subject to them This did very much compense the defects of other Church-men who though not so well qualified to govern yet being willing to obey and able to follow Directions they might by that means become very useful in the Gospel Now there are two things that must be annexed to that superiour inspection without which we cannot imagine that it could be managed or have force the one is that all to be ordained should receive their orders from such Bishops Otherwise obedience could not be expected from them nor could the superiour be any way accountable for them if he did not convey their Authority to them It was also necessary that in all matters of indifference the superiour Governour or Bishop must be looked on as having Authority to rule and command and so the inferiour judge himself bound to obey And indeed if in those days of persecution when the Church had no assistance but all possible opposition from the civil powers there had not been very positive rules of obedience and order left by the Apostles it had not been possible for them to have been kept in any order or under any Government But the rules of superiority and subjection were without doubt formally left by the Apostles Thence it was that the whole Precinct of a Bishop's charge was called his Parish in which he had the care of Souls and for his assistance did chuse out and ordain some of the more eminent and ancient Christians to assist him in teaching the flock and administring Sacraments who were in all things directed by him and upon his death one of these was presented by the Election of the Clergy and people to the superiour Bishop of the Province who did ordain him Now though the writings of the first Ages are for the greater part lost yet there are abundant evidences to shew this Authority was set up by the Apostles I need not take pains to prove it against this Authour for he acknowledges it But because some may perhaps read this Letter that have not studied this point in the larger and more learned works of the Asserters of this order I shall say as much on this subject as I think may very justly and reasonably satisfie any Man and shall wave St. Ignatius his Epistles though the Authority of those is made good with the astonishing labours of the Incomparably Learned Bishop of Chester But being to give a short hint of the uncontested authorities that may be brought to prove this I shall begin with Ireneus to whom we may very well give credit in a matter of Fact he knew St. Polycarp and was instructed by him and he tells us that He was constituted by the Apostles Bishop in the Church of Smyrna So that we find from him that St. Polycarp was ordained by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna Now that great Saint and Martyr must have taken his Notion of a Bishop from no other original but that which he saw in his first Instructor and yet we clearly see he judged the Bishop was more than the President for he reckoning the Tradition of the Faith counts it by the Bishops that had been in Rome from the Apostles days from whence it appears he considered them as the chief depositaries of the Faith And in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he condemned his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for observing Easter on the 14. day of the Moon he lays the whole blame of it upon Victor though Damasus tells us it was done upon a Consultation Victor held about it with his Presbyters and Deacons Now the blame was not to be laid on Victor if it had not been the received practice of the Church at that time for the Bishops to have the jurisdiction chiefly in their hands So that we clearly see what Ireneus understood a Bishop to be and if that had not been consonant to what he knew in St. Polycarp who had instructed him we cannot in reason imagine he would have consented to such a tyrannical excess of power Tertullian reckons the Origine of the Bishop's power from the Apostles from whom they derived their succession The same Writer also tells us that neither Priests nor Deacons had right to baptize but upon a power from the Bishop He also says they received the Sacrament from no hands but their Presidents or Bishops Firmilian that was St. Cyprian's contemporary tells us the Bishops whom he there calls Majores natu and from the other parts of that Epistle it is plain he means Bishops did preside in the Church and had the power of Baptizing Confirming and ordaining and even Ierome himself tells us that neither Priest nor Deacon had a right to Baptize without the Bishop's command And St. Denis of Alexandria who was undisputed one of the greatest Persons in his Age in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome tells him that upon the difficulty was raised how to deal with those that died before they had compleated their penitence He had given a command that the peace of the Church should be given them Where it is clear the Authority of commanding and not only presiding rested with the Bishop And in fine when the Christian Church came out of the fire of persecution she decreed in the Council of Nice that the ancient Customes should be in force concerning the power of Metropolitans and Patriarchs we must acknowledge there were many very ancient men in that Council so that they who were within 200. years of the Apostolick time and among whom we may reckon many that were 80. years of Age or near it could not esteem any thing Ancient that had not been derived from the Apostolical institution I shall not insist on any thing that was decreed afterwards where we may suspect power and cunning might have gone a great way to have east the Church into such a mould as might best agree with the constitutions of the Empire There might be also other Political reasons to have made the Bishops after that time aspire to Power and Precedence But I have only vouched the Writers of the former Ages witnesses in a matter of Fact wherein we have no just cause to suspect them to depose to us what was the successive Government of the Church from the Apostles days Upon all which I desire that you and every honest man will in your Consciences consider a few particulars 1. Whatever we find generally received in those Ages about a thing that was visible and in which none could mistake we may safely think it came from the Apostles days We may indeed imagine that when some of the Apostles to gain upon the Jews did observe the Christian Easter on the 14. day of the Moon others might have mistaken this compliance as if the Apostles had judged that the 14. was the right day We may also reasonably enough think that when they heard St. Iohn mention the
A Modest Survey Of the most considerable things IN A DISCOURSE Lately Published Entitled NAKED TRUTH Written in a Letter to a Friend Imprimatur G. Iane. May 26. 