prevail'd there was a Praeses to whom the Protocathedria or Locus in Cosessu Primarius was constantly due and that during life And there are such mainfest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to the one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolical Age that the Learned'st Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it The Apocalyptic Angels amongst whom we justly reckon S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Catalogues of Bishops suceeding the Apostles in several Sees gathered at least towards the middle of the Second Century make it Evident beyond all Contradiction It is impossible to let us see from any Ancient Record either Genuine or Suppositious that there was ever any thing of Moment Canonically determin'd in the Ecclesiastical Meetings without their Bishop his particular Advice and Authority And since Clemens Romanus Origen and S. Cyprian do compare the Evangelical Priesthood and Ministrations with the Aaronical how is it that we can pretend to Conclude an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament from the Dichotomies us'd in Christian Writings no more than we can Dream of a Parity among the Jewish Priests because they are frequently Dichotomiz'd especially since the Ancient who sometimes divide the Clergy only into two Orders do again upon other occasions Subdivide the Highest Order and distinguish the Bishop from all Subordinate Presbyters It is true that Clemens Romanus a Writer of the Apostolical Age Divides the Clergy into two Orders but so he Divides also the Jewish Ministers of the Sanctuary into Priests and Levites which no Man will allow as a Proof of the Equality of Priests under the Old Testament but I shall have Opportunity hereafter to consider the Testimony alledg'd by Blondel from S. Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians more particularly in its proper Place I have formerly said that the most Ancient Writers who Dichotomize the Clergy when they speak of them with regard to the Laity do yet distinguish them by a Tripartite Division when the Hierarchy is consider'd in it self and with regard to that Prostasia and Jurisdiction which distinguishes one Priest from another Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo hath these Words Jus quidem dandi baptismum habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi Authoritate quâ salvâ salva pax est Yet Monsieur Blondel runs away with another Testimony cited from his Apologeticks as if he had found there a perfect Equality of Presbyters because the Seniores are said to be in the Government than which there cannot be a more absurd Consequence for he neither affirm'd that those Seniores were all Equal among themselves nor is it certain whether by the Seniores he understood all Presbyters in General or those only who were advanc'd to the Episcopal Dignity for it was no part of his Business in an Apology Address'd to the Heathens to insist on the Subordinations of one Priest unto another for he only pleaded that there was nothing in the Christian Meetings contrary to the strictest Rules of Morality and Decency and that they were Men of Approv'd and Exemplary Lives who were advanc'd to any share of the Ecclesiastical Government Clemens Alexandrinus is brought as a Witness to serve the same Design but then unluckily he reckons up the three Orders of the Clergy and calls them Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this Occasion it is needless to name S. Cyprian who Asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal Power upon all Occasions with great Courage and Assurance and S. Polycarp the Famous Doctor of the Asiatic Church Bishop of Smyrna and Disciple of Saint John who flourish'd long before S. Cyprian though he Divides the Clergy into two Orders in his Epistle to the Philippians yet he honourably mentions and recommends the Epistles of S. Ignatius in which the Apostolical Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon is so often and so expresly mention'd and S. Polycarp in the Epigraphe of that Epistle distinguishes himself from his Subordinate Presbyters according to the Modest and Usual Sâ—ile of those days Pelycarp and the Presbyters that are with him who if he had stood on a Level with those Presbyters would never have distinguish'd himself from the Community of his Brethren by his proper Name plac'd at such a distance yet with Visible but very Modest Marks of Distiction and Precedence according to the humble Practice of those Glorious Martyrs From what hath been said it is very evident that there can be nothing more Foolish and Extravagant than to conclude a Parity among Priests because some Ancient Christians us'd the Jewish Phraseology for even these upon other Occasions frequently Assert the Jurisdiction of one Bishop over many Presbyters and Hermas who was Contemporary with Clemens Romanus reproves the Ambition of some in his own time who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment And if there was no such Precedence then in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension The sum of these Reasonings amounts to this that when the Hellenist Jews would distinguish the High-Priest from the Levites they thought the common Name of a priest was sufficient as is evident from several places in Phylo the Jew And as it was unreasonable to conclued from thence that he had not a singular Authority and Jurisdiction over subordinate Priests so now-a-Days an Argument founded upon the same Topic is equally Impertinent and Sophistical When the priests were compar'd among themselves one with another then their Dignities and Subordinations might be seasonably mentioned If we compare the priests of the New Testament with the Deacons