drives Men against Light and Conviction and darkens all their Intellectuals in defiance of common Sense and Reason A third Witness alledg'd by Blondel is Hermas I only name some few of those that are nearest to the Apostles I do not now enquire into the Authority of this Book It is most probable that it was written towards the end of the Apostolical Age and some of the Ancients of great Authority make him to be the same that is mention'd by S. Paul Rom. 16. 14. It is without all Controversie a Book of great Antiquity as appears by the Citations out of him still preserv'd in some Authentick Monuments particularly Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen There are two palpable evidences that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government that obtain'd in the Christian Church when this Book was written The first is from the second Vision of the first Book where the sending of the Encyclical Epistle in exteras civitates is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of S. Clement then Bishop of Rome The other insinuation is from the second Book and 12th Mandat Paragr 2. where he reproves the preposterous Ambition of such as would thrust themselves into the highest dignities contrary to the Evangelical Methods of Humility and self-denial exaltat enim se vult primam Cathedram habere If there be no Power there can be no Abuse of it and therefore he reproves that insatiable thirst of Preferment that puts some amongst them upon Projects and Designs contrary to the command of our Saviour who taught us that he that deserv'd the Ecclesiastical Promotion was to be the Servant of all and therefore many of the Primitive Bishops fled and hid themselves upon the first Motion of their being nam'd to the Episcopal Dignity And the other Citation from Book the third Similitud 8. insinuates the very same thing that I intend viz. a Principatus then established as the fixt Government of the Church which some were too too hasty to grasp 2 Tim. 4. 3 4. Vid. Dickson in Matt. and Answer to the Irenicum by G. R. vid. Bez. in 〈◊〉 Vid. Smectim Jus divin Minister Anglican The Unbishoping Timothy and Titus Altare Damascen Durh. Dissert on the Revel v. Cotel Not. inpriorem Epist S. Clem. p. 96. in quibus fusâ— solide demâ—nstratur argumentum a confusione nominum nequaquam Jurisdictionem Authoritatem Episcoporum supra Presbyteros labefactare posse V. Doctiss Bevereg cod canon Eccles primit lib. 2 c. 11. Vid. Clariss Dodwell dissert Cypr. p. 205. Walo Mess Tertul. de Baptismo Stromat Lib. 6. Pastor Herma * Apud clariss Dodwell disertat Cyprian p. 205 â— Cotel in prieâ— Epist Clemen ad Corinth 1 Cor. 15. 7. Wâ—â—â— Mâ—â— * Aplog prosenten Hieronym Amstol 1646. Vind. St. Ignat. Adversus Hereses lib. 3. cap. 3. V. Doctiss Cav Hist liter p. 18. Blondel Apolog p. 9. Plerique Latinorum Hieronymo teste secundumpost Petrum fuisse putaverunt ut ante annum Domini 65 ad Romanae Ecclesiae clavum sedissenecesse sit Apol. pro sent Hier. p. 9. page 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. doctiss Bevereg cod Can. Eccles Prim. lib. 2. p. 314. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. Acts. 6. 4. Coloss 4. 7. 1 Thess 3. 2. Coloss 4. 17. Vid. etiam Bevereg ubi supra Pag. mihi 40 41. Pag. 10. Edit Jun. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pâ— mihi 52 53. V. Cotel Not. in Pr. S. Clemen Epist col 95. Apud Jun. Not. in Clemen p. 12. * Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Polycarpus autâ—â—â—non solum ab Apostolis edoctus conversatus cum multis excis qui dominum nostrum viderunt sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asia in ea quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitututs Episcopus qurm nos vidimus in prima nostra aetate * Catalog â—pt Eccles Apol. p. Iâ— Vid. Test Veterum ad frontem editionis Oxon
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE New Opinions Chiefly Propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland Together also with some Animadversions on a Late Book Entituled A Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk In a LETTER to a Friend at EDINBURGH By A. M. D. D. Jeremiah 6.16 Ask for the Old Paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your Souls but they said we will not walk therein LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's-Head in St. Paul ' s Church-yard 1696. THE CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE THE Introduction inviting all the true Sons of the Church especially the Afflicted Clergy to the most serious Exercise of true Repentance and Humiliation P. 1 2 3 4 5 c. The Doctrines and Principles that we contend for against the later Sectaries are Primitive Catholic and Orthodox p 9 10 11. CHAP. I. The Insufficiency of those Pleas and Arguments managed by the Presbyterians against the Catholic Church in Defence of their New Doctrine of Parity p. 12 13 14. Their Arguments reduc'd to three general Heads p. 15. 1. Their Pleas from the Pretended immediate Institution of our Saviour considered p. 16 17 18 19 20 21. 2. Their Arguments from the Confusion of Names observable in the New Testament proved to be Vain and Sophistical p. 22 23 24 25 c. 3. Their Arguments from the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Writters examined p. 39 40. The Testimony of St. Clement the Apostolical Bishop of Rome Vindicated from the Wilful Mistakes of Presbyterians p. 41 42 43 44 c. The Testimony of St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and Disciple of St. John the Apostle enquired into particularly p. 49 50 51. The Testimony from Hermas impartially viewed and the Disingenuity of Monsiour Blondel reproved p. 52 53 54 c. Pope Pius his Epistle to Justus Viennensis Censured as Spurious and if it was Genuine cannot serve the Presbyterian Design p. 56. The Instance of Marcion the Heretic as unfit to support the New Doctrine as the former Testimony from the Spurious Epistle of Pope Pius p. 57. The Testimony from Justin Martyr impertinently alledged by our Adversaries p. 58 59. The Testimony of the Gallican Martyrs p. 62 63. The Testimony of St. Cyprian p. 64. The Testimony from the Authority of St. Jerome p. 65. The Error of St. Jerome discovered to be very different from the New Doctrine of the Presbyterians p. 66. St. Jerome never acknowledged any Interval after the Death of the Apostles in which Ecclesiastical Affairs were managed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ibid Seqq. St. Jerome taught that Episcopacy