1676. LONDON Printed for Moses Pitt at the Sign of the Angel in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. SIR YOu have made use of your Authority over me in a particular that nothing under that absolute power you have with me could have prevailed To give you an account of my sence of that Discourse that has of late made so much noise Entitled Naked Truth chiefly in what he says concerning Bishops and Priests If I were only to discharge my thoughts into the Bosom of so Generous and Worthy a Friend I could easily have resolved on it But you insinuated a Design of making a more publick use of what I might write about it And this raised a mutiny in my thoughts which could not be soon subdued into a compliance with so uneasie a task Others have already animadverted upon that Discourse with great advantages of Wit and Learning But I not being born under such happy Stars do expose my self much in hazarding to write both after such Pens and about a Book that has had the luck to be much read and by some no less commended It may therefore seem great presumption in me to interpose in such a matter I know what I say will be received with all possible disadvantages that may arise either from the great Partiality many have for that Discourse or from the just disdain others may conceive that a person unknown and undesired should engage in it Yet after all this I am so entirely at your Disposal that I shall resist no longer but deliver my sence very plainly in that blunt freedom that must be allowed my breeding and way of converse upon some of the most material things in that Paper I cannot but acknowledge the Writer seems a Person that is in good earnest and does sincerely desire the peace of our Church that so we being at one among our selves may both carry on the common designs of true Piety and resist the In-roads Popery is making on us He writes gravely and like a man that has deep impressions of Religion upon him and so I am heartily sorry so good a Man as I verily believe he is should have been prevailed on to have done so unadvised a thing as was first the writing and then the publishing such a Discourse We do already groan under too many divisions and we need no new attempts to encrease them or make parties among our selves And therefore the Rule of our Saviour ought to have been followed if he had thought his Fathers and Brethren had trespassed against the Laws of Charity Order or Edification He should first have proposed it to his Ordinary and the Right Reverend Bishops and have hoped that either they should have satisfied him or he them But to begin at publishing such Papers cannot be reconciled with the Rule of the Gospel for if he owed that precaution in dealing with his Brother it was much more due to his Mother the Church and the Spiritual Fathers of it and he should not have attempted as Cham did to expose any supposed nakedness of his Ghostly Parents There was another thing he ought to have considered that Christ has said Wo unto him by whom offences come By offences or scandals are meant such stumbling blocks snares and gall-traps as may occasion our Brother's fall I wish he had considered this well and then I suppose he would have seen that his labours in that Discourse were like both to encourage those that do unreasonably separate from us and make some of these who adhere to our Communion stumble and shake when they see such things said by one who seems to be of our Church and yet studies very industriously to blame us in every thing If he had minded these things more and the heats of his Breast and Head less he had not gone so far nor trusted himself so much in a matter of such high concern For I am confident had he shewed his Papers during all that time they lay by him to any Man of Learning or Judgement they had so clearly convinced him of a great many mistakes that this Issue had turned Abortive and died before the Birth After all the horrid abuse has been made of the supposed returns of Prayer which has turned away the minds of many from those sacred exercises either in private or publick looking on all secret wrestling with God as the heat of fancy and all publick worship as the compliance with that form or party we cleave to it appeared strange to me to find a Man that seems inflamed with a zeal for devotion own his publishing this upon returns of Prayer which to some will be thought to patronize Enthusiasm and by others will be made a scoff to jear at all Piety and Devotion God answers our Prayers when he bestows on us those Graces and Blessings we ask of him but if any body that is fond of some composure of his which he has a great mind to publish prays for direction what to do and if he take measures from the temper or heats he feels after such Prayers he exposeth himself to the greatest dangers imaginable For he ought to examine what he is about not by his own liking or disliking it but by the Rules of the Gospel of doing all things to Peace Edification and Order by the rules of Humility and Modesty not over-valuing himself nor putting himself forth but as he is called and directed by a good warrant and authority and by the Rules of the Church and State where he lives And if any man on a pretence of following the answers of Prayer will supersede any of these Rules he sets up one of the worst principles that can be imagined which must needs subvert all Religion and Government I do not deny but in matters purely indifferent and that relate only to my self when I cannot see wherein God has bounded my liberty many directors of Consciences think it is a safe rule to pray to God for direction and after that to follow what makes the strongest impression upon my mind but this must only take place where the thing in all it's circumstances is absolutely indifferent and in my choice for if I carry it farther I cannot stop till I have run into all the precipices of the worst kind of Enthusiasm Now sure the Authour of that Discourse could not be such an ill Discerner as not to see that he was not left to his free choice in this matter and therefore there is too much ground to suspect that he made his Prayers having this Idol of his beloved Book in his heart and praying in such a manner if God left him to his Idols to be deceived and misled by them it is nothing but what the Prophet threatned to all that should so pray to God From which I hope I may safely conclude
their courses in making such breaches in Christ's Vineyard and Sheepfold that lets in the Foxes and Wolves and to be disposing our own minds into such a gentle temper that notwithstanding all past provocations and all the advantages we have from the Laws and Law-givers yet we may be willing to yield even to the peevish weakness and unaccountable scruples of these that separate from us as far as can be without giving just occasions of scandal on the other hand But to give them such advantages as this Discourse does is that which I cannot reconcile to the common Rules of Prudence and Edification I wish this Writer had also considered how unjust a way of reasoning it was to argue from the indecencies and abuses any may be guilty of in the use of some of the Ceremonies that they ought to be taken away Alas at that rate the most sacred and solemn things shall not escape since all things when they fall into the hands of mortal men are subject to such abuses He did also very much forget himself when he reckoned the Bowing to the Altar one of the Ceremonies of the Church which has never enjoyned it neither by Canon nor Rubrick for in it all are left to their freedom So that this can furnish none with so much as a pretence to excuse their separation For his long Discourse about Church-men and their Qualifications and labours chiefly about Preaching iâ— certainly deserves great consideration and in it we cannot steer by a better Rule than those most excellent constitutions Antiquity has left us which are indeed so divine and pure that if this Age could bear such a Reformation I know no greater blessing could befal us But it is more to be wished than hoped for to see Plato's Commonwealth built upon the ruines and dregs of Romulus We ought to converse much with the writings the Ancients have left us concerning the Qualifications and Employments of the Clergy such as Nazianzen's Apollogetick Chrysostome's Books of the Priesthood and Gregory the Great 's Books of the Pastoral care But whatever defects we may charge our selves with this is so far from contributing to our Schism that it is rather the effect and consequence of it for where there is bitter zeal and strife there is confusion and every evil work and so it was not needful to put this in a Book concerning Union Nor have these that divide from us any reason of insulting over us whatever we may have to humble our selves for those things and least of all for Preaching which perhaps is at this