ignatius contemporary with the Apostle John he was Bishop of Antioch and as is thought an Arch-bishop for in his Epistle to the Romans he stiles himself Bishop of the Church in Syria which is supposed to have hade moe Episcopal Seats in it than only that of Antioch This Ignatius died martyre about eight or nine years after the Death of John he wrote Epistles to sundry Churches of that time in which he frequently speaks of the Bishops of those Churches and setteth down these three degrees of Church-Officers viz. Deacons Presbyters or Ministers and Bishops And exhorts those Primitive Christians to be subject to the Bishop as the only mean to avoid Schisme and that without him nothing be done D. I have heard learned men say that these Epistles are much falsified so that we have them not now as they were written by Ignatius and therefore any testimony taken from them is the less to be valued I. Indeed the Arch-bishop of Armagh Vsher a man well read in Antiquity as also Vedelius who hath written on those Epistles shew that the Copies of these Epistles which were used till of late years are very faulty which is proved from this among other things that many of these Quotations which in the Fathers are found to be cited out of Ignatius are not to be found in those Epistles as they have been used But of late years Vsher found two very ancient Manuscripts of these Epistles in some Libraries in England and about that same time Is Vossius found a Greek Manuscript of them at Florence All which three Copies agreed together and differed much from these that were used before and in these three were found the Fathers Quotations which were not found in the old ones and even in these late found Copies the Testimonies for Bishops are most clear and full And this so much troubles Blondel in the Preface to his Apologia that he is forced to seek a new shift viz. that even those Epistles as we have them in the Copies found by Vsher and Vossius are vitiat also and thinks the Fathers who cite them were deceived by them he thinks they have been vitiat or forged about the year 180. Salmasius thinks Circiter medium aut initium secundi seculi about the middle or beginning of the second age Now Ignatius lived about the beginning of the second age and is it probable they could then be medled with The reasons for this forging of them are alledged by Blondel and answered by Doctor Hammond Can it be imagined they should be so far vitiat that the very Scope of sundry of them should be altered which is to perswade obedience to the Bishop as he without whom nothing ought to be done as they would avoid Schism The Divines who debated with the King at the Isle of Wight found themselves so pinched with these Epistles that they found no way to escape but utterly to reject them all as counterfeit Which the King told them they did without any regard either of Ingenuity or Truth Sure I am neither Scultetus nor Rivet did presume to do so for seven of these Epistles they own as written by Ignatius Howbeit they think some corruptions through time had crept unto them which corruptions they observe but say not that their mentioning of Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters is one of these corruptions Certainly had these two judicious Divines thought this a corruption crept into these Epistles they would have observed and mentioned it You may see Scultetus in his Medulla patrum And Rivet in his Criticus sacer what their judgementis of these Epistles But now of late Doctor Pearson in England hath largely and fully vindicat Ignatius his Epistles and therefore to him I refer you D. Yet I
learned men have thought Episcopacy lawful though not commanded or by any Scripture president particularly warranted so neither prohibited but left to the prudence and choice of Christians as they shall find it expedient and conducing to the good and peace of the Church D. I think it is forbidden in the Word and therefore unlawful I. Let me hear in what Scripture D. In Mat. 20. ver 25 26 27 28. Where Christ forbiddeth any of his Disciples to be greater than another I. If you think all superiority among Church-men there forbidden you are in a mistake for 1. Christ there speaks to the twelve among whom I can grant there was to be no inequality in respect of power yet they were superior to the seventy Disciples whom Christ also sent to preach the Gospel as Divines commonly think and appears from Act. 1. Where Matthias one of the seventy as Clemens Alexandrin Dorotheus and others affirm him to have been is solemnly chosen and advanced to the Office of Apostleship in the room of Judas and he was numbred with the eleven Apostles vers 26. 2. The thing Christ there discharges is Ambition and not Inequality otherwise the Argument he taketh from his own example vers 28. would not suit his purpose For without controversie Christ was in Power and authority above the twelve But take the words as spoken against ambition or a sinful desire of superiority which afterward was Diotrephes his fault the reason from his own example suits well for though in power he was above all yet in humility he was a pattern to all Humility and Imparity can well consist together D. Christ there says The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion but it shall not be so among you Therefore it seems he discharges all superiority among Church-men I. He only discharges that kind of dominion which civil Princes exercise which is dominium civile despoticum a civil princely or Lordly power but the power of the Church is of another nature And besides sundry Interpreters think that Christ there speaketh against the Tyrranny which heathen Princes of the world exercised over their miserable Vassals and Subjects You may consult Mr. Pool's Collection of Interpreters on the place D. The Apostle 1 Pet. 5.3 says Be not Lords over Gods Heritage Is not superiority among Church-men there clearly forbidden I. Not at all only Domineering and Tyranny is there forbidden which may be the fault of an ordinary Minister towards his flock The Apostle is not there speaking of the carriage of Church-men towards Church-men nor of the equality or inequality of them among themselves but of Church-mens behaviour and carriage what it ought to be towards the people who are there called the flock and Gods heritage D. In the New Testament Bishop and Elder are two words signifying one and the same Officebearer for Act. 20. these who in vers 17. are called Elders vers 28. are called Bishops also Tit. 1. vers 5. and 7. compared together So that Bishop and Elder are the same in Scripture And the word Elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular Congregation I. I grant these two words are ofttimes in the New Testament used indifferently to express one and the same Officer yet it will not be granted nor can ye ever prove that the Officer meant by these words is never to be understood of any above the degree of an ordinary Minister or that the word Presbyter or Elder signifies only a Minister of a single Congregation and no more For 1. We find the name Elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet. 5.1 Joh. Epist 2.1 and Epist 3.1 And if the Apostles be called Elders Why may not Bishops be called so too 2. Your selves say that the word Elder signifies not only the Preaching Elder or Minister but also the Ruling Elder I can upon as good and better ground say It signifies the Bishop and the Minister both being Elders but of different degrees and consonant to this in some after ages we find those who were unquestionably Bishops yet sometimes designed by the name of Presbyter that is Elder Thus we find Victor Bishop of Rome called Presbyter and Iraeneus Bishop of Lyons called Presbyter Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Though ordinarly at that time such were called Bishops yet some times they are called Presbyters as still remembring the first times of the New Testament when the name was indifferently given to Bishops and Ministers D. The Apostle Philip. 1.1 Speaketh of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that one Church of Philippi I. Ambrose a Father of the Church thinks the Bishops in that place not to be understood of Bishops at Philippi but of certain Bishops who were present with Paul when he wrot that Epistle and in whose name he writes to the Philippians joyning them with himself Others think there might be sundry Bishops of the Churches about conveened at that time at Philippi and Paul knowing of this might write to and salute them together with that Church For ye see he first names all the Saints at Philippi as those to whom he mainly intended to write and then the Bishops and Deacons But granting by these Bishops and Deacons the Officers of that same Church of Philippi to be meant I ask you where are the Ruling Elders here If you say they are included in the word Bishops I can upon better ground affirm that Bishops there signifies both the superior Bishop and the ordinary Ministers under him Ministers may be called Bishops even as in that same Epistle Epaphroditus is called Apostle Chap. 2. vers 25. For the word in the Greek is Apostle But further I say may be there was no Bishop over Presbyters settled as yet at Philippi D. In Eph. 4.11 The Apostle reckoning up Church-Officers makes no mention of Bishops I. It is ill reasoning that because such an Officer is not found in such a particular place or in such an enumeration Therefore such an Officer is no where to be found in Scripture For how prove you that the Apostle in that place intended a full and compleat enumeration 2. I say Bishops in that place may be comprehended under Pastors and Teachers Bishops being such though in a superior degree to ordinary Pastors and Teachers And if you will have a perfect enumeration of all Church-Officers there you must comprehend Ruling Elders and Deacons under some of those words in that place and why may not I do so with Bishops D. Well though may be there is no discharge of Episcopacy so I suppose neither is there any ground in the word for that kind of Government more then any other and thus the best you can make of it will be that it is not unlawful so neither necessary and therefore when it comes to be inexpedient it may be altered and a better put in its place I. If ye will promise not to stand out against
