ordinary Power exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops compared with the Apostles Whitaâ—… I say bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle from these Characters of an Apostle and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself proving his own Apostleship that he was not called by men Gal 1. 1. Now saith he the Pope is called by men so say we of Bishops that he had his Doctrine not by mens teaching but by Revelation Gal. 1. 2. Eph 〈◊〉 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope nor Bishops that he had seen Christ 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists that they giâ—e other Characters of an Apostle which they make essential to him and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have Calvin Inâ—… lib. 4 cap 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle his universal Charge and not being tyed to a particular Church and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19 20. where he observeth that there was no bounds set to their Labours but the whole world was given them to labour in and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ but how he had travelled through a great part of the World preaching the Gospel He mentioneth also another Character that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architecâ—â— qui â—jus â—und 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or be 〈◊〉 They were the first Planters of Churches of which afterward If it be objected that these things belonged to the first and extraordinary Apostles not to these that are secondary and permanent or ordinary Apostles This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church but giveth no account of other Apostles therefore these other are not Apostles except in the general Notion as they are sent to do Church work Gersom Bucer dissert de gubern Eccles. Episceps 70. p. 269. proveth that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers from 1 Cor 12. 29. are all Apostles so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus making the Apostles such a distinct Office to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office that their Calling was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediate The same hath Paul Bayâ— Dyoces â—ryal p. 52. Didoclav altar Damascen C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker and Junius to this purpose and even Tilenus who was no friend to Presbyterie Petrum saith he unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere de Pontif lib 2 C. 4. Not 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not 7. he hath these words neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati tanquam globae ascriptus fuit quod Gregarli est Episcopi non Apostoli Also lib. 2. C. 12. § 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church now deceased which by an accident hath stuok in the Birth I mean the Press for some time the design of which is to prove and I think he doth it solidly that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way to gather and to plant Churches and to institute all Christs Ordinances in them to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded So he p 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it and administring the Ordinances of it And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church Ministerially under Christ whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all inferior Officers He further sheweth that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church in the beginning of the Gospel particularly the Evangelists whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles the one was immediatly from Christ the other was from Him by the Apostles though their Gifts were sometimes immediate and extraordinary 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit as the Apostles were but were directed and ordered by the Apostles 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly as the Apostles as appeareth from the Epist to Tim and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands as the Apostles had My design in all this is to shew that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office how ever confidently asserted by him on his bare word seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith we look on it as a groundless Fancie that he can never make out I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops and some of them call Presbyters Apostles in a large sense that is Christs Ambassadors but that some of them think or say that the Office of them who now rule the Churches is the same with that of them who at first planted them I find not when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform they shall be considered § 6 I cannot pass over without correction an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour but by the Apostles who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World A. It is most absurdly said that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle why made they use of Lots They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it his words are Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum prout Presbyteros ordinabant sed sorte utuntur quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum Nor doth it make against this that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Dr. Hammond who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be and understood as well what could be said for it saith constat Matthiam
sorte delectum fuisse non per hominum suffragia And Corn à Lapide in locum verbum hoc loco Catachrestice usurpatur de qualibet electione idemque significat quod eligi accenseri annumerari Not only Beza but Corn à Lapide expoundeth it q. d. hic sortis eventus communi omnium sententia comprobatus fuit And it is certain that a Lot is a Divine Determination Prov. 16. 33. Cartwright Mellis Hebraic hath this Note on the Text quod sortem appellat judicium docet non nisi in rebus gravioribus ad sortem esse recurrendum maxime cum per sortem Deus ipse in judicio sedeat It was not then the Apostles but Christ himself who chose Matthias to the Apostleship nor was ever any Apostle chosen or called by Men which the Apostle Paul denyeth of himself as not agreeing to that Office Gal. 1. 1. He telleth us p 100. that the ordinary and perpetual Power that Christ gave to his Apostles was derived by them to their Successors Here he supposeth that the Apostles had an ordinary and perpetual Power which is that we now contend about for we maintain that their Power was extraordinary and ceased with them and that it was an inferior sort of Power which their Successors got He telleth next that the name also was derived to others beside the twelve That hath been already granted that that Name in a large sense was given to others yet in another sense it was restricted to the Twelve But he is very unhapy in his Proof of this uncontested Truth by Instancing Phil. 2. 25. where Epaphroditus is called the Messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church of Philippi for it is plain from the Text that he is so called as being sent by the Philippians to Paul and not as sent of God to them tho we deny not but that in that sense he might be called an Apostle for in that he is said with the same Breath to be he that Ministred to Pauls wants and seeing it is as evident from the Text that he was then with Paul and not at Philippi it appeareth that he had been sent by them to Paul with some token of their bounty for the Apostles subsistance Thus Grotius expoundeth this Place who saith that they who gathered and carried the sacred Money were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and likewise he saith that the Philippians had sent Money to Paul by Epaphroditus which he received because being in Bonds he could not then work with his hands For the same interpretation are Beza Piscator Zanchius Uorstius yea Estius who citeth Thomas Aquinas for it and Cajetan But he undertaketh to prove his sense of the word by this Assertion that an Apostle in the New Testament never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always a Messenger sent from God to men This he extendeth to other places as 2 Cor. 8. 23. This assertion is wholy groundless yea it is false as I have already proved with respect to Epaphroditus Phil. 2 26. for 2 Cor. 8. 23. The word is not so to be taken there neither for all his confidence in saying that our Translation is certainly a mistake Grotius is here also against him and saith they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their carrying Aims to the Churches of Judea And it is evident from the Context which telleth us of Pauls sending Titus about this Affair v. 27. and v. 18 19. Another Brother is chosen by the Churches to travel viz. to Judea with this Collection and v. 22. Yet another Brother is sent with Titus and that Brother formerly mentioned Now the Apostle giveth a Character of these Commissioners as for Titus as well known to the Apostle being in high Station in the Church and an Evangelist he telleth that he was his Partner and Fellow Helper as for these other Brethren he insinuateth that they must needs be very commendable persons being chosen by the Churches and so entrusted by them in that they made them their Messengers What he excepteth against this is frivolous for they are not called the glory of Christ on account of this Employment neither could they be called the glory of Christ simply on account of their being sent by him to the people yea or being Bishops but they are so called because of their holy conversation and faithful discharge of their Office what ever it was in the Church Another Scripture he bringeth Rom 16 7. where some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where saith he the Greek Phrase may be rendered inter primaâ—ios Apostolos This is a Blunder that he would have thought sufficient to ruine the Credit of a Presbyterian for ever as ignorant of the Greek and of good sense for neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Primarius or Chief but may well be rendered of note noted or eminent nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree as Substantive and Adjective as this learned Author maketh them to do contrary to all Rules of Grammar The meaning is plain that these men were noted or eminent in the Church and so esteemed among the Apostles or by them nor doth it at all import that they themselves were Apostles So not only Beza and Piscator but Toletus Vatablus Grotius The falshood of his Assertion p. 100. That the word Apostle never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always one sent by God to men is evident from Joh. 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater than him that sent him where the word is taken at large for any one that is sent by another And the Verb whence it is derived is often used for a Mans sending as Mat. 2. 16. and 21. 3 and 27 19 2 Tim 4 12 passim § 7. He took notice it seems that his Adversaries make Universality of Apostolick Jurisdiction to be one distinguishing Mark of their Office which Bishops cannot pretend to and therefore Bishops have not the Substance of the Apostolick Office Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way p. 101 102 103 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrowness of the Limits of these Provinces assigned to the secondary Apostles he meaneth the Bishops did not alter the nature of their Office from that of the twelve Apostles more than the Kings of Juda lost the Honour of sitting on the Throne of David after the Revolt of the ten Tribes Here is a gross Mistake of the Question which is not whether the largeness or narrowness of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath do alter the nature of his Office but whether a limited and particular Charge do not so differ from that which is universal and extended to the whole Church of Christ as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the other is not in the same Office Will any Papist say that the Universâ—â— Bishop who sitteth at Rome hath
acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy and that in his presence he being then with the Apostle Also from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus From his telling them that they should see his Face no more Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them but laying it on the Elders but I shall not enlarge on these § 15. He alledgeth with the same Confidence and as little Strength of Argument that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus in Crete And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea that Titus we say the same of Timothy was an Evangelist which he very discretly more suo calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists 〈◊〉 Saith he It is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who were called Evangelists A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists The word is divers ways used in Holy Write neither do we argue from the Name that either he or Timothy to whom this Name is expresly applyed 2 Tim. 4. 5. were Evangelists but we argue from their Work and Circumstances together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church in the beginning of Christianity There are others beside them whom we can prove to have been Evangelists who may be get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture Next he argueth the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon What if all this were yielded what gaineth he by it Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him tho he were no Bishop and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist what we design is that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop seing he was an Evangelist who hath all that power that Titus is said to have Beside Saravia who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath de Ministr Evang. grad C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae Prophetae Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri ita Titi Timothei qui Presbyteri Episcopi erant major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops if then Titus was an Evangelist is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist or a Bishop to a Presbyter or he to a Deacon unless some of these were degraded for some fault Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop Further he describeth an Evangelist out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it at least were not converted by it Eusebius is not by him fairly cited C. 33. not 37. he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles as his own words bear therefore they did not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists that is saith he they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations as Apollo did after Paul 1 Cor. 3. 6. also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted or any way to preach the Gospel His at last is his own addition to Eusebius not the words of that Historian It is evident then that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels and on that account be called an Evangelist in a large sense as may also every on that preaches the Gospel but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church distinguished from Apostles Prophets Pastors Teachers c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about that it is more than insinuated He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist which is a Truth but very impertinent to his purpose because Daniel did the Work of the King who was no King but much lower than a King a very wise Consequence indeed That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm or ordain he affirmeth p. 112. which is both false he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise For the power of Confirmation we know none had it there being no such Ordinance in our Authors sense in the Apostolick Church It is also wide from this purpose for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be sent elsewhere on another Errand and yet both be Evangelists That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists is true in the large sense as before but not in the strick sense neither is this to our present purpose for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists in the Primitive Times were Bishops But what followeth is wholly false that any Bishop or Presbyter who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times If it were so every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct â—…m all other Church Officers for there were whom the Scripture doth particularly call Evangelists Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished § 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops and not Evangelists I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist whence it will appear plainly that Timothy and Titus were such and that there is no ground from what is said of them in