day come to such perfection that if all our other defects were as much mended as these of Preaching are we might on all accounts be esteemed the best and most excellent Church that ever was since the Ages of Miracles In a word to end all that needs be said on these Heads the grounds of our communicating with any Church being chiefly the purity of their Doctrine and Worship and that their order and Rules are such that they hinder the exercise of no Christian virtue but very much advance it no personal failings or defects how publick and gross soever ought to make any to separate from such a Society For till I be involved in some guilt which no other Man's faults can do by joyning in Communion with a Church I ought still to abide in it This must either be laid down for a Principle otherwise Schisms and Rents shall be endless for as long as men are men personal failings and corruptions are unavoidable And now having thus far examined the most considerable parts of that discourse except what relates to Bishops and Priests about which you desire chiefly to be satisfied and upon which the Authour has laid out his utmost strength I come at last to consider that which I shall do with that candour and calmness I have carried along with me hitherto His opinion is That the Bishops Precedency over the rest of the Clergy with Authority to ordain to exhort to rebuke to judge and censure as he found cause is of Apostolical institution and hath been continued in the whole Church of God ever since so that nothing but necessity if that can excuse those that set up another Form of Government therefore this Government ought to be still kept in the Church But after all this he thinks the Bishops and Priests are one and the same order so that by their Ordination they have no more power conferred on them than Presbyters have This he studies to prove 1. From the silence of the Scriptures that do not mention two such orders 2. Because he finds but one Ordination which he thinks cannot confer two Characters 3. Because the Apostles call themselves Presbyters and no where Bishops 4. Because St. Clement in his Epistle speaks only of Bishops and Deacons 5. Justin Martyr calls the Bishop only President 6. St. Cyprian calls himself Praepositus 7. Because the Form of ordaining Elders is the same with which Christ ordained the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven them 8. The bad consequences of admitting this difference of Order are great for it will condemn all the other Reformed Churches Upon these reasons he rejects the Difference of Order and instead of that says the Apostles ordain'd all equally to be Bishops or Presbyters but some having more eminent gifts than others the Apostles did by Commission empower and constitute These to be Overseers and Bishops over the rest from which beginning this practice has been kept up in the Church ever since Therefore he thinks Priests ought not to ordain other Priests but yet having done it it is valid and may without a crime be done by a Priest that were by shipwrack or any such chance cast into a Countrey where no Person can be had that is thus commissionated to ordain This is a full and clear account of his opinion and of the reasons that led him to it I shall now examine both and First let us see what all this will amount to This must signifie little or nothing to the composing differences among us but will rather inflame them For a Presbyterian may upon this supposition very reasonably plead that since by his order he has the same Authority that a Bishop hath he ought not to be obliged or limited in the exercise of it That any such Commission the Apostles gave some extraordinary men must have been but temporary for their lives for if they had judged this a thing needful to be kept up in the Church they had given such lasting directions about it constituting it a distinct order as might have preserved it still in the Church but since they did not that we have no reason to acknowledge any such Power now And therefore if Priests see their Bishop doing what they think amiss they may assume that Power their Order has given them and judge and depose him too if need be I am confident that
Authour will not allow of this and yet it is visible that it arises naturally out of what he has set down But suppose he could avoid that what does all he has said contribute to the re-uniting our Dissenters and us again somewhat he may say as to the foreign Churches and yet I hope to shew that may be done another way A little may be also said to such as were ordained before by Priests in the time of the late Usurpation who are now but a small number and yet even these by his Principles did a very ill thing who out of no necessity but in a wanton sedition against their Bishops threw them off by the strength and force of a prevailing Army And if such Persons ought not to be marked by some censure or at least not admitted to any sacred Employments till they have been sensible of their fault and repent of it I leave it to every body to consider But for the rest of our Dividers as long as the Bishops have such an Authority over their Priests by what Title or conveyance soever they possess it it is all one to them And indeed the weaker their Title is they will think they have the stronger Plea So that this Notion were it ever so true cannot go a great way towards the settling matters among us but on the contrary will rather widen the breach I go next to examine his opinion in it self that there are many contradictions in his Discourse is apparent For if Bishops have Authority to ordain to exhort to rebuke to judge and censure as they find cause and if this Authority was given by the Apostles Is not here a distinct Order all Ecclesiastical Functions are but so many Commissions from God of which the conveyers were the Apostles for what is the order of Priesthood but a Commission from God which was first issued out by the Apostles giving such Persons authority to Preach and to administer Sacraments and can any think that the Apostles could have given any such Commissions but 1. They must have had the direction of the Holy Ghost that assisted them in all they went about 2. They must have conferred such a measure of the Holy Ghost as was necessary for the discharge of such a Commission for they that conferred the Holy Ghost on all they laid their hands on would have done it much more on those they did commissionate for so high a trust 3. This must have been done by imposition of hands so we find they laid hands on Paul and Barnabas when they were sent to the Gentiles though they were endued with extraordinary power before and were Apostles according to what St. Paul says of himself in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians God had also by name marked them out for that service yet hands were laid on them and so they were sent out by the Holy Ghost 4. If these Persons commissionated with such Authority were empowered by the Apostles then all the rest of the Priests were bound to submit to that Authority and whatever power they might have pretended before that then since latter deeds do vacate and invalidate former ones that power being conferred on another who is acknowledged vested with the Authority the former must be supposed divested of it and bound to subject themselves to it Nor could they except in cases of simple necessity re-assume it without rejecting the Authority of the Apostles themselves according to that maxime of our Saviour's He that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me 5. Either the Apostles did declare this was only temporary that for the present exigency such extraordinary persons were vested with such Authority or that this constitution should continue still in the Church He cannot chuse the former for then that order must have determined with