was the Apostolical remedy of Schism from p. 65. to p. 80. The Testimony from the Authority of Saint Austin examined Saint Austin reasoned from the Succession of single Persons governing the Church of Rome from the days of the Apostles and by this Argument overthrew the Doctrine and Schism of the Donatists p. 81. to p. 94. CHAP. II. Of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles p. 94. Some Presbyterian Concessions preliminary to the true State of the Controversie p. 95 96. The Apostolical Office considered with regard to its Permanent and Essential Nature 2ly As it was adorned with Extraordinary and miraculous Advantages The First was to continue for ever in the Church the Second was Transient and Occasional with regard to the first Plantations of Christianity The Apostolical and Episcopal Office the same in its Original Nature Essence and Design p 98 99 100 101 c. The true State of the Controversie whether the Apostles left the Government of Particular Churches to single Successors or to a College of Presbyters acting in Parity and Equality p. 105 106 The first is affirmed by all Records whether we consider the inspired Writings of the Apostles or the Ecclesiastical Histories of after Ages p. 107 c. The true Notion of an Evangelist altogether different from the Permanent Office of Timothy or Titus p. 111. Saint James the Just Established Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and he in that City was the Centre of Unity and Episcopal Succession in that See p. 112 113. The Episcopal Power lodged in his person ib. The Angels of the Asiatic Churches Bishops in the strictest Sense p. 114 c. The whole Question reduced to three Enquiries p. 118 c. The Force of the Primitive Argument against Hereticks from the Succession of single Persons p. 123 124 125. The Ancients could not be deceived in an affair of this Nature p. 128 129. The Impossibility of changing the Ecclesiastical Government from Parity to Prelacy in the Primitive Ages all things duly considered p. 136 137. This proved at length from the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians Salmasius blondel and Bochartus Ibid. The Peevishness of our Adversaries in this Controversie p. 150. The Epistles of St. Ignatius overthrow the Pretences of Parity even upon Salmasius his own Hypothesis P. 152 153 c. The whole Controversie reduced to Nine plain Queries p. 157 158 159 160. The Power of Bishops over the Subordinate Clergy and Lay-men in the Primitive Ages p. 161. The Presbyterian exception against large Diocesses discussed p. 162 163 164. Saint James the Just a Diocesan Bishop in the Strictest Sense p. 164 165. CHAP. III. Of several other New Opinions propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland p. 168. Their Doctrine concerning the Holy-Days of our Saviour's Nativity Resurrection and Ascension Ibid. Anniversary Solemnities not founded upon any Divine or Express Institution observed in the Jewish and Christian Church p. 172 c. Presbyterian Exceptions removed p. 175 176 177. This further Prosecuted from several other Considerations p. 179 180 c. The Festivity of Christmas more particularly considered p. 185. The Vindicator's Mistakes exposed by the Anniversary Commemoration of the Martyrs celebrated by the first Christians p. 188 c. The New Explications of the Vindicator insisted on p. 196 c. Some other ridiculous Fancies examined viz That Christmas was observed in honour of Julius Caesar p. 205. The Testimony cited from Buchanan cannot serve the Presbyterian Design p. 207 208. CHAP. IV. Of the Presbyterian Notion of Schism and their fabulous Stories concerning a Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the first Ages of Christianity p. 211. Several Considerations proposed to prove our Scotish Presbyterians Schismaticks from the Catholic Church in the strictest Sense of that Word p. 213 214 c. A Particular Enquiry into that Fabulous Story propagated by our Adversaries viz. That there was a Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the First Ages of Christianity p. 228 229. The Authors cited by the Vindicator of the Kirk to support this Dream particularly considered p. 230. The Authority of Prosper mistaken and the Testimony cited by our Adversaries from his Chronicon Consulare more narrowly enquired into p. 245 c. CHAP. V. The Presbyterian Doctrine concerning Rites and Ceremonies examined p. 250 251. Their Notions contradict the Practice of all civiliz'd Nations Ibid. The frequent Allusions
must be received as the Infallible truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholic Church in former Ages from the combinations of Hereticks these are new in their several Errors and Delusions and upon that very account of their Novelty were expos'd and refuted by the Ancients they neither agreed amongst themselves nor with the Orthodox But the Uniform Voice of Christendom in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors If it appear then that the Opinions which we oppose and are propagated by the Presbyterian Societies are such as were never entertain'd in the Christian Church for fourteen hundred Years after our Saviour's Incarnation then I leave it to every sober Christian to consider whether he may safely continue in the communion of that Party that despises the whole Catholic Church both Ancient and Modern CHAP. I. The Novelty and Insufficiency of those Pleas and Arguments managed by the Presbyterians in defence of their New Doctrine of Parity THE first Opinion that I charge with Error and Novelty amongst our Country-men is this That they affirm upon all Occasions that our Saviour hath appointed his Church under the New Testament whether Provincial National or Oecomenic to be govern'd by the several classes of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ecclesiastical Senate above a Presbyter in the modern and current Notion of the word Such a Doctrine must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new and never propagated in any part of the Christian Church until these last days of Separation and Singularity In this Opinion they differ not only from the Uniform testimony of Antiquity but also from the first Presbyterians amongst ourselves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church-Polity is variable so far they were at that time from asserting that indispensible divine and unalterable right of Parity All that the first Presbyterians pleaded was that their new form was allowable and