we need say no more than Priests and Deacons but when we compare the Priests among themselves we must acknowledge their several Subordinations The Priests under the Old Testament were only allowed to offer the Sacrifices and by their Offering of Sacrifices were distinguish'd from the Levites So under the New Testament the Priests both of the highest and subordinate Order offer the Eucharistical Sacrifice and by so doing are sufficiently distinguish'd from Deacons yet this is no Argument against the Subordination of one Priest unto another Thus we see there was the same Reason for those Dichotomies of the Clergy both under the Old and New Testament From what hath been said we may easily see that the Jews us'd such Dichotomies of their Clergy both under the Mosaic Oeconomy and in the Apostolical Age when the superiority of the High-Priest was past all Contradiction And there can be a very good account given of this Phraseology and way of speaking from the different Considerations that engag'd both Jewish and Christian Writers to use the Bipartite or Tripartite Division of the Clergy for the very same Christian Writers who only mentioned two Orders do in other places reckon up the Hierarchy of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon as plainly as is possible From
very Solid and Demonstrative To this purpose they cite Act. 20. 17. 28. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. and several other places Whether a Bishop be of a Higher Order than a Presbyter does not now fall under our Enquiry nor is it in it self very material Sometimes they might be consider'd of the same Order with regard to the Priesthood common to either by which both Bishops and Presbyters were distinguish'd from the body of the People and other Subordinate Officers of the Church though at other times when Authority and Jurisdiction is nam'd the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is always reckon'd above a Presbyter Here we are carefully to Observe that when the Inspir'd Writers Dichotomiz'd the Clergy into two Orders they but follow'd the Dialect and Example of the Jews who thus divided their Ministers also into Priests and Levites though the Highest Order was again Subdivided both by the Jews and the Christians when the Priests were consider'd with regard to that Subordination establish'd among themselves and without any regard to the Body of the People This is very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Jews as well as to the Idiom of the Hellenistical Tribes of the Apostolical Age The first confounded the name of the High Priest with that of a Priest without any other distinguishing Charcteristic or Discrimination For Proof of this see Levit. 1. 7 8. And the Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar and lay the wood in order upon the fire v. 8. And the Priests Aaron's Sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the Altar Here we plainly find that in the first Establishment of the Mosaic Oeconomy in which the Patriarchal Subordination of Priests was still retain'd the High Priest is nam'd by the same appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the Title of a Priest was promiseuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinate Yet it was never question'd but that there were extraordinary Privileges and Dignities reserv'd to the High Priest amongst the Jews though thus plac'd amongst the other Priests without any Nominal Distinction nor do we find the Title of High Priest ever affix'd to the particular name of Aaron or Eleazar in all the Pentateuch nor is the word High-Priest it self mention'd in the Books of Moses but either twice or thrice and that only with regard to the Administration of after days Yet this Homonomy of names could not be reasonably pleaded then against the Subordination of other Priests to Aaron nor against the Deference due to his Pontifical Character Was it then to be expected that the Apostles or Apostolical Men when they occasionally mention'd the Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the currant Language and Pharaseology of their own Country-men who divided their Clergy into Priests and Levites as if there were no more but two Orders even when the meanest of the Jews knew that the Dignity of the High Priest was very honourable and distinguish'd from all Subordinate Priests by all marks of Eminence and Authority It is true that in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High Priest is very frequently distinguish'd by his Proper and Special Character yet in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy neither Aaron nor Eleazar were called High-Priests when they are particularly nam'd and if in those days any had been so mad as to have infer'd from this confusio Nominum an Equality between all Priests he would certainly have been expos'd for the Offices themselves were sufficiently distinguish'd by those Special Ministries and Jurisdictions that were peculiarly appropriated to the one and deny'd to the other such as were visible to the observation of the meanest among the Jews We do not at all deny but that Bishops might be call'd Presbyters in the days of the Apostles and justly so too though they had other Presbyters under their Government and Inspection for the use of the Word Presbyter was another thing then than now if we consider it in its full Latitude and Extent With us it signifies such Priests as assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastical Administrations and are accountable to him for their Performances And though all Presbyters are not Bishops yet all Bishops are Presbyters and to infer an Equality of Offices from the promiscuous Use of Names I think is neither good Logick nor