you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing unless he can evince that the Presbyters who were necessary for the growing Charge were his Underlings not his Collegues § 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy as he thinketh he manageth p 164 seq from James Bishop of Jerusalem who was over many Congregations for the Increase of Christians was such as that they could not meet in one place The Answer hath been before given James was no ordinary Bishop but an Apostle and had Jurisdiction not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea but in all the World He telleth us that we use many Evasions but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them when he knoweth which of them we most trust to If I had dealt so by his Book no Answer had been given to it I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to nor which of them doth best deserve that regard If he had answered all that we say he could not have missed what we most trust to he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions not according to our Esteem of them but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice we are not much concerned in it it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City provided their Pastors be not subject to one but Co-ordinate among themselves His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir◠was needless he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel Dally and Salmasius yet that Author might modestly put him in mind how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken and when he had in his own Apprehension baffled that triumph over Presbytery as if never more had been said for it while he hath neither out of his own Store nor from the Answers of thess Books brought any thing against our main Arguments SECTION VIII Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined judging it more proper for some States Man or one who is versed in the Law his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament which he treateth very saucily but finding that they neglected his Book and think it below them unless they could also find his Person and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another if not the same Author here speaking more dareingly from behind the Curtain on second thoughts I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth in some short animadversions such as I have already made upon his Preface in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament I know the hazard of that from the experience of others but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen which touch not this matter He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries I shall consider what he saith on each of them § 2. His first Enquiry is Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters I observe two Mistakes to give them no worse Names in thus stating the Question First it is enough to us if our Reformers were mostly though not solely Presbyters if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work Secondly it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church when they had withdrawn from Subjection to the Roman Hierarchy for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers being now Reformed for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government But to gratifie my Adversary a little I so far yield to the State of his Question as to maintain that few if any had an Active Hand in the Reformation who had been Popish Bishops but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work If he would have cleared the Question he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House but confounded all and builded a Babel of their own devising To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560 who all turned Protestants this is little to the purpose for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time Preachers and some private Men did more for the turning Persons to the Truth than Parliament Men did 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number if there had been no more Hands at the Work it had gone slowly on 3. Among all these eight there were but two Bishops the rest were Prelates indeed in the Popish Sense Abbots and such like but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates or that they have superior Power in the Church to Presbyters 2. He telleth us that they who laboured most in the Reformation were not in Holy Orders and nameth some of them Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops It is true many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way nor were they Presbyters in that Church but when they turned Protestants they were made Presbyters and not Bishops Yea Claud. historic def of the Reformation part 4. page 15. saith that in many Nations among whom he nameth Scotland the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors to wit Monks Preachers Priests Curats Canons c. And it is as certain as History can make it that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops Argyle and Galloway Some of them and these of good Note and who were eminently blessed with Success were but Lay-Men as he frazeth it who by their private Labours converted many and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly by such Ordination as then could be had but they were never exalted to be Bishops Let me digress a little to observe that the Laird of Dun by this Authors account was after made a Superintendent
to greater Criminals 26. To restore Criminals 27. He had the Power of Excommunication 28. To delate attrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrat 29. They had great Power over Schools and Colledges 30. They were the Licensers of Books § 10. Quae non prosunt singula juncta juvant here is a large Muster Roll to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train that might have been to as much advantage drawn into a narrower Compass I shall first Make some general Observes on all this Heap of Prerogatives Next Examine them particularlie but very succinctlie For the former I observe 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at first more absolute and independent on the rest of the Ministers than afterward because at first there were hardlie any qualified Ministers but only Readers or such as could Catechise the People newly come out of Popery but when there was a better Stock of qualified Ministers and yet the Church but meanlie provided the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence and was little other than a constant Moderator and his Power was by every General Assembly abridged till that Office was at last abolished as no longer needful in the Church 2. It is not denyed but that there was an Imparitie between a Superintendent and another Minister but this was lookt on by our Reformers not as a standing Office nor as having any Foundation but that of present Necessitie so that it did no way derogate from that Paritie that they lookt on as the Way that the Church should be Governed and as what they intended when their Case should allow it But of this more afterward 3. All this cannot make the Superintendent and the Bishop to be the same Officer in the Church because the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Christ and his Soveraign power over the Presbyters is by Divine Appointment the other is set up by Men and more or less Power is given to him as they think fit The one is accountable to none but Christ the other is accountable to the Presbyterie and may be Censured yea Deprived by them The one is lookt on as what should always continue in the Church the other was designed but for that Exigency of the Church to be laid aside when that was over 4. Not a few of these Prerogatives are either asserted without Ground or Misrepresented To make out which I proceed to the second thing I proposed viz. To Examine them particularlie for the first The Extent of their District is no Argument for such Disparitie as he pleadeth for they had each of them their proper Charge as other Ministers where they were ordinarilie to Labour but had larger Districts for Visitation 2. Their Nomination by the Council and Election by the Nobility and Gentry is asserted without Ground Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it nor do I find any thing to that purpose in any of our Historians 3. A Superintendent could not be deposed but by the Ministers of the whole Province This necessarilie followed upon his Charge or Power of Visiting being of that Extent In that he was deposeable by the Ministers it is evident he was no Bishop in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bishop 4. The same reason was for his being Elected by the Ministers of the Province What our Author saith of the Ordination of the Superintendent is a foull Misrepresentation as any one may see in the place he citeth Spots hist. lib. 3. p. 159 160. Nothing is there mentioned but Election and Trial but on the contrarie it is expreslie said other Ceremonies than this Examination the Approbation of Ministers and Superintendents with the publick Consent of Elders and People we do not admit Whence it is evident that he had no new Office nor Ordination above a Presbyter § 11. His fifth Prerogative is He was not to be Translated from one place to another but by a Council of the whole Church This is no Episcopal Jurisdiction The Extent of his District to a Province made this necessarie there being no Judicature above his Province but a General Assembly 6. It is least of all Argumentative that he was to give good proof of his Qualifications by being some time in the Ministry because the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Ministry was the Rise of his Office therefore he must be the best qualified that can be had 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument he had more Work and Occasion for Expense by Travelling to Visit Churches than the rest had It is falslie alledged that Spots p. 210. saith it was agreed 1567. that the Superintendent should succeed to the Beneflces of the Popish Bishops deprived there is not such a word in that place only there and in the former page it is agreed that the Church should be restored to her Patrimonie 8. There being constant Members of the General Assembly saith no more but that there being so few qualified Ministers these few choice Men were needed in the Assemblies of the Church 9. His trying Ministers and Readers was from the present necessities of the Church when Presbyteries could not be had to do it 10. His giving Collation did follow on the former Power 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Minister fell to him and his Council He could not place a Minister by himself as our Bishops pretended to do but by the assistance of such Ministers as were fittest to judge these were his Council this also was for the present necessity and want of Ministers to make a Presbytery 12. His power of Ordination our Author passeth very slightly and with a general alleging of several Acts of Assemblies It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himself when no other Minister could be had to joyn with him but as soon as Presbyters could be had it was not so Our Reformers used no other Ceremonie in Ordination but Nomination and Tryal and Approbation and it is evident that these were to be performed by the Superintendent with the rest of the Ministers for Spotsw p. 155. sheweth out of the Book of Discipline that this Tryal and Approbation was to be performed by the learned Ministers appointed for their Examination then not by one Man alone 13. Subjection to him which our Author is pleased to call Canonical Obedience was a necessarie consequent of his Office but it is to be observed that in the Assemblie 1562 out of which he allegeth this Passage Superintendents were Tryed and Censured by the Assemblie and it was appointed that at every Assemblie they and Ministers and Elders should be Tryed as to their Conversation which looketh not like Episcopacy 14. His power of Visitation was indeed his main Characteristick but doth not prove Episcopal jurisdiction it being delegated to him by the Church and he being Accountable to her for it 15. His power of Deposing is expresly said to be given him by the Assemblie and he is ordered to report his
