l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
give a more full account of his words He addeth to what goeth before putet aliquis non scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aâ—atis aliud esse nomen Officii relegat Apostoli verba ad Philipp dicentis Paulus omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis Philiâ—pi these are Jerome's words una est urbs Macedoniae certe in una civitate plures ut nuncupantur Episcopi esse non poterant sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore quos Presbyteros appellabant propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus Adhuc alicui hoc videretur ambiguum nisi altero testimonio comprobetur in Actis Apostolorum scriptum est quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum miserit Ephesum vocaverit Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem quibus postea inter catera sic locutus attendite vobis omni Gregi in quo Spiritus Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos c. Et hic diligentius observate quomodo unius civitatis Ephesi Presbyteros vocans postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit Si quis vult recipere eam Epistolam quae sub nomine Pauli ad Haebreos scripta est for that Epistle in Jerome's days was controverted whether it were canonical Scripture or not ibi aequaliter inter plures Ecclesia cura dividitur siquidem ad plebem scribit parote principibus vstris behold Jerome calleth the Presbyters principes from their ruling power from which Title given to Bishops our Brethren often argue for their sole Jurisdiction subjecti estote c. Et Petrus qui ex fidei firmitate nomen accepit in Epistola sua loquitur dicens Presbyteros ergo in vobis obsecro compresbyter c. pascite gregem Domini c. Haec propterea ut ostenderemus this our Author citeth apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos paulatim vero ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum sollicitudinem esse delatam Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus est esse subjectos ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispensationis Divinae veritatis Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Mosen qui cum haberet solus praeesse populo Israel 70 elegit cum quibus populum judicaret videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit § 3. He bringeth also Jeromes Epistle to Oceanus where I confess I find nothing for our purpose but what is more fully and clearly said by Jerome in the place cited and which followeth Next he bringeth Jerome's Epistle to Euagrius which is next to that to Oceanus in which he citeth the same Scriptures but to them he prefixeth which this Author passeth over audio quendam in tantam erupisse verecundiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris i. e. Episcopis praeferret nam cum Apostolus perspicuè doceat eosdem esse Episcopos quos Presbyteros quis patitur ut mensarum viduarum Minister supra eos se tumidus effâ—rat ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque consicitur Quaeris autoritatem audi testimonium and so he citeth Phil. 1. and Acts 20. And then ac ne quis contentiose in una Ecclesia plures Episcopos fuisse contendat Audi aliud testimonium in quo manifestissime declaratur vel comprobatur eundom esse Episcopum aut Presbyterum and so he citeth Tit. 1. and also 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is said to be ordained by laying on of the Hands of the Presbyterie and 1 Pet. 5. and taketh notice of the Emphasis of the Charge given to Presbyters in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unde saith he nomen Episcopi est tractum and then he citeth Joh. Ep. 2. and 3 where that Apostle calleth himself Presbyter or Elder After all this the words that the Enquirer citeth do follow Quod autem postea unus electus est qui cateris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque Eeclesiam ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collatum Episcopum nominabant Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archi-Diaconum vocent Quid eum facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non facit nec altâ—ra Romanae urbis Ecclesia altera totius orbis aestimanda est Gallia Britannia Oriens Persis Judaea omnes barbarae nationes unum Christum adorant unam observant regulam veritatis Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Thanis ejusdem meriti est ejusdemque Sacerdotii potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel superiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostoli successores sunt After this he proposeth an Objection against himself from the practice that then was at Rome that a Presbyter ordinabatur ad testimonium Diaconi which seemeth to make for the preference of a Deacon before a Presbyter which is that he opposeth through that whole Epistle and having answered that Objection and condemned that Practice he proceedeth thus sciant quare constituti Diaconi legant acta Apostolorum recordentur conditionis suae Presbyter Episcopus aliud aetatis aliud dignitatiâ— nomen est unde ad Tit. ad Tim de ordinatione Episcopi Diaconi dicitur de Presbyteris omnino reticetur quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Qui promovetur de minori ad majorem proveâ—itur Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus ut not aut as our Author saith Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur in quem crescat ex parvo aut si ex Diacono ordinetur Presbyter noverit se lucris minorem sacerdotio esse majorem Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae fuerant in Templo hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia There is yet another place of Jerome which this Author hath not mentioned I shall not say he hath not read Jerome though he cite him which he imputeth to these on our side on less occasion given it is Ep ad Heliodor Tract 3. tertiae partis fol. mihi 284 285. This person being Jerome's intimate Friend it seems was averse from an Eremetical Life and desired rather to be in the Ministry Jerome taketh much pains in this Epistle to perswade him to go to the Desert and there serve Christ and having occasion to speak of the Clergy he saith of them without Distinction absit autem ut quicquam de
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy and that in his presence he being then with the Apostle Also from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus From his telling them that they should see his Face no more Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them but laying it on the Elders but I shall not enlarge on these § 15. He alledgeth with the same Confidence and as little Strength of Argument that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus in Crete And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea that Titus we say the same of Timothy was an Evangelist which he very discretly more suo calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists 〈◊〉 Saith he It is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who were called Evangelists A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists The word is divers ways used in Holy Write neither do we argue from the Name that either he or Timothy to whom this Name is expresly applyed 2 Tim. 4. 5. were Evangelists but we argue from their Work and Circumstances together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church in the beginning of Christianity There are others beside them whom we can prove to have been Evangelists who may be get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture Next he argueth the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon What if all this were yielded what gaineth he by it Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him tho he were no Bishop and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist what we design is that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop seing he was an Evangelist who hath all that power that Titus is said to have Beside Saravia who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath de Ministr Evang. grad C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae Prophetae Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri ita Titi Timothei qui Presbyteri Episcopi erant major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops if then Titus was an Evangelist is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist or a Bishop to a Presbyter or he to a Deacon unless some of these were degraded for some fault Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop Further he describeth an Evangelist out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it at least were not converted by it Eusebius is not by him fairly cited C. 33. not 37. he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles as his own words bear therefore they did not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists that is saith he they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations as Apollo did after Paul 1 Cor. 3. 