good History We do not now Plead as some Ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtain'd in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the New and though we meet with the same Dichotomies of the Clergy in the New Testament as are frequently seen in the Old we ought not to conclude from thence that there was an Equality among them of the Higher Order in that Division no more than there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testment for that same Highest Order or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was again divided into two viz. the Supream and Subordinate And not only they but the Jews also of the Apostolical Age divided their Clergy into two Classes when they spoke of them only as in Opposition to the People they made no other distinction amongst them than that of Priests and Levites But then again upon other Occasions they Subdivided the Priests into the Highest and Subordinate Order when they consider'd the Hierarchy in it self and distinguish'd every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priesthood from one another of this we have clear Instances from Philo the Jew Was it not then reasonable that the Apostles should speak the Language of the Age in which they lived and that of their Predecessors Whether then the Clergy be divided into their several Classes by a Biparite or Triparite division both is very Agreeable to the Custom of the Jews If they compar'd the Priests amongst themselves and reckon'd up their Distinctions and Subordinations to one another then they were Divided by a Tipartite Division but if they spoke of them with regard to the People then the Bipartite Division was more Convenient so that the Community of Names was very observable when the Offices themselves were as truly Separated and Distinguished a they could be In like manner the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolical Age he that was Vested with a Prostasia was a much above the Subordinate Presbyters as the High-Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Subordinate Presbuyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Ranked without any Nominal Distinction or Discrimination Nay Salmasius himself grants that even when the pretended Equality
Men who have sufficiently expos'd the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this Head particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester yet I may be allowed to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity that are alleg'd by those Men to support their Doctrine of Parity that the Reader may have a Sample of their Partialities and Prepossessions and if none of the first Worthies of the Christian Church appear for the New Doctrine of Parity we may safely infer that there are little hopes to defend their cause by the Suffrages of after Ages And in the next place I will particularly examine Blondel's Argument from the Authority of St. Jerome and Demonstrate that he mistakes or which is much more probable hides and misrepresents the Doctrine of that Learned Father and if St. Jerome be not his Friend he and his Associates may despair of any other First I will examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity and the first that is nam'd is S. Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians This is the Celebrated S. Clement so Honourably mentioned by S. Paul himself Philip. 4. 3. together with some others whose Names are Written in the Book of Life who was fellow Labourer with the Apostles and Third Bishop of Rome by the Testimony of Irenaeus and probably sat in the Chair of Rome from the Year 64 until the Year 81 or 83. He wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to compose the scandalous Divisions and Schisms that had risen among them by the Pride and Vanity of some turbulent Brethren who valu'd themselves upon the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to the Contempt of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors It is thought by some that this Epistle was written towards the end of Nero's Persecution before he was advanc'd to the See of Rome It is very observable that Blondel before he produces any Testimony from S. Clement acknowledges that by the universal consent of the Ancients this very S Clement succeeded S. Peter in the Government of the See of Rome and thô they vary as to his Order of Succession yet all of them agree as to the thing it self His first Argument for Parity is founded on S. Clement's Inscription of his Epist to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From this Inscription he concludes that the Church of Rome was then Govern'd by a Colledge of Presbyters because the whole Church of Rome wrote to the whole Church of Corinth not mentioning the Distinction of the Clergy from the Laity when the Learned Blondel Reasoned at this rate he design'd it seems to please the Independent Party who were then most Numerous and Potent in England rather than the Presbyterians For if his Argument proves any thing it proves too much viz. That the Laity hath an equal share of Jurisdiction in the Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs with Bishops and Presbyters And thus he might conclude that when S. Paul wrote an Epistle together with Sosthenes Timotheus Sylvanus and all the Brethren that were with him that he had no greater Authority in the Ecclesiastical Senate than the meanest of the Laity Our Learned Country-man Junius gives a far more reasonable Account of this Ancient Simplicity of the Writings of the Apostolical Age than such Childish Reasonings and he tells us that St. Clement did not prefix his Name ut modestiae humilitatis posteris aetatibus exemplar imitandum proponeret and this was very