THE GOOD Old WAY Defended Against the Attempts of A. M. D. D. in his BOOK Called An Enquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of SCOTLAND Wherein the Divine Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters Acting in Parity is Asserted and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is disproved the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Episcopacy as now Pleaded for are made Manifest from Scriptural Arguments and the Testimony of the Antient Writers of the Christian-Church and the groundless and unreasonable Confidence of some Prelatick Writers exposed Also the Debates about Holy-Days Schism the Church-Government used among the First Scots Christians and what else the Enquirer Chargeth us with are clearly Stated and the Truth in all these Maintained against him Likewise some Animadversions on a Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery in so far as it misrepresenteth the Principles and Way of our First Reformers from Popery where the Controversie about Superintendents is fully handled and the Necessity which led our Ancestors into that Course for that Time is Discoursed By GILBERT RULE one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH EDINBURGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Excellent Majesty Anno DOM. 1697. To the Right Honourable PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT Viscount of BLASONBERRY LORD POLWARTH of POLW ARTH REDBRAES and GREENLAW c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND My Noble Lord I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns as for the State so for the Church of CHRIST as now Established in this Nation My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rulâ—rs Favour having had for many Years the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church and of the Nation In utraque fortuna and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both But what I aim at is to express the true Sense I have as I know my Brethren also to retain of your Lordships Wisdom Zeal and Fortitude encountering the Greatest of Hazards and enduring the most grievous of Hardships for that Holy Religion that ye Profess and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey The eminent Post your Lordship is now in as it is a Token of your Princes Favour and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service of another Sort and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things when ye have the Occasion and Temptation of seeking your own Things as ye did when ye Ventured and lost your All in this World for him GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble and that ye will be singly and actively for him the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work and Occasions are uncertain There will be great Peace in Reflection when our Work is at an endâ— on sincere Endeavours and Application of Mind to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship and continue your Capacity to do Him Service and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings is the earnest prayer of Edinburgh December 20 1697. My Noble Lord Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant G. R. TO THE READER THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War being for my Age Miles emeritus needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth and right Ways of GOD should be Stopped and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way when I entered on this Work nor till I had finished it After it was in the Press and some Progress made in it I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela Voâ—um Justum wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with are solidly Refuted and the main Subject that I Treat off is Handled which made me think that Bâ—ok might Supersede mine Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self and my own second Thoughts finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected And that the one Work is more Historical the other more Argumentative so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched and that two Witnesses are better than one these Considerations I say determined me not to stop the Press And indeed the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors on the slenderest Grounds should be exposed as much as may be while they Build so Important Truths and Practices and press them so warmly on Phrases Words and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients which signified quite another thing then than what now they are commonly applyed to The Learned Clericus in his Preface to Ars Critica Sect. 3. at the end hath these Words here very apposite Quot quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur in numerato habere qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt nempe Vocabula nuda didicerant aut Voces quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery And in that Case Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I Build my Church and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time doth infer his sole Power seing as our Lord in another Place giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters as well as they several times mention that of Bishops without mentioning Presbyters No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case ERRATA PAge 1. line 16. read Principle p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems p. 50. l. 5. r. James p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses p. 150. l. 36. r. them p. 181. l. 37. r. approved p. 186. l. 37. r. great p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank p. 199.
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion 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 lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei◠not being so sensible of the
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
distinguisheth them than as the one word signifieth Office or ruling Power the other the Age of them who use to be put into that Office and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office yet not when it is joined with and distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is clear that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters as he had done several times in the Epistle as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers not one but more in the Church of Corinth and as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elder in years wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety § 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation that this Author pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel insisteth only on that which is of least weight even in the Testimony already mentioned as is above shewed and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings without so much as mentioning them Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned that Clement telleth us that the Apostles knowing per Dominum by Divine Revelation that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church so far were they saith Blondel from thinking Prelacy the best or only Remedie against Schism as some did in after ages He doth also shew how Clement teacheth that the Presbyters or Bishops for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons were set in the Church by the Apostles and after by other excellent men so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church not by the Bishop and Patron and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course need fear no Change And after sheweth how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth it had then stood as it is thought about 25 years should move Sedition against her Presbyters some turbulent Spirits among them withstood not a single Bishop of whom not a word in all this Discourse but the Presbyters of the Church and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters that were settled in it it seems he did not name the Bishop nor provided against Sedition against him because he knew no such person at Corinth And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters Now all this insisted on by Blondel he passeth by which was his wisdom and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath far less weight than these Passages have § 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp which is that writing to the Church of Philippi he taketh no notice of their Bishop that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons not mentioning the Bishop but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church His Answer to all this is first that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters while he saith Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself and answereth it fully and easily calling it nuda Conjectura and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself from his being the older man and the older Minister And being ordained by an Apostle which was a Dignity though it gave no Superiority of Power as being better known to the Philippians and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages where no Superiority of Power can be imported All this our Author passeth over in silence Next he saith this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie which is a mistake for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune which could not all be Diocesans and their Head the Bishop is not noticed and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative because as was above shewed of Clement he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned if such a person had been in that Church He will prove p. 51 that this can be no Argument for Parity Because first Irenâ—… refutes the Heresies of the Valentians from the unanimous Dâ—… preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp which could be no Argument if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters I ask him how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument Do not Ministers in any Church succeed one to another as well as Bishops And if they be faithful they will continue the true Doctrine and hand it down to their Successors as welâ— as Bishops would do Neither hath it any force that single Successon are mentioned for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie who is mentioned as more eminent though having but equal power If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine not by Episcopal power His other proâ—… is the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted of which our Author wâ—… speak in due time When he shall please to speak of Ignatius we shâ—… consider what he saith and hope to find that all the proof he caâ—… thence bring is insufficient Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book Ergo he approveth all that is in it 〈◊〉 he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles in that they assâ—… Prelacy that had been to the purpose otherways his Inference 〈◊〉 without all force § 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas in his Book calleâ— Pastor on whom he layeth very little stress as is evident to any whâ—… will read Blondel without prejudice and I think Blondel needed not 〈◊〉 have mentioned him both because he is of little Authority it beiâ—… most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book whether 〈◊〉 mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct witâ— respect to Hermas 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences froâ— him that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book wâ—… written which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circulâ—… Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement then Bishop 〈◊〉 Rome Answer This Evidence and the
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very