shall be the more cleared in my doubts of these Epistles if you can produce any other convincing Testimonies from Prime Antiquity in favours of Bishops I. I offer to your consideration what Pius Bishop of Rome about the year 146. writing to Justus newly elected Bishop of Vienna in the room of Verus sayeth Veri loco a fratribus constitutum collobio Episcoporum It 's thought this was the Bishop's Habit then in use vestitum te Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi observent That is Let the Ministers and Deacons reverence and obey thee not as one greater but as the Servant of Christ This passage is found in his Epistles in Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 3. Fol. 15. Now by Presbyters in that place as all along in Antiquity are meant these whom we call Ministers which I suppose will not be denyed for both the Apostles in their Writings and all Antiquity that followed call them so and yet we see these Presbyters at Vienna had Justus a Bishop over them and that Verus another Bishop had been there before Justus D. It seems Bishops were not then acknowledged superiour to Presbyters or Ministers since it 's said Presbyteri te non ut majorem observent that is let not the Ministers reverence thee as one greater than they I. By that same reason you should make the Bishop no greater then the Deacons neither since it 's said also Te Diaconi non ut majorem observent that is let not the Deacons reverence thee as one greater than themselves Yea you will make him inferiour to both for it is added Sed ut Ministrum Christi that is as Christs Minister Pius there exhorteth Justus to humility a very necessar and seasonable counsel for these who are promoted to higher dignity above others and therefore biddeth him carry rather like a Servant then a Superiour I told you before that humility and imparity consist well In the next place hear what Hegesippus sayeth who lived in the time of Hadrian the Emperour before the year 140. a renouned Historian the ancientest of any that wrot the Church-history of the New Testament next to Luke who wrot the Acts of the Apostles Jerome as the Magdeburgenses and Rivet report sayes Hegesippus actus omnes a Christi passione ad sua tempora complexus est in sua historia He was more ancient than that Hegesippus who wrot de excidio Hierosolymae nothing of his History is now extant except a few fragments cited by Eusebius who lib. 4. cap. 21. brings him in giving this account Se plurimos Episcopos cum Romam peregre proficisceretur convenisse eandem apud omnes doctrinam deprehendisse That is when he went to Rome he met with many Bishops and found they all held the same Doctrine and a little after he mentions Primus Bishop of Corinth and afterward Romae haesisse usque ad Anicetum Aniceto successisse Soterem isti Eleutherium in singulis successionibus civitatibus ita habet sicut lex dominus praedicant that is He stayed at Rome till the time Anicetus was made Bishop to whom Soter succeeded and to him Eleutherius and that in all the successions and Cities matters were constitute as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord Christ did Preach Then speaking of the Church of Jerusalem he says after James sirnamed Justus suffered Martyrdom his Uncle Simeon was made bishop whom all preferred because he was Domini Consobrinus a cousin of Christs Further he shews that Thebulis turned heretick because he missed a Bishoprick Quoniam non fuit Episcopus constitutus and that till then the Church of Jerusalem was called a Virgine because it had not been corrupted with any false Doctrine From which Testimonies of Hegesippus we may gather 1. That he speaks of Bishops in all these Churches which he mentions 2. In every Church he speaks but of one Bishop at a time to whom when he is gone another succeedeth Yet I hope it will not be denyed by you that there were sundry Ministers or Presbyters in any one of these Churches at one and the same time 3. That the succession of Bishops was by election and not by Seniority as the instance of Simeon chosen after James at Jerusalem clears 4. That some were then ambitious of a Bishoprick as he reporteth of Thebulis which also was Diotrephes his fault And Lastly All this so shortly after the Apostles times that none have any reason to doubt of Hegesippus his certain knowledge what had been the Government of the Church from the Apostles times to his own time more than we can doubt what hath been the Government of the Church among our selves for fourty years bygone For Hegesippus lived next after the first succession of the Apostles as Vsher in his Original of Bishops pag. 62. gathers out of Eusebius D I would hear what you can say more out of prime Antiquity I. I offer to your consideration what Dionysius who was Bishop of Corinth about the year 170. says in his Epistle to the Church of Athens Euseb lib. 4. cap. 22. he mentioneth Quadratus their former Bishop and Publius Bishop and Martyre before him and then Dionysius the Areopagite their first Bishop of whom we read Act. 17. Then in his Epistle to the Church of Gortyna in Crete together with the rest of the Churches there he commends Philip their Bishop Vsher thinks Philip was Arch-Bishop in Crete Orig. of Bishops pag. 73. for Philip is called Bishop not only of Gortyna but also of the rest of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Crete Paraecia signified then a whole Diocess as can easily be made out from antiquity and we find was afterward also Metropolis and the Bishop the Metropolitan of the whole Island Concil Chalcedon Act. 6. Concil Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5. and 5. general Concil In which places the Metropolitan of Gortyna is found subscribing and this authority of his over whole Crete Eusebius deriveth from the times of Titus Dionysius writes also to the Gnosians and exhorteth their Bishop Pinetus ne grave servandae castitatis onus necessario fratribus imponat that is that he would not lay upon his brethren the heavy burden of an unmarried life Where by the brethren he must mean the Ministers under Pinetus his Jurisdiction For you can not think that by the Brethren Dionysius meant private Christians or that Pinetus did press private Christians to such a life It appears then that Pinetus was above the rest of the brethren that is of the Ministers and that with a power to enjoyn as is clear from Dionysius his counsel to him not to make use of his power in that particular Hear next what Irenaeus Bishop of Lions sayeth to this point he was a Bishop pious and peaceable and so answerable to his name and lived about the year 180. You need not fear he will deceive you but may say of him as David of Ahimaaz he is a good
man and will bring good tidings D. Well let us hear him I. Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 3. cap. 3. says Habemus annumerare qui ab Apostolis usque ad nos instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum c. that is we can reckon on who have been Bishops in the several Churches and who their successors from the Apostles even to our own times and because he sayeth it were longsome to go through all he mentions the succession in the Church of Rome until he come down to Eleutherius who was his own Contemporary And this he doth to prove the falshood of Hereticks their Doctrine because not agreeing with the Doctrine of the Bishops who from the Apostles downward had been in the Church And in that same place he speaketh of Polycarp who says he had conversed with them who saw the Lord and was by the Apostles made Bishop of Smyrna and that when himself was young he had seen Polycarp for saith he he lived long Now hence we may observe 1. that Polycarp contemporary with the Apostles was even such a Bishop as Eleutherius of Rome who lived in the time of Irenaeus for Irenaeus makes no difference and no doubt Eleutherius was such a Bishop as Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lions in France which I suppose few will question 2. That as some have observed Polycarp behoved to be the very same Angel of Smyrna who was written to Rev. 2.8 for Irenaeus saith Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves who all lived before John and he surviving the rest wrot at Christs command these Epistles to the seven Angels so that Polycarp must be that Angel of Smyrna to whom John wrot for Polycarp lived till Iraeneus his time who says when himself was a child he saw this old Bishop for says he Polycarp lived long and continued in Smyrna until his last and died a martyre Usher in his Orig. of Bishops pag. 60. reckons his martyrdome to have been seventy four years after Johns writing that Epistle to him and that he continued Bishop there until his death is collected from Euseb lib. 4. cap. 15. 3. We see clearly though there were in the Church of Rome many Presbyters or Ministers yet without taking notice of them Irenaeneus only names one at a time who was more eminent than the rest and after he is gone nameth another who succeeded him Now if all comes only to this that these whom he nameth had no more but the same authority and succession with the rest of the Presbyters Why are these we contend for singled out and named and not the other Presbyters as well as they Why are the Presbyters or Ministers passed over in silence and only Linus and Cletus and Soter c. taken notice of in their several successions one after another No doubt because they were the Bishops and had an authoritative inspection above the rest as hath been shewed already in Timothy and Titus and in the seven Angels Revel 2.3 and from the Epistles of Ignatius and other instances And to say they only are named for the more expedit reckoning is gratis dictum and as good as to say nothing and whereas some object that writers differ about the line of succession among these Primitive Bishops therefore it may be doubted there was any such thing as Bishops or a succession of one Bishop after another at all The King answers at the Isle of Wight this will no more follow than that because Chronologers differ about the line of ancient Kings in such a Kingdom therefore there was no Kingly power nor Kings there at all 4. Observe that Irenaeus saith these these ancient Bishops succeeded one another by Apostolical institution Qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt saith he usque ad nos Episcopi 5. This Valentinus against whom Irenaeus writes was a Presbyter and turned Heretick because he came short of a Bishoprick Tertul. adversus Valent. cap. 4. See also Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 43 44. and to add a word of Irenaeus himself he was Bishop of Lions in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 5. cap. 23. But after the Latine 21. Paroeciarum per Galliam quas Irenaeus moderatus est Hence it is clear he was their Bishop or Arch-bishop as some think for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified as much as a Diocess now See Can. Apost Can. 14. Concil Antioch 9.14 Concil Ancyr Cap. 13 18. D. Against what you speak of Irenaeus calling him a Bishop and an Arch-bishop I have this to say that the Gallican Church in their letter to Eleutherius calls Irenaeus Presbyter and so doth Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 4. I. Peter calleth himself a Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And yet we know he was more Irenaeus himself in his writings calls Bishops Presbyters Victor who succeeded to Eleutherius in Rome is called Presbyter Euseb lib. 5. cap. 4. and yet without all contradiction he was a Bishop and a great one too when he would have extended his Jurisdiction not only over his own but over the Asian Churches also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21 23 25. Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus freely confesseth pag. 265. Romani Pontifices vocantur Presbyteri etiam postquam Episcopatus apicem supra presbyteros consequuti sunt singuli in toto orbe Episcopi But hardly will you find the name of Bishop any wherein those times given to a single Presbyter D. What more can you say for Bishops out of the ancient Fathers I. I could produce you Testimonies from Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was contemporary with Irenaeus but something of him I spoke before and from Clemens Alexandrinus and other Fathers who lived in the second age And from Tertullian about the year of Christ two hundred who shews de prescript cap. 36. That the Apostolical Chairs at Corinth Philippi Thessalonica were possest not by a Presbytrie but by single persons Also cap. 11. and de baptismo cap. 7. Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est c. That is the Bishop hath the power of giving baptism then the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority c. I might produce much more from those first times in favours of Bishops Eusebius the ancientest Church historian now extant all along maketh it his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the Churches of these first times Rome Alexandria Antioch c. from the Apostles downward unto his own time in every of which Churches none that hath any skill can deny that there were sundry Presbyters or Ministers at the same time and yet without noticing these he sets down the line of Bishops one after another in these several Churches And for the time that followed after Tertullian it 's undenyable by you all there were Bishops in the Church and