6. also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted or any way to preach the Gospel His at last is his own addition to Eusebius not the words of that Historian It is evident then that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels and on that account be called an Evangelist in a large sense as may also every on that preaches the Gospel but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church distinguished from Apostles Prophets Pastors Teachers c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about that it is more than insinuated He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist which is a Truth but very impertinent to his purpose because Daniel did the Work of the King who was no King but much lower than a King a very wise Consequence indeed That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm or ordain he affirmeth p. 112. which is both false he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise For the power of Confirmation we know none had it there being no such Ordinance in our Authors sense in the Apostolick Church It is also wide from this purpose for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be sent elsewhere on another Errand and yet both be Evangelists That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists is true in the large sense as before but not in the strick sense neither is this to our present purpose for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists in the Primitive Times were Bishops But what followeth is wholly false that any Bishop or Presbyter who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times If it were so every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct â—…m all other Church Officers for there were whom the Scripture doth particularly call Evangelists Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished § 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops and not Evangelists I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist whence it will appear plainly that Timothy and Titus were such and that there is no ground from what is said of them in
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator who presided among them and did with the rest authoritatively Consult and Determine this we grant but it maketh nothing for him 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie I cannot well guess If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest that is what we hold If that he had a negative Vote so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent he ought not to call for Proof from us against that the Probation is to be expected from him who affirmeth it If that he determined by himself and the rest were but his Council this we deny also and he must prove it It is enough that we prove that others with the Bishop Moderator or Praeses did manage the Affairs of the Church for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient What followeth in several pages is to prove that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests so of the Bishops from the Presbyters This would indeed weaken our Argument if it had no more force than he giveth it If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons without distinguishing Bishops or Presbyters among themselves But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some but in all places where they are mentioned and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices Work Qualifications or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use make nothing against our Argument unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters they ascribe also a superior power to them which he often asserteth but never proveth We confess that after the Apostles age the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone nor had superior power to the rest I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author when he shall please to attempt this proof Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. where he engageth with another of our Arguments than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative wherewith his Discourse is interspersed § 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power upon all occasions with great Courage and Assurance What my last Antagonist brought for this end out of the Writing of that holy Martyr I have endeavoured to Answer with what success it is not mine to judge if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations or bring new ones I shall not decline the Debate with him That Polycarp as he hath it p. 32. distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters while he inscribeth his Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Who saith our Author if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren This reasoning I say is so remote from Concludencie that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it For first whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred as Polycarp being an older man than the rest or Praeses in the Meeting it is ridiculous to infer from this either Superiority or solitude of power 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle and the rest Assenters to it that might give occasion to his being named 3. Will any say that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie for N. Moderator and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named Such stuff is not worth refuteing P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension Apage nugas Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church like that of the Lords among the Gentiles Yea we deny not all preferment in the Church may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister or an Elder yea or a Deacon All which are Preferments if compared with the people and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction That Blondel Salmasius and Dally laboured to support this Argument as our Author represents it is falsly asserted p. 35. As is also that this Opinion about Parity was never heard of before the days of Aerius If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig whose Memory is venerable in the learned World must here also be lashed as ignorant of Divinity and of the Fathers because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument as stated by us in this his Discourse only his unmannerly as well as false Assertion p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling He may see if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute that they have other yea better Arguments and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument represented in its full Strength SECTION V. Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me Vindicated HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side he might have found thrice as many more and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say But this and the two Arguments above debated with him are all that he will allow us to have on our side His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name while he calleth them who possessed the Government and Revenues of the Church Atheists and Enthusiasts and that without exception or Limitation Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England as well as others charactered by him We will not retaliate but the learned and religious world had and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry and judge that Atheism and other sinful Evils have been diffused into the Church after that time though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves and all
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