ordinary Power exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops compared with the Apostles Whitaâ—… I say bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle from these Characters of an Apostle and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself proving his own Apostleship that he was not called by men Gal 1. 1. Now saith he the Pope is called by men so say we of Bishops that he had his Doctrine not by mens teaching but by Revelation Gal. 1. 2. Eph 〈◊〉 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope nor Bishops that he had seen Christ 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists that they giâ—e other Characters of an Apostle which they make essential to him and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have Calvin Inâ—… lib. 4 cap 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle his universal Charge and not being tyed to a particular Church and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19 20. where he observeth that there was no bounds set to their Labours but the whole world was given them to labour in and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ but how he had travelled through a great part of the World preaching the Gospel He mentioneth also another Character that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architecâ—â— qui â—jus â—und 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or be 〈◊〉 They were the first Planters of Churches of which afterward If it be objected that these things belonged to the first and extraordinary Apostles not to these that are secondary and permanent or ordinary Apostles This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church but giveth no account of other Apostles therefore these other are not Apostles except in the general Notion as they are sent to do Church work Gersom Bucer dissert de gubern Eccles. Episceps 70. p. 269. proveth that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers from 1 Cor 12. 29. are all Apostles so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus making the Apostles such a distinct Office to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office that their Calling was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediate The same hath Paul Bayâ— Dyoces â—ryal p. 52. Didoclav altar Damascen C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker and Junius to this purpose and even Tilenus who was no friend to Presbyterie Petrum saith he unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere de Pontif lib 2 C. 4. Not 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not 7. he hath these words neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati tanquam globae ascriptus fuit quod Gregarli est Episcopi non Apostoli Also lib. 2. C. 12. § 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church now deceased which by an accident hath stuok in the Birth I mean the Press for some time the design of which is to prove and I think he doth it solidly that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way to gather and to plant Churches and to institute all Christs Ordinances in them to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded So he p 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it and administring the Ordinances of it And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church Ministerially under Christ whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all inferior Officers He further sheweth that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church in the beginning of the Gospel particularly the Evangelists whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles the one was immediatly from Christ the other was from Him by the Apostles though their Gifts were sometimes immediate and extraordinary 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit as the Apostles were but were directed and ordered by the Apostles 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly as the Apostles as appeareth from the Epist to Tim and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands as the Apostles had My design in all this is to shew that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office how ever confidently asserted by him on his bare word seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith we look on it as a groundless Fancie that he can never make out I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops and some of them call Presbyters Apostles in a large sense that is Christs Ambassadors but that some of them think or say that the Office of them who now rule the Churches is the same with that of them who at first planted them I find not when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform they shall be considered § 6 I cannot pass over without correction an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour but by the Apostles who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World A. It is most absurdly said that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle why made they use of Lots They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it his words are Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum prout Presbyteros ordinabant sed sorte utuntur quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum Nor doth it make against this that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Dr. Hammond who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be and understood as well what could be said for it saith constat Matthiam
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
them only this Reply I return to them all what if he Misworded the Article though he did not Forge it the other Historians have the same Article only they have not the Word Bishops in which lyeth the whole force of our Authors Argument § 8. His next Argument which beareth positive plain c. Evidence is from another Petition of our Reformers set down in the History commonly ascribed to John Knox p. 131. a large Portion of which he Transcribeth I shall Compendize it without taking any thing from its Strength on his Side they require that the ill Lives of Prelates and the State Ecclesiastical may be Reformed and Declare that they envy not their Honours nor covet their Possessions but desire their Reformation and they add that we are content that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament but also the Writings of the Ancient Fathers and the Godly and Approved Laws of Justinian the Emperor decide the Controversie betwixt us and them and they earnestly desire that notwithstanding the long Custom they had to live at their Lust they may be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration or discharge their Duties as becometh true Ministers Let us now hear what Improvement he maketh of this Passage to his purpose he telleth us that here our Reformers lay down a Complex Rule for Reforming of the Church and we refuse not to try it with our Opposites in the Controversie about Prelacy by this Complex Rule but with these two Limitations which cannot be made appear to be inconsistent with what is there expressed by our Reformers one is that all the Parts of this Complex Rule be not lookt on as of Co-ordinat Authority but that the rest be subordinate to the Holy Scripture we are not afraid of the Verdict of the Fathers of the first Ages but if they should be found in any thing to recede from Scripture we reject them The other is that the Laws of Justinian which our Reformers mention be rather lookt on as a Rule concerning the Temporalities of Church Men than their Spiritual Jurisdiction He next saith that our Reformers were content that the Clergy should live and rule and discharge their Trust as they did in the days of Justinian and now saith he if they who so Petitioned were for Parity and not for the Continuance of Prelacy I must confess my Ignorance to be very gross Ans. I shall not determine whither Ignorance or somewhat else hath led him into a gross Mistake of the Meaning and Design of these Petitioners but a Mistake seemeth to be evident They were not so absurd as to make the Roman Civil Law the Rule of Religion we know how that hath been altered and reformed oftner than once whereas the Rule of Religion is unalterable by the Authority of Men wherefore they can mean no more but that they are willing that Prelates should enjoy their Benefices this for Peace sake they yielded too as they were setled by the good Laws of Justinian where a Limitation even in that is insinuated and that the Lives and Authority of the Pastors of the Church should be regulated by Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers in Subordination to that Justinian lived in the sixth Century when Prelacie was far advanced in the Church wherefore they had Acted very absurdly if they had been for that way and yet so quickly settled among themselves contrarie to the Inclinations of their Friends in England to whose Assistance they owed very much a way so opposit to that Our Reformers the Nobilitie Gentrie and Ministers were neither so unfaithful nor so changeable as to be influenced by one or two Men to such an absurd Course I add to all this that it is most absurd to say that the Church of England took the Writings of the ancient Fathers for the Rule of the Reformation or for any part of it for indeed by that Rule there will be found a Canonical Nullitie in the Power of all their Bishops on account of their being chosen by the Magistrat and sitting in Parliament for Canon Apost confirmed by Concil Constantinop 6. Canon 29. revived by Con. â—il Nicen. 2. Canon 3. condemneth the one and Can. 6. and 80. the other § 9. After mentioning another Petition of the Reformers which containeth no new matter he cometh from p. 119. to prove that the first Church Government that our Reformers settled was not Paritie but Superintendency All that he saith on this head hath been often answered and it hath been made plain to the Conviction of them who will see that Superintendency as set up in Scotland was nothing like Episcopacy that it was never intended to be continued but used for the present Necessitie and that it was never lookt on as inconsistent with their being for Paritie in Opinion but we must submit to the Drudgerie of Repetitions seing he will have it so I take notice of his forgetting what he had said a little before as I observed § 2. viz. that the Laird of Dun was made a Superintendent though it doth appear that he was never in Holie Orders whence it evidently followeth that on this Authors Supposition the Reformers lookt not on Superintendency as a Government any otherwise warrantable but by the Force of Necessitie Two things he undertaketh about Superintendency 1. To shew their Power and Disparity from other Ministers 2. To dissipate the Mists cast on this matter by Presbyterians For the former he telleth us of a considerable Stock of Prerogatives or Preheminencies above other Church Men. As 1. They had larger Districts 2. They were to be Nominated by the Council and Elected by the Nobility and Gentry c. within their District 3. They were not to be Censured but by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province over which they were Appointed 4. They were to be Admitted which our Author calleth Ordination by other Superintendents 5. They were to be Translated by the whole Church 6. They must be two years at least in the Ministry before they be Superintendents 7. He had a greater Benefice than other Ministers 8. Every one of them was a constant Member of the General Assembly 9. He was to try Candidats for the Ministry and â—…eaders 10. He had the Power of Collation on Presentations 11. He had Power to plant Ministers in the Churches where the People were negligent 12. He had the Power of Ordination 13. Ministers were subject to him in all lawful Admonitions he was to be obeyed 14. He had Power of Visitation of Churches 15. He might depose Ministers 16. He might translate Ministers 17. He might nominat Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly 18. He had Power to hold Diocesan Synods 19. To appoint Fasts within his own Bounds 20. To modifie Stipends 21. To receive Appeals 22. He had Power of Fineing in case of undue Appeals 23. To determine intricate Cases of Conscience or Government 24. To judge of Divorces 25. To enjoyn Pennance
the Reformation If any should object that this is a dispensing with the Law of GOD I Answer it is not Mans dispensing with GOD'S Law but his Judging that GOD in that Case dispenseth with his own Law or as Aquinas 2. 2. Q. 88. Art 10. Fit ut hoc quod erat lex non sit lex in hoc casu and 1. 2. Q. 96. Art 6. Qui in casu Necessitatis agit praeter verba Legis non judicat de ipsa Lege sed judicat de casu singulari in quo videt verba legis observanda non esse And indeed to denie all Influence of true real and innocent Necessitie to change the Moralitie of some Actions especially these that relate to Instituted Worship were to put Mens Consciences on such a Rack as there were some times no possibilitie to attain to well grounded Peace And on the other hand I hope what is said will Defend this Opinion from the horrid consequence that he is pleased to draw from it especially when we consider that this influence of Necessitie must be but for a time not perpetual because it is not to be thought that any of GODS Appointments are so contrived as to be always unpracticable or that the LORD will bring his Church or any Person under such a lasting Necessitie that they never can do what he hath Commanded they using their utmost endeavours to observe all that he hath Commanded as is injoyned Matthew 28. 