the Fathers who followed were not only most of them Bishops themselves but looked upon Episcopacy as descending unto them from the Apostles as can be made out from their Writings D. You know Jerome who lived toward the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century saith Episcapocy was not from the beginning in the Christian Church Epist ad Euag. which is the 85. Manifestissime comprabatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factumest ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet That is It 's most manifest that Bishop and Presbyter are the same and that afterward one was chosen and set over the rest it was done in remedy of Schism c. I. Jerom's meaning is that in the very first beginnings of the New Testament times it was so while the Apostles were yet alive and did by their own presence and industrie supplie the room of Bishops but as their presence began to sail by death or even sooner as their other great business called them elsewhere upon the dayly increase and enlargement of the Church then to prevent Schism that arose from equality there were Bishops set over Presbyters And that Jerome must be understood speaking so early of the Church appeareth from what immediatly followeth in that same Epistle Nam sayes he Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclium Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi Archidiaconum That is at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist downward to Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwise elected one from among themselves whom they placed in a higher degree and called him Bishop even as an Army would chuse a General or Deacons an Archdeacon Now Mark is reckoned to have died before either Peter or Paul and even from him downward Jerome saith there were Bishops in that Church It is strange to see how warily and defectively Smectimnuus cites these words of Jerome quite beside Jerom's intent to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning and to show how they vvere brought in by Presbyters Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles ovvn times we agree that so it was but because they for Smectimnuus is a Name composed of sundry Authors would fain have Jerome to be meant speaking of Bishops coming into Alexandria not until the Apostles were gone therefore they leave out his first words a Marco Evangelista they take what they think may seem to make for them and leave out what is directly against them which is scarce fair dealing But Calvine Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. citeth this passage intirely and from it concludes that Jerome maketh Bishops ancient enough Also you may observe how the learned M. Durham on Revel pag. 225. making use of this passage of Jerome that you do to prove that Bishops were of later date than the Apostles Yet he mentioneth not Jerom's words Alexandriae a Marco c. in which Jerome clearly makes the Original of Bishops in that Church as high as Mark which passage either destroyeth the gloss you would put upon Jerom's former words if in them you think the Father speaks of bringing in Bishops into the Church not till after the Apostles times as Mr. Durham saith expresly or else you would make Jerome contradict himself 2. Mr. Durham as he takes no notice of the Succession of Bishops at Alexandria from Mark downward so neither of the first Simile which Jerome makes use of viz. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat But only of the second Simile of Deacons making an Arch-deacon for helping them saith he in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business which shews what kind of Precedency this is he attributeth to the Bishop even such as he would allow to a Deacon who is advanced to some Peculiar Care by others for some special end Thus Mr. Durham as he is very loath to bring in Bishops till after the Apostles times so after they are brought in he would have their power as insignificant as may be but taketh no notice of Jerome his comparing the Bishop to an Emperour or General of an Army who hath not only a Precedency but without all controversie a Superiority of power and command D. Jerome on Tit. 1. is very express that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu Studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur That is Presbyter and Bishop are the same and before through Satans instigation there were divisions and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by Presbyters in common but afterward when every one thought those to be his whom he had baptized it was declared through the whole world that one should be set above the rest and on him all the care of the Church devolved and the seeds of Schisms rooted out I. Some think Jerome in that place speaketh of the power Bishops in his time had come to beyond what the first Bishops had That at the first Presbyters had a hand in Government but afterward Omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertinebat The whole care of the Church was put over upon the Bishop alone But if you think Jerome there speaks of the first Introduction of Bishops unto the Church then I say he must be meant speaking of the Apostles own times D. What reason have you to think so I. First because Jerom's words import this while he says that the thing which gave occasion to the introducing of Bishops was the divisions that arose among Christians and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo c. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptized Now thus we read it was among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. And though Jerome on Tit. 1. take occasion from the Community of Name that the Apostle there uses while he calls the Presbyter Bishop ver 5. and 7. compared together to shew that at first there were no Bishops above Presbyters yet this will not necessarily infer that there was no distinction of Office betwixt Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostle wrot to Titus or that Jerome thought there was no such distinction then But that as the names were then promiscuously used by the Apostle so sometimes there was no distinction of the Offices till necessity introduced it which change Jerome takes
occasion to speak of from the community of Name still used by the Apostle even after the change was made Secondly because that decree which Jerome says was made over all the world for introducing Bishops had it been after the Apostles times we should have some account of it in antiquity about what year after what manner in what Council c. that Decree was made and no change that followed upon it but the vestige of this is to be found Thirdly The supposing such an universal change of Government after the Apostles were gone will infer that shortly after the Apostles there was an universal defection in all the Christian world from that Government which ye think the Apostles left as unalterable in the Church which is very hard to imagine What! Not one honest man in all the world that we hear of to open his mouth and oppose this innovation but without contradiction Toto orbe decretum est how cold will you make the zeal of those Primitive Christians to have been in respect of your own now adays Fourthly because Jerome tells us this change was made ad tollenda schismata And in remedium schismatis to take away Schism Now to think that the Apostles left a Government in the Church which was liable to this great inconvenience of Schism and that those who came after saw cause to change that Government unto another for shunning of the foresaid evil Is too great an Imputation upon the wisdom of the Apostles and too great a preferring of Posterity before them But this is salv'd if we say that the Apostles themselves forseeing that parity would breed Schism did before their departure for preventing of this set Bishops over Presbyters Fifthly because this same Jerome in sundry places of his writings derives the Original of Bishops as high as the Apostles if not higher de Scriptor Eccles he says Jacobus ab Apostolis statim c. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christs Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem and that to him succeded Simon And on Galat. 1.19 He says as much of Titus at Crete of Polycarp at Smyrna of Epaphroditus at Philippi and again de Scrip. Eccles He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria and in Epist ad Euagrium says Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filij ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesia vendicent That is that we may know the Apostolical Traditions to be taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church And Epist 54. Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi With us the Bishops hold the room of the Apostles And Epist 1. Ad Heliodorum And dialog adversus Luciferianos and Epist ad Riparium adversus Vigilantium Miror Sanctum Episcopum in cujus Paraecia esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virga Apostolica confringere vas initile Where you see he calls the Bishop's power Virga Apostolica The Apostolical Rod or which was derived from them These and moe Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings to shew that he deduces Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves So that if you think in some places he cryeth down Bishops as an invention later than the Apostles you shall find that in many moe places he makes them high enough And if you will needs have this Father to contradict himself it will be with advantage to Bishops For for one word against them he speaks three for them But if you will save his Credit you must understand that change he speaks of to have been in the Apostles own times D. But Jerome says Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Let Bishops know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then by the truth of the Lords appointment Which words shew that Episcopacy came into the Church by custom not by any divine right I. Some are of opinion that Jerome speaks of that authority Bishops were then invested with over Presbyters beyond what the first Bishops were this he saith they had attained to by custom for in the same Epistle he maketh three subordinate degrees of Clergy and that Ex traditione Apostolica By Apostolical Tradition which words have much perplexed those of your perswasion So that if you think Jerome by Consuetudo meaneth Custome which came in after the Apostles times you shall make him say and unsay in one and the same Epistle But if by Consuetudo be meant that Authority the Bishops in his time did exercise beyond what the first Bishops did no such inconvenience will follow And that he is so to be understood appears from this that in equalling the Bishop as he was at first with the Presbyter he saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter Excepta Ordinatione That is What doth the Bishop which the Presbyter doth not except Ordination Where you see though he make the Bishop above the Presbyter as to Ordination yet he seemeth to equal them as to Jurisdiction And this seems agreeable to what he saith that at first inter plures Ecclesiae cura divisa and Communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernatae Ecclesiae i. e. Presbyters did at first by common counsel govern the Churches which doth not necessarily exclude the first Bishops And afterward speaking of the power that accresced in after times to Bishops he saith ad unum omnis Ecclesiae cura delata est all the care of the Church was put over upon one He seems to mean that the Bishops afterward acted solely to avoid schism that arose from the disagreeing of many Counsels thus some answer that place of Jerome 2. Others as the learned Davenant think That by dominicae dispositionis veritas Jerome meant Christ's express Command and by Consuetudo Apostolical practice begun by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And this is very probable for this same Jerome writing ad Marcellum about the observation of Lent saith it is apostolica traditio and adversus Luciferianos calleth it Ecclesiae consuetudo so that according to him what was begun by the Apostles may be called Church custome because continued by the Church So then this will be Jerom's meaning Bishops are greater than Presbyters not by Christ's express Command but by custome brought into the Church by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And now to say no more of this Father whom you take to be the great prop of your Cause in antiquity consider seriously these few things anent him 1. Doth not Jerome expresly speak of an Apostolical right at least that Episcopacy hath and that in very many places of his writings as I hinted before 2. Where he seems to speak otherwise suppose he were to be understood in your meaning which is to
make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 59 60 61. Certainly these Bs. if they thought not Episcopacy jure divino neither thought they Presbytry so else would they have been Bishops themselves And Calvin how respectfully writeth he to Arch-bishop Cranmer beside what I cited out of him before Durel View of Government Pag. 161. Speaking of Calvin saith he is of the mind that Episcopacy was the Government that Calvin approved most and that he took it to be of Apostolical Institution though his opinion was that the Church according to her exigencies in relation to places times and other circumstances may dispense with it Thus he speaks of Calvin and subjoyneth a passage out of his Epistle to Cardinal Sadolet which he conceiveth is to that purpose Disciplinam qualem habuit vetus ecclesia nobis deesse neque nos diffitemur c. D. I confess I am somewhat moved with these clear Testimonies you cite out of Calvin and Beza whom I ever looked on before as stout impugners of all kind of Episcopacy Yet that I may add some moe of greatest note who have withstood Bishops What say you to Salmasius Moulin Chamier Blondel These four may come in the second rank of Protestant worthies and have all declared themselves against Bishops Moulin de munere pastorali and in his letters to Bp. Andrews Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus Chamier in his Popish Controversies Blondel in his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi I. Salmasius did retract his opinion and turned to the Episcopal perswasion as himself declares in his answer to Milton cited by Durel Pag. 297. speaking of Bishops and of his own Observation how confusions and strange errors sprang up in England immediatly upon the removal of Bishops he saith of himself experientia edoctum ut dies sequens est magister prioris sententiam mutasse c. i. e. He being taught by experience as the following day is teacher of the former he changed his opinion But setting this aside as also what we heard Blondel closed his Apology with let us but hear how far by evidence out of antiquity they are forced to yield Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus grants rem esse antiquissimam ut hi duo ordines in ecclesia fuerint distincti Episcoporum Presbyterorum si excipiantur Apostolica tempora i. e. It is a most ancient thing that Presbyters and Bishops have been distinct in the Church if we except the Apostles own times and Cap. 4. Pag. 253. cirea medium aut initium secundi seculi primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum introductus est Where he grants Episcopacy about the beginning of the second age so very near he grants Bishops to the Apostles times for the Apostle John died about the beginning of the second age Moulin grants Statim post Apostolorum tempora aut etiam eorum tempore ut testatur historia Ecclesiastica constitutum esse ut unus inter caeteros Presbyteros Episcopus vocaretur qui in collegas haberet praeeminentiam ad vitandam confusionem quae saepe ex aequaâ—itate nascitur i. e. Immediatly after the Apostles or even in their time one among the Presbyters was set over the rest with the name of Bishop Where he saith this might have been Apostolorum tempore even in the Apostles time Chamier de Oecumen Pontif. lib. 10. cap. 6. confesses from Jerom's making Bishops as ancient at Alexandria as Mark Inaequalitatem hanc esse antiquissimam that this inequality among Church-men is most ancient And a little after he saith Conjicere licet innovationem hanc factam aut nondum elapso aut vix elapso primo seculo i. e. We may conjecture this change into Episcopacy was made either before the first age of the Church was ended or scarce ended Now John the Apostle outlived the first age and died in the beginning of the second Now do not these concessions amount to as much as a yielding of the whole Cause But let us allow any of those four Divines as long a time after the Apostles as they will demand before Bishops were introduced and we shall hear Blondel say and the authors of jus divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 124. from him that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters and that the Toto orbe decretum in Jerome was not long before the said year 140. Thus Blondel who takes the longest time for bringing in Bishops yet acknowledges them so early that within 40. years and less after the Apostle John Bishops are every where settled in the Church Now from your opinion of the unalterableness of Presbyterian Government left by the Apostles and from Blondel's concession that within less than 40. years of the Apostle John Bishops were by an universal decree received into the Church I thus reason If there were Bishops found in the Church within less then 40. years after the Apostles times there behoved to be Bishops in the Apostles times otherwise one of these absurdities will follow none of which can be admitted 1. That that Generation of Christians who lived about 40. years and less after the Apostles was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles mind anent the continuing of Presbyterian parity as the unalterable form of Government else they would not have adventured and that so unanimously upon a change of that Government which had a jus divinum for it's warrant And is this probable or is it possible that those who lived so near to the Apostles that without question sundry of them had seen John and conversed with him That these I say should all be ignorant of John's mind anent Church-government Or else it will follow which is yet worse that that Generation brought in Episcopacy notwithstanding they knew Christ and his Apostles had left Parity as unalterable in the Church And that thus over the belly of knowledge and conscience they did all as oneman for we hear not of the least opposition as we read there was against other Innovations which perverse and Heretical Spirits laboured to bring early into the Church conspire against Christ and his Apostles Government Were not this hard to be imagined that those Christians who were daily dying for Christ and the Gospel should at the same time be guilty of bringing into the Church a Government contrary to his mind and that against their own light What remains then but this if within fourty years after the Apostles Bishops were generally received in the Christian world by the confession of your ablest Writers there behoved to be Bishops even in the Apostles time For it is not conceivable how such a great change should be made in so short a time and that without any noise or opposition for any thing we hear unless you admit these absurdities which I think you will be loath to do For had there been either knowledge or conscience in but a few whither Ministers or other Christians of that time is it possible they would have suffered that change which imported