not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament and Primitive Institution and that it came very near to the Original Model of Churches but they never thought to advance such a bold and rash Assertion as to affirm That the Christain Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be govern'd in all Ages by a Parity of Presbyters or that there was no other Officer in the Church could pretend to any share of Ecclesiastical Government above a Presbyter When a Society of Men set up for Divine Absolute and Infallible Right they ought to bring plain Proofs for what they say else they must needs be look'd upon as Impostors or at least self-conceited and designing Men. To propagate a Doctrine under the notion of a probable Opinion though it should happen to be an Error is consistent with Modesty and the practice of Learned Men in all Ages But to affirm a new Notion to be established by Divine Right and to require Obedience to that Scheme as a thing that is due to Supreme and Infallible Authority is much worse than Speculative Enthusiasm If a man only entertains himself with his Visions and Fancies he alone suffers by it but if I meet with a company of head-strong Fellows who must needs persuade me that they see so many Armies in the Air fighting and with the exactest Discipline of War nay their Banners the shape and colour of their Horses their several Squadrons and the whole order of their Encampment and will certainly knock me in the head unless I take my Oath upon it that I see all this who never saw any such thing in my Life I think I have reason to complain that my Circumstances are very unlucky I had certainly rather fall into the hands of High-way-men than amongst those Spiritual Robbers who divest me of my Senses and the exercise of my Reason If you inform our Country men that their New Doctrine is thus represented they will tell you that none but wicked men oppose their Government that it is Establish'd upon the express Institution of our Saviour that it hath been asserted and prov'd by several Learned Men of their Party beyond contradiction But if you ask by what particular argument you may be convinc'd of the Truth of their New Doctrine then they begin to lead you into a Labyrinth of dark and intricate Consequences obscure and perplext Probabilities several Texts of Scripture they will alledge but sadly wrested and distorted from their genuine Meaning and Design and the uniform Suffrages of all the Ancients And if you are not satisfied with such proofs as they advance you must be contented to submit to their Censure and the New Discipline must be Obey'd where-ever their Power is equal to their Pretences I can give you but a short History of their Arguments by which they endeavour to Establish their Divine Right of Parity When you read their Books I think all their pleas of whatever kind or force may be reduc'd to these three heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour or secondly They endeavour to support it by consequences from several Texts of Scripture or thirdly from the Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church First I say they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters exclusive of the Superiority or Jurisdiction of a Bishop is expresly commanded by our Saviour This indeed promises veryfair For if our Saviour hath plainly and positively Commanded that Ecclesiastical Affairs shall be managed in all Churches and Ages communi Presbytero'um consilio and by such a College of Presbyters as excludes the Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop then without all Controversie all Christians are oblig'd to submit to it The Consequence is plain and undeniable and because our Country-men do insist upon this more frequently than any of the foreign Presbyterians we ought to hear them calmly and deliberately and when they plead the Authority of our Blessed Saviour we must view those Texts with reverence and attention and see if any thing can be inferred from them that may probably support the now Scheme of Presbytery The Parallel Texts of Scripture are Matth. 20. 25. But Jesus called them unto him and said ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them v. 26. But it shall not be so great among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister V. 27. And whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant v. 28 Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministred unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many See also Mark 10. v. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. From these parallel Places they plead that the Officers of Chirist's House were by his own express Command establish'd in a perfect
Equality even in such a Parity as excludes the Power and Jurisdiction of any higher Order than that of a Presbyter in the modern Notion Let us now examine whether there be any Foundation for their Inference in the Texts last mentioned In the first place we find that our Blessed Saviour supposes Degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as all other Societies and therefore he directs the Ecclesiasticks who would climb to the Highest Places in the Church to take other Methods than those that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World He that deserved Preferment in the Church was to be the Servant of all so that this Text refers to the Method of Promotion and not to the Extirpation of their Jurisdiction They were not to aspire to Honour and Dignity by Force and Violence or the other Arts that are so fashionable in Secular Courts but rather by all the Acts of Modesty Humility and Self-denial Next let me ask whether the Apostles understood this Precept of our Saviour in the sense of our Adversaries or not If they did as it is alledg'd how came they to exercise Jurisdiction over all Subordinate Ecclesiasticks during their Life time in all the Churches they Planted Did they go cross to the Institution of our Saviour who perfectly understood his meaning and to whom the Precept was Originally delivered But that which Baffles and Exposes this Argument to all Intents and Purposes is this that he did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of this towards one another in Obedience to the Command now under consideration could not infer a Parity unless they Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal for when you read the Text with attention you see that our Saviour recommends what he Enjoyns from his own Constant and Visible Practice amongst them