subservient to his Design that he might Teach the Corinthians whom he exhorts to Concord and Humility by his own Example that true and undisguised Modesty which was then so visible in the Practice of the first Christians when both Clergy and Laity were of one Heart and one Mind The next attempt that Blondel makes to support his imaginary Parity in the Primitive Church is from St. Clement's dividing the Clergy into Bishops and Deacons according to the current Phraseology that prevail'd in the Apostolical Age. When they considered the Clergy only in opposition to the body of the People I have answered this already when I examined their Argument founded upon such Dichotomies But when we consider this particular place of S. Clement with regard to that Latitude and Promiscuous use of Names that was very current in those Days the Word Deacon may be understood to comprehend all those Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the modern Notion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables and then his Argument vanishes into nothing nay rather it is a strong confirmation of that which he would most willingly destroy for by Bishops and Deacons we may understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendants upon Tables for the Word Deacons in the Language of the Holy Scriptures is taken in the greatest Latitude that may be not only for such as were appointed by the Apostles particularly to the Ministry of Tables but also the Apostles themselves the highest Officers in the Christian Church are called Deacons Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Deacons by whom they believed even as the Lord gave to every Man And again who hath made us able Deacons of the New-Testament c. And upon other occasions they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And those who were ordain'd to the special Ministry or Tables were Originally constituted that the Apostles themselves might not be diverted from the Ministry of Deaconship of the Word And Tychicus is called a faithful Deacon as also Timothy so likewise Arthippus is commanded to take heed to his Deaconship thô it be not expresly determined what room he held in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy weather he was Bishop Presbyter or Deacons nay such was the Latitude of the Word Deacon in the Apostolical Age that it was applyed promiscuously to all the three Order of the Christain Hierarchy So that if we understand St. Clement according to the current extent of the Word we may safely judge him to have meant by Bishops the Ecclesiastical Governors and by Deacons all subordinate Ministers of Religion whether such as were promoted the Priesthood or the Deacons who were confin'd to their Attendance upon Tables What advantage then does Monsieur Blondel gain to his cause for though Presbyters in the modern Notion are not perhaps the only Persons who may be understood by the Word Deacon yet they may be comprehended as well as other Ministers of a lower Rank Let it be observed also that S. Clement speaks not of the Ecclesiastical Polity such as it was brought to perfection after wards by the Apostles but rather of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of our Saviour For thô all the Degrees and Subordinations of the Apostolical Government were founded upon divine Right yet they were not in one moment established in their True and Everlasting Figure but had their beginning as the Jewish Church went on from lessen steps to
these Considerations I say we may easily perceive that the Argument pleaded against Episcopacy founded upon such Dichotomies is not only weak but very Foolish and Extravagant Yet Blondel Salmasius and Daille Men of great Learning and Reputation imploy'd much Reading and Artifice to support their New Hypothesis by this Argument and to wrest so many places of the Fathers to promote an Opinion which was never heard of before the Days of Aerius thô it must be confess'd that Men of extraordinary Learning have been impos'd upon by the same fallacies particularly our Country-man Sir Thomas Craig in his Book de Success Reg. Angl. But if he had read the ancient Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity with that accurate Attention wherewith he perus'd the vast Volums of Civilians Canonists and Historians he had certainly been of another Mind So visible is the Confusion of Names in the New Testament that Apostle Bishop and Presbyter are sometimes mentioned without any remarkable Distinction yet so as the Government of one amongst many is particularly Demonstrated Our Saviour himself is call'd an Apostle Heb. 3.1 sometimes the Word seems to be restrain'd to the Number of Twelve and Matthias upon the Apostacy of Judas is chosen to fill up the Number of the Twelve Apostles but in the same Apostolical Writings the Name of an Apostle is bestow'd upon several others besides the Twelve as S. S. Barnabas Paul Andronicus Junias Epaphroditus and others Our Saviour is call'd a Bishop 1 Pet. 2. 25. Again the Government of the Apostles is called their Episcopacy 1 Act. 20. sometimes the Name of Bishop is attributed to such Priests as were of the first Order invested with Apostolical Power and Jurisdiction 1 Tim. chap. 3. Tit. 1. 7. these places are so understood by all the Fathers Again the Bishops mentioned 1. Philip. 1 are understood by St. Chrysostom Oecumenius Theophilact and Theodoret to be the Priests of the second Order for they concluded Epaphroditus to have been then Bishop of Philippi as may be reasonably collected from Philip. 2. 