The said Authors of Jus Divinum Minist Angli Pag. 64. say that Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. were in many things deceived themselves and the cause of deceiving others Answ 1. They are hard put to it when they seek to relieve themselves by discrediting these ancients 2. Suppone it were granted that Eusebius was in some things deceived must he therefore all along be deceived when he speaks of Bishops superior to Presbyters He makes it a great part of his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the most famous Primitive Churches and to say that in all this he was deceived is Gratis dictum said but not proved 3. It 's strange if also Irenaeus was deceied who flourished above a hundred years before Eusebius and had seen Polycarp who was the Apostle John's contemporary and disciple Who can believe he could be ignorant what the Government of the Church had been from the Apostles downward living so near to their times 4. Is it not much more probable that Jerome might be deceived if we understand him to speak of the introducing of Bishops after the Apostles times Certainly it is more like he might be mistaken than either Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived long before him They say further that Irenaeus by Bishops meant no more but Presbyters Pag. 114 115. And Pag. 65. that the Fathers and Councils spake of Church-Officers of former times according to the Stile of their own times And again when pressed with the Catologues of Bishops out of Irenaeus and others they say that these Bishops were only the first ordained Presbyters and therefore this first ordained Presbyter is named and the rest passed by for the more expedit reckoning and the Line of Succession only drawn from the first ordained Minister Some of these answers are inconsistent For 1. They say Eusebius and Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops and next they say that by the Bishops Irenaeus only meant Presbyters Now how unsatisfactory these answers and the like are the impartial Reader may judge Only heaâ— what Bucer says De animarum cura inter scripta Anglicana Pag. 280. Where after he hath related Jerom's words which seem to make Bishops of later date than the Apostles he saith Credibile non est diu neque etiam in cunctis Ecclesiis ita observatum esse Nam apud patres Hieronymo â—etustiores clara habemus testimonia quod etiam Apostolorum temporibus unus e Presbyteris electus atque ordinatus est qui caeteris omnibus praevit Ministerium Episcopale praecipue in summo gradu gessit Where he shews that even from the Apostles downward there was in the chief Churches always a Bishop over Presbyters And so he goeth on to shew that James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that the like Order was keeped in other Churches Quantum ex omnibus historiis Ecclesiasticis cognoscere possumus and cites Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius to prove this All more ancient than Jerome D. I confess you have cleared me of sundry doubts I had anent Bishops I thought little or nothing could be said for them but that they were a meer groundless and godless usurpation in the Church for we have been taught to cry them down by all means yet there is one thing ought I think barr them to the door of this Church for ever and that is the Covenants by which we are sworn against them But since I can stay no longer with you at this time I am content to hear what you can say to this at next meeting I. Much more might be said for Bishops Yet there is enough said if you be free of prejudice And since you can stay no longer I shall be willing to commune with you anent the Obligation of the Covenant against Bishops at another time and so I bid you farewel If Blondel when he says pag. 53. Egâ— sane hanc politiae formam ab initio observatam libere concederem sed mutabilem tamen c. Speak of a primitive parity yet saith that form was mutable Prefat ad apolog pag. 59. Hieronymus hanc formam i. e. Episcopacy non modo non improbavit sed pro pacis bono semper admisit And in that same place vindicats Jerome from Aerianism And in that same place he says Episcopacy is forma regiminis non per se mala damnabilis sed adnatis sensim corruptelis viz. under poprie vitiatae and denys not but that protestanti sola corruptelarum resectione contenti esse poterant vitiatam deplorabant And more to this purpose he thought therefore Episcopacy in it self lawful Cassand Consult Artic. 14. Illi certe merito reprehendendi sunt qui odio abusuum in his ordinibus dignitatibus universum hunc ordinem quem Hierarchicon appellant ut nervum Antichristi sublatum volunt Nec minus illi accusandi qui inani titulo inflati eoque ad dominatum quendam vel etiam ad cupiditatem avaritiam abutentes neglecto quod Ecclesiae debent officio hominibus etiam non malis huic Ecclesiastico ordini detrahendi ab eo deficiendi occasionem dederunt THE SECOND DIALOGUE Anent the Obligation of the Covenants against Episcopacy Doub HAving some spare time I am come to spend it with you as I promised at our last parting I told you then that Bishops are abjured in the Covenant so that none may with a good conscience either submit to 〈…〉 them and we look upon all these 〈◊〉 â—â—sters that preach under them as perjured persons I. Ye use indeed upon all occasions to be liberal enough in charging Ministers and many others in the time with Perjury and this ye do with the greatest freedome and confidence imaginable but it is sooner said than prov'd Ye would act more Christian like if ye were more sparing in judging another mans Servants who stand or fall to their own Master Ye use to impute unto us acting against our own Light also I pray learn to be more Charitable D. You know there were Covenants sworn wherein Bishops are abjured and we all stand bound against them I. All bound There are many both people and Ministers at this day who never took the Covenant and think you them bound against Bishops D. Yes I think they are For the Covenant bindeth all not only those who took it but their Posterity also I. That is a strange fancy Casuists say Juramentum est vinculum personale i. e. an Oath is a personal tye that only bindeth him that took it And so consonant to this the Covenant sayeth We every one for our selves and not for our selves and our posterity I suppone the Father who was in his judgement against Bishops did take the Covenant his Son who groweth up afterward is in his judgement for Bishops It seemeth very hard that the Son should be by the Father's Oath prelimited in his judgement about a disputable point or else obliged to act contrary to his judgement Is not this
this because it is Paul and Barnabas whâ—… are said to do this work expressed her by the Greek word and not the people Now you will not say that Paul and Barnabas did elect Ministers to these Churches that were to yield the question Therefore in our Translation it is said when they that is Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church they prayed and commended them to the Lord. Now all these were the actions of Paul and Barnabas not of the people And 3. If you mean by this Word the peoples electing Ministers by suffrages you lose by it and gives great advantage to Independents who are for popular elections of Ministers Whereas ye give this power not to all the people but to the Session And therefore observing Presbyterians have forborn to press this place as you expound it But 2. If you think the Ministers election either by People or Session essential that is so necessary to make one a Minister to such a people that he cannot be their Minister without it you by this do not only nullify the Ministry of almost the whole Christian World for above a thousand years upward but also in particular the Ministry of this Church of Scotland ever until the year 1649. for not till then were Patronages taken away and the election by Sessions brought in use Now what thanks will you get for this even from many of your selves For not only were all the Protestant Ministers before the year 1638. entered by Presentations but also all the Presbyterian Ministers after the year 1638. till the year 1649. And there are some of them still in Office at this day in the same Congregations to which they entered not by the Sessions election but by the Patrons Presentation yet I think none of you will scruple to hear or own them upon that account nor ever did D. But I look upon Patronages as a corruption abjured in the Covenant I. I pray you let me see in what place And further if Presentations and Patronages be abjured how came it to pass that this Kirk did continue so long under Perjury For from the first taking of the Covenant till the year 1649 Patronages were still in use And it 's strange if all that while this breach of Covenant was not discerned And I told you presently your selves do without scruple hear Ministers of your own perswasion who entered by Presentations from Patrons D. Many of your Ministers are ordained by Bishops and this is another reason why we cannot hear them I. Yet all the Ministers whom ye refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops even all who were ordained betwixt the year 1638. and 1662. or thereby and there are very many of these at this day in this Church whom ye will not hear though they were ordained by a Presbytrie without a Bishop As for your not hearing of such as received Ordination from a Bishop ye would for the same reason have refused to hear those ministers whom Timothy ordained in Ephesus 1 Tim. 5.22 or whom Titus ordained in Crete Tit. 1.5 You may see what Calvin saith on the place And ye would have refused to hear any Minister in the World for many hundreds of years together for all were ordained by Bishops It was early said in the Church Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta Ordinatione Ordination then was accounted the proper act of the Bishop and now Bishops ordain not without the concurrence of Ministers who also have a hand in that action And by this reason of yours ye would have refused to hear those Ministers who were the Members of the Assembly of Glasgow 1638. For though they voted down the Bishops yet all of them generally had been ordained by Bishops few or none excepted and had sworn obedience to them too And further by this reason ye should refuse to hear some at this day who though they do not conform now to Episcopacy yet were ordained by Bishops before the year 1638. and without scruple ye can hear such of the validity of Ordination by Bishops see at length the London Presbyterians in their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani from Pag. 17. especially from pag. 25. to pag. 32. or further if you will to pag. 49. D. Though many of the Ministers of the time were ordained by Presbytrie without a Bishop yet now they are turned Curats no less than such as are ordained by the Bishops and we can hear none who preach under Bishops what ever way they were ordained they are now all of them the Bishops Curats I. By your calling Ministers Curats I know not whither ye manifest more strength of passion or weakness of judgement For as all ye who use that word useth to express your spleen and disdain not fearing Christs word be that despiseth you despiseth me So there be very few among you who know what the word Curate signifieth And even those who know that it signifieth one who hath Curam animarum the care of souls a name no Minister needs be ashamed of but should strive to be in some measure answerable to it yet I suppose know not well many of them how or in what sense it hath been used else they would not so ignorantly misapply it For those use to be called Curats who serve the Cure as they speak though they be not the Ministers who are presented to the place but substituted by them to officiat in their room and hence are called Curats the presented Minister being none resident Now it is not so in this Church But because ye call a Minister the Bishops Curate ye seem to run upon another mistake as if the Bishop were or did assume to himself to be the sole and proper Pastor of the whole Diocess and Ministers were but his substitutes deputed under him as so many helpers I know no Bishop who hath such thoughts of himself or of Ministers what ever ye think or say to cast an odium upon them But why can ye not hear them who preach under the Bishops Government D. They are perjured persons and therefore we cannot hear them I. All who preach under the present Government yea I suppose the most part of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not to be called perjured For I told you at our last conference the Covenant as such cannot bind them who never took it and so such Ministers may be heard notwithstanding of this reason and even those Ministers who took the Covenant and now upon this alteration continue in their Ministry under Bishops are not perjured suppose our Episcopacy be meant in the Covenant for the reasons I gave you at our last communing An Oath made against a thing in it self not unlawful can not bind absolutely or in every case therefore when it 's taken is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations and restrictions otherwise it may come to be a bond of iniquity as this Oath may be is to many