these mens lives in whose hands it was entrusted which is against what that Authour pleads for So that he must say they declared that such Commissions must continue to the end of the World otherwise there were no obligation lying on the Church to continue them which yet he acknowledges 6. After the Apostles were dead either these Commissions were to be renewed on the account of what the Apostles had appointed or only by a voluntary delegation of the Priests and People if the former then our Bishops at this day act by vertue of a Commission from the Apostles If the latter be true then 1. This delegation may be given or not as they please and so the order may vanish 2. They may limit or enlarge it as they please and so may very much change it 3. Those who are ordained Bishops without such Commissions cannot be Bishops at all For if that Power be only a Commission then it cannot be seated in any person that has got no such Commission therefore there being no such thing asked as a delegation of such Authority from the Priests for the Election of the Dean and Chapter relates only to the Person but not to the Power and Office none are now truly Bishops since they have no such Commissions nor does the Metropolitan and the other consecrating Bishops give any such Commissions but only ordain a Bishop to the Work and Office so committed to him by the imposition of their hands in which it is clear as also from the whole Office of the Consecration of Bishops that they suppose there is a standing Power and Authority in the Office and therefore do believe it does not depend upon any Commission they can give all they do being to ordain him to the Office to which the Authority is necessarily annexed So that it is clear that either we have no Bishops at all or the Commission for this Authority is annexed to the Office and the Church does not constitute the Office but only admit or ordain a person duly elected and qualified unto an Office already constituted From all these particulars which necessarily follow upon that Authour's Hypothesis I may well assume that by his principles Bishops were empowered for ordination and jurisdiction by the Apostles they being directed in it by the Holy Ghost and laying their hands on them and conferring the Holy Ghost by such imposition of hands upon which all the rest both Clergy and Laity were bound to submit to them and that the Apostles intended this order should be still continued in the Church So that all succeeding Bishops act by that Power then conveyed by the Apostles to the first Bishops and continued with their successors to the end of the World And if this does not state the distinct Office of Bishops and Priests let every Reader judge There is a different power lodged with the Bishops another Commission ratified by an imposition of hands which is to continue in a succession for ever So that that Hypothesis destroys it self establishing so many different things that contradict one another But before I go to answer his arguments I shall premise somewhat of the Office of Bishop
and Priest as it appeared in it's first Origination When Christ sent out his Apostles with an Universal jurisdiction as they gathered and planted Churches there was a necessity to fix some to have the charge of them and to labour in the conversion of others Now the Apostles having observed that Christ had in the institution of the Sacraments and many other things followed such customes as were received by the Jews they must certainly have likewise followed the same Rule for as the Gospel was first offered to the Jews so they raising their new superstructure on the foundation of Moses and the Prophets could not change the customs that were among the Jews and instituted by Moses further than was necessary for emancipating the Gentiles from that yoke Therefore every Church of Christians coming in place of the Temple of Ierusalem in which living Sacrifices were offered up to God instead of the dead ones that were then antiquated it was natural for them to take their Model from the Temple of Ierusalem as the Synagogues had also done in which there was one High Priest a company of Priests and Levites and this even St. Ierome who is in no small esteem with that Authour in that Epistle to Evagrius confirms to us in these words And that we may know the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the old Testament what Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are to claim to themselves in the Church But where the number of the Christians was small they made only one Bishop who as his charge encreased might ordain others to assist him This Epiphanins tells us he had from the most ancient or profoundest Histories and in a matter of Fact to distrust History where it is strengthned with high probabilities from the nature of things is Unreasonable There were two ranks of Christians the one was the Neophites or Novices who had lately received the Faith the other were the first fruits of the Gospel who as they had at the first Preaching received the Faith so had continued longer in it and these naturally must have been called the Seniors Elders or Presbyters There is one great errour that vulgar observers fall in of which though all Criticks have often given notice yet most people are still guilty of it which is to judge of all words and appellations according to the more received customes in or near their own time not examining how they were used in former Ages and till this caution be minded we must fall into frequent mistakes every hour So at first these names of Bishop and Presbyter were not used in that sence they came afterwards to be appropriated to any person that was of great and long standing in the Faith would have esteemed it an honour to have been called a Presbyter hence it is that there was not that nice and choice distinction of the terms which use did afterwards bring in Upon which I shall with all modesty suggest to you one thing which is not so much considered that though those who were chosen to look after the Poor be called Deacons in the 6. of the Acts yet we find that term in the New Testament is not at all restricted to that sence even after that appointment St. Paul calls Christ a Deacon Rom. 15. 8. He calls also the civil Powers the Deacons or as we render it the Ministers of God Rom. 13. 4. He calls all Church-men in general the Deacons of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 15. He calls the Apostles Deacons frequently 1 Cor. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 3. 6. and 6. cap. 4. v. and cap. 11. ver 23. and Eph. 3. 7. and Col. 1. 23 25. He calls Tychicus a Deacon Eph. 6. 21. and Col. 4. 7. He calls Epaphras a Deacon So also Timothy 1 Thes. 3. 