25. Our English Version follows Beza and understands it as if Epaphroditus had been a Messenger sent by the Philippians to S. Paul but Salmasius is much more ingenuous and acknowledges That the Word Apostle in the sacred Scriptures never signifies any other than legatum Dei ad homines And this is very agreeable to the Opinion of Theodoret who thought that when the Bishops were named in the Apostolic Age so as to be distinguished from subordinate Priests they were then called Apostles thô upon other occasions they were promiscuously Named without any distinction I only mention this transiently not insisting upon it My business at present is to prove that the Community of Names was so familiar in the Language of the Apostolical Age that no Man can conclude from thence a Community of Offices St. Peter calls himself a Presbyter so St. John the Apostle and the Presbytery mentioned in the first of Timothy 4. 14. was a Senate compos'd of Apostles and other Presbyters whether of the first or second Rank is not certain but that S. Paul himself was one of them is evident from the second Epist to Timothy 1. 6. In the first Timothy is exhorted not to neglect the Gift which was given him with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery In the last he is put in mind to stir up the same Gift which he received by the laying on of St. Paul's Hands And in the beginning of Christianity as S. Chrysostom Witnesseth both Bishops and Presbyters were sometimes call'd Deacons which may be justly concluded from Coloss 4. 17. and the Apostles themselves are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the first of the Acts their Apostolical Ministry to which Matthias was assumed is called their Deaconship 1 Act. 17. Now I take it for granted that if any Man pretend to infer a Community of Offices from the Community of Names which we meet with in the Holy Scriptures he must needs confound the highest Order of the Church even the Apostolical Dignity with the lowest Rank of Ecclesiastical Officers Yet this is certain that the several Offices were carefully separated in those Days thô the Humility of such as were uppermost taught them not to be very forward to distinguish themselves from their subordinate Brethren by Titles of Eminence and Jurisdiction and the Bishops in the second Century transcribed the same Copy in their Behaviour who thô they were careful to preserve the necessary Distinction between the Priests of the first and second Order yet they studied the most modest Expressions of Humility and Condescension as may be seen from the forecited Inscription of S. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians that Apostolic Martyr and Prince of the Asiatick Church I have consider'd this Argument the more carefully in that I find it over and over again in all the Writings of our Ecclesiastic Levellers as their first and last Refuge to which they flee to and yet there is not any thing more Frivolous and Trifling for the Names of the lowest Officers in the Christian Church were frequently assum'd by the highest and distinction of Offices is rather inferr'd from their Practices Peculiar Ministries and Acts of Jurisdiction than from any Names that we can fix upon Thirdly If they cannot establish their New Doctrine of Parity neither upon the express Commandment of our Saviour nor upon the Consequences they manage a confusione nominum they endeavour to support it by some Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers When the Government and Revenues of the Church were sacrilegiously invaded by Atheists and Enthusiasts under Oliver Cromwel the Learned Blondel employed all his skill to make the Ancients contradict themselves and all contemporary Records When his Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they Read it that all was Pure and Undeniable Demonstration and our Country-men think they need return no other answer to any thing that is written against them than to say that Episcopacy and all that may be said in its defence is quite Ruin'd and Destroyed by Monsieur Blondel and Salmasius And thô there are but very few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath the least colour of Argument was frequently Answered and Expos'd yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their Eyes against the clearest Evidences that are produc'd by their Adversaries It 's enough for them to say that Blondel hath written a Book in their Defence of 549 pages and this in their Opinion may bar all Disputations of that Nature When we bid them name the place that they think proves their New Doctrine most plausibly they refuse any such close Engagement they will tell you that Jerome was of their Opinion and that their Learned Champion Blondel has sufficiently prov'd that this antient Monk was a Presbyterian I must not transscribe the Accurate and unanswerable Dissertations of several Learned
Equality even in such a Parity as excludes the Power and Jurisdiction of any higher Order than that of a Presbyter in the modern Notion Let us now examine whether there be any Foundation for their Inference in the Texts last mentioned In the first place we find that our Blessed Saviour supposes Degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as all other Societies and therefore he directs the Ecclesiasticks who would climb to the Highest Places in the Church to take other Methods than those that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World He that deserved Preferment in the Church was to be the Servant of all so that this Text refers to the Method of Promotion and not to the Extirpation of their Jurisdiction They were not to aspire to Honour and Dignity by Force and Violence or the other Arts that are so fashionable in Secular Courts but rather by all the Acts of Modesty Humility and Self-denial Next let me ask whether the Apostles understood this Precept of our Saviour in the sense of our Adversaries