nisi abolito nomine re ipsa Episcopi i. e. To what purpose is it to abolish the name of Bishop and retain the thing for both these Calvin and 〈◊〉 what were they while living but indeed Bishops though without the name And was it not so even among our selves when the name of Bishop could not be endured a meer parity is hardly practicable any where unless it be in Vtopia Now since you think Calvin a great adversary to Bishops a mistake that many are under I will produce some few places out of him to undeceive you Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. speaking of the first Bishops he citeth Jerom's words ad Euagrium and then subjoyneth alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum dicit enim Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium c. i. e. Nevertheless in another place Jerome teacheth how ancient the institution of Bishops is for he sayeth that at Alexandria from Mark downward there was still a Bishop c. Where you see Calvin passing that place of Jerome that seemeth to make against the antiquity of Bishops he rather layeth hold on that other place that speaketh them as ancient as Mark the Evangelist And a little before Calvin saith Bishops were brought into the Church ne ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur Observe this he saith equality of Ministers breedeth strifes and ut fieri solet so it useth to be And from these words of Calvin we may collect that he giveth to the first Bishops some superiority in power above the Presbyters without which saith he dissidia nascerentur Strifes would arise and so he makes them more than meer Moderators Another passage of Calvin I cited to you a little before Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 4. Si rem omisso vocabulo intueamur reperiemus c. And Institut lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 11. Supersunt Episcopi Paraeciarum rectores qui utinam de retinendo officio contenderent libenter illis concederemus eos habere pium eximium munus i. e. Now we are to speak of Bishops who I wish would contend about the retaining of their Office we would willingly grant unto them He is speaking of the popish Bishops that they have a holy and excellemt Office if they would rightly discharge it Where you see he calleth the Office pium eximium munus Holy and excellent And again a little after shewing how when it is objected to the Papists that their Regnum i. e. Church Government as managed by them is antichristian tyranny they answer it is that venerable Hierarchy so much and often commended by holy and great men Which answer of theirs he repells thus Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat commendarent hoc deforme vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent ubi Episcopi vel rudes c. i. e. as if forsooth the holy Fathers when they commend that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as it was delivered or handed unto them from the Apostles did mean it of your deformed Government Where you see he saith that the ancient Episcopacy was delivered down to the Fathers per manus ab Apostolis from the Apostles hands or from the Apostles by hand to hand And on Titus 1.5 He saith We may learn from that Text that then there was not such an equality among the Ministers of the Church Quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praesset i. e. But that some one person was in authority and counsel above the rest And in a long Letter of his to an old friend who now was made a Bishop in the Church of Rome Veteri amico nunc Praesuli it is to be found in the Volume of his Opuscula pag. 72. he saith Episcoparus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopacy it self is from God institutus and institute by God and within a few Lines after addeth In aestimando Episcopi munere neque recte neque tuto credi populo Judicium unius Dei esse audiendum Cujus authoritate est constitutum illud legibus definitum i. e. In esteeming of the Episcopal Office we must not regard the people's judgement but Gods only by whose authority it is constitute c. And sundry other clear Testimonies in that Epistle which were tedious here to recite There he speaks not one word against the Office of a Bishop but only against the abuses of it in the Romish Church In one place of it he saith omnino tibi sane quod ab Episcopo requiritur praestandum aut fedes Episcopi deserenda i. e. either do the duty of a Bishop or leave the Bishop's Seat He willeth him not to leave it on any terms no but if he minds to be faithful keep it still And in an Epistle of his to the King of Poland he approveth of all the degrees of the Hierarchy in the ancient Church even unto Patriarchs And in a long Epistle to the Duke of Somerset Protector of England in Edward the sixth his Minority as it is cited by Durel View of Govern pag. 165. Giving his advice anent reforming of many things in Religion yet never adviseth to remove Episcopacy out of the English Church which had he been of your opinion he would not have failed to have done Only he adviseth that both Bishops and Ministers be put to swear they shall deliver no other Doctrine but such as is contained in the articles of Religion And what is worthy the observing in that Letter he saith Audio esse duo seditiosorum genera quae adversus Regem Regni statum caput extulerunt alij enim cerebrosi quidem viz. sub Evangelij nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim invectam vellent alij vero in superstitionibus Antichristi obdurantur ac merentur quidem tum hi tum illi gladio ultore coerceri i. e. I hear there are two sorts of seditious persons who have gotten up the head against the King and State of the Kingdom The first a kind of heady humorous people who under pretence of the Gospel would bring in confusion and disorder every where The other are such who are hardned in their antichristian superstitions and these in authority should restrain both Now how near what he saith of the first sort may touch your selves I leave it to your consideration There is one passage more in Calvin I cannot ommit in his Treatise to the Emperour Charles the fifth and States of the Empire intituled de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae speaking of the Popish Bishops he saith Talem nobis si Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero
Obligation to maintain Presbyterial Government in Scotland For 1. There is no express mention there at all of Prosbyterial Government The words are We shall endevour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland In Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 2. Many known Independents took that Covenant and yet never thought themselves bound thereby to maintain Presbytrie in any of the Kingdoms because they thought it no part of the reformed Government and no question the Independents had a hand in wording that Article so that the words might not necessarily import the maintaining of any one form of Government in particular contrary to what themselves conceived to be right and indeed the words do not express any one form nor yet necessarily import any one form but with this general proviso in so far as reformed now they did not think Presbyterial Government such D. Yet the body of the English Parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that Oath did by the Reformed Government in this Kirk mean Presbytrie which was then settled here and therefore we were to take anâ— did take that first Article in the sense of thâ—… imposers whatever were the thoughts of few Independents I. We are indeed to take an Oath in the sense of the Imposers but that the English Parliament sensed the first Article as if Presbyterial Government were there sworn to be maintained may justly be doubted because had that Parliament looked on Presbytery as the Reformed Government sworn to be maintained in this Kirk they consequently would have acknowledged themselves bound to reform England according to our pattern but they thought themselves not bound to do so for Anno 1647. in their Declaration to the Scots Commissioners they profess they could never find that Presbytrie is necessary by any Divine Right and charges them for thinking there is no other lawful Church Covernment but that which they call Church Government And also charges them with mis-interpreting the Article of the Covenant concerning Church Government D. It seems then that England and Scotland did not understand that Article in one and the same sense yet since our State and Church understood it of Presbytrie we are bound to it in that sense I. It seems indeed England did not understand it in our sense but that therefore we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and State will not follow but rather that it is an Article as to that part of it that speaks of Government without sense since the Imposers who only could give the binding sense are not agreed about it for to say that we are bound to that sense which our State and Church too if you will had of it is irrational because they were but a part of the Imposers and the lesser part too in respect of England and Ireland And further suppose it were granted to you that in that first Article Presbytrie is meant yet that therefore there can be no room left for any kind of Episcopacy in the second Article will be denyed for if you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy either you are mistaken or Beza And others were who notwithstanding their writing for Presbytrie yet confess there is a kind of Prelacy as ancient as the Apostles beside what I cited to you from Blondel Chamier Moulin at our last meeting see Beza apud Saravium pag. 207 233 235 240 242 251. c. D. I perceive you bear off all you can from acknowledging the Episcopacy now settled in this Church to be meant either in the National Covenant or in the League For if that were once granted then ye could not but confess your selves guilty of Perjury I. My denying the present Episcopacy of this Church to be meant in either of the Covenants is grounded upon reasons which I suppose can not easily be disapproven And to what you say that upon our acknowledging the present Episcopacy to be meant in both or either of the Covenants we could not but acknowledge our selves guilty of Perjury Though I see no reason to acknowledge this present Government to be meant in either of the Covenants but much reason to the contrary yet I am content to make the supposition that it is abjured giving then though not granting that this Episcopacy was abjured in one or both of the Covenants you cannot so easily conclude thence as you imagine that therefore those who took that Oath and now again submit to yea or own this re-established Episcopacy