2. So that we see this term is used in a great many other sences than that of a distributer of Charity among the Widows Therefore there is no reason to think that when St. Paul wrote to the Philippians to the Bishops and Deacons and when in his Epistle to Timothy he gives rules about Church-offices passing immediately from the Bishop to the Deacons that by Deacons we are only to understand the distributers of Charity which was not an office of such importance that they must have such extraordinary qualifications but that he is treating of some other standing Ministry in the Church in which all Christians were more concerned and therefore though the subsequent use of the Church appropriating the term Deacon to the other Function these places in the Epistles of St. Paul were generally applyed to these Deacons and the Translations of the New Testament as well the vulgar Latin as other modern ones into the vulgar Languages rendring the Greek of Deacon by the term Minister in all the other places I have marked This was less observed therefore there being so good ground to think that St. Paul in these Epistles is treating about Priests whom he calls by a common name Deacons or Ministers we have the disparity between these Offices clearly set down in the Scriptures Another thing is observable that as long as the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost continued there could not be such a critical distinction of Functions as came to be settled afterwards when that ceased for even the Laity were by these inspirations qualified to many things which can be no Presidents when that effusion of the Spirit is ceased So though while that extraordinary assistance continued there were not such clear traces of the several offices in the Church yet if as soon as that began to fail we find this distinction of orders appear clearly We have reason to conclude it could be no other way settled but as the Apostles had at first appointed Though while every one was so full of the Holy Ghost all these limits were not observed for any extraordinary emission of the Holy Ghost being above positive and constant rules it is not to be wondred if we have no such clear account of a formed and regulated society at the first planting of Churches in all Offices and Functions And yet we see the New Testament full of evidences that Christ and his Apostles intended there should be an eminence of Power committed to some Pastors beyond others So Christ gave that Universal Authority over all to his twelve Apostles so the Apostles had some Assistants whom though they employed on other Commissions yet their chief residence and work was in some particular Churches over which they were set And to such the Apostles write as to persons that had the charge and were accountable for these Churches And the reason of this was that since there could not be found such numbers of men sufficiently fitted for the work of the Gospel especially in those trying times Therefore it was to be depositated in a few hands who were of more approved sufficiency and worth the rest being to be directed and
thousand years that were represented to him in his Visions they might have thought that had a literal meaning But in a matter of Government we cannot fancy how such mistakes could have been taken up 2. In things that were external and related to Government there were many concerned and so an innovation could not be easily brought about The people all looked on and were obliged to know to whom they owed obedience in things sacred the Clergy we may reasonably think were not so meek as to have submitted to any unwarranted Authority over them And if they had known they were equal to their Bishōps in order we cannot think but either out of a just zeal for asserting their freedom or out of an indignation at the miscarriages and insolence of some Bishops or out of an unwillingness to submit and obey which is natural to most people they had asserted their equality 3. Where different Churches among whom we see no commerce especially in the times of persecution do agree in any constitution we must suppose that came to them from some persons from whom they received common instruction This is an argument thought very convincing against Atheists when we show many things wherein all mankind agree which we cannot imagine how it should have been brought about if they had not common Parents who had derived these things to all their Posterity So how can it be imagined that from the Churches of Armenia and Persia in the East to those of Spain in the West from the African Churches in the South to our Brittish Churches in the North that had little or no correspondence together this constitution of the Church should have been Universally received and submitted to This was when no General Council could meet to appoint it and there was no Secular Prince to set it forward upon any Political account Now it cannot be imagined how this could have been brought about if their common Spiritual Fathers the Apostles had not agreed upon it when they first scattered to go over the World For we have no reason to think they did ever meet all together again 4. No Men do an ill thing or desire a change but upon some advantage or at least the Prospect and Hope of it And if the worst of men are to be measured by this I except Hectors in vice what must we judge of those whom we ought justly to pronounce the best of Men. Their being Bishops exposed them to the sharpest fury of their Persecutors they were but poor and mean excepting the Bishops of the great Cities they commonly were begun with in every new storm that was raised against the Church their labours were great for the care of the flock lay on them and they were unwearied in the discharge of their Pastoral care Can we think any Man would be fond of such a station to that degree as to violate the institution of Christ to arrive at it But with what face can any man suspect those Ages of such foul dealing upon whom the impressions of the lowliness of their Great Master were so deep and who were daily looking for a Cross and some cruel death with what assurance could they have prepared for such trials if out of pride and ambition they had been invading the rights of the other Churches and aspiring to an unjust domination over their Brethren 5. Suppose we could be prevailed on to think the whole Church was so abandoned the Bishops to their pride and the Priests to an heedless simplicity yet how can we reasonably think none of her enemies were so sharp-sighted as to discern and object this to them they had malice enough and if the Orders of Bishop and Presbyter were one at first but afterwards the Episcopal ambition had subdued the Priests under them some memory of it had been certainly preserved otherwise how should St. Ierome and the pretended Ambrose be supposed to have heard of it But if any such thing had been known is it possible to imagine that among all the Hereticks and Schismaticks that were in those Ages none should have charged it on the Church but on the contrary all of them had Bishops of their own and in the end when one arose that did condemn the order he had very few to follow him nor did his own party the Arians receive this at his hands Therefore we have all reason to conclude that there was no such change made after the Apostles days for St. Ierome himself acknowledges the Apostles set this order up though he seems to insinuate it was not in the beginning of their planting the Church And it is very clear that Pseudo Ambrose gives us his own imaginations for Canonical Histories So from all these things put together I dare appeal to any man to say upon his Conscience if he is not perswaded the Episcopal Authority over the flock and the Clergy is clearly derived from the Apostles All this I have said more fully than perhaps seemed at first view needful but when I consider that though this Authour does confess the Episcopal Function to be of Apostolical institution yet over his whole Discourse there are many things said that do very much detract from that very acknowledgement which the force and evidence of truth drew from him in the beginning of that Chapter So that some suspect these words were only set down that upon such an introduction he might seem a friend and so wound both more securely and more mortally since also many who read and magnifie that discourse do with open mouth declame against this order I hope none will judge it impertinent if I have taken some pains to lay such things before them as may give new and fresh impressions of the Divine and Apostolical Origine of this holy Office All that remains yet to be considered is what answers to make to the Objections that Authour lays in our way His first objection is from the silence of the Scriptures to which the answer will be easily gathered from what has been said for if what I do suggest about the sence of Deacons in St. Paul's Epistles be true then the case is most clear but besides that there are manifest hints of a disparity or superiority in Scripture and these are expounded by so authentical and clear a Tradition that we are not more sure of the Change of the Iewish Sabbath into the Christian Lords day or of the Baptism of Infants or of the Canon of the Scripture than we are of this Apostolical institution It was necessary that all super natural revealed truths should have been clearly and fully expressed in Scripture and none of these left to the mistakes and misrepresentation of every Age but for matters of Government it was enough if general rules were given which the platform of the Churches then gathered did so explain that we have no reason to have scruples about it though a full and formal account of it be not left us The second objection is