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
some Officers whom Christ hath appointed to teach and rule his Church who are not in some of these Catalogues mentioned this is a lame instruction in this matter and we are still at a loss whom we should own as Christs Embassadors to us and what should be our carriage toward them § 5. I suppose the second proposition is that which our brethren will most controvert with us which if they do they must shew us where they find a Diocesan Bishop in any of these places or in any other enumeration of Church officers if they know of any more Here some of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks to find my Lord Bishop among all these Church officers If he be found Rom. 12. It must be v. 8. He that ruleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have met with none of them who insist on this place The current of Interpreters either hold in the general mentioning rulers So Estius Tolet Hamond or understand it of ruleing Elders who were distinct from preaching Presbyters as Vorstius Gomarus Beza Parraeus Grotius also saith they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quibus Tertull praesident probati quique seniores horum erat diligenter attendere ad singulorum mores monere titubantes lapsos censura corrigere Praescribere panitentiae tempus modum interdum relaxare No man will think that Grotius here meaneth a Diocesan Bishop who hath many thousands of Souls under his Charge whose manners he cannot particularly inspect Some pretend that the Bishop is designed 2 Cor. 12. 28. Under the name of Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but first it is plain that here is meant a sort of Governour distinct from the Teacher who is here also named but this is not competent to the Bishop but to the ruling Elder 2. Though an Argument drawen barely from the order wherein these Officers are mentioned were not of much force yet in this place where the Apostle doth accuratly note the order and dignity of these Officers by a first and secondarly and thirdly it must needs be very significant Especially seing our Opposites themselves do take notice of the Apostles words as marking out out the Degrees of the dignity of these Officers Grotius and Hamond Estius also observes the eminency of the Apostles from their being first mentioned with this Note first the former two also on these words Secondarly Prophets call them Apostolis honore proximos Let it then be considered when the Apostle is so exact in setting down the order and dignity of Church Officers whether it be consistent with this that Governments if by them were meant Diocesan Bishops should be placed after the Pastors and Teachers that is Presbyters If it be said that Helps whom we take to be Deacons are set before Governments whom we make ruling Elders though the latter be of more respect in the Church than the former I answer after the Apostle hath ranked the chief Officers in the Church both these who were extraordinarie who are ordinarie he doth not use that exactness in these that are inferior of either sort but while he doth expresly place the teachers who are Presbyters in the the third place of Dignity it were absurd either to take no notice of the place in which the Bishop should be ranked or to put him behind the Presbyter If any alledge that the Bishop is meant both by the teacher and by Governments this were to admit of an absurd tautologie in a very short list of Church Officers beside that it were to exclude Preaching Presbyters as no Officers in the house of God for by this gloss no mention is made of any teaching Presbyter except Bishops § 6. Others fancy that they find Bishops under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helps so Grotius and Hamond the latter laboureth to establish his Gloss first in that Graeci complures quod hic est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he is neither pleased to tell us who these Greeks are nor what reason they give for this Explication 2. He seemeth to plead that here is expressed a part of the Episcopal power cujus rei causa saith he est quod haec erat specialis pars muneris Episcoporum quod ipsorum fidei commissa est cura pauperum dispensatio facultatum Ecclesiae ut testantur Justin Ignat Polycarp c. Et Acts 20. 35. This Author rather than not find a Bishop in the Text he will turn him to a Deacon contrarie to the Institution of Christ by his Apostles Acts 6. 2 3 4. what Justin c. Say in this point I cannot examine because he hath not pointed to the places but I am sure Acts 20. 35. saith no such thing nor can I understand what should move this Author so to expound the place unless it be because he findeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Text and he will force that word to express the work of a Bishop it is plain even from the records of antiquity as well as from Scripture that the Bishops had no further the Dispensation of the goods of the Church than that the Ministers and Elders had a directive power in that matter and the Deacons did execute what was appointed by them But for the Text Acts 20. 35. It is far from aiming at any such matter the Apostle setteth before them his Example in working with his own hands by which he did two ways support the infirm both by spareing the Poors Stock in his not taking the maintainence that he might have demanded and also by giving of what he gained by his Labour for their relief I do not exclude from the meaning of this Text Acts of mercy toward Souls by spiritual instructions and Consolations Administred to distressed Consciences Menoch Estius Piscator Vorstius Sclater Beza apply this Texâ— to both sorts of support Aquinas in locum maketh them to be illi qâ—… ferebant opem Majoribus praelatis in universali regimine sicut Archi-Diacom Episcopis But to expound it of distributing the Churches Money when it is rather to be understood of giving of our own to the Poor is a strange Gloss. Further if this meaning of the Text were admitted and if a Bishop had a hand in the Distributions to the Poor is it imaginable that when the Apostle is about to instruct the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church that he would give us nâ—… clearer Light about so important a Matter and that the Government oâ— the Church and the practice of all her Members is so much concerned in than by designing him by one of the lowest pieces of his Work and which is most extrinsick to his Character A Notion so absurd and iâ— founded could hardly have been expected from a person of Doctor Hamonds learning If the Bishop be here known by the name of Help oâ— Supporter of the Poor by Alms that is the meanest if any part of his
work if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls by spiritual Advices and Directions that is common to him with the Teacher before mentioned in this Text and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers § 7. For Grotius's notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I oppose first by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers 2. By the force of the word the native and genuine signification of which is to help uphold or support one who is in hazard to fall which I am sure is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work or to a troubled Soul by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop That learned Critick saith it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to strengthen and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere because the seventy translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is a strange Argument to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be turned manu ducere It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 23. 19. Heb 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt for who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not the same signification neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it is constructed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand laid hold on by another being that by which one is supported that he fall not as he goeth and it is evident that the force of that word in these places doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way as his manutenency by which they are supported From all which it is plain that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius why we should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood Further if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care when the word properly signifieth upholding to which indeed care is often needful but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me where that word in any of its derivata is used and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless § 8. These of our Episcopal brethren who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office will possibly say that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place in the Lists of Church Officers viz. under the name of Apostles Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book which I am now examining what I have now to do is to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate which may plainly appear if we consider first that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words and not into them Yea Grotius and Estius on 1 Cor. 12 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned have these words Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos à Christo in id vocatos ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent And Doctor Hamond saith these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent regerent eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church 2. It cannot be denyed even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were none will say that they are wholly the same more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary who were sent immediatly by Christ to plant Churches and ordinary who succeed to these and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists under the same name of Apostles is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected for in these Enumerations he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant must give us some better ground for believing this than a Synonimous word I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do a sort of Apostles this is to expound Scripture at pleasure and indeed to make it speak what we fancy I conclude then that Bishops have no Divine right for them seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church both at first for planting of it and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World and no Diocesan Bishop name nor thing is to be found among them § 9. A third Argument for Parity and against Prelacy I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline Mat. 18 17 that the offended Party when other more private means of Redress do fail should lay the case before the Church whence this Argument doth clearly result that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many is not Jure Divino lodged in one person but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment is to be exercised by many Ergo it is not Jure Divino in the hand
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
that there was a Hierarchy undâ—… the Old Testament whence this Conclusion is necessary that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful If I were a Papist and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God Priest and People were subject whence this Conclusion is necessary that or single person be Head of the Universal Church is not in its self simplicâ—ter unlawful This Author is in a great Mistake if he imagine that 〈◊〉 say that Episcopacy is simpliciter and in it self unlawful we think that Christ might have set up Bishops yea a Pope with such limited Power 〈◊〉 his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church if so it had seemed good to Him And if He had 〈◊〉 done we should cheerfully have submitted to the one or the other wherefore our Question is not what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution but what He hath appointed as the way how He will haâ—… His Church governed The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent essential Powâ—… of the Apostles which he maketh to be perpetual from the extrinsick aâ—… extraordinary Priviledges and Advantages of that Power sutable to the fiâ—… Plantations of Christianity which he maintaineth to be Transitory and 〈◊〉 have ceased when they died § 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts nor Infallibility nor in their immedâ—… Call nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection and hâ—… proveth of each of these that others beside the Apostles had these Priviledges These things are asserted Dictatorie but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions It is not any where told us in the Word what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office and what is accidental or extrinsick to it and therefore we must be very Waâ—…e in determining so positively in this Matter It might be expected that this Gentleman who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right requireth of them plain Proofs else they must be lookt upon as Impostors p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy but here we are disappointed He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these preaching Power with Administration of the Sacraments Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church and that with Rule over all Churches an immediate Call extraordinary Gifts Infallibility to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles and none else are Apostles and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle which agree to Apostles omni soli semper and consequently they complexly taken are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office for we know not the Essences of things but by their first and essential Properties how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own § 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others on both sides about the Matter of the Apostolate or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it which yet is not his but is borrowed from the Papists But I first observe that Christs twelve Disciples who are by way of Eminency called Apostles arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power by degrees they were first called to be Believers and afterward were sent forth as Preachers Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him for some time in neither of these Degrees had they any Church Power except that of Preaching and Baptizing they were no Church Rulers for there was as yet no Gospel Church to be ruled but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church at last our Lord after his Resurrection gave them their Apostolick Commission by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office and sent them out both with Authority to Teach gather and setle and to govern Churches and their complete Ordination or solemn setting them apart for that Office by which also they were furnished for the Discharge of it above what they had been before was when the Spirit was poured out on them on the day of Pentecost they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18 10 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission as may be gathered from Act 1 4 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true others beside the Twelve got some Drops of that heavenly Shower but they had not the same Commission with them and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them nor fit them for Apostolick Work Another thing that I here observe is that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner though the Word is sometime used at large yet it is applyed to them so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself in the Inscriptions of his Epistles but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1 2. Now our enquiry is wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had who by way of Eminence were called Apostles or what are the Characteâ— that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers If we can arrive at any Light in this it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles as some plead or their Successors as others imagine § 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word but p. 210. he telleth us that the Twelve were called Apostles from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ and that our Lord made use of the word Sending as applied to them in the proper and peculiar sense And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same that he maintaineth that 〈◊〉 Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples Whitaker against Bellarm de Pontif Romanâ— who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter not in his extraordinary but his
