him no further for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople is a huge Impertinence Let it be Schisme and Heresie which with the Fathers assembled in that Synod seem to be all one to divide from Canonical Bishops such are not they who are neither chosen by the Clergy nor by the People and to set up Conventicles contrary to theirs How will it hence follow that it is Heresie to hold that Presbytery and Episcopacy are the same Order To as little purpose or lesse is what follows out of the Council of Paris And concerning the Acephali p. 332 333. The Acephali were so called saith Isidore because the Head Chief and First of them could not be found That seems to be a mistake for Severus was the Head of them Let us therefore betake our selves to Nisephorus an Author certainly not very Reverend to see whether he can give us any better Information about them He tells lib. 18. c. 45. That these Acephali were a madder sort of Eutychians who maintained there was but one nature in Christ Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind but it may be ther 's somthing in the Name that will touch them and all that follow Hierom. Acephali saith Nicephorus dicti sunt quod sub Episcopis non fuerint Proinde Episcopis Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis neque Baptismus juxta solennem receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratus neque oblatio aut res aliqua divinafacta Ministeriumve ecclesiasticum sicuti mos est celebratum est They would it seems have no Black-Coats as the late Phrase was What is this to them who would have Bishops willingly enough only deny that they are of a distinct superiour Order to Presbyters Object 2 The Second Objection is made from our English Church which seems to make Episcopacy and Presbytery different in Order For in the Preface of the Book Entituled The Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons It is said expressely That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests Deacons It follows not long after And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no man not being at this present Bishop Priest or Deacon shall execute any of them except he be called tried examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following In the body of the Book it self we find a Prayer in these words following Almighty God Giver of all good things who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Answ This Objection seems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin so very strong that he hath urged it in two several Treatises the one called Respondet Petrus p. 98 99. The other called Certamen Epistolare the particular Page I do not now remember But 1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion it is so far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures that there were from the Apostles times these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove that from no Testimony of Scripture it can be proved that there were in the Apostles time any Priests or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken He thinks that in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth constantly signifie a Bishop and that all the Churches of which any mention is made in Scripture were gouerned only by Bishops and Deacons 2. The Doctor might have remembred what he pressed against Mr. Hickman That Apices Juris nihilponunt then would he not so confidently have urged passages in the Preface 3. At least he might have done well to consider that his so much magnified Objection is a stale one and hath received its Answer from Mr. Mason in the before-commended Treatise It most unhappily falls out that I have not the Book at hand but if my Memory fail me not more then ordinarily it doth the Author of the Necessity of Reformation gives you his full sense if not his very words That Book when it speaks of the making of Bishops calls that a Consecration not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons the other the Form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this word Ordering and calls it the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never means to make Bishops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ and his Apostles Institution superiour to a Presbyter Indeed the Preface doth not say these three Orders but only these Orders of Ministers and in the Prayer it is not said that the Bishop is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop I had thought here to have concluded my first Argument But there is one Medium seems to me so considerable to prove that a Presbyter is of the same Order with a Bishop that I cannot omit it You know that it was required that a Bishop should be Ordained by three Bishops at least Yet Anastasius in the Life of Pope Pelagius tells us that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Bishops and one Presbyter who is by him called Andreas Ostiensis Doth it not hence manifestly appear that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the same Order with a Bishop and impowered in case of necessity to confer the very degree of Episcopacy At this Example the Learned Author of Episcopacy asserted is very angry and tels us p. 166. That Pelagius his taking in the Priest was but to cheat the Canon cozen himself into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the Ordination if done by two But this is too slight a way of answering Antiquity We must not till we see better reason think that Pelagius and the two Bishops were so unworthy as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon or so wicked as to make use of an hand that being imposed signified no more then would the Imposition of a Lay hand Nor do I think that in those dayes it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Bishop or no For the Council of Nice requires three at least and the consent of those that are absent signified by their Letter And Pope Damasus in his fifth Epistle to the Bishop of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops hath these words quod Episcopi