Right quod autem saith he Jure Divino Episcopi sint Presbyteâ—is superiores si non ita clarum est è sacris literis c. And he provetâ— it by the Authority of some Popes and Councils As also Lombard 〈◊〉 supra fetcheth the Original of the several Degrees of Bishops from the Heathen Flamins Archi-flamines and â—roto-flamines not from Scripture Bellarm citeth Medin condemning Jerome as erroneously holding the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter this Bellarm hath lib. 1. c. 15. de Clericis Object 6. Medina doth there affirm August Ambros. Sedul Primaâ—â—us Chrysost. Theodorat AEcumen and Theophylact. to be of the samâ— mind and he addeth alque ita illi viri alioqui sanctissimi sacrarum literarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in â—erio deinde in Waldensibâ—â— postremo in Wiclefo damnavit Ecclesia c. It is here evident that others as well as the Scots Presbyterians held the Opinion about Parity to be no Noveltie Also Sixtus Senens Biblioth Sanct lib 6 Annotatio 324 looketh on Jeromes Opinion as being for the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter and citeth as agreeing with him Ambros Chrysost Sedul An selm Thom Valdens against Wiclife who refuteth him as being of Jeromes Opinion in this and of Alfonsus Castrensis he saith non veretur fateri Hieronimum hâc in parte errasse to these Schoolmen I shall add some of the Canonists as plainly against this Jus Divinum of Episcopacy Gratian dist 60. cap ult Ad verbum Papa sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hot quidem solos primitiva Ecclesia habuisse dicitur Joan Semeca Gloss in Jur Can dist 95. Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat Officium Episcoporum Presbyterorum nomina erant communia Ibid. c. olim Et officium erat commune sed in secunda primitiva coeperunt distingui nomen officia So Owen of ordination p. 108. who also citeth to the same purpose Concil Aquisgr can 8 Concil Hispal c. 2. Canon 7. and Concil Constantiens where Presbyters were determined to have decisive voices with Bishops because in the Law of God Bishops were no more than Presbyters I am far from inferring from what hath been said that all these were Presbyterians But it is evident that some of them did not hold Episcopacy to be Juris Divini as this Enquirer doth and that none of them lookt on Paritie as so late an Invention as he doth SECTION VI. His Answers to our Citations from Jerome and Augustine examined THis learned Author hath singled out the Testimonies brought by Presbyterians out of these two Fathers and promiseth p. 65 to examine them more narrowly as being the chief strength of the Presbyterians that is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients I shall adventure to examine his Examination He taxeth Blondel for inscribing his Book Apologia pro Sententia Hieronimi as if the Presbyterians Doctrine had been certainly espoused by Jerome and bringeth this Argument against this Conduct of Blondel At this rate saith he his Contemporaries were very much to be blamed who placed Aerius among the Hereticks and yet on all occasions make honourable mention of Jerome if he taught the same Doctrine for which Aerius was condemned for a Heretick This reasoning is of no weight for it is well known on how small grounds some in the fourth or fifth Centuries were listed among the Hereticks 2. It is no rare thing in the World to heighten the same Action or Opinion in one person which they excuse or extenuate in another We know how the Pope condemneth the same Principles as Heresie in Calvine which he passeth no such Censure on when they are taught by the Jansenists and how Alvarez chargeth Calvine with Heresie for the same things that he himself holdeth and is at much pains to shew the difference where indeed there is none Jerome was a man of great esteem so as it seems Aerius was not 3. It is thought by many that Aerius managed his Principle more unpeaceably than Jerome did that he opposed himself more fiercely to the growing Usurpations of that time and made a Schism about the Matter And it is evident that many of them who are by Epiphanius called Hereticks were at most but Schismaticks Neither do I by this yield that Presbyterians now may be called Schismaticks for I know not that Aerius was justly so branded on account of that Opinion Nor do I think that Episcopacy was come to that intollerable height when Aerius opposed it that it is come to in our days and came toâ— soon after his time 4. Magdeburg cent 4. c. 5. p. 399 4â—0 edit Baâ—… 1560. sheweth that Epiphanius maketh him an Arian So August aâ—… Basilâ— say he was the Author of the Heresie of the Syllabici which wâ—… indeed Arianism from which Magdeb concludes that we have littâ—… certainty about him 5. Some men of great worth excuse Aerius 〈◊〉 Whitaker Reinolds and affirm that he was innocent of these Heresies they charge him with only he had angered some great men of tâ—… Age by questioning some of their Usurpations and also by zealouâ—… opposing some of the Superstitions that were then creeping into tâ—… Church and had too much Countenance from some eminent Men such as Praying and offering for the dead and Praying to Saints 〈◊〉 Aerius was not esteemed a Heretick by all the Fathers of that or tâ—… following Age none call him so but Epiphanius and Augustine wâ—… implicitely took it from Epiphanius Neither Theodoret nor Socratâ—… nor Sozomen nor Euagrius have any thing of the Aerian Heresie § 2. He maketh a Collection of the Citations we bring out of Jerome and then giveth us his Remarks on them I must also transcribâ—… them that the Reader may have them before him while he is upoâ—… this Debate about them The first is out of Hieron on Tit. 1. Diligenter saith Jerome Apostoli verba attendamus dicentis ut constituas per Civitates Presbyteros sicut ego disposui qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari 〈◊〉 sequentibus disserens hoc ait si quis est sine crimine unius uxoris vir c. Postea intulit oportet enim Episcopum sine crimine esse tanquam Dei dispensâ— tor idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctâ—… studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecelesia gubernabatur Postquam vero unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Of what followeth in Jerome the Enquirer giveth but a lame account telling us that Jerome proveth the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Acts 20. 1 Pet. and Epistle to the Hebrews But I shall
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
sorte delectum fuisse non per hominum suffragia And Corn à Lapide in locum verbum hoc loco Catachrestice usurpatur de qualibet electione idemque significat quod eligi accenseri annumerari Not only Beza but Corn à Lapide expoundeth it q. d. hic sortis eventus communi omnium sententia comprobatus fuit And it is certain that a Lot is a Divine Determination Prov. 16. 33. Cartwright Mellis Hebraic hath this Note on the Text quod sortem appellat judicium docet non nisi in rebus gravioribus ad sortem esse recurrendum maxime cum per sortem Deus ipse in judicio sedeat It was not then the Apostles but Christ himself who chose Matthias to the Apostleship nor was ever any Apostle chosen or called by Men which the Apostle Paul denyeth of himself as not agreeing to that Office Gal. 1. 1. He telleth us p 100. that the ordinary and perpetual Power that Christ gave to his Apostles was derived by them to their Successors Here he supposeth that the Apostles had an ordinary and perpetual Power which is that we now contend about for we maintain that their Power was extraordinary and ceased with them and that it was an inferior sort of Power which their Successors got He telleth next that the name also was derived to others beside the twelve That hath been already granted that that Name in a large sense was given to others yet in another sense it was restricted to the Twelve But he is very unhapy in his Proof of this uncontested Truth by Instancing Phil. 2. 25. where Epaphroditus is called the Messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church of Philippi for it is plain from the Text that he is so called as being sent by the Philippians to Paul and not as sent of God to them tho we deny not but that in that sense he might be called an Apostle for in that he is said with the same Breath to be he that Ministred to Pauls wants and seeing it is as evident from the Text that he was then with Paul and not at Philippi it appeareth that he had been sent by them to Paul with some token of their bounty for the Apostles subsistance Thus Grotius expoundeth this Place who saith that they who gathered and carried the sacred Money were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and likewise he saith that the Philippians had sent Money to Paul by Epaphroditus which he received because being in Bonds he could not then work with his hands For the same interpretation are Beza Piscator Zanchius Uorstius yea Estius who citeth Thomas Aquinas for it and Cajetan But he undertaketh to prove his sense of the word by this Assertion that an Apostle in the New Testament never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always a Messenger sent from God to men This he extendeth to other places as 2 Cor. 8. 23. This assertion is wholy groundless yea it is false as I have already proved with respect to Epaphroditus Phil. 2 26. for 2 Cor. 8. 