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
was the Appointer of the first of them but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known after the Apostles and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted this Argument had been weak and the Hereticks might have insulted A. I deny that either he or the Hereticks could have any such advantage because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another they had no occasion to consider that in this Debate further than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church where there were more it was enough to confound the Hereticks that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days and they could tell them by whom What followeth p. 126 127. is a Repetition of the same thing about which I shall trouble him no more let him tell it over again as oft as he will He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church we know there are Worthy Men in that Church but we never thought them all infallible § 31. His third Enquiry is Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients in an Affair of this Consequence he saith no doubt we may and ought I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction and of some Doubting and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive without clearing the State of the Question And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case because our Author seemeth in pursuing this his Enquiry to confound two different Questions one is whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days Another is about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government as he wordeth it p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church whome some Men will call Bishops another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished Some of them lived in or near to the Apostolick times others of them some Ages after the Credibility of the former caeteris paribus is far greater than that of the later Because they had better causam scientiae and because tho Tradition without Writing may at first and under the best advantages soon and easily be corrupted yet by length of time and passing through many hands it is more apt to be depraved and that even without design For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients some of them are Spurious and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted and interpolated tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear others of them are Dubious so that it is sub judice whether they be credible Testimonies or not A second Distinction is of the things about which we debate our Author indeed doth distinguish in the Progress of the Debate between Matters of Fact and Matters of Opinion or Principle of which afterward I distinguish things on which our Faith or our Duty doth depend from these things that we are not so concerned in being merely Historical Passages or Debates about Natural or Politick Things in Matters of Fact of the later sort we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians and regard them at least some of them as Men of Learning yet so as not to believe their Histories nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason for the former sort of things I look on their Testimony as insufficient to perswade the Mind or clear the Conscience Scripture not the Fathers must be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Practice Distinction third These things that we Debate about are either determined in Scripture or not if not much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men who had much of the Mind of God in many things yet as was said before we must not blindly follow them over the Belly of Sense or Reason If they be Scripture light must be our Guide not the Opinion of the Fathers Listinction fourth The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous or they are Divided in the later case we cannot follow them but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded In the former their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice and may readily byass the Mind yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered or we must guess at them from dark Hints As the one sort can no way command our Faith so neither the other is to be received implicitly § 32. Out of these Distinctions this State of the present Question resulteth whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted My Antagonist is for the Affirmative I am for the negative for which I give these Reasons 1. We have no concurrent nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition and Unanimity about it If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point we shall quit this Argument Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head few of them have have written on it directly and of purpose and what they have said is but indirectly without considering the State of our Controversie which I am perswaded was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have written nothing many of the Writings of that time are perished there are different Opinions in this Debate among them whose Writings we have which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of for this last the rest are certain enough I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head is obscure and hard to be understood their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time which was plain enough to them who then lived but not so to us who know not their Idioms nor the Customs that they relate to as then known things they also used words in a far different sense than we do As Merit Pennance Bishop and such like It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture and Reason than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine and Spurious the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith or Practice
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
Fast one Day to wit before Easter some two others 40 hours but yet still they retained Peace the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith and in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they maintained Peace and none was cast out for that Difference Among Cyprians Epistles one from Firmilian sheweth the same thing iâ— plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum nominum varietate diversa fiunt nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae â—ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est § 4. It is also very plain that the Fathers I mean of the first Ages did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same Opinion about all points of Doctrine but did bear with one another and maintained Peace even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths yea when some of them would impose their Opinions on others and Censure them who Differed from them they were by the rest dealt with not as Maintainers but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church Justin. Martyr dialog cum Tryphon speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites if they did it out of weakness and did not impose on other Christians sayeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we must receive them and Communicate with them as of the same Mind or Affections with us and as Brethren And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account Firmilian in the Ep. above cited hath these Words on this occasion quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore honore servabant Irenae lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren propter modicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt dividunt quantum in ipsis est interficiunt pacem loquentes bellum operantes vere liquantes culicem camelum transglutientes § 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal Charging such as Apostats from the Church and breakers of her Peace who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential and Fundamental or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths Irenae lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit Colon 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion hath these Words hanc igitur praedicationem hanc â—â—dem adepta Ecclesia quamvis dispersa in universo mundo diligenter conservat aâ— si in una eademque domo habitaret ac similiter iis fidem habet ac si unam animam unumque idem cor haberet atque unâ— consensu hoc praedicat docet ac tradit ac si uno ore praedita esset Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum una tamen eadem est vis traditionis nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt nec quae in Hispania neque in Galliis neque in Oriente neque in AEgypto neque in Lybia aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt sed quemadmodum Sol Creatura Dei unus idem est in universo Mundo ita praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt Eusseb Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae condemning Tatianus the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae and saying of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church or a breaking her Unitie The same Historian lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating how long the Church remained a Virgin Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets and what the LORD himself taught and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth Rome and Jerusalem and then sheweth how Heresies arose whose Authors he calleth false Christs false Prophets and false Apostles and of them he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they divided the Unity of the Church by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD and against his CHRIST Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose but these may be sufficient I do not Question but that there might be other things which might be called Schism even with respect to the universal Church as if any should bring in Idolatrous or Superstitious Worship contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils and should set up Societies in opposition not only to one or few but to all the Societies of Christians or all the Soundest of them But of the first we hear little of the first Ages neither could the second be because they had no general Councils nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward for the Third we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks who were Noted for their Heresie and their Schism little spoken of as being the Consequent of the other so it was with the Novatian Schism § 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all or most Churches and so on the Catholick Church yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches either which were united by the Bond of one Government a Provincial or lesser Synod being made up of them or only living in the vicinitie of one another or having frequent occasion of Correspondence they who were not under any uniting Bonds but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence mutual Assistance as occasion offered acquainting one another with their Affairs so far as it was of any Advantage admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion with them on occasion refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches as were by them Excommunicated and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned or refused especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church or denied to such Sojourners if they desired it or when one Church shewed Rage Furie and Bitterness against another because of what they differed about Instances of this are many the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage came to that Height that they would not Communicate together one of them Anathematized the other and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe and these of Africk did concern themselves in it Eusebiâ—â— cited Catal. Test verit p. 26. ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the
l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
