as poor Ierome lies in by a wound he is supposed to have given himself when the priest and the Levite hath passed him by it will be a piece of Charity in our passing by the way a little to consider his Case to see whether there be any hopes of recovery We take it then for granted that Ierome hath already said that Apostolus perspiâ—uè docet eosdem esse Presbytsros quos Episcopos in the same Epistle which he proves there at large and in another place Siâ—â—t ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praeposiâ—us fuerit esse subjectos it a Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam disposition is Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere The difficulty now lyes in the reconciling this with what is before câ—ted out of the same Author Some solve it by saying that in Ieroms sense Apostolical Tradition and Ecclesiaestical Custome are the same as ad Marcellum he saith the observation of Lent is Apostolica traditio and advers Luciferian shith it is Ecclesiae consuâ—tudo so that by Apostolical Tradition he meant not an Apostolical Institution but an Ecclesiastical Custome And if Ierome speak according to the general Vogue this Solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it for according to that common rule of Austin Things that were generally in use and no certain Author assigned of them were attributed to the Apostles Two things therefore I shall lay down for reconciling Ierome to himself The first is the difference between Traditio Apostolica and Traditio Apostolorum this latter doth indeed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the Apostles themselves but the former may be applyed to what was in practice after the Apostles times and the reason of it is that what ever was done in the Primitive Church supposed to be agreeable to Apostolical practice was called Apostolical Thence the Bishops See was called Sedes Apostolicâ— as Tertullian tells us ob consangâ—iâ—itatem doctrinae So Sidonius Apollinaris calls the See of Lâ—pâ—s the Bishop of Tricassium in France Sedem Apostolicam And the Bishops of the Church were called Viri Apostolici and thence the Constitutions which goe under the Apostles names were so called saith Albaspinaeus ab antiquitate â—nam cum corum aliquot ab Apostolorum successoribus qui teste Tertullianâ— Apostolici viri â—omiâ—ahantur facti essent Apostolicorum primùâ—â— Canones deinde nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia aliquot literarum detractione Apostolorum dicti sunt By which we see what ever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the Church though it was not thought to have come from the Apostles themselves yet it was called Apostolioal so that in this sense Traditio Apostolica is no more then Traditio autiqua or ab Apostolicis viris profecta which was meant rather of those that were conceived to succeed the Apostles then of the Apostles themselves But I answer Secondly that granting Traditio Apostolica to mean Traditio Apostolorum yet Ierome is far from contradicting himself which is obvious to any that will read the words before and consider their coherence The scope and drift of his Epistle is to chastise the arrogance of one who made Deacons superiour to Presbyters Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret and so spends a great part of the Epistle to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same and at last brings in these words giving the account Why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no Presbyters Quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus ut Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur in quem crescat ex parvâ— aut si ex Diacono ordinatur Presbyter noverit se lucris minorem Sacerdoâ—iâ— esse majorem And then presently adds Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron Filii ejus atq Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ It it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Aposties times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles institution and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before Much as if one should go about to prove that the Prâ—fectus urbis and the Curatores urbis in Alexander Severus his timeâ— were the same Office and to that end should make use of the Constitution of that Emperour whereby he appointed 14. Curatores urbis and set the Praefectus in an Office above them Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals much less to such a one as Ierome is reputed to be The plain meaning then of Ierome is no more but this that as Aaron and his sons in the order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law So the Bishops and Presbyters in the order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel For the comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the Law and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel but between Aaron and his sonnes as one part of the comparison under the Law and the Levites under them as the other so under the Gospel Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison answering to Aaron and his Sonnes in that wherein they all agree viz. The Order of Priest hood and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law The Opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests but between the same power of Order which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters according to the acknowledgement of all to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them Thus I hope we have left Ierome at perfect Harmony with himself notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself which having thus done we are at liberty to proceed in our former course onely hereby we see how unhappily those arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priest hood to endeavour the setting up of a Ius Divinum of a parallel superiority under the Gospel All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon viz. that the orders and degrees under the Gospel were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple but to the Synagogue Which we now make out as to Ordination in three things the manner of conferring it the persons authorized to do it the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it First For the manner of conferring it that under the Synagogue was done by laying on of hands Which was taken up among