23. The word is not so to be taken there neither for all his confidence in saying that our Translation is certainly a mistake Grotius is here also against him and saith they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their carrying Aims to the Churches of Judea And it is evident from the Context which telleth us of Pauls sending Titus about this Affair v. 27. and v. 18 19. Another Brother is chosen by the Churches to travel viz. to Judea with this Collection and v. 22. Yet another Brother is sent with Titus and that Brother formerly mentioned Now the Apostle giveth a Character of these Commissioners as for Titus as well known to the Apostle being in high Station in the Church and an Evangelist he telleth that he was his Partner and Fellow Helper as for these other Brethren he insinuateth that they must needs be very commendable persons being chosen by the Churches and so entrusted by them in that they made them their Messengers What he excepteth against this is frivolous for they are not called the glory of Christ on account of this Employment neither could they be called the glory of Christ simply on account of their being sent by him to the people yea or being Bishops but they are so called because of their holy conversation and faithful discharge of their Office what ever it was in the Church Another Scripture he bringeth Rom 16 7. where some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where saith he the Greek Phrase may be rendered inter primaâ—ios Apostolos This is a Blunder that he would have thought sufficient to ruine the Credit of a Presbyterian for ever as ignorant of the Greek and of good sense for neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Primarius or Chief but may well be rendered of note noted or eminent nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree as Substantive and Adjective as this learned Author maketh them to do contrary to all Rules of Grammar The meaning is plain that these men were noted or eminent in the Church and so esteemed among the Apostles or by them nor doth it at all import that they themselves were Apostles So not only Beza and Piscator but Toletus Vatablus Grotius The falshood of his Assertion p. 100. That the word Apostle never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always one sent by God to men is evident from Joh. 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater than him that sent him where the word is taken at large for any one that is sent by another And the Verb whence it is derived is often used for a Mans sending as Mat. 2. 16. and 21. 3 and 27 19 2 Tim 4 12 passim § 7. He took notice it seems that his Adversaries make Universality of Apostolick Jurisdiction to be one distinguishing Mark of their Office which Bishops cannot pretend to and therefore Bishops have not the Substance of the Apostolick Office Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way p. 101 102 103 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrowness of the Limits of these Provinces assigned to the secondary Apostles he meaneth the Bishops did not alter the nature of their Office from that of the twelve Apostles more than the Kings of Juda lost the Honour of sitting on the Throne of David after the Revolt of the ten Tribes Here is a gross Mistake of the Question which is not whether the largeness or narrowness of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath do alter the nature of his Office but whether a limited and particular Charge do not so differ from that which is universal and extended to the whole Church of Christ as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the other is not in the same Office Will any Papist say that the Universâ—â— Bishop who sitteth at Rome hath
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
some Officers whom Christ hath appointed to teach and rule his Church who are not in some of these Catalogues mentioned this is a lame instruction in this matter and we are still at a loss whom we should own as Christs Embassadors to us and what should be our carriage toward them § 5. I suppose the second proposition is that which our brethren will most controvert with us which if they do they must shew us where they find a Diocesan Bishop in any of these places or in any other enumeration of Church officers if they know of any more Here some of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks to find my Lord Bishop among all these Church officers If he be found Rom. 12. It must be v. 8. He that ruleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have met with none of them who insist on this place The current of Interpreters either hold in the general mentioning rulers So Estius Tolet Hamond or understand it of ruleing Elders who were distinct from preaching Presbyters as Vorstius Gomarus Beza Parraeus Grotius also saith they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quibus Tertull praesident probati quique seniores horum erat diligenter attendere ad singulorum mores monere titubantes lapsos censura corrigere Praescribere panitentiae tempus modum interdum relaxare No man will think that Grotius here meaneth a Diocesan Bishop who hath many thousands of Souls under his Charge whose manners he cannot particularly inspect Some pretend that the Bishop is designed 2 Cor. 12. 28. Under the name of Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but first it is plain that here is meant a sort of Governour distinct from the Teacher who is here also named but this is not competent to the Bishop but to the ruling Elder 2. Though an Argument drawen barely from the order wherein these Officers are mentioned were not of much force yet in this place where the Apostle doth accuratly note the order and dignity of these Officers by a first and secondarly and thirdly it must needs be very significant Especially seing our Opposites themselves do take notice of the Apostles words as marking out out the Degrees of the dignity of these Officers Grotius and Hamond Estius also observes the eminency of the Apostles from their being first mentioned with this Note first the former two also on these words Secondarly Prophets call them Apostolis honore proximos Let it then be considered when the Apostle is so exact in setting down the order and dignity of Church Officers whether it be consistent with this that Governments if by them were meant Diocesan Bishops should be placed after the Pastors and Teachers that is Presbyters If it be said that Helps whom we take to be Deacons are set before Governments whom we make ruling Elders though the latter be of more respect in the Church than the former I answer after the Apostle hath ranked the chief Officers in the Church both these who were extraordinarie who are ordinarie he doth not use that exactness in these that are inferior of either sort but while he doth expresly place the teachers who are Presbyters in the the third place of Dignity it were absurd either to take no notice of the place in which the Bishop should be ranked or to put him behind the Presbyter If any alledge that the Bishop is meant both by the teacher and by Governments this were to admit of an absurd tautologie in a very short list of Church Officers beside that it were to exclude Preaching Presbyters as no Officers in the house of God for by this gloss no mention is made of any teaching Presbyter except Bishops § 6. Others fancy that they find Bishops under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helps so Grotius and Hamond the latter laboureth to establish his Gloss first in that Graeci complures quod hic est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he is neither pleased to tell us who these Greeks are nor what reason they give for this Explication 2. He seemeth to plead that here is expressed a part of the Episcopal power cujus rei causa saith he est quod haec erat specialis pars muneris Episcoporum quod ipsorum fidei commissa est cura pauperum dispensatio facultatum Ecclesiae ut testantur Justin Ignat Polycarp c. Et Acts 20. 35. This Author rather than not find a Bishop in the Text he will turn him to a Deacon contrarie to the Institution of Christ by his Apostles Acts 6. 2 3 4. what Justin c. Say in this point I cannot examine because he hath not pointed to the places but I am sure Acts 20. 35. saith no such thing nor can I understand what should move this Author so to expound the place unless it be because he findeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Text and he will force that word to express the work of a Bishop it is plain even from the records of antiquity as well as from Scripture that the Bishops had no further the Dispensation of the goods of the Church than that the Ministers and Elders had a directive power in that matter and the Deacons did execute what was appointed by them But for the Text Acts 20. 35. It is far from aiming at any such matter the Apostle setteth before them his Example in working with his own hands by which he did two ways support the infirm both by spareing the Poors Stock in his not taking the maintainence that he might have demanded and also by giving of what he gained by his Labour for their relief I do not exclude from the meaning of this Text Acts of mercy toward Souls by spiritual instructions and Consolations Administred to distressed Consciences Menoch Estius Piscator Vorstius Sclater Beza apply this Texâ— to both sorts of support Aquinas in locum maketh them to be illi qâ—… ferebant opem Majoribus praelatis in universali regimine sicut Archi-Diacom Episcopis But to expound it of distributing the Churches Money when it is rather to be understood of giving of our own to the Poor is a strange Gloss. Further if this meaning of the Text were admitted and if a Bishop had a hand in the Distributions to the Poor is it imaginable that when the Apostle is about to instruct the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church that he would give us nâ—… clearer Light about so important a Matter and that the Government oâ— the Church and the practice of all her Members is so much concerned in than by designing him by one of the lowest pieces of his Work and which is most extrinsick to his Character A Notion so absurd and iâ— founded could hardly have been expected from a person of Doctor Hamonds learning If the Bishop be here known by the name of Help oâ— Supporter of the Poor by Alms that is the meanest if any part of his