viz. that he himself who was their Lord and Master was their Servant and therefore it became the Greatest among them in imitation of him to be Modest Calm and Humble towards all their Subordinate Brethren and this qualify'd them more than any other thing for Ecclesiastical Promotions It is very sad that any should be so much Infatuated with their new Schems of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense Degrades our Blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples for what he Commanded the Apostles he Practised among them himself And this is the strongest Motive to engage their Obedience therefore I may reasonably infer that whatever it was that our Saviour commanded in those places of Scripture it must of necessity be toto coelo different from all Parity and Equality He Commanded them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles did by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but rather by the more Christian and engaging Behaviour of Charity and Humility He that was to be the Greatest among them was to be their Servant in Imitation of that Heavenly Patern that was set them by our Blessed Lord and Saviour S. Paul thought himself oblig'd to answer his Episcopal Character after this manner when the Care of all the Churches lay upon him when he employ'd his Apostolical Power to promote the Edification of all Men and all the Fathers of the Church who were advanc'd above their Brethren to Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction had this Evangelical Notion of their Dignity that they were the Servants of all others From what hath been said one may easily see that there is no Ground no not a Shadow of any Argument for the New Doctrine in these Texts of Scripture It is true that Salmasius glances at this way of Reasoning in his Walo Messalinus but he lays no great stress upon it That which is most to our purpose is that Beza himself in his larger Notes upon the New Testament asserts that all kind of Jurisdiction is not forbidden in these Texts but that only which is joyn'd with imperious Bitterness and Domination Let it be further considered that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was Established by Divine Authority in the lewish Church and if our Saviour had pull'd down that ancient Polity and commanded an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but rather between the Priests of the Mosaie Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament When he reprov'd the corrupt glosses that were introduc'd into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees and taught them Purer and more Heavenly Strains of Morality he states the Opposition between the current Doctrine receiv'd amongst the Jews and that which he himself Taught and Recommended and there is no doubt to be made if he had forbidden the several Degrees and Subordinations of Priests and Established a perfect Equality he would have stated a plain Opposition between the Model of the Temple and the other Plat-form that was to succeed in the Christian Church As for the other Text that is ordinarily cited to serve the same design 1 Pet. 5.2 3. It is but the Apostle's Commentary on our Saviour's Words and Commandment and it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsuitable to all Power and Authority in the Church Thus such Texts have been understood from the beginning and it is one strong Prejudice against the new Exposition that it was never heard of until these latter days Secondly If the Presbyterians cannot Establish their Divine Right upon express Texts of Scripture they will support it as they think by the Clearest and most immediate Consequence and this is Equivalent to the most Positive Command and Institution The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter fill all their Books from top to bottom And if this be in it self Lame and Sophistical they must despair to Establish the pretended Equality of Presbyters in the Ecclesiastical Government The Argument most insisted on in favour of their Parity exclusive of Episcopal Jurisdiction is built upon the Homonomy of Bishop and Presbyter in the Language of the New Testament or because the Clergy are Dichotomiz'd only into Bishops and Deacons in some Texts of Scripture and in some Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church Hence they exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter though the Offices themselves be as much distinguished as is possible in several Texts of the New Testament And if this Argument alone appear Childish and Sophistical they have not another Sanctuary to flee to so my present Business is to Examine the force of it There is not one of their number with whom you Engage in this Controversie but immediately he will tell you that there is no distinction between Bishop and Presbyter in the Scriptures and therefore they conclude that their Argument a Confusione Nominum against the Superiority of a Bishop is
very Solid and Demonstrative To this purpose they cite Act. 20. 17. 28. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. and several other places Whether a Bishop be of a Higher Order than a Presbyter does not now fall under our Enquiry nor is it in it self very material Sometimes they might be consider'd of the same Order with regard to the Priesthood common to either by which both Bishops and Presbyters were distinguish'd from the body of the People and other Subordinate Officers of the Church though at other times when Authority and Jurisdiction is nam'd the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is always reckon'd above a Presbyter Here we are carefully to Observe that when the Inspir'd Writers Dichotomiz'd the Clergy into two Orders they but follow'd the Dialect and Example of the Jews who thus divided their Ministers also into Priests and Levites though the Highest Order was again Subdivided both by the Jews and the Christians when the Priests were consider'd with regard to that Subordination establish'd among themselves and without any regard to the Body of the People This is very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Jews as well as to the Idiom of the Hellenistical Tribes of the Apostolical Age The first confounded the name of the High Priest with that of a Priest without any other distinguishing Charcteristic or Discrimination For Proof of this see Levit. 1. 