20. I shall not Determine what Necessitie of Omission one may be perpetually under but I understand not how this can be with respect to possitive Acts contrarie to Institution § 22. He dealeth with a Second Plea that he imputeth to us p. 157 c. why our Reformers are not to be thought Episcopal in their Principles notwithstanding of their setting up Superintendents which is that these Superintendents did very much differ from Bishops in the Notion that our Adversaries have of Bishops The Author of the Ten Questions calleth that a New Modell of Episcopacy To take off this Calderwood bringeth some Differences between them and Bishops and Vindicat in Answer to the Ten Questions mentioneth also some of them and Addeth what after he confesseth to be Material All which he is pleased to ridicule with his wonted Insolencie but I am consident the judicious Reader will easily discern who is most Ridiculous he that Proveth a Superintendent not to be the same with a Bishop from his Election Examination and Admission that he had no new Consecration as Bishops must have and so was in no Superior degree to a Presbyter that there were no Arch-Superintendents as there were Arch-Bishops c. or he who compareth these to the ordinary Habit of the one with the State and Grandeur of the other in their distinguishing Marks which yet if not set down in such scurrile terms as he useth may make a great Difference between the Temper of the one sort of Men and that of the other though not of their Office or Power If our Reformers had intended to continue that sole Jurisdiction of Prelats in the Church which they found settled in it under Poperie this Change that they made even in these things is unaccountable nor can a Reason be given why they kept not to the old District that the Bishops had before Governed It is as evident as any thing can be made at such a distance of time that the Superintendents never had that absolute Power in the Church that our Episcopal Brethren now allow to their Prelats Though we denie not that they had a Frelacie and more Power than We now give to single Presbyters and have given the Reason why it was so and of its Consistence with the design of our Reformers that the perpetual Government of the Church should be by Paritie The main Difference between the two sorts of Church Rulers which we insist on and which himself acknowledgeth to be Material he falleth upon p. 159. and sayeth he must be serious in it is Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of Ministers within their own Dioces The Truth of which and that it neither was so with Bishops in the Primitive Church nor should be so now he doth freely Profess But he putteth his Wit to its utmost stretch to get a fair Answer to it He bringeth no less than Five Answers whereas one good one had been Worth them all His first Answer hath some what of Ingenuitie in it He condemneth our Reformers in this and sayeth it was a great Error in their Constitutions and declames against it with great Vehemencie that Governours should be Subject to the Censure of their Subjects and sheweth a great deal of Zeal for absolute Government both in Church and State into Debate about which I shall not now enter only I take Notice that here he fairly gives up that part of our Controvesie that he hath been at a vast deal of pains about that our Reformers were Episcopal in their Principles With which I am sure this is wholly inconsistent If he had thought of this sooner and Acted consequentially to it after this Thought came into his Head he he might have saved a greas deal of pains to himself and Me and near the Half of his long Book might have been spared His second Answer is this was put in their Constitution from a Principle about civil Government owned by them that the King is Major singulis but Minor omnibus which he also Ridiculeth Neither am I concerned to Debate this Principle it doth not belong to our our present Controversie But what he asserteth is a groundless Conjecture we have better ground to think that they lookt on this as according to the Laws of the Gospel which forbiddeth Church Domination His Third is they made also Ministers Censureable by their Elders and from thence taketh occasion to Reproach them as having little Skill in Church Policy nor will I degress into these Debates only I take Notice that what he saith is no Answer to our Exception but rather a Confirmation of it if both a Superinintendent was Censureable by the Synod and the Ministers by the Eldership it doth evidentlie follow that the Superintendents and the Bishops power were not the same A Fourth Answer is this was never put in Practice Reply It will be very hard for him to Prove this Negative but whether it was or not it sheweth that our Reformers did not intend Episcopacy when they set up Superintendents His Fifth is this Constitution doth not infer Parity Reply We do not say that Superintendents were in absolute Parity with other Ministers we confess a disparity of Power for that time All we plead is that our Reformers were not for Episcopacy even in that case of Necessity and the Imparity that they were then forc't to they did not intend should always continue § 23. The other Plea he mentioneth hath its Rise from his own fancie it was not used by us what he citeth
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
some Officers whom Christ hath appointed to teach and rule his Church who are not in some of these Catalogues mentioned this is a lame instruction in this matter and we are still at a loss whom we should own as Christs Embassadors to us and what should be our carriage toward them § 5. I suppose the second proposition is that which our brethren will most controvert with us which if they do they must shew us where they find a Diocesan Bishop in any of these places or in any other enumeration of Church officers if they know of any more Here some of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks to find my Lord Bishop among all these Church officers If he be found Rom. 12. It must be v. 8. He that ruleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have met with none of them who insist on this place The current of Interpreters either hold in the general mentioning rulers So Estius Tolet Hamond or understand it of ruleing Elders who were distinct from preaching Presbyters as Vorstius Gomarus Beza Parraeus Grotius also saith they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quibus Tertull praesident probati quique seniores horum erat diligenter attendere ad singulorum mores monere titubantes lapsos censura corrigere Praescribere panitentiae tempus modum interdum relaxare No man will think that Grotius here meaneth a Diocesan Bishop who hath many thousands of Souls under his Charge whose manners he cannot particularly inspect Some pretend that the Bishop is designed 2 Cor. 12. 28. Under the name of Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but first it is plain that here is meant a sort of Governour distinct from the Teacher who is here also named but this is not competent to the Bishop but to the ruling Elder 2. Though an Argument drawen barely from the order wherein these Officers are mentioned were not of much force yet in this place where the Apostle doth accuratly note the order and dignity of these Officers by a first and secondarly and thirdly it must needs be very significant Especially seing our Opposites themselves do take notice of the Apostles words as marking out out the Degrees of the dignity of these Officers Grotius and Hamond Estius also observes the eminency of the Apostles from their being first mentioned with this Note first the former two also on these words Secondarly Prophets call them Apostolis honore proximos Let it then be considered when the Apostle is so exact in setting down the order and dignity of Church Officers whether it be consistent with this that Governments if by them were meant Diocesan Bishops should be placed after the Pastors and Teachers that is Presbyters If it be said that Helps whom we take to be Deacons are set before Governments whom we make ruling Elders though the latter be of more respect in the Church than the former I answer after the Apostle hath ranked the chief Officers in the Church both these who were extraordinarie who are ordinarie he doth not use that exactness in these that are inferior of either sort but while he doth expresly place the teachers who are Presbyters in the the third place of Dignity it were absurd either to take no notice of the place in which the Bishop should be ranked or to put him behind the Presbyter If any alledge that the Bishop is meant both by the teacher and by Governments this were to admit of an absurd tautologie in a very short list of Church Officers beside that it were to exclude Preaching Presbyters as no Officers in the house of God for by this gloss no mention is made of any teaching Presbyter except Bishops § 6. Others fancy that they find Bishops under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helps so Grotius and Hamond the latter laboureth to establish his Gloss first in that Graeci complures quod hic est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he is neither pleased to tell us who these Greeks are nor what reason they give for this Explication 2. He seemeth to plead that here is expressed a part of the Episcopal power cujus rei causa saith he est quod haec erat specialis pars muneris Episcoporum quod ipsorum fidei commissa est cura pauperum dispensatio facultatum Ecclesiae ut testantur Justin Ignat Polycarp c. Et Acts 20. 35. This Author rather than not find a Bishop in the Text he will turn him to a Deacon contrarie to the Institution of Christ by his Apostles Acts 6. 2 3 4. what Justin c. Say in this point I cannot examine because he hath not pointed to the places but I am sure Acts 20. 35. saith no such thing nor can I understand what should move this Author so to expound the place unless it be because he findeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Text and he will force that word to express the work of a Bishop it is plain even from the records of antiquity as well as from Scripture that the Bishops had no further the Dispensation of the goods of the Church than that the Ministers and Elders had a directive power in that matter and the Deacons did execute what was appointed by them But for the Text Acts 20. 35. It is far from aiming at any such matter the Apostle setteth before them his Example in working with his own hands by which he did two ways support the infirm both by spareing the Poors Stock in his not taking the maintainence that he might have demanded and also by giving of what he gained by his Labour for their relief I do not exclude from the meaning of this Text Acts of mercy toward Souls by spiritual instructions and Consolations Administred to distressed Consciences Menoch Estius Piscator Vorstius Sclater Beza apply this Texâ— to both sorts of support Aquinas in locum maketh them to be illi qâ—… ferebant opem Majoribus praelatis in universali regimine sicut Archi-Diacom Episcopis But to expound it of distributing the Churches Money when it is rather to be understood of giving of our own to the Poor is a strange Gloss. Further if this meaning of the Text were admitted and if a Bishop had a hand in the Distributions to the Poor is it imaginable that when the Apostle is about to instruct the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church that he would give us nâ—… clearer Light about so important a Matter and that the Government oâ— the Church and the practice of all her Members is so much concerned in than by designing him by one of the lowest pieces of his Work and which is most extrinsick to his Character A Notion so absurd and iâ— founded could hardly have been expected from a person of Doctor Hamonds learning If the Bishop be here known by the name of Help oâ— Supporter of the Poor by Alms that is the meanest if any part of his