or not If they did as it is alledg'd how came they to exercise Jurisdiction over all Subordinate Ecclesiasticks during their Life time in all the Churches they Planted Did they go cross to the Institution of our Saviour who perfectly understood his meaning and to whom the Precept was Originally delivered But that which Baffles and Exposes this Argument to all Intents and Purposes is this that he did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of this towards one another in Obedience to the Command now under consideration could not infer a Parity unless they Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal for when you read the Text with attention you see that our Saviour recommends what he Enjoyns from his own Constant and Visible Practice amongst them viz. that he himself who was their Lord and Master was their Servant and therefore it became the Greatest among them in imitation of him to be Modest Calm and Humble towards all their Subordinate Brethren and this qualify'd them more than any other thing for Ecclesiastical Promotions It is very sad that any should be so much Infatuated with their new Schems of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense Degrades our Blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples for what he Commanded the Apostles he Practised among them himself And this is the strongest Motive to engage their Obedience therefore I may reasonably infer that whatever it was that our Saviour commanded in those places of Scripture it must of necessity be toto coelo different from all Parity and Equality He Commanded them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles did by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but rather by the more Christian and engaging Behaviour of Charity and Humility He that was to be the Greatest among them was to be their Servant in Imitation of that Heavenly Patern that was set them by our Blessed Lord and Saviour S. Paul thought himself oblig'd to answer his Episcopal Character after this manner when the Care of all the Churches lay upon him when he employ'd his Apostolical Power to promote the Edification of all Men and all the Fathers of the Church who were advanc'd above their Brethren to Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction had this Evangelical Notion of their Dignity that they were the Servants of all others From what hath been said one may easily see that there is no Ground no not a Shadow of any Argument for the New Doctrine in these Texts of Scripture It is true that Salmasius glances at this way of Reasoning in his Walo Messalinus but he lays no great stress upon it That which is most to our purpose is that Beza himself in his larger Notes upon the New Testament asserts that all kind of Jurisdiction is not forbidden in these Texts but that only which is joyn'd with imperious Bitterness and Domination Let it be further considered that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was Established by Divine Authority in the lewish Church and if our Saviour had pull'd down that ancient Polity and commanded an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but rather between the Priests of the Mosaie Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament When he reprov'd the corrupt glosses that were introduc'd into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees and taught them Purer and more Heavenly Strains of Morality he states the Opposition between the current Doctrine receiv'd amongst the Jews and that which he himself Taught and Recommended and there is no doubt to be made if he had forbidden the several Degrees and Subordinations of Priests and Established a perfect Equality he would have stated a plain Opposition between the Model of the Temple and the other Plat-form that was to succeed in the Christian Church As for the other Text that is ordinarily cited to serve the same design 1 Pet. 5.2 3. It is but the Apostle's Commentary on our Saviour's Words and Commandment and it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsuitable to all Power and Authority in the Church Thus such Texts have been understood from the beginning and it is one strong Prejudice against the new Exposition that it was never heard of until these latter days Secondly If the Presbyterians cannot Establish their Divine Right upon express Texts of Scripture they will support it as they think by the Clearest and most immediate Consequence and this is Equivalent to the most Positive Command and Institution The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter fill all their Books from top to bottom And if this be in it self Lame and Sophistical they must despair to Establish the pretended Equality of Presbyters in the Ecclesiastical Government The Argument most insisted on in favour of their Parity exclusive of Episcopal Jurisdiction is built upon the Homonomy of Bishop and Presbyter in the Language of the New Testament or because the Clergy are Dichotomiz'd only into Bishops and Deacons in some Texts of Scripture and in some Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church Hence they exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter though the Offices themselves be as much distinguished as is possible in several Texts of the New Testament And if this Argument alone appear Childish and Sophistical they have not another Sanctuary to flee to so my present Business is to Examine the force of it There is not one of their number with whom you Engage in this Controversie but immediately he will tell you that there is no distinction between Bishop and Presbyter in the Scriptures and therefore they conclude that their Argument a Confusione Nominum against the Superiority of a Bishop is