because he finds the Apostles gave but one ordination which he cannot conceive how it could confer two distinct orders or Characters This is founded on a great mistake for pray cannot the same great Seal that affixed to one Writing does only confer the honour of Barronage when affixed to another Writing confer the dignities of Duke Marquess Earl Viscount and Baron So it is plain the Apostles when they were to send out any with a sacred commission by the same outward rite they might have conferred whatever authority they intended to confer For they declaring on what errant and with what power they sent out a person and imposing hands upon him that imposition confirmed the mission and authority committed to such persons So there was no need of their ordaining Church men through several degrees but as they saw men qualified they did ordain them and I do not question but with the â—ame imposition of hands and the same prayers and words they might have ordained two persons at once the one a Bishop the other a Priest For we are not to consider in an ordination the outward rite and prayers only but the preceding declaration made and the publick intention of those that ordain It is true we find by the ancientest Ordinals we have that there were some differences used in the consecration of Bishops that were not used when a Priest was ordained which may be reasonably judged were very ancient they held the Book of the Gospels over his head and shoulders and all the Bishops laid their hands on him one pouring out the blessing And Denis the Areopagite tells us that besides the imposition of hands and laying the Book of the Gospels on his head and the prayer He was marked by the Sign of the Cross and faluted by the Bishop and all the holy order And in the ordination of a Priest the Bishop and the Priests with him only laid their hands on his head and blessed him By which simplicity of their forms we may on the way observe how unlike the Primitive Church was to the Roman Church that abounds in so many superstitious fopperies with which their Pontificall is full There was also provision made that none should be made a Bishop till he had passed thorough inferiour degrees not from any such subtleties as School-men have since devised but that none might arrive at the highest order of the Church till he gave a sufficient trial of his faith and manners by his deportment in all the inferiour steps in which they intended he should stay so long that all might be well satisfied about him And in or a little before St. Cyprian's time they appointed some inferiour steps which were not sacred orders nor pretended to be Apostolical but degrees of probation through which those who intended to serve the Church should pass before they were made Deacons And this furnishes me with a very considerable remark to shew the fidelity of those Ages in the accounts they give us of Apostolical institutions for they do every where tell us there were but three sacred orders Deacon Priest and Bishop and no where study to make us believe these other degrees of Porters Readers Acolyths Exoreists and Sub-Deacons were Apostolical Now if the Episcopal superiority and power was a device of that Age or of the former why should they not have called all Apostolical as well as some parts of it But it is plain they were careful and conscientious in delivering punctually to us what was Apostolical and what only Ecclesiastical His third objection is because the Apostles call themselves sometimes Presbyters and no where Bishops this sure if it prove any thing must prove more than that Writer intends even that Presbyters are above Bishops He should also have considered that the Apostles do call themselves much oftner Deacons than Presbyters So if this argument be of force then the Deacons must be likewise of the same order with the Bishops But the true account of this is that the name Presbyter was used for any ancient person of Authority and among the Christians it signified a Christian of a long standing So upon both these accounts the Apostles being then both ancient men and of great authority and those that were the first fruits of the World unto Christ might well be called Presbyters though not in that sence by which the following ages understood that term For I do not question but the names of Bishops and Priests were at first promiscuously used and continued so even to Ireneus his time who in his Letter to Victor calls the Bishops of Rome that were before him Presbyters but afterwards those two terms were appropriated to that sence we now understand them in Or if you will stand upon the Apostles being called Presbyters to prove an equality or superiority of Presbyter over the Bishop Let me desire you to observe that St. Peter who calls himself an Elder yet puts us in mind that Bishops are above Presbyters for he tells us in that same Epistle that Christ was the Bishop of our Souls and in that subordination I acknowledge the Apostles were but Priests which perhaps gave occasion to Ignatius to resemble the Bishop and Presbyters to Christ and his Apostles Besides it is as unreasonable to build any opinion concerning these orders upon such humble expressions of the Apostles as if because a Prince or a General will ordinarily call his Souldiers fellow Souldiers that therefore they and he are of the same order The fourth objection is because St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks only of Bishops and Deacons It is true in one place he does say that the Apostles did ordain the first fruits of their labours having first tryed them in the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons But if what was before observed about the use of the Term Deacon be well grounded then St. Clement's words may be also very justly understood of Bishops and Priests but because this has the prejudice of novelty against it let us look further into that Epistle and we shall find it no less clear by other expressions that there were different orders in the Church though in that place he comprehends them under that common name for he commends them because they were subject to their Governours and gave all decent honour to their Presbyters and again says Let us reverence our Governours and honour our Presbyters and clearly applies the subordination that was in the Temple of Ierusalem of High-Priest Priest Levite and Lay-man to the Ecclesiastical constitution as will appear to any that will consider that Epistle From which I conclude that though St. Clement did comprehend Bishops and Priests under the common name of Bishop yet he shews us evidently there were Governours in the Church that were superiour to the Presbyters and to whom there were higher degrees of honour due and particular Ministrations proper as were to the High-Priest The fifth objection is that Iustin Martyr calls the