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator who presided among them and did with the rest authoritatively Consult and Determine this we grant but it maketh nothing for him 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie I cannot well guess If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest that is what we hold If that he had a negative Vote so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent he ought not to call for Proof from us against that the Probation is to be expected from him who affirmeth it If that he determined by himself and the rest were but his Council this we deny also and he must prove it It is enough that we prove that others with the Bishop Moderator or Praeses did manage the Affairs of the Church for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient What followeth in several pages is to prove that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests so of the Bishops from the Presbyters This would indeed weaken our Argument if it had no more force than he giveth it If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons without distinguishing Bishops or Presbyters among themselves But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some but in all places where they are mentioned and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices Work Qualifications or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use make nothing against our Argument unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters they ascribe also a superior power to them which he often asserteth but never proveth We confess that after the Apostles age the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone nor had superior power to the rest I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author when he shall please to attempt this proof Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. where he engageth with another of our Arguments than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative wherewith his Discourse is interspersed § 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power upon all occasions with great Courage and Assurance What my last Antagonist brought for this end out of the Writing of that holy Martyr I have endeavoured to Answer with what success it is not mine to judge if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations or bring new ones I shall not decline the Debate with him That Polycarp as he hath it p. 32. distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters while he inscribeth his Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Who saith our Author if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren This reasoning I say is so remote from Concludencie that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it For first whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred as Polycarp being an older man than the rest or Praeses in the Meeting it is ridiculous to infer from this either Superiority or solitude of power 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle and the rest Assenters to it that might give occasion to his being named 3. Will any say that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie for N. Moderator and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named Such stuff is not worth refuteing P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension Apage nugas Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church like that of the Lords among the Gentiles Yea we deny not all preferment in the Church may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister or an Elder yea or a Deacon All which are Preferments if compared with the people and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction That Blondel Salmasius and Dally laboured to support this Argument as our Author represents it is falsly asserted p. 35. As is also that this Opinion about Parity was never heard of before the days of Aerius If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig whose Memory is venerable in the learned World must here also be lashed as ignorant of Divinity and of the Fathers because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument as stated by us in this his Discourse only his unmannerly as well as false Assertion p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling He may see if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute that they have other yea better Arguments and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument represented in its full Strength SECTION V. Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me Vindicated HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side he might have found thrice as many more and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say But this and the two Arguments above debated with him are all that he will allow us to have on our side His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name while he calleth them who possessed the Government and Revenues of the Church Atheists and Enthusiasts and that without exception or Limitation Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England as well as others charactered by him We will not retaliate but the learned and religious world had and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry and judge that Atheism and other sinful Evils have been diffused into the Church after that time though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves and all
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church or it is wholly insignificant 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary for the Evangelical AEconomie is first said without Book he used his Libertie nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern Next the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church as he could do of the Jewish Church 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons the Servants of the Church were inferior to Presbyters the Rulers of it and this he setteth forth by the Similitude not binding Pattern of the Levites being inferior to the Priests whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were and the Deacons what the Levites were but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters whom he had been proving to be the same and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons 5. If he can shew us that any 〈◊〉 the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish to a Christian Hierarchie 〈◊〉 to infer that they should be alike or that they infer any more from 〈◊〉 than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers we shall consider what they say § 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome he taketh notice p 74 75. That Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius in which the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters is frequently and plainly expressed And after when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval after the Apostles in which the Church was governed by 〈◊〉 Parity of Presbyters This is a strange way of reasoning Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles Ergo though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine All that Jerome saith is that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians another to the Magnesians c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote and that Jerome mentioneth or that they are not vitiated 〈◊〉 will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles whether they be spurious or legitimate whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr or by an other of that Name long after but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is in them frequently and plainly expressed When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done we shall consider them He bringeth another Evidence as he thinketh of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat 23. Quod fecerunt Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos Presbyteros ordinantes I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse of what he designed by that Expression but the words contain no Argument for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same Jerome might well say in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers whom we now distinguish by these Names What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason that this Constitution setting Bishops over Presbyters followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church because Jerome in Epistola â—…d Titum saith priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putaâ—…it esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony he must assert that Paul Apollos and Cephas 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs not Christs and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth which I hope he will not say It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men and after that Schism Bishops were set up which no man will say was in the Apostles time He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy p. 78 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places by the Apostles themselves The Answer is plain and easie the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches that â—…s Ministers who were to teach and rule them but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters â—…s the question and is not determined by this Argument § 12. He next citeth Jerome Epistola ad Nepotium Esto subjectus pontifici â—…o quasi animae parentem suscipe quod Aaron silios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse neverimus This Citation is lame between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth there is besides other things this Passage sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse non Dominos honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos Ut ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis honâ—… deferatur scitum est illud oratoris Domitii cur ego inquit te habeâ—… ut Principem cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem Then followeth quâ—… Aaron c. And he addeth unus Deus unum Templum unum etiam 〈◊〉 Ministerium and he citeth to this purpose 1 Pet. 5 2 3. and addeth pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time and not of what was the Apostles practice or what was Divine Institution and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose for our present Debate is whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution Next it is also manifest that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were theâ—… aspiring to not approving the way of that time We deny not the in that Age the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors and by them to the People and indeed it is certain that the Word may be so taken and if we should yield this to our Brethren it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument unless they can prove that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters tho addressed to them by the Praeses Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction The third Opinion to which I most incline is that Angel is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o◠Collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters so that to the Angel is in our Phrase to the Moderator and remanent Brethren In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England in this matter they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Beda Haymo and many others saith Owen of Ordination C. 2. p. 35. § 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken next that it mu◠be so understood For the former it is usual in the Scripture and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it in Types and Visions and th◠most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile every one knoweth to put the Singular Number for the Plural or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place Th◠Ram Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia 〈◊〉 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome is calle◠Antichrist the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition The Antichristian Church consisting of Priests and People is called a Beast the Whore So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns and her Deliverers four Carpenters Zech. 1. 18 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number thou shalt do so and so hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude that there is no Absurdity nor is any Violence done to the Text if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church or the Colledge of Presbyters My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood for which I bring these Arguments 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule or Jurisdiction but Gods Messenger to the People as also Rev 1. 16 20. These Angels are called Stars which importeth their Teaching or holding forth Light to the People both which are common to the Presbyters seing then he doth not use a word of Authority whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters but of Embassy and giving Light whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop but for Teaching Presbyters It were a strange thing if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church would design him by that which is common to him with many others and not by that which is peculiar to himself It doth also strengthen this Argument that both in the Old and New Testament they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them are called Angels Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety are called the Angel of the Lord Psal 34 7. § 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery that Rev 1 20 our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision speaketh twice of the seven Churches but shunneth calling the Angels seven he saith not the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches but the Angels of the seven Churches as by the seven Spirits Rev 1 4 and 3 1 is meant the Spirit of God sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches so here the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches tho they were not one only for every Church but more Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20 28 and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3. that there were more Presbyters or Bishops at Ephesus than one If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel he could not mean a single person It cannot be denyed that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20 28 are they whom Christ here calleth Angel the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick or under the Star they cannot be a part of the Candlestick for they give Light as the Candlestick doth not but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth they must then be comprehended under the Star and consequently under the Angel whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons So that we may conclude that as by Candlestick i◠understood the Collective Body of People so by Star or Angel is understood a Body of Church Officers and not a single Bishop Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person as at Ephesus the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick that is Unchurching that People can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop if the rest of the Elders and People were free and this we must say unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person but a Community The same may be said of several other Churches would the Lord spu◠out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed as that which is meant by Angel to whom the Epistle is addressed as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison can that be Expounded some of thee Bishop of Smyrna or some of your Pastors and People and unto you I say 〈◊〉