7 8. And the Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar and lay the wood in order upon the fire v. 8. And the Priests Aaron's Sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the Altar Here we plainly find that in the first Establishment of the Mosaic Oeconomy in which the Patriarchal Subordination of Priests was still retain'd the High Priest is nam'd by the same appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the Title of a Priest was promiseuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinate Yet it was never question'd but that there were extraordinary Privileges and Dignities reserv'd to the High Priest amongst the Jews though thus plac'd amongst the other Priests without any Nominal Distinction nor do we find the Title of High Priest ever affix'd to the particular name of Aaron or Eleazar in all the Pentateuch nor is the word High-Priest it self mention'd in the Books of Moses but either twice or thrice and that only with regard to the Administration of after days Yet this Homonomy of names could not be reasonably pleaded then against the Subordination of other Priests to Aaron nor against the Deference due to his Pontifical Character Was it then to be expected that the Apostles or Apostolical Men when they occasionally mention'd the Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the currant Language and Pharaseology of their own Country-men who divided their Clergy into Priests and Levites as if there were no more but two Orders even when the meanest of the Jews knew that the Dignity of the High Priest was very honourable and distinguish'd from all Subordinate Priests by all marks of Eminence and Authority It is true that in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High Priest is very frequently distinguish'd by his Proper and Special Character yet in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy neither Aaron nor Eleazar were called High-Priests when they are particularly nam'd and if in those days any had been so mad as to have infer'd from this confusio Nominum an Equality between all Priests he would certainly have been expos'd for the Offices themselves were sufficiently distinguish'd by those Special Ministries and Jurisdictions that were peculiarly appropriated to the one and deny'd to the other such as were visible to the observation of the meanest among the Jews We do not at all deny but that Bishops might be call'd Presbyters in the days of the Apostles and justly so too though they had other Presbyters under their Government and Inspection for the use of the Word Presbyter was another thing then than now if we consider it in its full Latitude and Extent With us it signifies such Priests as assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastical Administrations and are accountable to him for their Performances And though all Presbyters are not Bishops yet all Bishops are Presbyters and to infer an Equality of Offices from the promiscuous Use of Names I think is neither good Logick nor good History We do not now Plead as some Ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtain'd in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the New and though we meet with the same Dichotomies of the Clergy in the New Testament as are frequently seen in the Old we ought not to conclude from thence that there was an Equality among them of the Higher Order in that Division no more than there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testment for that same Highest Order or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was again divided into two viz. the Supream and Subordinate And not only they but the Jews also of the Apostolical Age divided their Clergy into two Classes when they spoke of them only as in Opposition to the People they made no other distinction amongst them than that of Priests and Levites But then again upon other Occasions they Subdivided the Priests into the Highest and Subordinate Order when they consider'd the Hierarchy in it self and distinguish'd every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priesthood from one another of this we have clear Instances from Philo the Jew Was it not then reasonable that the Apostles should speak the Language of the Age in which they lived and that of their Predecessors Whether then the Clergy be divided into their several Classes by a Biparite or Triparite division both is very Agreeable to the Custom of the Jews If they compar'd the Priests amongst themselves and reckon'd up their Distinctions and Subordinations to one another then they were Divided by a Tipartite Division but if they spoke of them with regard to the People then the Bipartite Division was more Convenient so that the Community of Names was very observable when the Offices themselves were as truly Separated and Distinguished a they could be In like manner the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolical Age he that was Vested with a Prostasia was a much above the Subordinate Presbyters as the High-Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Subordinate Presbuyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Ranked without any Nominal Distinction or Discrimination Nay Salmasius himself grants that even when the pretended Equality
prevail'd there was a Praeses to whom the Protocathedria or Locus in Cosessu Primarius was constantly due and that during life And there are such mainfest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to the one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolical Age that the Learned'st Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it The Apocalyptic Angels amongst whom we justly reckon S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops suceeding the Apostles in several Sees gathered at least towards the middle of the Second Century make it Evident beyond all Contradiction It is impossible to let us see from any Ancient Record either Genuine or Suppositious that there was ever any thing of Moment Canonically determin'd in the Ecclesiastical Meetings without their Bishop his particular Advice and Authority And since Clemens Romanus Origen and S. Cyprian do compare the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical how is it that we can pretend to Conclude an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies us'd in Christian Writings no more than we can Dream of a Parity among the Jewish Priests because they are frequently Dichotomiz'd especially since the Ancient who sometimes divide the Clergy only into two Orders do again upon other occasions Subdivide the Highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from all Subordinate Presbyters It is true that Clemens Romanus a Writer of the Apostolical Age Divides the Clergy into two Orders but so he Divides also the Jewish Ministers of the Sanctuary into Priests and Levites which no Man will allow as a Proof of the Equality of Priests under the Old Testament but I shall have Opportunity hereafter to consider the Testimony alledg'd by Blondel from S. Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians more particularly in its proper Place I have formerly said that the most Ancient Writers who Dichotomize the Clergy when they speak of them with regard to the Laity do yet distinguish them by a Tripartite Division when the Hierarchy is consider'd in it self and with regard to that Prostasia and Jurisdiction which distinguishes one Priest from another Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo hath these Words Jus quidem dandi baptismum habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi Authoritate quâ salvâ salva pax est Yet Monsieur Blondel runs away with another Testimony cited from his Apologeticks as if he had found there a perfect Equality of Presbyters because the Seniores are said to be in the Government than which there cannot be a more absurd Consequence for he neither affirm'd that those Seniores were all Equal among themselves nor is it certain whether by the Seniores he understood all Presbyters in General or those only who were advanc'd to the Episcopal Dignity for it was no part of his Business in an Apology Address'd to the Heathens to insist on the Subordinations of one Priest unto another for he only pleaded that there was nothing in the Christian Meetings contrary to the strictest Rules of Morality and Decency and that they were Men of Approv'd and Exemplary Lives who were advanc'd to any share of the Ecclesiastical Government Clemens Alexandrinus is brought as a Witness to serve the same Design but then unluckily he reckons up the three Orders of the Clergy and calls them Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this Occasion it is needless to name S. Cyprian who Asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal Power upon all Occasions with great Courage and Assurance and S. Polycarp the Famous Doctor of the Asiatic Church Bishop of Smyrna and Disciple of Saint John who flourish'd long before S. Cyprian though he Divides the Clergy into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians yet he honourably mentions and recommends the Epistles of S. Ignatius in which the Apostolical Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon is so often and so expresly mention'd and S. Polycarp in the Epigraphe of that Epistle distinguishes himself from his Subordinate Presbyters according to the Modest and Usual Sâ—ile of those days Pelycarp and the Presbyters that are with him who if he had stood on a Level with those Presbyters would never have distinguish'd himself from the Community of his Brethren by his proper Name plac'd at such a distance yet with Visible but very Modest Marks of Distiction and Precedence according to the humble Practice of those Glorious Martyrs From what hath been said it is very evident that there can be nothing more Foolish and Extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because some Ancient Christians us'd the Jewish Phraseology for even these upon other Occasions frequently Assert the Jurisdiction of one Bishop over many Presbyters and Hermas who was Contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproves the Ambition of some in his own time who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment And if there was no such Precedence then in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension The sum of these Reasonings amounts to this that when the Hellenist Jews would distinguish the High-Priest from the Levites they thought the common Name of a priest was sufficient as is evident from several places in Phylo the Jew And as it was unreasonable to conclued from thence that he had not a singular Authority and Jurisdiction over subordinate Priests so now-a-Days an Argument founded upon the same Topic is equally Impertinent and Sophistical When the priests were compar'd among themselves one with another then their Dignities and Subordinations might be seasonably mentioned If we compare the priests of the New Testament with the Deacons we need say no more than Priests and Deacons but when we compare the Priests among themselves we must acknowledge their several Subordinations The Priests under the Old Testament were only allowed to offer the Sacrifices and by their Offering of Sacrifices were distinguish'd from the Levites So under the New Testament the Priests both of the highest and subordinate Order offer the Eucharistical Sacrifice and by so doing are sufficiently distinguish'd from Deacons yet this is no Argument against the Subordination of one Priest unto another Thus we see there was the same Reason for those Dichotomies of the Clergy both under the Old and New Testament From what hath been said we may easily see that the Jews us'd such Dichotomies of their Clergy both under the Mosaic Oeconomy and in the Apostolical Age when the superiority of the High-Priest was past all Contradiction And there can be a very good account given of this Phraseology and way of speaking from the different Considerations that engag'd both Jewish and Christian Writers to use the Bipartite or Tripartite Division of the Clergy for the very same Christian Writers who only mentioned two Orders do in other places reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon as plainly as is possible From