Bishops only Presidents This is of no force for that Father had no occasion given him to reckon up the several Functions in the Church when he was writing an Apology for the Christians to the Roman Senate in which he gives a plain and simple account of their Faith and Worship but it had been to very little purpose for him to have told the Roman Senate what were the several Orders of Church-Offices among them And it is not improbable that both he and Tertullian might have used the Term President the rather because it would be the more easily understood by the Romans than either Bishop or Priest The sixth objection is from St. Cyprian who calls himself Praepositus or President But neither does this signifie much for we are to consider the sence of Authours not so much by some terms or words they use as by the formal accounts they give us when they come to treat expresly on any subject Therefore when we would examine that Father's opinion in this matter we are neither to consider what in modesty he writes to his Flock or Clergy nor what terms he makes use of but the sure way is to see what his sense of the Episcopal Authority was when he formally treated of it upon it's being questioned and to this we have reason to appeal St. Cyprian's Counsel was asked by Rogatian another Bishop concerning the censure of a Deacon who had carried himself insolently toward him to whom St. Cyprian writes that by the vigor of his Episcopat and the Authority of his Chair he had just power to have avenged that insolence instantly And toward the end he says these are the beginnings of Hereticks and the rise and attempts of ill meaning Schismaticks that they may please themselves and despise their Bishop with a swelling pride So men separate from the Church so a prophane Altar is set up without and so men rebel against the Peace of Christ and the divine Ordinance and Unity These words St. Cyprian writes like one that prophesied of the age we are born in and if he does not assert the Power of Jurisdiction to the height I leave to every ones eyes And the same Saint in another Epistle challenging the insolent presumption of some Priests hath these words There is no danger which we ought not now to fear our Lord being thus offended when some of the Priests who neither are mindful of the Gospel of their place or of the judgement to come and consider not that there is a Bishop set over them do assume all to themselves to the reproach and contempt of him that is set over them which was never at all done by any that went before us And another of his Epistles which is about the same subject concerning the Lapsed that had fallen in the persecution begins with these words Our Lord whose commands we ought to fear and observe when he was settling the Bishop's honour or authority and the rule of his Church says to Peter I say thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. From thence through the Revolution of times and successions the Ordination of Bishops and the account of the Church hath run down that the Church should be constituted upon Bishops and every Act of the Church should be governed by these Presidents or Praepositi as that Authour would have them called though he seems not to have considered that by this Saint they were not bare Overseers but had the whole power lodged with them Since then this is founded by the Divine Law I wonder at the bold rashness of some that wrote to me as they did since the Church is made up of the Bishops the Clergy and all that stand i. e. in the Faith or stand in the Worship And if in all these places St. Cyprian that lived within 140. years of the Apostles does not very formally assure us that both the full Authority was in the Bishop and that this was settled by Christ so that there remains no room for any shift or answer I appeal to you and every unprejudiced Reader But there is yet a clearer and less suspected testimony in St. Cyprian's works in an Epistle which the Clergy of Rome wrote to him when their See was vacant after Fabian's death from which we may judge what sense the Priests of that age had of the Episcopal Office These are their words after the death of Fabian of most noble memory There is no Bishop yet constituted among us by reason of the difficulty of affairs and the times who should regulate all these things and must consider the case of the Lapsed with authority and advice Can any thing be more evident than at that time which was but 150. years after the Apostles were dead it was acknowledged by the Priests that they had no full Authority to govern the Church when they wanted a Bishop Now if the difference between Bishop and Priest be only by Commission they being both the same Order then certainly in a vacancy the Priests have a full power But here we see the greatest company of Priests then in the Christian world did not think they were of the same Order or had the Authority of a Bishop even in a sede vacante The seventh objection is That Presbyters are ordained in the same form in which Christ ordained his Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins yo forgive they are forgiven them This must either prove nothing to the purpose or too much for if there be any strength in this consequence it must amount to this That all â—â—esbyters are of the same order the Apostles were of which certainly that Authour will think is too much The answer to it is given by St. Paul that there are diversities of operations administrations and gifts but it is the same God the same Lord and the same Spirit for all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit And since it is both by the authority and assistance of the Holy Ghost that all these offices are derived and discharged it is no argument to prove the Offices are the same because we pray that all may receive the Holy Ghost it being necessarily to be understood that every one receives it in his own order Nor do the following words of forgiving of sins prove any more but that both these offices are empowered to that equally For it is acknowledged that a Priest gives absolution as well as a Bishop but from their being both authorized equally in one thing it is somewhat a strange kind of inference to conclude there is nothing else which a Bishop has authority to do that is not competent to a Priest The last objection is from the inconvenience that must needs follow on our asserting Bishops and Priests to be of different orders since this must condemn and un-un-church all the foreign Churches which were indeed a very severe and uncharitable censure I know this is very popular
and taking Therefore I shall study so to clear it that I hope no scruple shall remain about it There are some conditions that are simply necessary to Salvation without which no man shall see the face of God and these do indispensibly oblige all without exception There be other positive precepts which are of obligation to all who possibly can obey them so that the contempt or voluntary want of these is a high provocation they being both means of Grace and symbols of Christian fellowship instituted by Christ and to continue for ever in his Church Yet few are so severe as to deny a possibility of salvation without these I know St. Austin was of this severe side but in that he is generally censured as having exceeded it is an hard Doctrine to condemn all Infants that die without Baptism at least to exclude them from the Kingdom of Heaven as St. Austin did For if the Child die in the belly or birth it is not conceiveable that it should be punished for the want of that which God himself made impossible And the Primitive Church did generally believe that such as being converted to the Faith did suffer Martyrdom even though they were not baptized were certainly saved In like manner if in some Northern and poor Countries where Wine can scarce be had and goes at excessive rates if persons be so poor that they cannot get Wine and so either die without the other Sacrament or offer some other liquor in the Chalice it