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
of his Performance and mine too I agree with him in what followeth p. 153 154. That the Superintendents when Churches were provided were no more to travel among them but I affirm when they were sufficiently provided their Work was Confined to one Parish and that Office ceased in the Church of which before § 19. He advanceth now p. 154. to another piece of his Work to consider our Reasons for the Temporariness of Superintendency The first of them that he nameth is the Force of Necessity there being so few Men qualified for the Ministry scarcely one in a Province against this he bringeth several Replies intermixed with an unbecoming Confidence and bitter Reflections The first is this Reason is inconsequential because that necessity might have been answered by dividing the Nation in as many Parishes as there were qualified Men and Lessening them as moe qualified Men could be had Ans. The course that was taken was materially the same that he proposeth only it was necessary that within these great Parishes the Minister or Superintendent of it call him as you will should have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Ministers who were set in the several little Parishes and who could neither dispense the Word sufficiently nor govern the Church and should have Power to plant qualified Men as soon as they could be found in these lesser Parishes and this was the Office of a Superintendent I hope the Reader will see that this Reply to our Reason is insignificant and that our Reason is not shewed to be inconsequential His second is this Reason destroyeth Parity for that could not be the Model that our Lord instituted which cannot answer the ends of its Institution as in this case Parity could not do for here the Church is reduced to that State that the Governours thereof forced by necessity must lay it aside for a time and establish a Prelacy Ans. This is stranger Divinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reason It supposeth if it have any Sense in it that all Gods Institutions and Injunctions do so serve for all the cases that can fall out that no necessity can excuse a temporal receding from the Observance of them Which to be evidently false shall be made appear in Answer to his third Reply which upon the matter is the same with this the Model of Government that himself and other Prelatists is for is lyable to the same Inconvenience and according to his Logick is none of Christs Institution He and the rest of them maintain that by the Laws of the new Testament there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bishop and yet they think themselves warranted by Necessity to allow Ordination without a Bishop Downam in his Sermon about Episcopacy hath this Passage posita enim Ecclesia aut in universum Episcopo destituta aut conferta Hereticis aut Idolatricis Praelatis quales Papistici sunt a quibus nulli Orthodoxi Ministri ordinationem sperare debent dubitandum non est quin prisci Patres in tali necessitatis casu ordinationem sine Episcopo fact a permiserint licet non ut regularem ordinarii Ecclesiae regiminis regulis respondentem efficacem tamen quae justificari possit ubi deest Episcopus I have not his Sermon by me in English and therefore use the Latine Translation And he citeth Concil Antioch C. 10. for it and pleadeth for it by several Reasons Here that Learned Person had in great Esteem in the Episcopal Church maketh two Cases of Necessity in which the Model he pleadeth for as Christs Institution must be receded from And if Prelatists may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Case of Necessity why may not Presbyterians allow a single Person to Ordain under the same Force and Cogency Also Forbes Iren. p. 158. seq not only asserteth but proveth the Force of Necessity to warrant such things withal asserting the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and he insisteth at length to prove this Proposition from Scripture and Antiquity that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Bishop § 20. His Third Rply is it is strange Divinity that Paritie is of Christs Institution and yet may be laid aside in case of necessity and here he falleth heavily on G R. for asserting what this may be inferred from and taketh occasion to reproach him I find no more shew of reason in this part of his Discourse though there be many bitter and harsh words in it but this that if we may do so in one thing we may do so in all things Ans. I shall shew that this is no strange Divinity and then Answer his Reason against it It is not rare Divinity for I have already shewed that Dounham and Forbes Men of the first Rank among his own Partie teach the same That it is is not against Scripture nor Reason and therefore not strange I Prove 1. It is taught by Christ himself it was Gods Command that the Sabbath should be strictly observed the Law containeth no express exeption from this Rule yet our Saviour maketh the case of Necessity to be a just Exception in that he Defended his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day and that by other Examples where Necessity had the same influence Luke 6. 1 c. David appoved by Christ in the place cited thought it no strange Doctrine it was the Institution of God that none should eat the Shew Bread but the Priests David and his Men were no Priests and yet their Necessity did warrant their eating of it The Apostles thought it no strange Doctrine who though they knew that the Jewish Ceremonies were abolished and become unlawful to be used after the Resurrection of Christ and though Paul told the Galatians when the case of Necessity was now over that Christ should profit them nothing if they were Circumcised yet they enjoyned the Observation of some of these Ceremonies and pleaded Necessity for it Acts 15. 28. and 29 verses Paul Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. used the Ceremonies proper for the Jewish votaries Acts 21. 23 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who observed the Jewish Ceremonies Rom. 14. 1. though out of that case of Necessity he severely condemneth that Observation Gal. 4. 9 10 11. 2. Reason as well as Scripture doth plead for this influence of Necessity on humane Actions For 1. Necessity I mean such as the Providence of GOD without our sin bringeth us into is a Declaration of GOD'S will now this cannot be contrarie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Word when the Word and Necessity seem to clash for they can never be truely inconsistent being both from GOD and if in that case we should sin by yielding to Necessity we should be under a Necessity of sinning which no Divine will say a man can be under without his own fault To take the present case for an Example let us suppose Church Government by Paritie is Christs Institution
was endeavoured toward the setting up of Episcopacy he bringeth Reasons for the States Men and Reasons for the Church men that might move them and that with as much Confidence as if he had been at the Consult the States Men considered that Episcopacy was still established by Law the Ecclesiasticks made one of the three Estates and to take it away was to shake the Civil Constitution and they might have been called to an account for it when the King should come to Age who was then Minor But this is a pure Fallacy the Bishops were still by Law possessed of their Temporalities Revenues and Parliamentarie Priviledges but not of their Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction it was the preserving of these not of this that the Courtiers were accountable for with respect to the Civil Constitution That this was the best way to preserve the Right of the Church is said without Book unless he can prove that Christ gave her such Rights her Civil Rights might have been and afterward were otherwise preserved It was very evident that many of the States Men were Acted by other Motives I do not say all of them were for a Jus Divinum or Acted Conscienciously even to get the Revenues in their hands Which he doth plainly enough confess while page 189. he telleth us of their Playing their Tricks and Robbing the Church For the Reason that he maketh the Clergy go upon viz. The ill Effects of the former Scheme laid in the first Book of Discipline that had arisen to the Church there is no Hint given by him of any such ill Effects as apprehended by the Men of that Time except that they who designed a Change for their own Ends would readily pretend some such thing neither he nor any else can prove that any Detriment to the true Interests of Religion did arise from it It is evident that some Church Men had a design to advance themselves though they were disappointed as to the advantagious part of their design they got the Titles and the great Men got the Revenues which he would fain deny or dissemble but it is so evident that he must contradict our plainest Histories if he deny it 3. That another was Moderator in the General Assembly than a Bishop is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height even by the greatest Efforts the Party could make at that time All he saith to this is that George Buchannan was chosen Moderator in the General Assembly 1567. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of Presbytery The Strength of this Evasion is soon taken off the Episcopal Church look on Bishops as so far above Presbyters that it is Essential to them to Rule and the Presbyters to be Ruled by them so that for a Bishop to be a single Member of an Assembly and a Presbyter to be Moderator is inconsistent with the Bishops Prerogative but Presbyterians hold no such distinguishing Principle they think a Minister is in a superior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder but do not think that the one hath Jurisdiction over the other but that both have equal Ruling Power and therefore though it be now so Customary that only Ministers preside in our Meetings that it would be thought odd if it should be otherwise yet for a Ruling Elder such as Master Buchannan was and a Man of his singular Eminency to preside in a Meeting is not against any Principle of Presbyterians that I know of tho the Way we use is most Rational and Decent and there is no Reason for receding from it But to make this Observation yet stronger Calderwood p. 56. if I may Name him without Firing this Gentlemans Choller and being Charged with Ignorance and knowing no other History telleth us that never one of them had the Credit to be Moderator of the General Assembly which is a Token I shall not speak in his Dialect an infallible Demonstration that their Episcopal Jurisdiction was not then owned by the Church § 26. A fourth Observation I make on his Historical Debate is that he endeavoureth to prove against Petrie and Calderwood that the Articles at Leith were approved by the General Assembly that Episcopacy was s◠approved that it cost much Stuggling before it could be Abolished What he gaineth by all this I know not The Opposition that was made to that Way did soon appear and it was soon abolished that it is said that it was not allowed by the General Assembly is only meant of the first General Assembly that sat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith though afterward the Party