more than with rational refutation Acts 17. 19 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion is looked on by some as what was new in that time So was Luthers Doctrine and Calvins and that of the other Reformers in their day respectivè If my Antagonist can make it appear that our Opinion about Parity was never countenanced by Scripture nor practised in the Christian Church till of late in Geneva or Scotland Let it then pass for a Noveltie and on that account be condemned but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie tho for many Centuries it was not practised under the Reign and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ We are very willing according to the place of Scripture he putteth before his Book to ask for and walk in the old paths but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People as some expound the place of the way that Moses taught them and which they walked in who we are sure did not err as Grotius expoundeth this place of the way of Abraham Isaac and Jacob we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did in making the Golden Calf tho that was a very old practice and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes both Antient and Universal § 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction and first the ill words that he very liberally and at 〈◊〉 random bestoweth on these who are not of his way calling their Principles and Writings Lybels Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to complain of them whom he supposeth do persecute them I am sure it should less be his work to Rail with such unmanly and unchristian revilings at them who no other wayes oppose him and his Partie but by dint of Argument He doth p. 5 6. Suppose The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority and telleth us How in the Primitive times they were opposed by men chosen by the People who calculate their Doctrine to the fancies and humours of the Multitude and prostituted the Gospel to promote error and delusion in stead of serving our blessed Saviour they became slaves of the People by whom they were originally imployed and because they were so unhappily successfull as to gratifie their lusts they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre or to plead for Truth to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith vvise men vvill judge It is rather to be lamented than denyed that there are such Ministers in the Christian yea in the Reformed Church but I may confidently say they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men than among the Presbyterians in Scotland Whom it is evident that by all this Discourse he designeth to defame We preach against this Inclination even as it is in mens hearts and vve censure it vvhen it appeareth in their practise either to the promoting of Error or disturbing the Peace of the Church More of this he hath p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises and looser theorms and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie and true faith that worketh by love to airie notions and mistakes Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper or of the Presbyterian Ministers I shall leave to others to determine I am sure they who know the Scots Presbyterians and do not spitefully hate them will not say that either their Doctrine or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose Whether the Presbyterian or Prelatick Church Discipline as they have been exercised in Scotland come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church it 's easie to determine by them who have seen the one and can judge of both without prejudice § 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion had their immediate commission from heaven and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned If he mean the Apostles I shall not contradict his Assertion but must look on it as most impertinent Seing the other who he saith had their Authority from Men were distinguished from and opposite to not only the Apostles but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church who were in or after their dayes Also the Assertion so understood could make nothing for Prelacy or against Paritie in the primitive Church which seemeth to be the design of this Passage If he understand it of Bishops who he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles this is a new opinion with a Witness and for any thing I know himself first hatched it and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians so new as this of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions Sure if it be so they must then shew their credentials from Heaven and the signs of Apostles wrought in them As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King 's Congedelire and their Consecration and also all the debate that is about their Prelation and will excuse us from owning them till we be satisfied in this matter wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous § 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches and unaccountable Extravagancy while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence and Impiety Supposing without any semblance of Proof◠that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded but demolished when Episcopacy is laid aside and that without these sacred Vehicles viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie to use his own words I know not what can be called by that Name It is of the same strain that the extravagance of these last dayes which is wholly charged on Presbytery is boundless and Sceptical and Christianity is more dangerously wounded by the delusions of some that are Baptized Presbyterians then by the open blasphemies of Infidels and that the first viz. the Presbyterians are altogether inaccessible by reason that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations and will not be instructed their Errors are made stronger by their vanity And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose To which I have no other
Reply but the words of Psalms 12. 3 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said with our tongue will we prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us and Psal. 120. 3 4. What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee O false tongue We can answer his Arguments and are willing to be Instructed by him and attacked that way But who can stand before this kind of Topicks I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure only by Division and Singularitie save this Author p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author But it is evident that the strain of both is the same I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate But I cannot overlook his suposing that we reject certain Ritualls and practises which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture and the uniform Belief of all Christians If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such we shall correct our Opinion about them § 8. He layeth some Foundations p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute which we cannot allow as first that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order and Discipline under which Head he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church It is to be lamented that even in Doctrine there was not that Unitie that was fit in the Primitive times we read of many Heresies early broached for Order it was not the same among all there were sad Schisms as well as Heresies and for Ritualls we find no General Rule they agreed in for Ordering them save the Word of GOD contained in the Scriptures For General Councills that medled most with these were later than the times we speak of And it is well known what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them such as the time of observing Easter Yea the first Churches had different Ritualls about which they made no Divisions but used Christian forbearance Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this which is C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi Iraeneus reproving Victor for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And at large sheweth that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were from uniformity in their Fasting Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat in the frequency of Communicating about the time and manner of Baptising about the time and degrees of publick penance placing the Altar or Communion Table c. It is evident then that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of They minded things of higher moment and greater necessity § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals they the Primitive Christians strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks This Assertion with respect to Rituals is wild and absurd not only because such Uniformity was not found nor much regarded among them as hath been shewed but also because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion could afford them no strength more than an Army is the stronger by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour It was their Unity in the Truths of God their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule and their Love and forbearance of one another in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ in these as the Means did their strength ly Yet another strange Position he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians which never hath yet been proved and affirmeth that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family His Supposition which p. 11. and often else where he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate is groundless as I hope will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition His Assertion is false and dangerous For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches where several of the Constitutions he talketh of were practised by some and neglected or despised by others as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio and many others 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God there were Debates in the primitive Churches and some differed from that which was generally held and yet they were not Excommunicated but dealt with by more soft Means and born with till the Lord should enlighten their Mind according to the Apostles direction Phil. 3. 15 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church but of few others to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing even in Rituals this is not the Spirit of the Gospel If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians his Assertion cannot be contradicted yet it may be Ridiculed for that is impossible for any who is a Christian to do but if he speak of what is commonly received this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine or Ceremony even though they Dissent never so modestly and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them § 10. What followeth doth surmount all that we have heard p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters must be received as the infallible Truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages from the Combinations of Hereticks And a little below The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors I make here two Observes before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted The former is that may be through oversight he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining or decisive Power about what must be received as the
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei◠not being so sensible of the
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
distinguisheth them than as the one word signifieth Office or ruling Power the other the Age of them who use to be put into that Office and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office yet not when it is joined with and distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is clear that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters as he had done several times in the Epistle as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers not one but more in the Church of Corinth and as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elder in years wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety § 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation that this Author pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel insisteth only on that which is of least weight even in the Testimony already mentioned as is above shewed and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings without so much as mentioning them Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned that Clement telleth us that the Apostles knowing per Dominum by Divine Revelation that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church so far were they saith Blondel from thinking Prelacy the best or only Remedie against Schism as some did in after ages He doth also shew how Clement teacheth that the Presbyters or Bishops for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons were set in the Church by the Apostles and after by other excellent men so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church not by the Bishop and Patron and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course need fear no Change And after sheweth how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth it had then stood as it is thought about 25 years should move Sedition against her Presbyters some turbulent Spirits among them withstood not a single Bishop of whom not a word in all this Discourse but the Presbyters of the Church and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters that were settled in it it seems he did not name the Bishop nor provided against Sedition against him because he knew no such person at Corinth And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters Now all this insisted on by Blondel he passeth by which was his wisdom and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath far less weight than these Passages have § 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp which is that writing to the Church of Philippi he taketh no notice of their Bishop that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons not mentioning the Bishop but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church His Answer to all this is first that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters while he saith Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself and answereth it fully and easily calling it nuda Conjectura and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself from his being the older man and the older Minister And being ordained by an Apostle which was a Dignity though it gave no Superiority of Power as being better known to the Philippians and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages where no Superiority of Power can be imported All this our Author passeth over in silence Next he saith this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie which is a mistake for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune which could not all be Diocesans and their Head the Bishop is not noticed and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative because as was above shewed of Clement he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned if such a person had been in that Church He will prove p. 51 that this can be no Argument for Parity Because first Irenâ—… refutes the Heresies of the Valentians from the unanimous Dâ—… preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp which could be no Argument if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters I ask him how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument Do not Ministers in any Church succeed one to another as well as Bishops And if they be faithful they will continue the true Doctrine and hand it down to their Successors as welâ— as Bishops would do Neither hath it any force that single Successon are mentioned for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie who is mentioned as more eminent though having but equal power If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine not by Episcopal power His other proâ—… is the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted of which our Author wâ—… speak in due time When he shall please to speak of Ignatius we shâ—… consider what he saith and hope to find that all the proof he caâ—… thence bring is insufficient Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book Ergo he approveth all that is in it 〈◊〉 he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles in that they assâ—… Prelacy that had been to the purpose otherways his Inference 〈◊〉 without all force § 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas in his Book calleâ— Pastor on whom he layeth very little stress as is evident to any whâ—… will read Blondel without prejudice and I think Blondel needed not 〈◊〉 have mentioned him both because he is of little Authority it beiâ—… most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book whether 〈◊〉 mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct witâ— respect to Hermas 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences froâ— him that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book wâ—… written which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circulâ—… Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement then Bishop 〈◊〉 Rome Answer This Evidence and the