work if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls by spiritual Advices and Directions that is common to him with the Teacher before mentioned in this Text and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers § 7. For Grotius's notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I oppose first by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers 2. By the force of the word the native and genuine signification of which is to help uphold or support one who is in hazard to fall which I am sure is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work or to a troubled Soul by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop That learned Critick saith it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to strengthen and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere because the seventy translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is a strange Argument to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be turned manu ducere It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 23. 19. Heb 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt for who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not the same signification neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it is constructed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand laid hold on by another being that by which one is supported that he fall not as he goeth and it is evident that the force of that word in these places doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way as his manutenency by which they are supported From all which it is plain that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius why we should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood Further if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care when the word properly signifieth upholding to which indeed care is often needful but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me where that word in any of its derivata is used and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless § 8. These of our Episcopal brethren who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office will possibly say that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place in the Lists of Church Officers viz. under the name of Apostles Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book which I am now examining what I have now to do is to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate which may plainly appear if we consider first that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words and not into them Yea Grotius and Estius on 1 Cor. 12 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned have these words Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos à Christo in id vocatos ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent And Doctor Hamond saith these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent regerent eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church 2. It cannot be denyed even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were none will say that they are wholly the same more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary who were sent immediatly by Christ to plant Churches and ordinary who succeed to these and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists under the same name of Apostles is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected for in these Enumerations he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant must give us some better ground for believing this than a Synonimous word I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do a sort of Apostles this is to expound Scripture at pleasure and indeed to make it speak what we fancy I conclude then that Bishops have no Divine right for them seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church both at first for planting of it and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World and no Diocesan Bishop name nor thing is to be found among them § 9. A third Argument for Parity and against Prelacy I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline Mat. 18 17 that the offended Party when other more private means of Redress do fail should lay the case before the Church whence this Argument doth clearly result that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many is not Jure Divino lodged in one person but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment is to be exercised by many Ergo it is not Jure Divino in the hand
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
was the Appointer of the first of them but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known after the Apostles and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted this Argument had been weak and the Hereticks might have insulted A. I deny that either he or the Hereticks could have any such advantage because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another they had no occasion to consider that in this Debate further than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church where there were more it was enough to confound the Hereticks that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days and they could tell them by whom What followeth p. 126 127. is a Repetition of the same thing about which I shall trouble him no more let him tell it over again as oft as he will He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church we know there are Worthy Men in that Church but we never thought them all infallible § 31. His third Enquiry is Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients in an Affair of this Consequence he saith no doubt we may and ought I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction and of some Doubting and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive without clearing the State of the Question And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case because our Author seemeth in pursuing this his Enquiry to confound two different Questions one is whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days Another is about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government as he wordeth it p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church whome some Men will call Bishops another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished Some of them lived in or near to the Apostolick times others of them some Ages after the Credibility of the former caeteris paribus is far greater than that of the later Because they had better causam scientiae and because tho Tradition without Writing may at first and under the best advantages soon and easily be corrupted yet by length of time and passing through many hands it is more apt to be depraved and that even without design For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients some of them are Spurious and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted and interpolated tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear others of them are Dubious so that it is sub judice whether they be credible Testimonies or not A second Distinction is of the things about which we debate our Author indeed doth distinguish in the Progress of the Debate between Matters of Fact and Matters of Opinion or Principle of which afterward I distinguish things on which our Faith or our Duty doth depend from these things that we are not so concerned in being merely Historical Passages or Debates about Natural or Politick Things in Matters of Fact of the later sort we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians and regard them at least some of them as Men of Learning yet so as not to believe their Histories nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason for the former sort of things I look on their Testimony as insufficient to perswade the Mind or clear the Conscience Scripture not the Fathers must be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Practice Distinction third These things that we Debate about are either determined in Scripture or not if not much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men who had much of the Mind of God in many things yet as was said before we must not blindly follow them over the Belly of Sense or Reason If they be Scripture light must be our Guide not the Opinion of the Fathers Listinction fourth The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous or they are Divided in the later case we cannot follow them but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded In the former their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice and may readily byass the Mind yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered or we must guess at them from dark Hints As the one sort can no way command our Faith so neither the other is to be received implicitly § 32. Out of these Distinctions this State of the present Question resulteth whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted My Antagonist is for the Affirmative I am for the negative for which I give these Reasons 1. We have no concurrent nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition and Unanimity about it If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point we shall quit this Argument Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head few of them have have written on it directly and of purpose and what they have said is but indirectly without considering the State of our Controversie which I am perswaded was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have written nothing many of the Writings of that time are perished there are different Opinions in this Debate among them whose Writings we have which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of for this last the rest are certain enough I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head is obscure and hard to be understood their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time which was plain enough to them who then lived but not so to us who know not their Idioms nor the Customs that they relate to as then known things they also used words in a far different sense than we do As Merit Pennance Bishop and such like It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture and Reason than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine and Spurious the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith or Practice
even in this matter Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion wherein we either please God or sin against him on such a Sandy Foundation Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro in the Church of Antiochia lib. 3. ad Autolycum near the beginning he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods and hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not do as it were beat the Air his work is to be found Biblioth Patr. T. 2. This Passage is p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles is defective dark and uncertain This is not only found now at this distance of time but it was early complained of by Eusebius who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things than we have lib. 3. C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how many and what sincere Followers or Successors have Governed the Churches planted by the Apostles it cannot be confirmed but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church on Scripture and not on the Fathers And in his Preface to his History he telleth us he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way having only some small Tokens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and there as it were Also that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer who unto this day and it was the Interval of three hundred years have in this behalf he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops imployed any Diligence Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this or any other Writer concerning these times that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium quo tracts Quadratus Ignatius florebant plane cum Varrone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari potest is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit praeter admodum pauca quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant Swetonius Tacitus Plinius quem hiatu◠ut expleret Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clementis nescio cujus non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippi non melioris scriptoris sine delectu ea deprompsit Tilenus no Friend to Presbytery saith full as much he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times and that a fine actorum Apostolorum ad Trajani tempora nihil habemus certi Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House § 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself and all others beside the Prophets and Apostles from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion not exempting that about Church Government This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct for the same Arguments that our Author and his Complices use in this Debate they improve in the other Controversies and with the same advantage For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the one case it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined to which I shall now add August lib. 2. contr Manichae of the Scriptures he saith 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed aut codex mendosus est aut interpres erravit aut tu non intelligis In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas longe tamen est impar authoritas Jerom is much and often in this strain Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr Scio me aliter habere Apostolos aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror quo modo Tertull. Novatum Arnob. nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos ut bona eorum eligamus evitemusque contraria juxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est eligite The same he saith also of his own Writings in Hab. Zech. Si quis melius imo verius dixerit nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus Ambros. de incarnatione C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur non ego dico a me quia in principio erat verbum sed audio non ego affingo sed lego c. Cyril Hierosol Cat. 12. Meis commentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non attende possis enim forte decipi sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis c. Yea the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please and teach in general that they are not always to be followed as Dally and Turretin shew out of Cajeton Canus Maldonate Petavius and Baronius who often reprehendeth the Fathers even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact and doth not this very Author so far forget himself as to say that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age p. 73. as I above observed and if Jerom did mistake why might not the rest also the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward de Causa Dei lib. 2. C. 3. corroll p. 601 602. is consonant to what I have said He sheweth that the Fathers did often seem at least to favour Hereticks particularly Pelagius and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