that more perfect Scheme that was to continue until the coming of the Messiah This is certain that before the Apostles left the World they established such an Ecclesiastical Government as ought to continue in the Church until the second coming of our Savioar But let us suppose that where we meet with such Dichetomies in other Authors such a Parity as is intended by the Presbyterians may be understood yet when we view the Text of St. Clement more narrowly we must not presume to make any such Inference for the very same St. Clement Dichotomizies the Jewish Clergy who are known to have had their High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites yet he comprehends them all in this short and Bipartite Division For speaking of Jacob he hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And must we from hence conclude that there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testament because they are thus distinguish'd from the Laity without mentioning the several Gradations of the Hierarchy amongst themselves Nay so little do our Adversaries gain by straining the Language of St. Clement contrary to the Latitude and Simplicity of the Apostolical Age that the same Author comprehends all Ministers of Religion under one general Word whether Prophets Apostles Bishops Presbyters or Deacons and not only does he thus speak of the Priests of the true Religion but also of the * Egyptian Priests who are known to have had their several subordinations But that which is most material to our purpose is that the same St. Clement when he exhorts the Corinthians to Christian Order and Harmony sets before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple-Service how the High Priest Priests and Levites were distinguished by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and immediatly recommends to the Corinthians that every one of them should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now when we consider the Primitive method of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents St. Clement had never talked at this rate if the Jurisdiction of one over many Priests had been abolish'd under the New Testament and Jerome himself on whose Writings M. Blondel endeavours to establish his Opinion in his Epistle to Evagrius gives light to this place of St. Clements Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia For without all Controversie those traditions descended from the Jewish Church to the Christian as their true inheritance Nay St. Clement himself expresly distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Nor can it be an Objection of any weight that the first who were there Spiritual Governors are mentioned in the plural Number since this was an Encyclical Epistle Address'd to Corinth as the principal City and from thence transmitted to its dependencies How considerable the City of Corinth was in those Days every body knows and S. Chrysostom informs us that it was Populous and magnificent in regard of its Riches and Wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far was S. Clement from intending a Parity of Priests by his promiscuous use of words that he himself distinguishes plainly the spiritual Governors from the body of subordinate Presbyters and it is surprising to observe how much Men may be blinded with prejudice contrary to the Universal suffrage of the Ancients who place S. Clement so early in the Apostolical Succession of the Chair of Rome the Reader may see them all in one view prefixt to Junius his Edition of his Epistle to the Corinthians A second Witness made to appear an evidence for Parity is the venerable S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who by Ireneus Bishop of Lions is said to have been taught by the Apostles to have convers'd with many who had seen our Saviour and that he himself saw him in his younger Days and that he knew him to have been constituted Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles This is he who by S. Jerome is called totius Asiae princeps One would think that when they name S. Polycarp they had discovered some clear Testimony in his Writings to build their Hypothesis upon but instead of this nothing but a wretched consequence founded upon the Bipartite Division of the Clergy mentioned in his Epistle to the Philippians And yet the Epigraphe of S. Polycarp's Epistle clearly distinguishes him from his Presbyters who were then with him which runs thus Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church of God which is at Philippi And if he had not been vested with Episcopal Jurisdiction and Eminence amongst those Presbyters how was it agreeable to the primitive Modesty and self Denial to have named himself only in the frontispiece of this Epistle and to mention none of his Brethern save only by the general name of Presbyters This is mighty uneasie to Blondel and the evidence of Truth forces from him the following words id tamen in S. Martyris epistola peculiare apparet quod eam pr. vatim suo Presbyterorum nomine ad philippensium fraternitatem dedit ac sibi quandam supra Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reservasse videtur ut jam tum in Episcopali apice constitutum reliquos Smyrnensium Presbyteros gradu superasse conjicere liceat There are two things that baffle this shadow of an Argument brought from the Epistle of S. Polycarp The first is that Irenaeus who was intimately acquainted with him and knew him to have been taught by S. John the Apostle and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna does refute the Heresies of the Valentintans from the unanimous Doctrine preserv'd amongst the single successors of S. Polycarp downwards to that very Period in which he wrote For if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodg'd in the College of Presbyters his Argument against the Hereticks from the Succession of single Persons teaching the same Doctrine first delivered by S. John and convey'd by S. Polycarp to the following Bishops I say such an Argument so manag'd could have no force nor was it possible for Irenaeus to have us'd it The next is this that in the same Epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians the Epistles of S. Ignatius are zealously recommended and we need not inform the Reader how much the Divine Institution Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters is asserted in those Epistles of which I am to speak in due time The Question then concerning S. Polycarp is whether we are to believe S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who was fully acquainted with the manner of his Education Apostolical Doctrine and promotion to the See of Smyrna rather than the dark and groundless conjectures of later Ages And from this single Instance alone we see how inflexible and Stubborn the Power of prejudice is how far it