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church or it is wholly insignificant 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary for the Evangelical AEconomie is first said without Book he used his Libertie nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern Next the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church as he could do of the Jewish Church 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons the Servants of the Church were inferior to Presbyters the Rulers of it and this he setteth forth by the Similitude not binding Pattern of the Levites being inferior to the Priests whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were and the Deacons what the Levites were but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters whom he had been proving to be the same and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons 5. If he can shew us that any 〈◊〉 the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish to a Christian Hierarchie 〈◊〉 to infer that they should be alike or that they infer any more from 〈◊〉 than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers we shall consider what they say § 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome he taketh notice p 74 75. That Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius in which the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters is frequently and plainly expressed And after when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval after the Apostles in which the Church was governed by 〈◊〉 Parity of Presbyters This is a strange way of reasoning Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles Ergo though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine All that Jerome saith is that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians another to the Magnesians c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote and that Jerome mentioneth or that they are not vitiated 〈◊〉 will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles whether they be spurious or legitimate whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr or by an other of that Name long after but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is in them frequently and plainly expressed When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done we shall consider them He bringeth another Evidence as he thinketh of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat 23. Quod fecerunt Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos Presbyteros ordinantes I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse of what he designed by that Expression but the words contain no Argument for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same Jerome might well say in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers whom we now distinguish by these Names What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason that this Constitution setting Bishops over Presbyters followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church because Jerome in Epistola â—…d Titum saith priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putaâ—…it esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony he must assert that Paul Apollos and Cephas 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs not Christs and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth which I hope he will not say It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men and after that Schism Bishops were set up which no man will say was in the Apostles time He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy p. 78 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places by the Apostles themselves The Answer is plain and easie the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches that â—…s Ministers who were to teach and rule them but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters â—…s the question and is not determined by this Argument § 12. He next citeth Jerome Epistola ad Nepotium Esto subjectus pontifici â—…o quasi animae parentem suscipe quod Aaron silios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse neverimus This Citation is lame between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth there is besides other things this Passage sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse non Dominos honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos Ut ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis honâ—… deferatur scitum est illud oratoris Domitii cur ego inquit te habeâ—… ut Principem cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem Then followeth quâ—… Aaron c. And he addeth unus Deus unum Templum unum etiam 〈◊〉 Ministerium and he citeth to this purpose 1 Pet. 5 2 3. and addeth pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time and not of what was the Apostles practice or what was Divine Institution and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose for our present Debate is whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution Next it is also manifest that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were theâ—… aspiring to not approving the way of that time We deny not the in that Age the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
the same Office in the Church and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose if one had the Empire of the whole World and lost that and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom I think his Office is not what it was Beside if we should yield all that he here alledges it were no loss to our cause for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle but that complexly and in conjunction with others as is above shewed Another Consideration that he hath is the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection but some travelled further than others yet this did not change their rectoral Power or Jurisdiction no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power to narrower Limites make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church the Rules of Order and the multitude of Converts which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence I reply to this 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by and it is observable how naturally and frequently this learned Author and some others of his Gang do shew their Byass to that side If nothing but Order and Circumstances and not Divine Institution do confine Bishops to their Sees whether larger or less extended and every one of them have actu primo as may be deduced from this Doctrine universal Jurisdiction why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them and the rest be subject to him Some think that this belongeth to good Order though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo to the Universal Church yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ as every Apostle had they have not that Commission go teach all Nations this was the peculiar work of Apostles to travel and plant Churches the work of Bishops if such an Office be in the Church is to stay at home and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these the World was the Province of each of them though by mutual Consent or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost who guided their Motions as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7 9 10. they went into several places of the World yet so as they observed not that Division very critically for we find them meeting sometimes and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence and Agreement of them among themselves alone but it is Gods Appointment though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular be a work of men for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church but he hath set them over their particular Flocks Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them and must give account of them and not of the Souls in all Churches § 8. His Notion p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot I know is to be found in Eusebius Dorotheas and Nicephorus and some others of the Ancients and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them as this Author doth neither shall I be at pains to disprove it it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet Iren p. 232. seq by eight Arguments that this Author will not easily answer and particularly he sheweth that Acts 1. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth p. 103. Another thing I observe is p. 104. that he saith neither the Apostles nor their immediat Successors were so confined to particular Sees but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole as far as was possible and as Christian charity did require or allow notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches and by their Travels and he concludeth that the confinement to a particular See doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood but from the Rules of Prudence Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and canonical Constitutions I first take notice that this is still beside the Purpose for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ We say that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church there are other things wherein they differ as hath been shewed 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another is denyed and he can never prove it The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited It is true some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem but that is with respect to his Residence not to the confinement of his Authority he was determined to stay there as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World not in Pilgrimage but on many other Occasions that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church Euseb lib 2. c 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus say he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem but this they take out of Egesippus as themselves confess a most Fabulous Writer and both of them relate out of him several things concerning the same James that all do look on as idle Dreams 3. It is also without warrant that he asserteth that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees more than the Apostles were If he understand of the Evangelists we shall debate the case afterward If of ordinary Pastors of the Church I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches which were not furnished with Pastors or otherways had need of their help so do Ministers at this day and ought to do and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles or their Travels which he mentioneth but that they had universal Jurisdiction as every one of the Apostles had we deny and he hath brought no Proof of it 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood if one Pastor could feed Christs Flock more were
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
even in this matter Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion wherein we either please God or sin against him on such a Sandy Foundation Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro in the Church of Antiochia lib. 3. ad Autolycum near the beginning he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods and hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not do as it were beat the Air his work is to be found Biblioth Patr. T. 2. This Passage is p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles is defective dark and uncertain This is not only found now at this distance of time but it was early complained of by Eusebius who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things than we have lib. 3. C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how many and what sincere Followers or Successors have Governed the Churches planted by the Apostles it cannot be confirmed but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church on Scripture and not on the Fathers And in his Preface to his History he telleth us he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way having only some small Tokens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and there as it were Also that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer who unto this day and it was the Interval of three hundred years have in this behalf he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops imployed any Diligence Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this or any other Writer concerning these times that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium quo tracts Quadratus Ignatius florebant plane cum Varrone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari potest is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit praeter admodum pauca quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant Swetonius Tacitus Plinius quem hiatu◠ut expleret Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clementis nescio cujus non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippi non melioris scriptoris sine delectu ea deprompsit Tilenus no Friend to Presbytery saith full as much he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times and that a fine actorum Apostolorum ad Trajani tempora nihil habemus certi Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House § 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself and all others beside the Prophets and Apostles from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion not exempting that about Church Government This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct for the same Arguments that our Author and his Complices use in this Debate they improve in the other Controversies and with the same advantage For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the one case it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined to which I shall now add August lib. 2. contr Manichae of the Scriptures he saith 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed aut codex mendosus est aut interpres erravit aut tu non intelligis In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas longe tamen est impar authoritas Jerom is much and often in this strain Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr Scio me aliter habere Apostolos aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror quo modo Tertull. Novatum Arnob. nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos ut bona eorum eligamus evitemusque contraria juxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est eligite The same he saith also of his own Writings in Hab. Zech. Si quis melius imo verius dixerit nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus Ambros. de incarnatione C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur non ego dico a me quia in principio erat verbum sed audio non ego affingo sed lego c. Cyril Hierosol Cat. 12. Meis commentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non attende possis enim forte decipi sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis c. Yea the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please and teach in general that they are not always to be followed as Dally and Turretin shew out of Cajeton Canus Maldonate Petavius and Baronius who often reprehendeth the Fathers even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact and doth not this very Author so far forget himself as to say that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age p. 73. as I above observed and if Jerom did mistake why might not the rest also the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward de Causa Dei lib. 2. C. 3. corroll p. 601 602. is consonant to what I have said He sheweth that the Fathers did often seem at least to favour Hereticks particularly Pelagius and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