of his Performance and mine too I agree with him in what followeth p. 153 154. That the Superintendents when Churches were provided were no more to travel among them but I affirm when they were sufficiently provided their Work was Confined to one Parish and that Office ceased in the Church of which before § 19. He advanceth now p. 154. to another piece of his Work to consider our Reasons for the Temporariness of Superintendency The first of them that he nameth is the Force of Necessity there being so few Men qualified for the Ministry scarcely one in a Province against this he bringeth several Replies intermixed with an unbecoming Confidence and bitter Reflections The first is this Reason is inconsequential because that necessity might have been answered by dividing the Nation in as many Parishes as there were qualified Men and Lessening them as moe qualified Men could be had Ans. The course that was taken was materially the same that he proposeth only it was necessary that within these great Parishes the Minister or Superintendent of it call him as you will should have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Ministers who were set in the several little Parishes and who could neither dispense the Word sufficiently nor govern the Church and should have Power to plant qualified Men as soon as they could be found in these lesser Parishes and this was the Office of a Superintendent I hope the Reader will see that this Reply to our Reason is insignificant and that our Reason is not shewed to be inconsequential His second is this Reason destroyeth Parity for that could not be the Model that our Lord instituted which cannot answer the ends of its Institution as in this case Parity could not do for here the Church is reduced to that State that the Governours thereof forced by necessity must lay it aside for a time and establish a Prelacy Ans. This is stranger Divinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reason It supposeth if it have any Sense in it that all Gods Institutions and Injunctions do so serve for all the cases that can fall out that no necessity can excuse a temporal receding from the Observance of them Which to be evidently false shall be made appear in Answer to his third Reply which upon the matter is the same with this the Model of Government that himself and other Prelatists is for is lyable to the same Inconvenience and according to his Logick is none of Christs Institution He and the rest of them maintain that by the Laws of the new Testament there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bishop and yet they think themselves warranted by Necessity to allow Ordination without a Bishop Downam in his Sermon about Episcopacy hath this Passage posita enim Ecclesia aut in universum Episcopo destituta aut conferta Hereticis aut Idolatricis Praelatis quales Papistici sunt a quibus nulli Orthodoxi Ministri ordinationem sperare debent dubitandum non est quin prisci Patres in tali necessitatis casu ordinationem sine Episcopo fact a permiserint licet non ut regularem ordinarii Ecclesiae regiminis regulis respondentem efficacem tamen quae justificari possit ubi deest Episcopus I have not his Sermon by me in English and therefore use the Latine Translation And he citeth Concil Antioch C. 10. for it and pleadeth for it by several Reasons Here that Learned Person had in great Esteem in the Episcopal Church maketh two Cases of Necessity in which the Model he pleadeth for as Christs Institution must be receded from And if Prelatists may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Case of Necessity why may not Presbyterians allow a single Person to Ordain under the same Force and Cogency Also Forbes Iren. p. 158. seq not only asserteth but proveth the Force of Necessity to warrant such things withal asserting the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and he insisteth at length to prove this Proposition from Scripture and Antiquity that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Bishop § 20. His Third Rply is it is strange Divinity that Paritie is of Christs Institution and yet may be laid aside in case of necessity and here he falleth heavily on G R. for asserting what this may be inferred from and taketh occasion to reproach him I find no more shew of reason in this part of his Discourse though there be many bitter and harsh words in it but this that if we may do so in one thing we may do so in all things Ans. I shall shew that this is no strange Divinity and then Answer his Reason against it It is not rare Divinity for I have already shewed that Dounham and Forbes Men of the first Rank among his own Partie teach the same That it is is not against Scripture nor Reason and therefore not strange I Prove 1. It is taught by Christ himself it was Gods Command that the Sabbath should be strictly observed the Law containeth no express exeption from this Rule yet our Saviour maketh the case of Necessity to be a just Exception in that he Defended his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day and that by other Examples where Necessity had the same influence Luke 6. 1 c. David appoved by Christ in the place cited thought it no strange Doctrine it was the Institution of God that none should eat the Shew Bread but the Priests David and his Men were no Priests and yet their Necessity did warrant their eating of it The Apostles thought it no strange Doctrine who though they knew that the Jewish Ceremonies were abolished and become unlawful to be used after the Resurrection of Christ and though Paul told the Galatians when the case of Necessity was now over that Christ should profit them nothing if they were Circumcised yet they enjoyned the Observation of some of these Ceremonies and pleaded Necessity for it Acts 15. 28. and 29 verses Paul Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. used the Ceremonies proper for the Jewish votaries Acts 21. 23 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who observed the Jewish Ceremonies Rom. 14. 1. though out of that case of Necessity he severely condemneth that Observation Gal. 4. 9 10 11. 2. Reason as well as Scripture doth plead for this influence of Necessity on humane Actions For 1. Necessity I mean such as the Providence of GOD without our sin bringeth us into is a Declaration of GOD'S will now this cannot be contrarie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Word when the Word and Necessity seem to clash for they can never be truely inconsistent being both from GOD and if in that case we should sin by yielding to Necessity we should be under a Necessity of sinning which no Divine will say a man can be under without his own fault To take the present case for an Example let us suppose Church Government by Paritie is Christs Institution
his Point we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and stated Days for this Commemorating Worship and maintain that Christ hath appointed Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration and he telleth us the Church hath Commanded it also to be done and there is an End § 11. He next bringeth somewhat like Reason the Church may appoint these Seasons which are but Circumstances of time as well as the Jewish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer at which the Apostles were present Acts 2. 15. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and express Institution of GOD but were kept by an Appointment and Custom of their own Ans. 1. He doth injuriously insinuate that we require an immediate and express Institution for the Days that we will observe where have we ever said so let him Prove an Institution either by express Words or good Consequence or Apostolick example or by anie good Medium and we shall acquiesce 2. The Appointing Holy Days is more than determining a Circumstance of Time It is a sequestering of these Days perpetually from Civil to Sacred Use it is to give them a relative Holiness as far as Mans power can reach by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercises of Religion it is a Dedication of such a part of our time to GOD so as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time and so making a difference among Days which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie the Apostles Rom. 14. 5. counted it a weakness in some who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus slightlie what they did was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They distinguished days one from another and that with respect to Religion which could not be without judging one of them better and more Holy than another and so it is Expounded by Erasmus and Vatablus Eslius turneth it eligit unum prae alio is this no more but determining a Circumstance Beside the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circumstances of Worship as we please but when it is Necessarie that a Circumstance that relateth to Worship must be determined and it is not determined by the Lord in Scripture in that case Men may and must Determine it but this is not the Case in hand there is no need that a stated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Mysteries of our Redemption seing the Lord himself hath appointed his own Day for that End and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration 3. For the Jewish Church appointing hours of Prayer It is to be Considered that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice And these Hours of Prayer were appointed by God not the Church It is true Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewes were obliged to Observe everie day and on their Festivities they added a Fourth but this was in the degenerat times of their Church as the Papists have their Canonoical hours Maimonides indeed telleth us that Esdras made Forms of Prayer and they appointed the Number of Prayers according to the Number of the Sacrifices but it cannot be Proved that these Constitutions were of that Antiquitie § 12. He further reasoneth thus p. 171. there is something Analogical in the Christian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews which are not the less Acceptable because Voluntarie but rather the more as long as they are within the Circle of these things which he hath Commanded Ans. If we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies and make these a Warrant for modes of Religious Worship there shall be no end of devising new Ways of Worshipping God while yet Men keep within the Compass of what is Commanded as to the Substance of their Service In this case the most fancieful Contriver and Inventer of what is New fine and gaudie shall be the best Divine and there shall be no end of Contention for what this Bishop thinketh a fine way and Anological to what is Commanded another shall think unfit We have cause to bless the Lord that he hath given us a more sure Rule for our Direction even the Scripture 2. These Days Invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes for these were Commanded in general and a Warrant given for them and Directions given how they should be Managed Levit. 