of these heads so that to prove any thing hence we must first suppose the Judicial Law to be in force which would gratifie the Anabaptists and some other Fanaticks more then we are aware of I demand would our brethren prove hence that as there was superiority and inferiority of offices under the Law so there may be or must be under the Gospel we 'll not contend for we can yield it to them without any detriment to the cause of the Presbyterians they have Presbyters and Deacons and the office of a Presbyter is by all thought to be above the office of a Deacon but I had thought they would from the Jewish pattern have endeavoured to prove the Bishops power of Jurisdiction and Ordination whence they will fetch that I wot not not I hope from the supereminent power of the High-Priest the type of Christ for then we shall bring in a Pope not from the superiority of the Priests over the Levites for the Priests had no Jurisdiction over the Levites they had the several heads of their families under whose jurisdiction they were as for any power of Ordination it could have no place the Levites coming to their honour without Ordination by succession besides in a case of necessity I proved before that a Levite might do the work of a Priest If our brethren will grant that a Presbyter may in such a case do the work of a Bishop we shall be neerer an agreement then as yet we are Thus have we without any great difficulty rid our hands of the argument drawn from the Old Testament Come we to enquire whether J. Ch. by any action of his did institute any such Hierarchy as is contended for that he did is thus argued by a learned Doctor Episco Asser p. 22 23. This office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its fountain from a rock Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters for when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith S. Luke he called his Disciples Luke 10. and out of them he chose twelve and called them Apostles that was the first Election Posthaec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos that was his second Election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them two by two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their names were written in heaven we are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own and so we do for after the passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyned them in Clerical Commission by virtue of Christs first Ordination of them for a new Ordination we find none before we find them doing Clerical Offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Council for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and S. Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem These and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72 by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministers Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them these were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Answ This is a marvellous discourse the tendency whereof I understand not I think that Christ did neither institute Bishops nor Presbyters in this first or second Mission Both these Missions seem only temporary and the 70 after their return remained in the nature of private Disciples till after the Resurrection they received a new Commission to preach and plant Churches and the twelve after this Mission must needs be but a kind of Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them and gave them that plenitude of power which we find him not to do till after his Resurrection from the dead Mat. 28.18 Joh. 20.21 Of any power of jurisdiction or order that the twelve had over the seventy by virtue of their Mission there is not the least vola or vestigium in Scripture the seventy had their power immediately from Christ as had the twelve and their Commission was as full and large as was the Commission granted to the twelve as will soon appear by comparing Mat. 10. with Luke 10. I observe indeed from John 4.2 that Christs Disciples did baptize but see no necessity of restraining that phrase to the twelve who were called his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the Writers of the harmony of the Gospel do agree that this baptizing was before any Gospel Ministry was instituted yea before that Peter and Andrew James and John were called to be fishers of men that baptisme therefore might be administred by any of these that did usually accompany the Messias he appointing them so to do and so being chief in the action the learned Isaac Causabons words are considerable Etsi non Christus ipse sedejus Discipuli baptizabant Christi tamen non Discipulorum baptismus creditus est vocatus qua de re placet perelegantem Tertulliani locum proferre sic ille in libro de baptismo Sed ecce inquiunt venit Dominus non tinxit Legimus enim tamen is non tingebat sed Discipuli ejus quasi revera ipsum suis manibus tincturum Johannes praedicasset non utique sic intelligendum est sed simpliciter dictum more communi sicut est verbi gratia imperator proposuit edictum aut praefectus fustibus caecidit nunquid ipse proponit aut nunquid ipse caedit semper is dicitur facere cui praeministratur simile est quod Jurisconsulti tradunt videri eum facere qui per alium facit Besides Christ in his administrations did though in some things forsake yet in many if not in most things follow the Jewish mode and Mr. Lightfoot in his harmony of the New Testament page 18. tells us out of Maimony in Issure that to the Jewish baptisme it did suffice if there were but three though private persons present In a word we do not find that Christ before his Resurrection gave any order for the gathering of Gospel Churches and therefore gave not any power to his Apostles over them or any Officers belonging to them consider we therefore what he did when he was risen from the dead we find him appearing betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension seven times at the third time of his appearance he said to the Disciples John 20.21 As the Father sent me so send I you