in Election of Principles and Rectors and in Auditing Colledge Accompts Ans. If this Argument had any Force it would prove that Apostles immediatlie sent by Christ must continue as long as Churches and Ministers because they were imployed to Erect the one and Ordain the other Yea he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance but that they were to Visit Churches and plant Ministers and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done and so they should for ever shut out in the Design of our Reformers not only Presbyteries but the Diocesan Bishops they were to do that Work in the present Exigence it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done § 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church It is taken from some Passages in Knox and the old Scots Liturgy about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents 1. The Necessity of them is asserted which I have answered before Next The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful not saith our Author so long as the present Exigence requireth The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution as well as the other he is said to be called of God and owned as a Minister of Christ they who will not submit to him are said to rebel against God and his Holy Ordinance In the Prayer after his â—…stallment is this Petition send unto this our Brother whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian c. Thus saith our Author our Reformers lookt on Superintendency whâ—… they composed this Form Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth to which he Knox p. 289. prefixeth this Inscription The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers at Edinburgh March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher also because in the Prayer Lothidn is mentioned which could not be in a general Form This Method John Knox at that time used It iâ— like it was usual to proceed in this Method to use these or the like Questions to Pray to that Purpose and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church it neither helpeth his Cause much nor hurteth ours 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery but it was an Application or Modification of the Ministerial Worâ— which at that time was necessary He will not say that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration beside that which maked him a Minister which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter 3. My main Answer is the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry whither he be to be a Superintendent or not and thâ—… it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversaâ—… layeth hold on in this Form of Election may fairly be understood witâ—… respect to the Persons Ministery to this Ministery he is called of Goâ—… with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ it is that which is called Gâ—… Holy Ordinance it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name anâ—… indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted goâ—… the Chief Charge of to be their Pastor Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance but whither it be such an Ordinance that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church which that present Exigence did force them upon by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution and a Superintendent too so far as that Office includeth the Ministry but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office it was of Man and not of God § 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument p. 150. which according to his wont of using the highest Confidence and biggest Words when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest he calleth Irrefragable It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them others for Increasing their Number and Placing them where none were before and that when the Church was of four years standing and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased One Petitioned that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed and that Superintendents Ministers and other needful Members should be Planted in their Places Whence he very wisely inferreth that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops This is mentioned by Spotswood but by none else as himself observeth Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing or all that he hath said but that the Churches found the necessity which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents not to be over in four years nor wholly in fourteen years though Qualified Men Increased yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church I look on the Increasing of their Number which must be a Lessening of their Districts not as tending to perpetuate them but on the contrary it was a reducing them by Degrees to the State of other Ministers by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes and so at last to one That they were needful Members of the Church at that time I doubt not but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops is a wild Fancy that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been and were to be Maintained by their Revenues He concludeth this head as is usual with him with Confident Rehearsing what he hath made evident The Judicious will judge
taxeth some who count Fornication indifferent and contend about Holy Days as it were for Life and Death they despise the Commands of God and establish Canons of their own I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers and the Protestant Church of Scotland in her first State and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth p. 264 265. libro primo disciplinae cap. 1. Censetur Festa Nativitatis Circumcisionis Epiphaniae c. Apostolorum Martyrum B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur rogandus itaque Magistratus ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur excepto Articulo de diebus Festis porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae licet Festa illa celebrent a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant evidenter colligitur omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit quod Pastores quidam Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse Deo sacrum Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet nam inquit colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis Paschatis qua autem authoritate id faciant ipsi viderint This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition and we desire the like Forbearance from others if we cannot use them for which I shall now give some Reasons before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject § 4. Our first Reason is these Days were not instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor did they injoyn them to be instituted nor give Power or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward Ergo there is no sufficient Warrant for them And it cannot be rationally accounted for that either the Church should impose in the Matter of Religion especially or People should be obliged to submit to what hath no sufficient Warrant That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles is beyond doubt our Adversaries do not pretend that they were for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought and if it could be made appear the Case were changed for then they were not the Days that we Debate about That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution we must believe unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture or sufficient Consequence from Scripture or strong Reason if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact if it be Answered the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification and for Decency and Order and these Holy Days are such Ergo. I Reply it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace and of Edification and the Church must not devise new Means for that End but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient in the Way of outward Means And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing Beside that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual as is hinted Luke 16. 30 31. If Moses and the Prophets Gods Means cannot perswade one to believe the Preaching of one risen from the Dead a Mean that a Man contrived could not do it As for the Decency Order and Policy that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days these are a necessary or needless Decency c. If this last there can be no warrant for what may effect it if the first the former Argument recurreth that God by his own Institutions hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church Again if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary if it be alledged that the Holy Days are thus necessary either they must instruct this and shew us that Scripture or Nature hath made them necessary and that the Ordinances of God are undecent disorderly c. without them or the Church doth so determine because she will and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God If it be further Answered that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days as for appointing occasional Fasts or Thanksgivings Reply Not so For the Lord himself by his Providence calleth to these Exercises to be Solemnly gone about on such Occasions but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday in this Week or the next here is a Circumstance of Time which must be determined by Men Nature it self maketh it necessary supposing the Providential Call of God to the Work on that Occasion it is not so with the Holy Days there is no special Providence occurrent which calleth to these Solemnities at one time more than at another Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church and not of the other also Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture for all Times Places and Occurrences without Swelling it to a Huge and Burdensome and less Useful Bulk the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible it is actually done in the Old Testament and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament § 5. Our second Argument Either the Apostles had Warrant from God to institute these Days or not if they had not how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church who came after them had such Power granted by God Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous and Absurd Height yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say that the Bishops in that do what the
Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All
sayeth Eccles. Polic. lib. 7. 3. 69. that GOD'S Extraordinarie Works have Sanctified some times Advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD more Holy than other times and afterward as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Presence Sanctifies some Places so His Extroordinarie Works Sanctifie some times from this the Author of Dâ—â—f of Vind. inferred justly that the Church in chusing another Day acteth Arbitrarily and unwarrantably and Absurdly neglecting the â—ay so Sanctified It was also told him that it is a probable Argument at least that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Observed on account of CHRIST'S Birth seing He hath concealed from us what Day it was that CHRIST was Born especially seing He hath Instituted the observation of the Day of Christ's Resurrection viz. the Weekly Sabbath He hath told that it was the First Day of the Week all this my Adversarie hath overlookt as either not worthy of his Notice or as easily Answered I look on his Citation out of Austine as not to this Purpose when he sayeth nos Dominicam diem Pascha Coelebramuâ— alias dierum celebritates sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora observamus sed quae illis Significantur temporibus this indeed Proveth that Augustin thought that these were not to be Observed for themselves but for the Mysteries that were Commemorated on them but it no way evinceth that he thought there was no need of chusing the Days themselves on which the thingsCommemorated were Acted but one Day of the Year might be as fit as another as the Church should Determine § 22. It is unreasonable to put it on us to disprove that Christ was born Dec. 25. as he doth p. 192. For that we cannot do so well as by fixing on some other Day and proving that to be the Day of the Nativity which we pretend to be uncertain it rather is his part to prove who affirmeth that our Lord was born on that Day And yet if it were needful for our Cause probable Arguments might be brought whicâ— may incline us rather to think that he was born at another Season of the Year some of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity was in September or in October But whatever may be the Concernment of our Adversaries it is no Concernment to us what was the Day it is enough to us that the Mystery it self is firm and sure The Reader may find this Question about the Day and Moneth of the Nativity Learnedly handled by our Countrey Man Master Bailly operis historici Chronologici lib. 2. quaes 7. p. 42. seq where he concludeth with Spanhemius Mensem Diem Natalitium a nemine determinari debere nec posse cum de iis Scripturae silent nec quicquam certi primis Ecclesiae Christianae seculis a quopiam prolatum sit He had been charged by the Author of Def. of Vind. with Shuâ—â—ling in that he had pleaded God's Appointment for Holy Days because God hath appointed that we should obey the Apostles and their Successors as our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers because though we are to obey the Apostles whom we know to have been Infaâ—â—ibly Guided we are not to obey their Successors real or pretended further than they bring Divine Warrant which cannot be shewed for Holy Days He endeavoureth to clear himselâ— from Shuffling by telling us that there was no more meant than that the â—hurch may by that Power which is perpetually lodged in her Regulate the Publick Solemnitieâ— of Worship and when she enjoyneth nothing but what is lawful we ought to obey Here is Shuffling to Excuse his former Shuffling he is entangled by Wrestling to Extricat himself For he supposeth the whole Question that there is a Power perpetually lodged in the Church to appoint Holy Days otherwise he saith nothing to the purpose Again he supposeth that appointing of Holy Days is as much in the Churches Power as other Regulating of Publick Solemnities whereas he should have considered if he would have Explained and not Confounded and Darkened the Matter that there is a Regulating of Publick Solemnities which lyeth in determining Circumstances which must be determined and yet are not determined in Scripture such as the Time Place and Order of these Religious Actions that the Lord hath appointed his Day to be spent in there is another Regulating which is adding to what the Lord hath appointed more Days to his Day new Religious Ceremonies to these which are of Divine Institution or determining Circumstances which neither are determined by God nor need to be deterned such as are more Holy Days than Christ hath appointed the Churches Power about the first sort we do not controvert her Power about the second is the Subject of our Question and here he either supposeth the Question viz. That the Church had such Power or he saith nothing to the purpose Yet further when he speaketh indistinctly of Apostolick Power and that of their Successors as to this Regulation if he mean no more than such Regulation as is always in the Churches Power he giveth the Successors of the Apostles the same Regulating Power that themselves had the Consequence of which is that their Successors I suppose he meaneth the Bishops may institute new Offices new Government new Discipline and all other Ordinances in the Church as the Apostles might which is full as high as the Papists Screw up the Power of the Church and is indeed to make the Bishops absolute Lords over God's Inheritance And this he confirmeth by telling us that the Apostles made Constitutions that were laid aside by their Successors and other Usages came in their Room but because he saw this lyable to Exception he distinguisheth betwixt greater Usages that are variable unless they are equally subservient to the great Ends of Discipline in all Ages and Countries nisi consuetudine Ecclesiae universae sint roboratae and lesser Usages whose Continuance and Abrogation may depend on the Convenience of particular Churches and he giveth an Instance in the Deaconesses which he saith are not in the Presbyterian Meetings nor any Reformed Churches If he would have Extricated himself from the Shuffling that was imputed to him he should have given us some Rules or Characters by which we might discern what Constitutions of the Apostles are to be accounted Great and Unalterable and what Small and Changeable by their Successors if Marches be not clearly Rid here we are at a Woful Uncertainty yea bold Men may dare to meddle with Episcopacy it self and pretend that it is one of the lesser Apostolical Constitutions if they did at all appoint it The Marks that he hath given us are very insufficient their universal Subservience to the Ends of Discipline will be as much controverted as whither they be great Constitutions or not he saith Bishops and Holy Days are such we deny it and will Debate it with him and so we are still in