triumphantly Atheism and Impiety lift up their Banners every where Let us endeavour as much as is possible to preserve some Remains of Religion amongst the People Let us assert the ancient Order and Piety that made the Christian Church so beautiful in former Ages The Apostle informs us that the time would come when men could not endure sound Doctrine but after their own lust shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching Ears and they shall turn away their Ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables The great Founder of our Religion sent his Apostles by found Doctrine to enlighten the World and they convey'd this Spiritual Authority unto others who should transmit it by an orderly Succession and as their Mission was Heavenly in its Original so their Doctrine was pure and holy in all its Tendencies They considered themselves as the Ambas adors of Jesus Christ and Delivered their Commission without any Mixture or Hypocrisy They treated the People with all Humility and Tenderness but in the mean time took great care to mortifie their Lusts and their Passions but when they grew wanton and headstrong and thought themselves too wise to be led by their Spiritual Guides and Rulers then they would have teachers of their own Men chosen by themselves such as were taught to calculate their Doctrines to popular Fancies and Humours such as would prostitute the Gospel to promote Error and Delusion and make the Kingdom of Light subservient to that of Darkness and instead of serving our blessed Saviour they became Slaves to the People by whom they were originally employed and because they were so unhappily successful as to gratifie their Lusts they were therefore voted the most edifying teachers The Primitive Ministers of Religion had their immediate Commission from Heaven accordingly they endeavoured by all means to restore the Image of God in the Souls of Men to raise their Thoughts and Designs to that Happiness and Treasure which the World cannot give which God truth promised and made sure by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead The other had their authority from Men and therefore they must needs please the People who sent them They must reconcile the Rules and Morals of the Gospel to the Wicked Practices and designs of the World they must change the strictest Maxims of the Evangel into looser Theorems and the severe Discipline of the Ancient Church unto all Licence and Luxury the true faith that works by love unto airy Notions and Mistakes Thus the People were pleas'd and the Gospel was defeated the Church is ruin'd and God dishonour'd Every Man in his own station is obliged to contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints When the Foundations of Ecclesiastical Unity are shaken loose and the Antient Constitutions trampled upon with great Insolence and Impiety then the hedge of tâ—â—e Religion is not only Invaded but Demolished and without those Sacred Vehicles it must Evaporate into Giddiness and Enthusiasm the Extravagance of these last days is boundless as it Sceptical and Christianity it self is more dangerously wounded by the Delusions of some that are Baptiz'd than by the open Blasphemies of Infidels The last may be assaulted by Reason at least in their more Lucid Intervals but the first are altogether inaccessible we must not presume to instruct them who pretend to extraordinary Illuminations their Errors are made strong by their vanity they plead a Divine Right to every New Opipinion and if we approach them in the ancient Paths of Modesty and Humility they look down upon us with Scorn and Indignation Nay they are inflexible to the plainest and most convincing arguments I have frequently with Grief and Sorrow considered the Decays of Religion and the Difficulties of our Employment We must pull down strong Holds and lofty Imaginations and grapple with the rudest Oppositions the Avenues of Mens Souls are blockaded by passion and prejudices and they are fortified in their Error not only by the Corruption of their Nature but by the artifice of Seducers their itching Ears are pleased their Lusts are gratified their Passions are made more unruly their Envy Hatred and Malice are indulg'd and they are allow'd to distinguish themselves from all others by special Titles of Division and Singularity by which alone they think to make their Calling and Election sure Yet notwithstanding that we are thus resisted by the Multitude of their Follies and Delusions we must not give over by Faintness and Despondency We must plead with them who have left the Unity of the Church by the words of Truth and Soberness and exhort others to continue in that Doctrine that was reveal'd by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages that the present Generation may not rise in Judgment against us for our Silence nor Posterity censure our Cowardice We must not be ashamed of the truth even when it is contradicted with all possible Violence and Fury I address this short Treatise to you with a design rather to assert the Truth than to reply to what hath been lately published by the Vindicator of the Kirk of Scotland against a certain Book Entituled Apology for the Clergy c. though I think it necessary to make some of his Mistakes a little more apparent There are certain Practices and Rituals received by the Christian Church in all Ages which are not determin'd expresly in the Holy Scriptures in so many Letters and Syllables yet by the plainest and most undeniable Consequences are agreeable to its general Rules and the Uniform belief of all Christians and they that deny those Usages or the Lawfulness of those Rituals venture upon untrodden Paths and do foolishly condemn the Wisdom of all former Ages The special Providence of God hath so watch'd over the Church that since the first Plantations of Christianity we have preserved to us some Records and Monuments of its Doctrine and Practices The Books of such as have been learn'd in every age do plainly demonstrate that the first Christians were agreed amongst themselves in the great Articles of Religion and in the general Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Order and by this Uniformity of Doctrine and Rituals they strengthened themselves against Infidels and Hereticks There is nothing more opposite to the spirit of true Religion than Stubborness and Petulance and when we despise those Constitutions that have been universally received amongst Christians we overthrow the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible fellowship of Christ's Houshold and Family When we consider the Schisms and Tumults of particular Churches the confusions of so many Revolutions the shakings of so many Nations the boldness and activity of Hereticks we have reason to adore the Goodness of God that so many Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity are preserv'd and whatever is uniformly determin'd by the Wisest and the best of Christians their learn'dst Bishops and Presbyters