the Bishops and Deacons To this I know it is replyed that Philippi was a Metropolis and so in writing to the Bishops in the plural he would be understood of all the Bishops in inferiour Cities subject to that Metropolis But I affirm there is no ground for such a reply Philippi was not a Metropolis but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we learn from Theophilact But it is said this description belonged to it as anciently it was not as it was when the Apostle did write to them If once it were no Metropolis how can it be proved that it was such at the writing of this Apostolical Epistle forsooth from Acts 16.12 the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is too obscure and ambiguous a place to build an opinion upon the best Criticks not agreeing concerning the Syntax here used If any thing can hence be gathered that may prove Philippi a Metropolis it will be either its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that will not prove any thing of that nature for there is no necessity of rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief City it may as well signifie the first for scituation this way very learned men go particularly Zanchius in his Commentaries on the Philip. Against this it may be objected that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first City of Macedomia but perhaps Neapolis was not urbs but pagus perhaps it belonged rather to Thracia then Macedonia These two answers are hinted by Causabon but a more satisfactory answer is suggested by Zanchius I 'le transcribe his words though somewhat large that the doubt may be wholly removed Neapolis civitas est ad mare ex adverso Thraciae Inde venitur ad flumen quod Strymon vocatur ultra quod flumen est urbs Philippi Fluvius autem Strymon ut ait Plinius terminus est Macedoniae hoc est ejus partis quae Thraciam versus spectat ex quo fit ut prima cis Strymonem fluvium in continenti urbs Macedoniae sit ipsa urbs Philippi atque huc spectavit Lucas in Actis consentanee cum Plinio aliis Prophanis Scriptoribus loquens Coeterum licet terminus dividens Macedoniam a Thracia esset sit ille flavius Strymon tamen Neapolis quoque quae erat ultra fluvium ad Mare pertinebat ad Macedoniam confinium quoddam erat Macedoniae Thraciae hoc sibi voluerunt Prolomaeus Plinius alii cum inter urbes Macedoniae primo loco posuerunt Neapolim Philippi prima urbs est Macedoniae si verum terminum spectes fluvium sc Strymonem dividentem Macedoniam a Thracia non fuit autem simpliciter prima sed ipsa Neapolis fuit prima si quae etimm ultra Strymonem ad Macedoniam pertinentia complectaris But seeing it is called a Colony it must needs be a Metropolis I answer if it had been the only Colony in Macedonia we might have thought it probable that it was a Metropolis in the civil sense but it was not the only Colony as is evident from History Further the officers before whom Paul was brought ver 19 20. of this Chap. make it somewhat more then probable that the Proconsul of Macedonia had not his residence at Philippi and 't is evident that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia in the civil sense Thessalonica Metropolis est utnorunt omnes Macedoniae so we find it was in the Ecclesiastical sense also some hundred of years passed ere Philippi had the honorary title of a Metropolitan Church Indeed I think I might have spared my self and you all this trouble for I believe it never came into your head to think that when the Apostle writes to the Church of Philippi he intended to write to a-any more then the Christians and Officers of that City of Philippi for had he intended it to all the other Churches that were in Macedonia then must the Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians be intended to all the Churches of Macedonia and so the learned Annotator fears not to assert that he may make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 1 Thes 5.12 be Bishops and yet not grant a plurality of Bishops in one City But do you try to carry on this notion throughout the whole Epistle and you will make strange work The Apostle 1 Chap. 1. salutes the Church of the Thessalonians commends their faith and charity and receiving the Word in much affliction so as that they were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia ver 7. and he meant in ver 1. by the Church of Thess all the Churches of Macedonia then he must in ver 7. say that the Christians of Macedonia were ensamples to the Christians of Macedonia If I would descend to Ecclesiastical History I would not thank any man to grant me 1. That there have been Bishops in Villages and Towns or at least in Cities not so populous not so wealthy as many Market Towns among us are Basilius Caesareae Cappadociae fuit Episcopus Gregorius autem Nazianzenae civitatis omnino vilissimae quae est posita vicina Caesareae Histo Tripar lib. 7. cap. 22. libro 9. cap. 3. we find one Maris made Bishop of Dolicha which was but a little City Of what a poor place Spiridion was Bishop may be seen lib. 1. cap. 10. and lib. 6. cap. 4. there 's a most famous history of Maioma continuing to have a Bishop even when it ceased to have any longer the priviledges of a City In Ireland S. Patrick is said to have setled 365 Bishopricks at the first plantation I scarce think there were then so many Cities 2. That there have been two Bishops in one City Vid. Possid in vita Aug. 3. That sometime there was but one Bishop to many Cities examples are too obvious and common to be produced We in England are not without some Presidents of this nature If Councels be produced against this you will remember that Councels mostly consisting of Bishops they may be looked on as parties forward enough to establish any thing that might make for their own pomp and grandure Lastly whereas it is so confidently affirmed that the Apostles did leave the Churches of inferiour Cities and their Bishops in dependance upon the Metropolis I do with some confidence reply that there is no sufficient proof for such an assertion I do not in my poor reading find that the proof of it from Scripture hath been much attempted only he whose diligence nothing is wont to escape argues by comparing Acts 16.1.4 with Acts 15.2 I shall give you his words as he himself hath Englished them to us Ans to D. Owen p. 195. According to the Image of the Civil Government among the Jews and the like again in their Temple the Apostles appear to have disposed of Churches every where and in all their plantations to have constituted a subordination and dependance of the