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
Contentions of Priests and Bishops Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author p. 27. maketh an Observation that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord in Solâ— vero Ecclesia Dei pro qua Christus est mortuus in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde opulenter â—ffudit maximum dissidium vehementem multorum tum inter ipsos tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obsâ—rvari quod horrendissimum est ipsos Ecclesiae prâ—sides in tanto Animi Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare gregem ipsius absque ullâ— commiseratione perturbare ut ipsis nunc si unquam prodeuntibuâ— florentibus iniquis impleatur illud Apostoli ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes ut abstraâ—ant post se discipulos The Learned Owen of Apostacie p. 500. observeth that the Scandaloâ—â— Divisions among Christians especially among their Leaders was the first â—tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen § 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality whether it were Injunctions Reproofs or Censures The Breach of this Unitie was when any one or moe of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said much more when they did that by themselves which should have been done by the whole as when Foelicissimus and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage absolved some of the Lapsed neglecting Cyprian the Bishop or Praeses and the Body of the Presbyters which Cyprian did Highly and Justly Resent Or when they or any of the People refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth I insist no further on it for it is the same Thing as to Church Unity whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop if that be the right Government of the Church or against the Synod Presbyterie Classical or Congregational if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed Yea it is the same Breach of Unity to set up another Bishop beside the true Bishop of the Church or a new Synod or Presbyterie beside these which one was before a Member of or Subject to yea or to gather a Church and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish beside what was orderly there settled Wherfore the last sort of Unity or Schism is that which belongeth to a particular Congregational Church This Unity if we take Schiâ—m in a large Sense is broken by Diversitie either of Opinions or Affections among the Members of the Church when they Disagreee and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion At Corinth there was such a Schism they came together and yet the Apostle saith there were Divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them But Schisms in the Church were of old and now are taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion either by withdrawing only or by setting up another Religious Society also This the Fathers Expressed sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop or withdrawing from him that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie So it is sometimes Expressed by them but even when the Presbyterie or Church is not named it is so to be understood and the Bishop is so often Named because he was in these times the constant Praeses of their Meetings and even this Praelation though without sole Jurisdiction into which it did at last Issue began early to be too much taken Notice of as I have more fully shewed else-where § 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often yea ordinarilie thus understood by the Ancients Next that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism but allowed it to be done in some Cases and for some Causes For the former Cyprian in many Places condemneth this as Schism Ep. 40. § 4. Edit 1593. Deus unus est Christus unus una Ecclesia Catâ—edra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata aliud Altare constitui aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum Altare unum Sacerdotium non potest Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterium est impium est quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur ut Dispositio Divina violetur Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church also Ep. 55. § 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata quam unde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him and the Church What he saith of one Priest and one Judge cannot be meant that the Presbyters were no Priests for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar likewise Ep. 64. § 4. Hâ— sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra Pacem Christi Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought Ep. 69. § 7. he calleth the Church Plebs Sacerdoti unita Pastori suo Grex adhaerens and Ep. 38. § 1. saith of Schismaticks â—um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere id est a Pastore oves Filios a Parente separare Christi Membra dissipare And de Unitate Eccles. § 10. he saith of them Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt so also Ignat. ad Mag nes p. 32. Edit Vossii quarto 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conveened not firmly that is it would not hold in Law according to the Command and Ep. ad Smyrn p. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth any thing viz. in Religious Matters without the Knowledge of the Bishop that is in a Parish without the Pastor or in a Presbyterie without them orderlie met with their Praeses he serveth the Devil The second thing above-mentioned is to shew that there were some Causes for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop or the Church that they were Members of I find but three expressie mentioned 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith as in
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
parting Blow to the Ordination of the later 〈◊〉 Presbyterians which he saith p. 277. is left naked and destitute of all such Arguments as might excuse the Ordination of other Forreign Churches And he doth more than insinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination His Arguments so far as I can pick them out of his Discourse are 1. They were under no necessity to separate from their Bishops in the Isle of Britain A. 1. Want of Bishops might be the same Excuse for the want of Episcopal Ordination that it was to other Protestant Churches for whom he pleadeth it they might have had Bishops if they would in France Geneva Switzerland c. as well as we might 2. The Necessity lay in this that we thought and still must think till he or some else instruct us better that Bishops ought not to be in the Church 3. He speaketh of separating from our Bishops in the Isle of Britain that plainly insinuateth that not only the Bishops in the Church of Scotland are ours but the Bishops of England also and that we are under their Jurisdiction as some of them have pleaded this from a Minister of the Church of Scotland is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependeth on for his Bread 3. If Ministers in Scotland have no Ordination because in want of Bishops among themselves they went not to the English Bishops for Ordination why is not the same Defectiveness imputed to these in France who might have come over to England for the same End But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation and therefore any Weapon that cometh to Hand must be used to beat them down Before I leave this Point I shall make it evident that the other Reformed who are without Bishops can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath 1. Because they might have had Bishops to rule them for what could hinder them their Magistrats did not for they are of Opinion with themselves except in France where the Popish Magistrats did not nor would oppose that piece of Conformity with themselves Yea Thuan. blameth the Protestants for not setting up Bishops the Primitive Church under Heathen Magistrats had Bishops in our Authors Opinion and we think they wanted no needful Church Officer even in that State 2. It is plain that the Reformed were against Episcopacy as no Ordinance of Christ as I have shewed and it is evident from Confession of the French Church Art 30. and of the Belgick Art 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort was not disliked by any of the Externi save these from England § 11. His second Argument that the Scots Presbyterians have no Ordination is It is very uncertain whether they retain such Solemn and Formal Words when they impose Hands as expresly declare that the Priestly Power of Administrating Sacraments and Absolving Poenitents is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained If there be no such Conveyance there is no Ordination and if the Words made use of doth not plainly and formally signifie such a Power then there is no such Power Conveyed A. This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point For such Words may really be used tho both he and I be uncertain whether they were used or not Again how can he prove the necessity of such Words what if Words be made use of which do really and materially signifie the thing designed tho they do it not formally and plainly He is the first that I have met with who layeth so much weight on the Form of Words It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions Against it I thus argue 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture which must needs have been if the Nullity of Ordination and consequently of the Ordinances Administred by such Ministers had been the necessary Consequent of Words not sufficiently formal and plain What a sad Uncertainty and Confusion should follow on this Necessity of such Words not unlike that which in the Popish Church followeth on the Opinion of the Necessity of the Priests Intention in his Administrations 1. Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apostles used when they Ordained Ministers how plain and formal they were if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination it will by good Consequence make void all the Ordinations of the Apostolick Church I am sure he can give us no Account of their Words from any Authentick Records 3. In the Administration of Baptism no Church that I know of useth Formal and plain Words that express either Admission into the Church or Communication of Christian Priviledges or Covenanting with GOD or our Renouncing the Devil c. I am sure I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father c. are not Formal plain Words to express these Things tho I doubt not but that they Include them all and if Baptism be valid without such a Form of Words why not Ordination also He says p. 278. that there are many of their Number in the West who think Imposition of Hands unnecessarie I suppose he hath no Personal knowledge of this and he should be sure of his Informers before he cast such a Reproach on his Brethren for my part I know no Minister in Scotland West East South or North who professeth that Opinion tho mean while I can tell him of others who are not far from it even the Church of France in their Synod at Paris 1565. C. 6. Quick Synod p. 62. but I far rather agree with Mr. Firmin who hath Written a Treatise to prove the Necessity of it He inferreth likewise p. 279. from what he had Discoursed that we have no Organical Church We are not afraid of his Censures we can Prove not only that we have the Essentials of Ordination but that for the Manner of it it is nearer to the Gospel Pattern than what is Practised in that Church which he owneth I find him to be of the same Sentiments with that Bishop in England that was mentioned to him who said of a Presbyterian Minister that he was no better than a Mechanick tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts and had Presbyterial Ordination It is strange that he should Insinuate that we derive our Power from the People he cannot but know that we Disown that Principle but Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit he hopeth that some will believe what ever evil he saith of us § 12. His next Controversie is about the Presbyterian Church Discipline which he had most Abusivly and falsly Reproached Apolog. p. 22 23. and was Checkt for so doing by a Modest Answer Def. Vindic. p. 17 In which that which is most Material he wholly passeth over bringing some what like an Answer to Two or Three Things It was asked what is that Discipline of the Antient Church which he wisheth were Restored which is not either the same with ours or far more strict and
That is so true that none is wise enough for it as the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 2. 6. And if so who is fit to Compose a Liturgie for others which all Men must be tyed to On this Consideration the Church ought to chuse the fitest Men she can get and when that is done both the weaker and stronger Sort should beware of leaning to their own Wit and Parts in that Great Work and should take the Word of GOD for their Directorie and Depend on the Spirit of GOD for His assistence and this is a better Remedy of the Evil feared than a stiâ—ted Liturgy is and hath more Countenance in the Scripture Rom. 8. 26. Another Argument Though a Minister should be very Wise yet at all times he is not in the same Temper and it is not reasonable that the Worship of GOD should be less decent when his Intellectuals are clouded than when he is in perfect health A. 1. If this Argument have any strength we must have a Form of Preaching as well as of Prayer and always tyed to it for a Disordered mind may make sad work there 2. Some have been out of Temper for Reading the Service as well as for Extemporary Prayer when their Brain hath been clouded and this hath as often hapened in the Reading Pue as in the Presbyterian Pulpit Wherefore we must have another Remedy against it in both than a Liturgie 3. I confess a lesser Degree of decency in the Worship of GOD than should be or hath been is never reasonable but how can it be prevented either in Praying Preaching or Reading as long as the Temper both of Mens Bodies and of their Minds are variable 4. If a Mans Intellectuals be at any time so clouded whether by a Hypochondriack Distemper or by Drinking too liberally or by any other Sickness as that it is probable to make the Worship of GOD to be unduely Managed that Man what ever have been his Wisdom or Abilities should not be suffered to Officiate at that time whether with or without the Book I am sure there was never any Church Ancient or Modern which appointed a Liturgie for such Men noâ— to countenance the Putting or Keeping such in the Sacred Fuâ—ction 5. There is another Cause of Worship being better or worse Managed at diverse times which our Author hath not thought on nor will his Liturgie serve for a Remedie of it that is the better or worse Frame of his Soul with respect to Heavenly things and the Degrees of the Presence and Aids of the Spirit of GOD therefore however unreasonable it be yet it is manifest that there is not the same measure of Decency and Spiritual Luster on the Worship of GOD at all times nor can there be a Remedie for this till we be better Men nor even then if the LORD for His own Holy ends withdraw his presence I know this will be slouted by some but the Apostle himself had his unusual Inlargements 2 Cor. 5. 11. and found it needful that the People should Pray for assistence to him Col. 4. 