1. 3. and 3. 16. and manie other places nothing of this can be said of the Holy Days People may Pray as oft as they will and so may the Church meet as oft as she will for Religious Service as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pleased but the Jews were never allowed to set up stated Days and to separate them from other Days for their Free-will-offerings no more are Christians allowed to do so with respect to Prayers and Praises 3. If Modes of Worship or stated Days for them be not less Acceptable because Voluntarie there could be no such thing as Will Worship which yet the Scripture condemneth and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teach for Doctrine the Commandments of Men viz. about Religious Worship which is contrary to Maâ—th 15. 9. I confess Prayer and Praises are not the less accepted because Voluntarie for these are Commanded Duties but to separate Days from Common use to these Exercises and that without special occasion and constantly when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end this is not Commanded in general nor in particular nor hath any Analogie with the Jewish Free-will-offerings this we Assert not to be within the Power of the Church if he think it is he must Prove it He sayeth the Doctrine of Presbyterians is contrary to all Christian Churches and he telleth us of Citations to this purpose by Durellus No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us but such an universal Assertion cannot be Proved by a Thousand Instances if we can bring one instance to the contrary and for this we adduce the Apostolick Church I have also § 4. mentioned Churches and Learned Men in them who are as far from his Opinion in the Matter of Holy Days as from ours I shall now add some more Luther lib. ad Nobilitatem Germanicam Art 5. consultum esse ut omnia Festa aboliantur praeter diem Dominicum And lib. de bonis operibus Utinam saith he apud Christianos nullum esset Festum nisi dies Dominicus That Calvin was really against them all though for Peace he yielded to some few of them I have shewed above Bucer in Math. 12. p. 118. hath these Words Ferias alias sive Dei-pari Virginis sive Christi sive Sanctorum Nomine commendatae sint optarem abrogatas universas And he bringeth strong Reasons for his Opinion while he addeth Primum enim constat nullo Dei verbo invectas ubi enim in Apostolicis Scriptis aliquid de Natali Christi de Epiphania similibus facile crediderim Zelo Dei a veteribus introductas
for using the Words and if he can shew us a Command for using them we shall Obey it He saith it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples If he mean that the Words should be Recited we desiderate the Proof nor do we find that any of the Apostles in their Publick Administrations so used it It is true the Presbyterians formerly used it and if they should do so still I should not Reclaim but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it gave the first Occasion for disusing it It is an unaccountable Fancy that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism this is the general â—â—nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable and groundless in it self there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be so Common Observation and Experience sheweth that the Atheism that we all should Lament is no more visible nor common among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms than among them who are fond of them I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows p. 290 291. but that the Author was when he Wrote these Things in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion to see his beloved Forms neglected Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People and the Humour of Schism hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore whereas it is evident and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of Lâ—ndonderry that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations and People is made more acquained with them than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture I cannot Answer for their Practice and we make the People understand the Reading as Ezra did Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland but Men who had no Authority nor were Teachers in the Church were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation He next blameth us under the same Epithets of Madness Dreams Humour of Schism that when Children are Bâ—ptized the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated and this because they are not made to repeat the Creed I first ask him what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Crâ—â—d which they cannot understand by our Conduct seing some of them understand it not and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own from Socinianism Poperie Antinomianism and several other gross Errors Next I Answer that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into but pains is taken so far as Ministers can to make them understand that Faith and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it and it is told them what Faith we mean by designing it from the Scripture the great Rule of it and the Confession of Faith of this Church drawn out of the Scripture If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a â—ovenanâ—â—r which he would have us believe tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things we give no ground for such a Thought but endeavour to present things otherwise to them § 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known for in Scotland even among his own Party the contrarie is well known But all this Noise is because we have no stinted Liturgie without which we follow the same Rules both Divine and Humane as I shewed before we all teach the same Truths and Administer the same Ordinances and in the same manner except that we use not the same Words wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie as he injuriously Asserteth His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied It may be some of them did so either from insufficiency or lazieness but I am sure neither the greatest nor the best part of them did so but what ever be in that both on his side and on ours they who did not tie themselves to the same Words at all times managed their Work with as much plainess gravity and coherence of their Words and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts His calling Praying without a set Form Rambling and Ascribing to it no Order nor Dependence but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits I neglect as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture or Reason against him whom he Opposeth in this but to Rail at him And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon I shall wave it too Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie out of one of his Epistles which he so Citeth as no Man shall find it unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used which I have not had he named the Epistle by its Number or the Person to whom Addressed I might have found it by some pains I oppose Calvine to Calvine he said of the English Liturgie and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument even in this Debate that he waveth The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator A. This is provided against by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted by setting the Word and the Acts of the Church before them as their Rule and Directorie and by Watching over them and Correcting them for mismanagement These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising without any Warrant or Footstep of it in the Scripture Another of his Arguments every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance A.
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not