either they might not do so or at least did not think meet so to do When Paul was Ordained if Ordained was it not by three When Timothy was it not by a Presbytery But I will not go about further to fit a shooe to a foot I know not only give me leave to tell you that there is one Hypothesis which I perceive the Doctor laies much stresse upon in that and other Discourses the which unless it be granted to him and Adversaries are not now adayes so kind as to grant much he can never be able to prove I 'le give you it in his own words Disser p. 147 148. speaking of the words of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 He thus expresseth himself Illud sine dubio non universorum ad omnes sed singulorum ad singulas mundi plagas ut ad totidem Provincias aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas profectione praestandum erat c. Quod factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Matthias in traditoris Judae locum surrogandus eligendus proponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. Sic ut verba ista non ad Judam defunctum sed ad Successorem ejus superstitem pertineant adeoque in praecedente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conjungantur ut ad locum i. e. Provinciam propriam aut peculiarem aut singularem proficiscatur You see to gain some countenance to his Opinion from Scripture he is fain to make those words from which Judas fell to come in by way of Parenthesis and to refer the last words that he might go to his own place not to Judas the Son of Perdition but to Matthias or Barsabas one of which was now to be by the Lot falling on him chosen to make up the number But whom doth the Doctor follow in so doing Our English Translation No. His Friend Grotius Neither His words are significatur eventus scelera ipsius justo Dei judicio consecutus Proprium i.e. qui ipsi melius conveniebat quam Apostolica Functio And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuscript a very ancient one in which in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place which he deserved that is the Gallows or Hell it self I would fain know whether Provinces were divided to several Apostles by Christ or by agreement among the Apostles themselves If Christ designed each Apostle his distinct Province let it be shewn where and when If it be said that such Division was agreed upon among themselves I ask when Before their Masters Ascension or after 'T is not like 't was made before the Disciples then not being out of their Golden Dream of a temporal Kingdom as appears Acts 1.6 After the Ascention we find them all waiting at Jerusalem for the Promise of the Father and when they had received it Vâ—de hanc hypothesin solide proliae refutatam a doctissimo Stilling-fleet Irenici p. 233 234 235 236. they still at least for some time continued at Jerusalem Acts 8.1 When they removed common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way nor do I think they did but they disposed of themselves as God in his Providence directed and offered opportunity But so far were they from parcelling out of the world among themselves that sometime passed ere they were convinced that it was their duty or so much as lawful to preach unto the Gentiles By this time I hope you see that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it must be Apostolical practise and I shall easily grant that the Apostles being by their Commission intrusted with the Government of the Church of God whatever they did with an intent to oblige succeeding ages may well be accounted to be established Jure Divino But then I do with some confidence challenge all the Prelatists to shew me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Bishop having Presbyters under him and yet engrossing all power of Jurisdiction and Order to himself Yea I do challenge them to shew me any one Bishop that had under his Charge so many Souls as are in your Parishes of Stepney and Cripplegate I take the Apostles to be unfixed Officers and such were Timothy and Titus Dr. Hammond himself who hath deserved best of the Episcopal Cause Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath these words Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a 2d Order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius his Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Well then if there be no evidence that any such were instituted we shall think there were none such for de non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio And if there were no Presbyters then there were no Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters And 't is plain enough that every worshipping Congregation had its Bishop in the Apostles times But the Reverend Doctor in his Answer to the London Assemblers as he cals them p. 107. thus brings himself off John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical Institution i. e. in effect the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters I also know that St. John was an Apostle but what should induce me to believe that he instituted a second sort of Presbyters who were only to preach and administer Sacraments but had no power either of Order or Jurisdiction Must I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith If with a divine Faith shew me some infallible Testimony for it If an humane Faith be the greatest and highest Faith a man can attain unto what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in that can only have some probable perswasion that their Order is Jure Divino Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter that can have no greater assurance that it was the mind of Christ that there should be any such Office in the Church Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to institute this second Order of Presbyters as well as St. John in his If they had not how was their power equal If they had why did they not put it forth It will not I suppose be said they wanted care but only that the number of Believers was not so increased during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle as to require such kind of Presbyters Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted to be governed by a Bishop and Deacons how will it be clearly and evidently proved that it was those Apostles intention that the Bishop who when they left him had power over the Deacons and people only