were a strange degree of hardness to deny salvation to the people of such a Clime So also the Offices of the Church are necessary by a divine appointment even in the principles of most of the Non conformists and yet neither this Authour nor they will deny but even a Laick if cast upon an Island where he upon learning their Language came to instruct them in the Christian Faith and could have no commerce with any Church under such a necessity he might perform all divine Functions for all Christians are a Royal Priesthood and absolute necessity supersedes all the rules of order decency and Government And the Presbyterians who acknowledge as great difference between a Presbyter and a Laick as we plead is between a Bishop and Priest yet acknowledge these to be true Churches which began upon no orders at all where some persons that understood the Scriptures did gather Churches and administer the Sacraments and they can say nothing for justifying such Churches which is not applicable to us in this case Therefore when the Western Churches were so corrupted that none could any longer with a good Conscience receive orders in them or submit to the terms upon which only their Communion could be had If any Priests seeing these errours did instruct the people in the truth and finding no other way possible to propagate or preserve that purity of Doctrine did ordain other Priests though this was irregular and defective yet we are not so uncharitable as to judge people under these circumstances but acknowledge that absolute necessity supersedes all positive precepts I know some have been severe on this head because they judge they are under no absolute necessity But that is a great mistake those that live under a Prince of a different Religion as the Protestants in France do could not with any security come over hither to receive orders For can it be imagined that Princes who are always jealous of their Authority and chiefly of such of their Subjects as differ from them in Religion would suffer them to come and be ordained in another Prince's Dominions they would certainly use that as a pretence to justifie their severities against them Nor would they permit them to come under such a strength and compacted unity as this constitution of the Church would bring them to Therefore these are to be pitied helped and prayed for and not insulted over And for those other Churches that are under Princes or a Government of the same Religion they are in no less captivity to their superiours who will never suffer them to go to another Church for orders and they would think it a thing inconsistent with the peace of their States to let any Ecclesiasticks get into so calumniating a power where the constitution of their policy is Democratical It is to be regrated that at first their Bishops were stubborn and would not receive the Reformation which the chief of the Reformers did very much lament Nor is it to be wondred if these Churches being thus formed under these necessities and not according to the ancient and Apostolical constitution in their ordinations have since that time studied to justifie themselves upon other accounts than bare necessity In that we think them in an errour but it being no fundamental one and the necessity that at first forced that disorder lying still over them we dare not be so severe as to deny them to be true Churches Though we hold there is still such defects among them that they are not compleat and perfect in all their constitutions But after all this Charity to those under such hardships we have great cause to conclude much more severely against those who being born in a Church that had no such defect in it's first Reformation but was exactly moulded after the primitive pattern and continued in so flourishing an estate that it was the just glory of the Reformed Churches and the chief object of the envy and hatred of the Roman was at first separated from and then subverted by some hot-headed Schismaticks Therefore the disparity being so great between our dissenters who are such out of Choice and in opposition to all Laws both of Church and State and the foreign Churches who are irregular out of necessity our judging tenderly and favourably of the one does no way oblige us to relax and forego these excellent primitive constitutions on the account of the others among our selves And thus far I think I have given you a satisfactory account of all that this Authour says on this head You know me and my circumstances better than to suspect either interest design or obligation has engaged me to these perswasions since by all these I am rather byassed another way I have written nothing but that about which I am so well assured that I know I am able to make good every particular I have set down And therefore though I do not allow you to let my name go with this Paper if you make a more publick use of it It is not that I fear either the censures of engaged and partial Zealots or the replies of a contentious Disputant so he abstain from railing and fooling in neither of which my Genius which was born for severer exercises will permit me to engage But now to wind up all after so tedious a Letter I must conclude with my 〈◊〉 regrates that we are brought to such a pass that discourses of this kind find such acceptance among us The Patient is in a high distemper when he loaths wholesome food and longs after every fantastical quelque chose he hears of So it is indeed to be lamented that the best composures that do either inform or edifie the Reader are neglected and if any thing gets vent that tends to make the most sacred things grow cheap and fall in contempt it is bought up at any rate and read with an insatiable itch I wish the Authour of that discourse may with serious and deep reflections consider what he has done in this work of his he has made all the enemies of Peace triumph and has put some popular things in the mouths of his Readers with which they think themselves sufficiently armed to baffle both the Articles and Rules of our Church I am confident he is so serious and so sincere a man that when ever he is made sensible of this he will be very ready to take out of the way any scandal which these his conceptions have brought forth In fine I pray God teach us to know the things that belong to our Peace that so our animosities and heart-burnings being laid aside we may all study to seek the things that belong to Peace and the things whereby we may edifie one another If I have wearied out your patience with a long Epistle I was forced to it by the subject you commanded me to write about And yet I have done it as short as was possible which has made me overlook many lesser errours in that discourse which were not of such general concern but discover how easily that Writer takes many things upon trust It was needless to amuse the World with these particulars and I am more a Friend and Honourer of that Authour than to engage with him meerly out of humour to contend with him or to expose him least of all to make a needless show of reading But I will make an end London May the 23. 1676. Advertisement A Conference about Religion held in London April 3. 1676. between Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Gilbert Burnet With some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome Octavo price 2 s. 6 d. Sold by Moses Pitt at the Angel in St. Paul's Church-yard FINIS Ezek. 14. ver 7 8 9. Acts 13 ver 2. 3. Iren. lib 3. cap. 3. Et apud 〈◊〉 lib 4. cap. 13 Lib. 3. advers Heret cap. 3. Apud Euseb Lib. 5 cap 24. a De prasc cap. 32. Cont. Marcion Lib. 4. cap. 5. * De Bapt. †De Cor. Milit. * Epist. 75. inter Epist. Cypr. * Cont. Lucifer Apud Euseb. Lib. 6. cap. 44. Can. 6. Can. 2. Con. Carth. 4. de Eccles Hier. cap 5. Can 3. Carth. and Dion ibid. Epist. 65. Epist. 10. Epist. 27. Ep. 31. 1 Cor. 12. v. 4. 5. c.