are perjured D. That seems very strange those who did swear against Bishops in the Covenant have they not by acknowledging them again done contrary to their Oath and so are perjured I. That you may receive answer to this you must consider the nature of Episcopacy which is the matter supposed to be abjured Episcopacy is either a necessary unalterable Government as having a Divine warrand or at least Apostolick which amounts to little less then Divine if to any thing less at all Or it is an unlawful sinful Government as being contrary to some other Government which hath the warrant of Christ and his Apostles Or 3. It is of an indifferent Nature neither commanded â—or forbidden but left to Christian prudence to be used in the Church or not as shall be found expedient all circumstances considered If Episcopacy be found grounded on the Word and to have been the only Government practised from the Apostles own times downward through the purest ages of the Church I hope you will not think an Oath taken against it obliges to any thing but repentance for engaging in so unwarrantable an Oath You are a people who cry out Perjury Perjury but consider what I said to you at last meeting to let you see what warrant Bishops have in the Word of God and that it is the only Government found in the first and purest times of the Church search when you will and that even those who have set themselves to maintain another Government have from evidence of reason and Light that shines to them out of Antiquity been forced by their own concessions to set Episcopacy high enough and till you be able solidly to answer what I said to you then on this head be more sober and sparing of your hard censures and take heed lest while you charge others with Perjury your selves be found doing all you can sacrilegiously to robb the Church of that Government which Christ and his Apostles left her in possession of and have bound your selves with an Oath so to do If Episcopacy be sinful then we are bound against it antecedently to our Oath and whether we had abjured it or noâ— And if you think Episcopacy thus unlawful you should not so much decry it upon the account of the Covenant but because it is in it self sinful as contrary to some Divine or Apostolical warrant although it's true a supervenient Oath makes an Obligation against a thing in it self sinful so much
abjured in the second Article of the League but only that species or complex frame that consists of all the members there mentioned But 3. What can you say for your owninâ—â—f Commissaries now when again actualâ—â— they do depend upon Bishops I â—now none of you who at this day scruples or declines the Commissaries Authority â—nd Courts though actually they do depend upon Bishops Yet give me leave I think according to your principles ye ought to disown and decline them otherwise I shall be glade to learn of you how you free your selves of Perjury And if ye can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant pray give me your reason why not a Bishop too But I have yet another breach of Oath to charge you with which ye give me but too just ground for and that is Schism which is both a grievous sin in it self and also expresly abjured in that same second Article of the League And yet ye have been and still are carrying on a fearful and stated Schism whereby this poor Church is robbed of that Peace and Unity which our Lord Christ bequeathed to her in Legacy and this ye do with the greatest activity imaginable as if you were about some unquestionable duty But because I can stay no longer with you at present I shall be content to speak more of this at our next meeting So praying the Lord to give you understanding in all things I bid you farewell THE THIRD DIALOGUE Anent Separation Doub AT our last meeting our conference was anent the Obligation of the Covenants with breach whereof we use to charge you And at parting you by way of Re-crimination charged us with Schism which indeed is both a sin in itself and also expresly abjured in the second Article of the League But I hope we be not guilty of it I. Schism is a very grievous evil indeed even a renting of the Body of Christ which is his Church An evil which the Apostle sets himself much against Rom. 16. vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 1. vers 12 13. c. and Chap. 3. Eph. 4. vers 3 4 5. c. Phil. 2. vers 1 2 3. and in other places An ill that Satan began to make use of as one of his main engines against the Church even in the Apostles times and in sundry ages since An ill which sundry of the Fathers of the Church have in their Generations withstood and given testimony against Cyprian is full to this purpose in his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where among other things he saith An secum esse Christum cum collecti fuerunt opinantur qui extra Christi Ecclesiam colliguntur Tales etiamsi occisi fuerint in confessione nâ—minis Macula ista nec sanguine abluituâ—â— in expiabiliâ— gravis culpa discer aâ—â—â—â— nec passione purgatur Esse Martyr non potest qui 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non est Ad regnum porvenire nâ—â— poterit qui eam quae regnatura est derelinquit Pacem nobis Christus dedit Concordes atque unanimes esse praecepit dilectiones charitatis foedera inviolatae servare mundavit exhibere se non potest Martyrem qui fraternam non tenuit charitatem Ita Paulus 1 Cor. 13. Etsi habuero fidem charitatem antem non habeam nihil sum That is Do those who gather themselves together without the Church think Christ is with them so gathered such though they were even slain in confessing his Name yet that blot Schism is not washen away with their bloud the inexpiable sin of discord is not purged by their suffering He cannot be a Martyr who is not in the Church He cannot come to the Kingdom who forsakes her the Church that is to reign Christ left and commanded us peace and that we keep inviolable the bonds of Charity c. And much more to this purpose that Father hath in the foresaid Book Jerome saith Nullum Schisma est nisi sibi aliquam Haeresin confingat ut recte ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur Where he shews that Schism and Heresie at least something like it uses to go together And Epist ad Pammâ—chium Quis scindit Ecclesiam nos quorum omnis domus Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat an tu qui aut bene credis superbe de fide taces aut male vere scindis Ecclesiam That is Who rents the Church we who communicat in the Church or you who believing well proudly holds thy peace or believing ill truly rents the Church Where he seemeth to say That even he who holds his peace and declares not against Schism is guilty of Schism too Augâ—stin Tractat. 27. in Joannem Anima tuâ— non vivificat nisi membra quae sunt in caâ—â— ne tua c. Haec dicuntur ut amemus unitatem timeamus separationem Nihil enim debet sic formidare Christianus quaâ—â— separari a corpore Christi Sic enim non est membrum ejus nec vegetatur Spiritu ejus Where he shews That Separatists are like members cut off from the body and so can receive no life from the soul that quickens the body The Church is like the Lilly among Thorns Cant. 2.2 And Schism is one of those Thorns and the harder to be pulled out because Schismaticks have always looked on themselves as the only men and Christians of the first Magnitude and so do ye and I am heartily sorry ye give me such ground to charge you with this sin D. Every Separation is not a sinful Schism I. True every Separation is not a Schism as the word Schism is ordinarily taken to signifie a causeless separating For Protestants justifie their separating from the Church of Rome since they could not hold Communion with her without sin That Church being idolatrous in her Worship and in Doctrine erronious even to the perverting of Fundamentals by consequence at least as Protestant Divines shew But I think you guilty of a sinful Separation which is Schism and that al 's groundless and unreasonable as any you shall read of in any age of the Church D. Wherein are we guilty of Schism I. First in your dividing from us in that Christian Charity which ye owe unto us which I may call Heart-schism and is the ground of your external Schisms in dividing from us in Acts of Religious Worship Ye are a people at least many of you who make difference in judgement about matters only of a secondary nature such as the outward Policy or Government of the Church a ground for difference in affection and uncharitableness as if such who are not of your way and perswasion in these matters could not be real Christians with your selves And thus you put disputable points of lesser concernment into your Creed And many of you can with great freedom un-saint all who are not of your opinion in these things And so ye Un-church and condemn all Christians that have been in all ages almost and places of the World since Christs time who ye will find have owned Bishops
yea and Liturgies Festival-days and other Ceremonies c. And with whom therefore ye would have taken more ground to quarrel than with us and if ye be come the length to think the removing of these things necessary to make a true Church as may be some of you are then according to you there hath not been a true Church in the World for much above a thousand years together if according to your own calculation we begin but to reckon from the second or third Century downward D. You cannot deny that many things crept into the Church that were not from the beginning or of Christs and his Apostles institution and such are these things you have named I. That all these things named have crept into the Church as you say since the Apostles times will not be granted You know Bishops are said to have been even from the Apostles times And Eusebius Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. says that in the dabate about the time of keeping of Easter betwixt Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Victor Bishop of Rome Polycrates alledgeth the Apostle John's authority and practice for himself in that matter But suppone it were granted to you that these things are of later date than the Apostles will you thence inter that those who used them could be no good Christians or that you can not allow them your Charity Know you not that there may be many things used about the ordering of Gods House and his Worship which in themselves are indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden and therefore the Church as she seeth fit may use her Christian liberty about such things I pray you consider Rom. Chap. 14. There was a great debate among those first Christians anent the use of the Ceremonial Law and albeit such as thought they were now no more bound by that Law having purchased their liberty by Christ and therefore neither regarded one day nor one kind of meat above another were in the right yet Paul commands them to bear with the infirmities of the weak and not despise them but still account them brethren and retain Charity notwithstanding of their error The weak again were much like your selves very ready to judge the strong and to be uncharitable to them This the Apostle forbiddeth Who art thou who judgest another mans Servant vers 4 Socrates