should when the Churches necessity did require constitute Presbyters and have power over them This Intention must be manifested and declared from some passages in Scripture or else it will not by Protestants be looked on as a Law of Christ or as a thing of perpetual concernment to his Church For either the Scripture is a sufficient and full Record of Christs universal Laws or it hath not that Perfection which the Reformed in their Controversies with Catholicks do ascribe unto it But why do I stay so long about this The place produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus to prove that St. John in Asia instituted these secondary Presbyters proveth no such thing Read it and you will agree with me It is recorded in Eusebius l. 3. c. 23. after the Greek division In Mr. Hanmers English Translation 't is the 20 chap. As for the place in Epiphanius that so often occurs in Dr. Hammond of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. 'T is a place very obscure and so unfit to build an Opinion on 2. It may seem to savour of the opinion of those who say there is no particular Form of Church-Government by divine right 3. It hath nothing in it peculiar to St. John It no more proves that St. John instituted second Presbyters then that St. Peter instituted such 4. I might tell you that as Ancient and Reverend Ecclesiastical Writers as Epiphanius when they have been ingaged have boasted of a false matter and talked of Records and Traditions where there were no such things You will now expect before I take my leave of the Arguments brought for Episcopacy that I should answer that brought from Succession For it is said that in all places Bishops did succeed the Apostles But this Argument I have alway accounted but slight such as will not weigh much with you if you consider 1. That the Question is not whether Bishops did succeed but whether Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters 2. That the Catalogues that are brought of the Successors of the Apostles were made by conjecture and delivered down to us by men that lived at a great distance from the Apostolical times Read the ingenuous Confession of Eusebius l. 3. c. 4. If he so studious in searching into antiquity that he is by a Learned man of our own called the Father and Fountain of Ecclesiastical History was at such a loss in the matter of Succession at what a loss must they needs be that lived after him Lest this should seem a meer shift I will take notice of one Authority produced I think by almost every one who hath ingaged in the Episcopal Cause but most magnified by Dr. Jer. Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted These are his words p. 79 80. I shall transcribe no more testimomonies for this particular but that of the General Council of Calcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The splendid Name of the General Council of Calcedon made me curious to enquire into the very bottom of this Testimony I have so done and thus I find the matter to stand The Calcedonian Council was called by the Emperour Martian Anno 451. or 452. or 454. as some compute In it saith Dr. Prideaux Matters were mostly transacted by favouring Parties between Leo the first of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople Let that pass In the 11th Action of this Synod I find in Binius and Crabbe that Leontius did use the words that are quoted from him But what was this Leontius A man saith the L. Brooks in his Discourse of Episcopacy p. 66. whose Writings have not delivered him Famous to us for Learning nor his exemplary Holiness mentioned by others famous for Piety Surely not of Credit enough to sway our Faith in this Point because he is contradicted and convicted of falshood by Philip a Reverend Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople and by Aetius Archdeacon who instance in divers others besides Basilius that had been Ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople So that the General Council of Chalcedon proves to be the Testimony but of one man and of one who was either ignorant of the Truth or else did love Falshood In a word what is it in antiquity from whence out Episcopal Brethren will argue the Divine right of Episcopacy From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We will grant that all along from the Apostles times there have been those in the Church who were called and might not unfitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops But we deny that those whom the Ancients did call Episcopos were Bishops in our sense i.e. We deny that they were looked on as having the sole power of Jurisdiction and Order Let the Prelatists prove that for 1500 years or for 800 years Presbyters have been looked upon as poor inferiour Creatures having only power to preach the Word and not to administer Discipline I for my part promise faithfully to yield the Cause and my heart would even leap for joy that I were so conquered For I do assure you it goes more against the hair with me to put forth one act of Discipline then to study twenty Sermons Are our Brethren offended with us that we argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and will they argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers That is not fair play But I shall now give you my Arguments to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right and they shall be two The first I shall cast into the Form of a disjunctive Syllogisme thus If Episcopacy be of Divine Right then either the Romish or the English Episcopacy But neither the Romish nor the English Ergo none at all As for the Major it contains a sufficient enumeration For though there be Episcopacy of a different mode exercised in other places yet that Episcopacy which is established in the Roman Churches and the Reformed English Church doth most pretend to Divine Right You dodbtless will deny my Minor and say that our English Episcopacy is of Divine Right But I prove it is not thus If our English Episcopacy be of divine Right then either all the Circumstances and Appendages are of Divine Right or only the substance of it But neither Ergo. All the Circumstances or Appendages of it to be sure are not Jure Divine 1. their way of Election is not jure divino ther 's no Command of Christ for a Conge d'eslire I would not be thought to say that the Magistrates interposing in making of Church-Governours is against the Law of Christ I only say that ther 's no Law of Christ requiring that the Civil Magistrate should either make Bishops or require others to chuse I add that we have no Primitive Example of such a thing as a Conge d'eslire Rather we find that all Bishops were made and chosen not without the consent and suffrage of the Clergy