grew stronger and got it approved I know none that asserteth that it was never approved in any General Assembly though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved might tempt one to think that it was never approved viz. That they sat in Assemblies and voted and that even as Bishops Their sitting and voting proveth that they were tollerated what he meaneth by sitting and voting as Bishops I do not well understand that Reduplication must either import the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority or it is a Word without Sense or Signification now that they Exercised Episcopal Authority in any of the Assemblies I do not find nor doth he attempt to prove it The Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews being present and first named in a Committee as p. 203. is such an Argument for Episcopal Preheminence as the Papists use not a few for Peters Supremacy that Superintendents are continued ibid. is a weak Argument for the Assemblies approving Bishops of the second Model as he calleth it It is another such Argument that the Assembly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Bishops Deans c. and wish these changed into Names less offensive that the Articles agreed on at Leith which contain his second Model are voted by the Assembly to be received but for an Interim These and some more of the same or like Importance are his Arguments for the Approbation of Episcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time I do not say they Acted as Men for the Divine Right of Parity it was a time of Temptation and many yielded too far but there was a Party that did not thus Comply and who prevailed to get this Yoke cast off at last many of the Acts of the Assemblies that he citeth do Direct the Bishops and Limit their Power and appoint them to be subject to the General Assembly and to have no more Power than Superin endents had this looketh like no good Will to Episcopacy but a Hedging it in when they could not for present cast it wholly out But he will prove p. 212 c. That all this was out of no Dislike to Episcopacy and that by a Petition consisting of nine Articles drawn by the General Assembly 1574. Wherein Bishops are several times mentioned and that as Acting as Bishops in Naming Ministers for Places where yet Superintendents and Commissioners are also mentioned as equally concerned in that Work yea in
meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland by saying and that frequently that no Error could get footing there in Scotland while Kirk Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies stood in their Force He concludeth his Second Enquiry with making a great Improvement against us as he thinketh of our saying that the Bishops set up in that he calleth his second Model had no more Power than Superintendents whence he Argueth Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power but the Assembly at Dundee 1580 Condemned Episcopacie and they Condemned also Superintendencie whence it followeth that they and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this not only forsook but condemned the Principles of our Reformers This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand But the Answer is plain and easie and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed That Assemblie did and the Presbyterians do condemn Superindendencie as what ought not to continue in the Church nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time in an extraordinarie Exigent And we affirm which our Author hath not yet disproved that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church § 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is whether Prelacie and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People ever since the Reformation He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true this Question will soon be dispatched for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed He might if so it had pleased him saved the labour of this tedious Debate in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said unless we could which is impossible have the Vote by Pole of all the Individuals of the Nation and that in all the Times and Changes since the Reformation The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs he may for me abound in his own sense I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians yea of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest â—…minencie for Vertue Understanding and Rouk and yet not Presbyterian that Presbyterie was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie I judge they mistake but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt I would have him also consider that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie and Establish Presbyterie the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow and countenance by their Authority this Government of the Church but we think it standeth on a surer bottom than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth which Grounds I have laid down in this Work if he can Beat us from these we shall become his willing Proselyts and quit though we will not Revile it as he doth this Act of Parliament as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State or of the Church or was more designed to ridicule or to refute Presbyterie that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done but we are in utrumque parati to despise his Mocking and to Answer his Material Arguments though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done about Matters that be remote from the main Question § 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576 and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had Beza also and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church Ans. I believe so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence it was no small Mercie and Matter of Joy that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church when as many as were needed could not be had and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem yet it is no good Argument the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful therefore they inclined to have them or Bishops perpetuated in the Church Another great Argument is even in after times and the more advanced State of Presbyterie when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London for their forwardness in that way yet all things went peaceably in Scotland as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie and their Inclination to Presbyterie seing the Nation have these years past been in Peace though he and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be That Episcopacie prevailed 1610 Proveth no more for the one side than the prevailing of Paritie 1592 and again 1690 Proveth for the other side Yea submitting to Episcopacie so far as to sit in Synods and Presbyteries with a Bishop was no Argument of Approving it in the case of the Church that then was when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie and Bishops thrust in on them It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority and were called again only by the Bishops Authority He Chargeth Calderwood and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie that he had said that it was Statute in Parliament 1565 that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth
Contentions of Priests and Bishops Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author p. 27. maketh an Observation that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord in Solâ— vero Ecclesia Dei pro qua Christus est mortuus in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde opulenter â—ffudit maximum dissidium vehementem multorum tum inter ipsos tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obsâ—rvari quod horrendissimum est ipsos Ecclesiae prâ—sides in tanto Animi Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare gregem ipsius absque ullâ— commiseratione perturbare ut ipsis nunc si unquam prodeuntibuâ— florentibus iniquis impleatur illud Apostoli ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes ut abstraâ—ant post se discipulos The Learned Owen of Apostacie p. 500. observeth that the Scandaloâ—â— Divisions among Christians especially among their Leaders was the first â—tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen § 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality whether it were Injunctions Reproofs or Censures The Breach of this Unitie was when any one or moe of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said much more when they did that by themselves which should have been done by the whole as when Foelicissimus and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage absolved some of the Lapsed neglecting Cyprian the Bishop or Praeses and the Body of the Presbyters which Cyprian did Highly and Justly Resent Or when they or any of the People refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth I insist no further on it for it is the same Thing as to Church Unity whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop if that be the right Government of the Church or against the Synod Presbyterie Classical or Congregational if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed Yea it is the same Breach of Unity to set up another Bishop beside the true Bishop of the Church or a new Synod or Presbyterie beside these which one was before a Member of or Subject to yea or to gather a Church and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish beside what was orderly there settled Wherfore the last sort of Unity or Schism is that which belongeth to a particular Congregational Church This Unity if we take Schiâ—m in a large Sense is broken by Diversitie either of Opinions or Affections among the Members of the Church when they Disagreee and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion At Corinth there was such a Schism they came together and yet the Apostle saith there were Divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them But Schisms in the Church were of old and now are taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion either by withdrawing only or by setting up another Religious Society also This the Fathers Expressed sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop or withdrawing from him that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie So it is sometimes Expressed by them but even when the Presbyterie or Church is not named it is so to be understood and the Bishop is so often Named because he was in these times the constant Praeses of their Meetings and even this Praelation though without sole Jurisdiction into which it did at last Issue began early to be too much taken Notice of as I have more fully shewed else-where § 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often yea ordinarilie thus understood by the Ancients Next that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism but allowed it to be done in some Cases and for some Causes For the former Cyprian in many Places condemneth this as Schism Ep. 40. § 4. Edit 1593. Deus unus est Christus unus una Ecclesia Catâ—edra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata aliud Altare constitui aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum Altare unum Sacerdotium non potest Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterium est impium est quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur ut Dispositio Divina violetur Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church also Ep. 55. § 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata quam unde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him and the Church What he saith of one Priest and one Judge cannot be meant that the Presbyters were no Priests for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar likewise Ep. 64. § 4. Hâ— sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra Pacem Christi Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought Ep. 69. § 7. he calleth the Church Plebs Sacerdoti unita Pastori suo Grex adhaerens and Ep. 38. § 1. saith of Schismaticks â—um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere id est a Pastore oves Filios a Parente separare Christi Membra dissipare And de Unitate Eccles. § 10. he saith of them Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt so also Ignat. ad Mag nes p. 32. Edit Vossii quarto 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conveened not firmly that is it would not hold in Law according to the Command and Ep. ad Smyrn p. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth any thing viz. in Religious Matters without the Knowledge of the Bishop that is in a Parish without the Pastor or in a Presbyterie without them orderlie met with their Praeses he serveth the Devil The second thing above-mentioned is to shew that there were some Causes for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop or the Church that they were Members of I find but three expressie mentioned 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith as in