so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another CHAP. IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
necessary observation of the Bucharist as proper to Christianity Here we have the Scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose as it was in the Synagogue after which follows the word of Exhortation in use among them by the President of the Assembly answering to the Ruler of the Synagogue after this the publick prayers performed by the same President as among the Jews by the publick Minister of the Synagogue as is already observed out of Maimoni then the solemn acclamation of Amen by the people the undoubted practice of the Synagogue To the same purpose Tertullian who if he had been to set forth the practice of the Synagogue could scarce have made choyce of words more accommodated to that purpose Coimus saith he in coetum congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu factà precationibus ambiamus or antes Cogimur ad divinarum literarum Commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus spem erigimus fiâ—uciam figimus disciplinam praeceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii prae judicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventûs omnis sancti commercii relegetur Prasident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti Where we have the same orders for Prayers reading the Scriptures according to occasions and Sermons made out of them for increase of faith raising hope strengthening confidence We have the Discipline of the Church answering the admonitions and excommunication of the Synagogue and last of all we have the Bench of Elders sitting in these Assemblies and ordering the things belonging to them Thus much for the general correspondency between the publick service of the Church and Synagogue they that would see more particulars may read our Learned Mr. Thorndikes Discourse of the service of God in Religious Assemblies Whose design throughout is to make this out more at large But we must only touch at these things by the way as it were look into the Synagogue and go on our way We therefore proceed from their service to their custom of Ordination which was evidently taken up by the Christians from a correspondency to the Synagogue For which we are first to take notice that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law whoâ—e Office was Ceremonial and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function but succeeded by birth into their places only the great Sanhedrin did judge of their fitnesse as to birth and body before their entrance upon their Function So the Jewish Doctors tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. In the stone Parlour the great Sanhedrin of Israel sat and did there judge the Priests The Priest that was found defective put on mourning garments and so went forth he that was not put on white and went in and ministred with the Priests his Brethren And when no fault was found in the sons of Aaron they observed a festival solemnity for it Three things are observable in this Testimony First That the inquiry that was made concerning the Priests was chiefly concerning the purity of their birth and the freedom of their bodies from those defects which the Law mentions unlesse in the case of grosser and more scandalous sins as Idolatry Murther c. by which they were excluded from the Priestly Office The second is That the great Sanhedrin had this inspection over and examination of the Priests before their admission For what that Learned man Const. L'Empereur there conjectures That there was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin which did passe judgement on these things is overthrown by the very words of the Talmudists already cited The last thing observable is The garments which the Priests put on viz. white rayment upon his approbation by the Sanhedrin and soon after they were admitted into the Temple with great joy to which our saviour manifestly alludes Revel 3. 4. 5. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments and they shall walk with me in white for they are worthy He that overcometh the same shall be cloathed in white Rayment But the Priests under the Law were never ordained by imposition of hands as the Elders and Rulers of the Synagogue were and if any of them came to that Office they as well as others had peculiar designation and appointment to it It is then a common mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law which mistake hath been the foundation and original of many Errors For when in the Primitive Church the name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospel-Ministers from a fair Complyance as was thought then of the Christians onely to the name used both among Jewes and Gentiles in process of time corruptions increasing in the Church those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names so by the Metaphorical names of Priests and Altars at last came up the sacrifice of the Mass without which they thought the names of Priests and Altar were insignificant This mistake we see run all along through the Writers of the Church assoon as the name Priests was applyed to the Elders of the Church that they derived their succession from the Priests of Aarons order Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit à filiis Aaron Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in vâ—teri Testamento hi sunt qui nunc appestantur Presbyteri qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum nuno Episcopi nominantur as Isidorus and Ivo tell us So before them both Ierome in his known Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Temple fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia From which words a leoâ—ned Doctor and strenuous assertor of the jus divinum of Prelacy questions not but to make Ierome either apparently contradictious to himself or else to assert that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters was by his Confession an Apostolical Tradition For saith he Nihil manifestius dici potuit and S. 2. Quid ad hoc responderi possit aut quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio fateor ego â—e divinando assequi non posse sed è contra exiis quae D. Blondellus quae Walo quae Ludov. Capellus hâ—c in re praestiterunt mihi persuasissimum esse Nihil uspiam contra apertaâ— lucem obtendi posse In a case then so desperate