Churches in the inferiour Cities to those in the chief or Metropolis An example of this we have in the story of the Acts concerning Syria and Cilicia and the several Cities thereof in relation to Antioch the Metropolis for when the question Acts 15.2 was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch Chap. 14.26 and 15.3 and the Decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed i. e. to the Church of Antioch ver 22. yet in the Epistle in which that Decree was contained we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia i. e. all the Christians of that Province to be expressed and joyned with those of Antioch v. 23. and after when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia v. 41 42. and as they went they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel cap. 16.4 which is an evidence that the Churches of those Cities related either immediately to Antioch or as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem and were in subordination to it as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Province c. I heartily wish this argumentation had been put into a Syllogistical form then it would have been easie enough to find out a Proposition that might safely be denied But seeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his discourse into that dress I shall not do it for him lest I should be thought not to do it according to his mind Taking it as we find it I say 1. That which he supposeth may well admit some dispute viz. Whether the question referred to Jerusalem was referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria for if it can be proved that this reference was made only by the Church of Antioch and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria it will still be unproved that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church which are not done by it as such 2. There 's no evidence that the ground of the reference to Jerusalem was because that it was the principal Metropolis more probable it is that the reasons of referring this controversie to a determination at Jerusalem were because of the authority of those Apostles that were at Jerusalem in which it was supposed those who contended with Paul would acquiesce and because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commission of the Apostles for their doctrine Against these let us examine what is objected 't is said page 204 205. That the first taken alone could not be the reason because there being but two Apostles there at that time Peter and John 1. There might be so many in some other City 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by Gods Commands to the Apostolick Office were in this respect of equal authority with them and so in this sense the words of S. Paul have truth Gal. 2.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The reference is made not to the Apostles alone but to the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of Judea but the Antiochean Christians being taught i. e. being seduced by them Acts 15.1 and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly and so this first reason is of no force Answ 1. 'T is certain that the reference was made not only to the Apostles but also to the Elders from which perhaps something might be deduced no way advantagious to the cause of the Episcoparians 2. We 'll grant it probable that these Judaizers did not only teach but also had perswaded some of the Antiochean Christians to imbrace their errour But then 3. We deny that there were at Jerusalem but two Apostles viz. Peter and John James undoubtedly was there and it is by very learned men thought that when the other James had run his course he was taken into the Apostolical rank office and imployment Now it will never be proved either from Scripture or any other credible testimony that there were in any one City three persons so fit to be appealed to as these three As for Paul and Barnabas granting them to be separated by Gods command to the Apostolick Office and so of equal authority with Peter c. yet their Apostleship might be more questioned by these Judaizing Teachers to stop their mouths and let the Antiochean Christians know that they did not go about to abolish any thing which Peter James and John who did mostly converse with those of the Circumcision did reckon obligatory this reference is made this journey undertaken The learned Doctor seems not to deny but that those who came from Jerusalem might pretend Commission and Commandment from the Apostles to teach what they taught but thinks this is useful not disadvantagious to him For hence he thinks it follows That if these certain men had been truly sent and commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem then this would have been of some force at Antioch which it could not be if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jerusalem page 205. But who can swallow this what Christian doth not think that if these men had come at that time into England with a Commission to preach that except we be circumcised we cannot be saved it should be of no force because we are a Church independent on Jerusalem 3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia because Antioch or Jerusalem was their Metropolis but because the Decrees were made by Apostles men acted by an infallible spirit who could not but know the mind of Christ their Lord and Master Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Christians that had any certain knowledge of them whether they were under the Metropolis of Jerusalem or no. My second argument to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right shall be taken from the testimonies of those Authors who do clearly and plainly make it to be but of humane institution I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores In his Epistle to Evagrius Quod autem unus posteà electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet If you say that Hierom was a Presbyter and provoked and so may be thought to write all this in a fit of spleen and malice I shall without retorting the argument which you know is obvious refer you to Isidore who was a Bishop himself he saith in his second book De Divinis Officiis cap. 7. that Presbyters have most things in common with Bishops Sed sola propter