no cause to think otherwise of them and I think this will not be Contested between him and me All the Question that remaineth is whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power and Ruled in Parity or had Bishops set over them who had the Power of Ruling the Church the rest having only Power to Teach We are for their Equality of Power my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been even then in the Church of Scotland I do agree with him that this is questio facti and must be determined by Testimonie and that of Credible Witnesses who might know the Truth of what they Assert I have brought Credible History for what we say all which he Rejecteth as fabulous some of his Party particularly Spotswood bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland at that time without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth Which of us then go on the best grounds Our Author had in the Apology which I take to be his pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head First Vindic. Question 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology I Answered Deff of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me endeavour to Answer part of what was said as he had also done in the Apology overlooking what he thought not fit to touch I shall now Consider what he here saith omitting nothing that is Material He hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks Boetius and others or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan nor any Monk save Fordon who was far removed from his Age wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated nor Answered by any thing said in this or his former Book It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought as incompetent Witnesses was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation which he Answereth by shewing that it is the Establishing not Razing of History to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe This is to divert into another Question what was blamed in him was not that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive must be Competent but whether these adduced by me in the Debate were such I only Mark here not Examine being aside from our present Debate what he saith p. 230. that if History be Destroyed and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony he must mean Humane Testimony then the Authority of Revelation falleth and Atheism is Introduced at least boundless Sceptecilm and uncertainty Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony let it be Considered If the Vindicator said that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent he Pleaded that Buchanan Boetius Major Fordon Usher the Centuriators Baronius Beda and Prosper had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church and if none of these be Competent Witnesses our Historie is lost and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians who spake of our Affairs obiter § 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains from p. 231. to Prove that no History is to be Believed unless it be â—ttested by sufficient Witnesses who had occasion to know what they Affirm I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body so far as I know nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits I mean without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses which are thus incompetent for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Passages by Consequences drawn from Scripture in his Excellent Book Historia Patriarcharum Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work de Authoritate Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti to be of good use and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused I confess also that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius because not sufficiently Attested Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History a little more clearly than he hath done And 1. I observe that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined The contrarie of which I have already shewed viz. that it may be Determined in some cases by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact Next he saith ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate about our ancient Church-Government this is Questionable if it be not downright a Mistake it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time the Question is either whether they were Bishops or not we hold the Negative or if he Word it thus whether they were any more than Presbyters we say no or whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees or not we are still for the Negative wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative I further Object that in the end of the same page he insinuateth that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded We do not so with any thing of Moment far less with all things Yea we do not so in the Case now under Debate Another Remark I make on what he hath page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said â—o have happened it is to be lookt on as a Fable and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China This may suffer a little Correction and must not be taken as a Principle neither on his Authority nor Du Launy's more than a Storie of 200 years old can be 1. It is hard to fix a Period how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie especially if it be not about the Credenda of Religion If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old from a grave and wise Author whose veracity I do not Question I know not why the Addition of 50 or a 100 years more should make it incredible if it come from the same hand Wherefore this is too peremptorie a Decision there are on the other hand many cases in which Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than
parting Blow to the Ordination of the later 〈◊〉 Presbyterians which he saith p. 277. is left naked and destitute of all such Arguments as might excuse the Ordination of other Forreign Churches And he doth more than insinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination His Arguments so far as I can pick them out of his Discourse are 1. They were under no necessity to separate from their Bishops in the Isle of Britain A. 1. Want of Bishops might be the same Excuse for the want of Episcopal Ordination that it was to other Protestant Churches for whom he pleadeth it they might have had Bishops if they would in France Geneva Switzerland c. as well as we might 2. The Necessity lay in this that we thought and still must think till he or some else instruct us better that Bishops ought not to be in the Church 3. He speaketh of separating from our Bishops in the Isle of Britain that plainly insinuateth that not only the Bishops in the Church of Scotland are ours but the Bishops of England also and that we are under their Jurisdiction as some of them have pleaded this from a Minister of the Church of Scotland is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependeth on for his Bread 3. If Ministers in Scotland have no Ordination because in want of Bishops among themselves they went not to the English Bishops for Ordination why is not the same Defectiveness imputed to these in France who might have come over to England for the same End But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation and therefore any Weapon that cometh to Hand must be used to beat them down Before I leave this Point I shall make it evident that the other Reformed who are without Bishops can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath 1. Because they might have had Bishops to rule them for what could hinder them their Magistrats did not for they are of Opinion with themselves except in France where the Popish Magistrats did not nor would oppose that piece of Conformity with themselves Yea Thuan. blameth the Protestants for not setting up Bishops the Primitive Church under Heathen Magistrats had Bishops in our Authors Opinion and we think they wanted no needful Church Officer even in that State 2. It is plain that the Reformed were against Episcopacy as no Ordinance of Christ as I have shewed and it is evident from Confession of the French Church Art 30. and of the Belgick Art 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort was not disliked by any of the Externi save these from England § 11. His second Argument that the Scots Presbyterians have no Ordination is It is very uncertain whether they retain such Solemn and Formal Words when they impose Hands as expresly declare that the Priestly Power of Administrating Sacraments and Absolving Poenitents is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained If there be no such Conveyance there is no Ordination and if the Words made use of doth not plainly and formally signifie such a Power then there is no such Power Conveyed A. This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point For such Words may really be used tho both he and I be uncertain whether they were used or not Again how can he prove the necessity of such Words what if Words be made use of which do really and materially signifie the thing designed tho they do it not formally and plainly He is the first that I have met with who layeth so much weight on the Form of Words It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions Against it I thus argue 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture which must needs have been if the Nullity of Ordination and consequently of the Ordinances Administred by such Ministers had been the necessary Consequent of Words not sufficiently formal and plain What a sad Uncertainty and Confusion should follow on this Necessity of such Words not unlike that which in the Popish Church followeth on the Opinion of the Necessity of the Priests Intention in his Administrations 1. Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apostles used when they Ordained Ministers how plain and formal they were if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination it will by good Consequence make void all the Ordinations of the Apostolick Church I am sure he can give us no Account of their Words from any Authentick Records 3. In the Administration of Baptism no Church that I know of useth Formal and plain Words that express either Admission into the Church or Communication of Christian Priviledges or Covenanting with GOD or our Renouncing the Devil c. I am sure I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father c. are not Formal plain Words to express these Things tho I doubt not but that they Include them all and if Baptism be valid without such a Form of Words why not Ordination also He says p. 278. that there are many of their Number in the West who think Imposition of Hands unnecessarie I suppose he hath no Personal knowledge of this and he should be sure of his Informers before he cast such a Reproach on his Brethren for my part I know no Minister in Scotland West East South or North who professeth that Opinion tho mean while I can tell him of others who are not far from it even the Church of France in their Synod at Paris 1565. C. 6. Quick Synod p. 62. but I far rather agree with Mr. Firmin who hath Written a Treatise to prove the Necessity of it He inferreth likewise p. 279. from what he had Discoursed that we have no Organical Church We are not afraid of his Censures we can Prove not only that we have the Essentials of Ordination but that for the Manner of it it is nearer to the Gospel Pattern than what is Practised in that Church which he owneth I find him to be of the same Sentiments with that Bishop in England that was mentioned to him who said of a Presbyterian Minister that he was no better than a Mechanick tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts and had Presbyterial Ordination It is strange that he should Insinuate that we derive our Power from the People he cannot but know that we Disown that Principle but Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit he hopeth that some will believe what ever evil he saith of us § 12. His next Controversie is about the Presbyterian Church Discipline which he had most Abusivly and falsly Reproached Apolog. p. 22 23. and was Checkt for so doing by a Modest Answer Def. Vindic. p. 17 In which that which is most Material he wholly passeth over bringing some what like an Answer to Two or Three Things It was asked what is that Discipline of the Antient Church which he wisheth were Restored which is not either the same with ours or far more strict and