3. § 16. He bringeth yet another Reason the spiritual necessities of the People ought at all times to be â—qually Provided for A. 1. That is impossible for Man to do unless we can find unchangeable Men to be Ministers It is fair if they be always well and sometimes if they be tollerablly provided for 2. This is the improperest Reason that he could have fallen upon for it cutteth the Throat of his Cause because the Spiritul Necessities of the People are very various diverse People have diverse Necessities and the same Persons Needs may be far other or greater at one time than at another they know little of the Spiritual state of Souls who know not this now a â—â—intâ—d Liturgie can never reach these half so well as a Minister may do who hath the Gift of Prayer and who endeavoureth as much as may be to be acquainted with the Cases of the Peoples Souls Next he Pleadeth Uniformity for the use of a stinted Liturgie which is a weak Argument for Uniformity in Words and that is all that we can have by a Liturgie which can not be obtained without it is not so valuable If we all speak the same things what great Matters is it if they be exprest in diverse Words Again what Reason is there for the Necessity of Uniformity in Prayer more than in Preaching which yet our Brethren do not Enjoin That the Forms he mentioneth are the Tessera's if Uniformiâ—y is an absurd and groundless Assertion there was Uniformity in the Apostolick Church and is in our Churches without them If he deny this last let him shew what Dissormity is among us further than in Words which he cannot shew to be among his own Partie yea it is evident that such Discrepancie is in their Worship in one Church from another that he cannot Charge us with the like for the Cathedral Service and that in Countrey Churches are more unlike to one another than the Latter of them is to the Meetings of some Dissenters He next Argueth that a Lituâ—gie obviates Mens vâ—nting their own Conceits A. This is far more readily and frequently done in Preaching than in Prayer and therefore will either Prove that free Preaching without a Book should be Restrained or it Proveth nothing at all And indeed the way to prevent Inconveniency in both is not a Liturgie but to be careful that none but well Qualified Men be in the Ministry and Watchfully to look to the Administrations of them who are in that Office § 17. Our Author p. 295. seq Haleth in a Discourse by Head and â—ars without Occasion given or Coherence with what he was upon concerning Superstition wherein he taketh it for granted that his Way in all the Parts and Steps of it is right and ours wholly wrong and on this Begged Hypothesis he Declaimeth against the Presbyterians as the most Superstitious yea the most Atheistical Men in the World This is an easy Way of Running down any Adversary whatsoever Whether a Groundless Scrupulosity either in Matters of common Practice or in Matters of Worship be Superstition or not I know is controverted by some I shall not now enter into this Debate knowing that it issueth into a mere Logomachy Tho I think Superstition being a sort of false Worship or a Sin against the Worship of God in Strickness of Speech nothing should be called Superstition but that whereby People intend or pretend to Worship God Scruples about what is not Worship may be very Sinful because Unreasonable and Groundless and yet not be Worship nor Superstition If he can prove that our Scrupling the Holy Days Liturgy and Ceremonies is without all Ground and that these things are well Warranted and Approved of God and that there is no Sin in Using them we shall change our Opinion and submit to what Censure he shall put on us But while that is not done as I am sure it hath not
which are the Work of the Minister not of the Elder § 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it is that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted for it not only was the way of the Apostolick but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages as I have shewed Rational Def. of non conformity § 6. p. 197. c. and should now further have Debated it with him if he had insisted on it He misrepresenteth our Opinion while first he saith we maintain this Right to be unalterable whereas we think a People may lose it as to its present Exercise by their inhability or negligence and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church While 2dly He insinuateth p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People without due Restrictions and Limitations We think the People in this as in all their other Religious concernments are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery Congregational or Classical Instead of Arguing against this Way he laboureth to cast Dirt on it which easily may be wiped off I have proved in the Place Cited that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent or Objecting against them but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe for the 36. Canon of the Apostles it is Mihi 37. which he Citeth not only we Reject it with the rest as not Authentick nor Probative but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office and Charge Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent as well as without theirs that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike either on the part of the Pastor or of the People after Ordination which should not excuse them from mutual Duties and so it is nothing to our purpose How popular Election would hinder Uniformity more than the Patrons Election doth iss hard to be understood That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals doth not always hold People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning and more Religion than themselves And if they be of such perverse Inclinations they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery What he saith of the scandalous effects of Popular Election I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions were far more visible frequent and horrid when Bishops were otherwise chosen there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops in the Later Primitive times after that Office was settled in the Church What are we concerned more than his own Party is in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another Is any Church accountable for either the Follies yea or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members further than to Rebuke or Censure them according to the degree of Offence given when they come to be known I know of no such Wagers laid among our People tho may be there is too much of being Puffed up for one against another as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive timeâ— is most absurd if he mean that a great regard was not had to it as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church if he mean that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians and no more lookt after it is false and injurious § 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one Pâ—esbyterian and which had been sufficiently wiped off but he is resolved not to be satisfied I am wholly indifferent whether he be or not And yet this Charge he only mentioneth and therefore I shall not insist on it neither but it seems this was but Introductory to what he intended which is he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops I have abundantly Cleared this Matter and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius in 3d. Sect. of this Work § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh He telleth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisiâ—â—h properly to help one that is ready to fall this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith and higher in Authority of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop the Praeses A most ridiculous way of Arguing For 1. It supposeth the Question that Bishop or the Praesides Presbyterii are higher in Authority which we cannot yield 2. It can be far better applyed to Deacons who relieve them who are ready to Perish Next saith he Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of A. What Grotius saw I know not nor am concerned to know Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue that we must know these that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet may be might one say the Apostles by Baptism by casting out of the Church c. understood some other thing than we do at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek and we know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in that Language if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now he should have Proved it and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue he should have shewed it and not thought us so â—ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess built on a Possibility where he cannot shew so much as Probability His Advice hath been followed before it was given in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design He hath another Argument from the Context which yet is the same above-mentioned and Answered that the Apostle having in the preceeding v. he should have said in the same v. distinguished the several Offices c. that were then
most Observable in the Apostolick Church I suppose that the helping such as were ready to fall did most properly belong to the Spiritual Governours This is above answered and it is not one whit stronger by being said over again Further he Asserteth but hath not shewed us how the Context leadeth to this Interpretation his supposing it to be most proper to the several guids to help them that fall doth not prove his design unless he could shew that there was an Officer in the Church who had his Designation from thus helping People and when he hath done that he must shew that this is peculiar to the Bishop and that no other Church Officer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from helping them who are ready to fall That Grotius telleth us that the Antient Greeks interpreted the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a wronging of Grotius who saith not Graeci veteres but Graeci complures and it is nothing to his purpose for Grotius saying it doth not prove it neiâ—her doth Grotius cite any of the Graeci complures Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiae I can not get at present but if he say what our Author alledges his sole Authority must not carry it against all others who have written Lexicons Hamond on the Place Expoundeth it of Bishops not on Account of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Governing Power but because they had the Care of the Poor and the Dispensing of the Goods of the Church as I shewed in the Place above Cited of this Book Which if it were granted would make nothing for Episcopal Jurisdiction We maintain that the Deacons are here meant and if the Bishops be Deacons let them have this Place in the List of Church Officers For they had no Room in it before nor on the Score of Jurisdiction over other Church Officers I do not derogate from Grotius his Knowledge of the Signification of Words nor of his Ability to have Written a Lexicon but I do not look on him as beyond a Possibility of Mistake even in that wherein he excelled And indeed he speaketh very doubtfully of this Matter as his Words Cited by my Antagonist do shew nor doth he positively say that the Bishops are meant by this Word Another Proof of the Signification of the Word is from Ps. 48. 3. where the seventy use it to signifie the Lords helping his People what is this to the Purpose the Question is not whether this Word have the Notion of Help but whether it have the Notion of Government but our Author Mendeth the Matter making up by his Latine Translation what is not in the Greek for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie cum suscipiet cam nempe Civitatem in Tutelam why must it signifie this why may it not as well be turned cum opitulabitur illi Chrysost. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Munitionem Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Exaltationem None of all these signifie any thing of Government but of Defence or Support so that nothing in this Word agreeth half so well to the Bishops as to the Deacons Work I hope he will not think that because the Lord who is in this Psalm said to Help His People doth also Rule them that it hence followeth that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also a Ruler The same Import hath what he Citeth out of AEmilius Portus who from Suidas Translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propugnator Defensor Auxiliator For none of these Words import Government all that they signifie may be applyed better to the Deacon than to the Bishop I hope I have with the Current of â—xpositors offered a better Exposition of the Word we Debate about than Grotius hath Chosen and yet shall readily Comply with my Authors Advice in being far from Comparing my self with that great Man § 24. What he further saith of that Exposition of Jerom Quid facit Episcopus c. he hath often Repeated and it hath been as often Answered to which he had said something if he had shewed the Consistency of what I said could not agree but this he thinketh not â—it to Attempt only Entreats me to give a Paraphrase and Commentary on the Conclusion of that very Epistle of Jerom to Euagrius in which saith he Jerom affirmeth that the Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon was Founded on Apostolick Tradition and that they Hold the same Place in the Christian Church which the High Priest Priests and Levites had in the Temple For Satisfaction to this his Demand I refer him to Sect. 6. § 9 10. where what he Desireth is already Performed and it is shewed that Jerom meant no such thing as he alledgeth The hundred Things in my Book that he will not medle with and which he is pleased to call Triffling Stories or Personal Reflections must stand as they are let the Reader judge of what I have there said and of his Censure of it And yet he spendeth some Pages on a Story that he and I had formerly Debated which is of least Moment of any of them his Reason I shall not Enquire into nor do I intend to be any further Concerned in Jangle about Stories so variously told us as that is and which may be many Ways Disguised no part of which I was Witness to nor know any thing of but by Information For the Personal Reflections he chargeth me with he mentioneth but two I leave it to the Reader who shall think sit to Compare the two Books to Consider whether any thing is said of him but what to be Literally true himself had given Ground to think and they are Matters of Fact and of no great Moment save that they may derogate from the Strength of what he Writeth And let all Men of Candor and Understanding Witness between him and me whether in his Book now under Consideration and in his former Apology there be not many for one of mine of not only Personal Reflections on his Antagonist but Reflections on the whole Party without Distinction or Exception and that by Imputing to them the Worst of Evils and Treating them with the most Insolent Contempt that Words can express as I have here and there observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Reader may find presently after this his Complaint viz. 332 333 334. The Authority that the Presbyterâ—ans had over she Church of Scotland and consequently over the Episcopal Clergy I had Debated with him before I need say no more till he Answer what hath been already Discoursed on that Head What he saith p. 332. of his Resolution not to continue this Debate if not managed by greater Candor and Civility I do much approve if he will put that Condition on himself too If he or any else Write in his Strain yea if they bring not somewhat that is not yet Answered and is of Weight I think our Side will not Trouble them with more Arguings on this Head of Government there is enough said if Men will Listen to Argument if they will not what is said is too much For my Part I am weary of such Altercations and shall not be easily drawn into this Paper War any more thâ— I am Resolved by the Help of God never to Abandon the right Way of God nor to withdraw my Poor Help from the Truth and Oâ—dinances of Christ when it shall be needed and I shall be in any Capacity to aâ—â—ord â—t FINIS