in his Church History lib. 5. cap. 22. Tells what diversity of customs was among Christians in those first times and yet no uncharitable judging of one another as ye use How justly and severely was Victor Bishop of Rome blamed by Irenaeus for his rash uncharitable zeal much like your own in excommunicating all the Eastern Churches because they did not keep Easter on that day that he did Though Irenaeus was of Victors judgement about the thing in debate yet he much discommended his uncharitable behavior toward Polycrates and the Asian Churches Euseb lib. 5. Cap. 23. Now as ye are guilty of heart Schism which is uncharitableness so expresly forbidden in many Scriptures especially in 1 Cor. 13. Chap. throughout So ye are guilty of External Schism in separating from our Church-communion in the Word and Sacraments and all other duties of Religious Worship contrary to the Apostles Direction Heb. 10.25 Forsaâ—â— not the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is It seems there were some Separatists even at that time who being misled by a misinformed Judgement or by pride and singularity as Calvin noteth on the place did forsake the ordinary and orderly Assemblies of Christians It is a received Maxim among Divines Opinionem varietas Opiniantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Variety of Opinions about matters of a secondary Nature and Unity among those who vary in such Opinions may well consist together D. All of us do not altogether forsake your Assemblies some do but now and then leave their own Paroch Churches I. Indeed ye are not all guilty of Separation in the same degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable and ought to be avoided It may be observed how people turn not Separatists of the highest degree at first but proceed from step to step First they begin to withdraw sometimes from their own Congregation then they come to withdraw more ordinarily and at length altogether Some when they withdraw from their own Paroch will not go hear ordinarily at least such as are discharged by Law but some other Minister who either preaches under the Government or is Indulged by the King and his Council and within a little will hear none of them Some will hear but not partake of the Sacraments in their own Congregation and so acknowledges their Minister in one part of his Office but not in another Upon what grounds they do so I confess I am not able to understand for I hope they disclaim the Popish error that the Efficacy of the Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Minister Now I say an advised Christian will do well to take heed and beware of any the least degree of Separation both because unwarrantable in it self and because it maketh way for a further degree and that second for a third and so unsâ—â—t people may take a running that they shall not know where to make 〈◊〉 stand Have we not seen some turn at â—ength Bronnists and some Quakers yea Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church Divisions Pag. 268. tells of some in England who turning Separatists at length died Apostat Infidels deriding Christianity and the imortality of the Soul D. There are among your selves who will not be constant and ordinary hearers in their own Congregations What say you of them I. I say such are very reprovable for doing that which hath in it the seeds of greater Schism And those Ministers though conform to whom people of anothers charge use to resort are bound to declare against it unless great distance of place from their own Paroch Church or other insuperable lets hinder their ordinar frequenting of their own Congregation and their absence be not grounded upon any disrespect unto or disesteem of their own Minister Otherwise I say that Minister to whom they come is bound to declare against such practices And if he do not it 's presum'd desire of applause and self-love makes him hold his peace and prevails more with him than love to the peace and unity of the Church D. It 's very hard to hinder me from going where I can be most edified we are bidden covet the best Gifts 1 Cor. 12. vers last And a man may go where he can have the best dinner I. I hear that useth to be your language as for that place 1 Cor. 12. last The Apostle is not directing private Christians what Gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of Gifts and every one should be content with his own Gif given him for the edification of others yet so that he seek after better not in others
Laws silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God I. You now give me occasion to tell you brieflie how your Preachers behave themselves in this Schism who are indeed the great propagators of it 1. They exerce their Ministrie contrarie to the Command of Authoritie concerning which you ask whether the King and the Law can silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God To which I say you read of Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the Priest-hood 1 King 2.27 That it was a deposing of him simply from all Priestly power I shall not debate yet sure it was a restraining of his Priestly power as to the actual exercing and officiating which he was bound to submit to This a King may do he may inhibite a Minister to Preach in his Dominions and the Minister so discharged ought to be silent and not counteract even suppose he think the King and the Law wrongs him especially when there are others to preach the Gospel though he or sundry be silent May be you have heard what Beza saith to this case Epist. 12. In answer to some in England if in case the Queen Elizabeth and the Bishops would either have Ministers Preach on their Terms or not at all they might Preach notwithstanding of the Prohibition of Authority To which he answereth Tertium enim illud nempe ut contra Regiae-Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem Ministerio suo fungantur magis etiam exhorrescimus i. e. As to the third to wit that Ministers exercise their Ministry contrary to the will of the Queen and the Bishops is a thing we yet more abhore Next These who preach among you make themselves Ministers of the whole Church without any fixt or settled charge D. I have heard say that every Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church I. That it is true and that you may see in what sense and on what grounds we say so against Independents read Mr. Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytrie pag. 204. though wrong figured and he tells you that though a Pastor be Pastor of the Catholick Church yet he is not a Catholick Pastor of the Catholick Church as were the Apostles And that by a Calling or Ordination he is made a Pastor but by Election is to be restricted to be ordinarily the Pastor of his Flock So Mr. Durham on Rev. pag. 106 107. saith a Minister though he be a Minister of the Catholick Church yet is not a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church and that there is great odds betwixt these two The Apostles saith he were Catholick Ministers of the Catholick Church and such the Pope claims to be that is to have an immediate access for exercising his Office equally and indifferently to all places Ministers saith he actu primo have a commission and power to be Ministers of the whole Church and Watch-men of the whole Citie indefinitly Yet actu secundo They are specially delegated for such and such Congregations and Posts But Ministers among you have made themselves actu secundo Ministers of all the Congregations of the Countrey where they can come And from this followeth a third step they incroach and intrude upon the Charges of other men of which I spoke before and now only shall question you by what Authoritie they do so What call have they to preach and administer the Sacraments to people of another Ministers Charge not being called or desired by the Ministers of those people so to do Their call is either Ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none never being called to be Ministers of those Congregations nor so much as imployed by the Minister of the place to exercise any Ministerial act among his people And for an Extraordinary call I think they will not pretend to it It may be seen by Acts of Councils in ancient times how the Church hath guarded against this kind of incroaching by one upon anothers Charge Otherwise what confusions and absurdities would inevitably follow When these Ministers who went to Aberdeen to perswade the taking of the National Covenant preached there without leave of the Ministers of the place the Doctors and Ministers asked them how it was that without their consent and against their will they publickly preached to the people of their Congregations Which they tell them was a thing repugnant to Scripture and to Canons of ancient Councils I might further let you see by what practices ministers among you advance this Schism They are careful to or dain men of their own way that hereby the Schism might be perpetuated and kept on foot They are much in inveighing against Bishops and Curats as they call the Ministers Hereby to alienate the minds of people from their own Pastors Of late they have great mixt communions at which persons ignorant of the common principles and vitious persons may be and I little doubt are admitted it being hardly possible by their way to keep them back I might also speak of their great disswasives to people not to hear their own Pastors and of their strange and dreadful uncharitableness to such as differ from them which sin they have with too much unhappie success diffused among their ordinarie hearers Mr. Baxter saith to this purpose in the preface to his Cure of Church divisions To Preach without love and to hear without love and to pray without love to any that differ from your Sect O what a loathsome Sacrifice is it to the God of Love If we must leave our Gift at the Altar till we are reconciled to an offended brother what a gift is theirs who are unreconciled to almost all the Churches of Christ or to multitudes of their Brethren because they are not of their way Yea that make their Communion the very badge and means of their uncharitableness and divisions D. I cannot deny but there may be some truth in these things I have heard from you And now I must take my leave and shall have my thoughts of what hath past betwixt us now and then when I am alone I. Do so I pray you and seek Illumination from God and that he would remove prejudices which too oft stand in the way of our embracing Truth Only let me give you a few advices further before we part And 1. Be not too confident of your own opinions as if you were undoubtedly in the right but consider seriously what I have said to inform you at our three Conferences 2. Think not that the matters in debate among us are the very substantials of Religion or that people may not be of different perswasions in these things and yet both sides maintain Love and Church fellowship for this were to run unto manifest sin and evil viz. Schism which is a renting of Christs body the Church and neglecting publick Ordinances upon fears of what is only disputable and supposed to be evil There have been far greater differences among Christians in former times and yet Church-communion not