of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in process of time their Reverence for these Bishops so encreased that they began to obey them as Children do a Father c. 2dly Not only the same Title but the same Powers are ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture both
that of Jurisdiction and that of Orders as they are usually distinguished As to the former we read of ruling Presbyters 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour If this Rule be not the same with their Jurisdiction where lies the difference and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Jurisdiction of Prelates as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters and that Admonition of the Apostle Peter is worthy our observation 1 Pet. 5.1 2 The Presbyters which are amongst you I exhort who am also a Presbyter and a witness of the Sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is amongst you taking the Oversight thereof c. The Spiritual Jurisdiction of Presbyters is here express'd by two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend does not signifie barely to Feed but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family and is often used for Government and sometimes that of Princes but however it certainly signifies the office of a Pastor and is a good Argument that the Pastoral Power is vested in Presbyters The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the oversight or the Episcopal Office doing the work of a Bishop if this will not prove that the Episcopal Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyters I despair of ever understanding the meaning of words The Power of Orders is with the same clearness attributed to Presbyters Timothy himself who they say was a Bishop receives his Office or Gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this the Gent. replies Dr. Hammond says that those Presbyters were Apostles but that is only the Doctors conjecture and yet if the Apostles were concerned in it it is plain they acted as Presbyters whether they were Apostles or Bishops or Evangelists they acted as a Presbytery I doubt not but if it had been said The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Episcopacy these Gentlemen would have presently concluded that Ordination belongs to Bishops as such and would have given us very hard words if we should have dared to dispute it Barnabas and Paul themselves who are called Apostles received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2 3. and it is observable before this neither of them were called Apostles but presently after they were Chap. 14. Vers 14. These things have so gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Diocesan Prelacy that they have not agreed amongst themselves how to find out a tolerable Evasion Dissert 4. Cap 19 20. Vind of Dissert p. 26. but their most famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths Dr. Hammond saw there was no way to come off but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture were Bishops and that there was no inferior Order instituted by the Apostles but that presently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them Now this is as much as we desire for it fully proves that by Divine Right Bishops and Presbyters are the same and that the distinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule but only an ancient Constitution I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all these instances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture by saying Those were not meer Presbyters and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters they answer such as were not also Bishops and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the signification of it nor were there any such meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand says Vnreason of Separ p. 269. That the Apostles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themselves and therefore there was then no Bishop but they were all one with Presbyters but that as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be settled in the several Churches Now though it is most certain the Apostles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themselves but put it into the hands of the Presbyters they themselves still holding an Universal Superintendency yet we gladly accept the Concession of this learned Prelate 't is indeed à regione adverse to Dr. Hammond but will equally serve our purpose the one says there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Bishops the other there were no Bishops superior to Presbyters Our conclusion flows alike naturally and freely from both that in Scripture times Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order 3dly We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Bishops but what are the same with Presbyters in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons described and no mention made of Presbyters because they were the same with the Bishops and unless we acknowledge that we shall be utterly at a loss for a Reason of that Omission and there are few Commentators but understand it so The learned Grotius upon this place says the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Bishops or Inspectors but that afterward that Name was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of them that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of those Elders Ch. 1. v. 5,6 and as a reason it is added For a Bishop must be blameless this would have been no reason had not the Elder and Bishop been the same A late Author thought this so considerable that he puts a new sence upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain Elders in every City as if the meaning were advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Bishops but this is a stretch upon the word which it cannot bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly signifies to constitute and ordain and when the Persons are mentioned it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced as Aristot in Polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the instauration of Princes and Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case if alone always representing the State unto which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had raised them nor do I believe any one instance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer Now if this distinction of Order had been known in Apostolical times it is very strange we should not have a distinct Rule for the Ordination of the one and the Consecration of the other especially since by the acknowledgment of all it is not having many Congregations or Presbyters under him that makes a Bishop but only a peculiar and higher Ordination And yet we find no footsteps of it but on the contrary in the very Directory for Ordination
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
make the Dioceses of Ephesus and Creet to take in one another and the whole Christian World too The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical Power This Gent. undertakes to prove it may but by such kind of instances as signifie nothing but his own inadvertency viz. When two Persons are Heirs to one in the same Estate the Law calls them Successores partiarii But this will not do an Estate may be divided into a Thousand Parts and each of them have the Nature of an Estate still but the Apostolical Power is Universal the same in all places and division here will make it another thing according to the Account that Mr. Bradford Dr. Barrow and the best Protestant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apostle and Bishop Paul as an Apostle had the same Power at Ephesus as at Crete and if Timothy had succeeded in the Apostolical Power he must have had so too His Argument from the Division of the Empire is as defective as the former Empires how great soever are limited within certain Bounds and may be divided it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World as it was of the Apostolical 't is a vain thing to talk of any Provinces to which the Apostolical Power was limited they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World and so must those have too that succeed them in the Apostleship The Vindicator also desired to know how Timothy and Titus could succeed Paul in his Apostleship whilst he was alive and in Plenitude of Power This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle but so it was chuse what the Consequences may be for says he it is evident the Apostle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserved to himself But pray Sir think better of it a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province is not the Plenitude of Apostolical Power and if he reserved any Power to himself within those respective Charges they had not the Plenitude of Power there but were under his Apostolical Jurisdiction still and therefore did not succeed him in it and if the Apostle reserved to himself no Power over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete he divested himself of his Apostleship for he that had not Apostolical Power every where had it no where But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremise the matter betwixt them T. W. must call the Bishops Coadjutors only whilst the Apostles were living and the Vindicator must give them the Title of Successors after their Death And if by Successors he means those that after them were employed in the great Work of the Ministry of the Gospel we grant all true Bishops are their Successors but then we must put him in Mind that the Bishops we read of in Scripture were as much Bishops before the Apostles Death as after and therefore their Episcopal Power did not come to them by Succession nor did there at the Apostles Death any new Accession of Power devolve upon them It was therefore the most needless thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter Review p. 42. what if they call Bishops and Presbyters the Apostles Successors so do we too but do they say that they succeeded them in the Apostolical Power or that the Apostleship was devolved upon them by the Right of Succession and yet it is that T. W. after his weak manner struggles to prove and indeed no less will serve his turn This Gentleman is not so thoughtful as he should be when he says We make it such a mighty Mystery for a Bishop to Constitute his Successour if by Constituting he means Naming or Appointing who shall be his Successor it is not impossible supposing that God preserve his Life and the Church Consent to that Appointment tho' it be very inconvenient and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils but it is impossible for one Bishop to devolve his whole Episcopal Power upon another and yet to keep it himself in as great amplitude as ever Decret par 2. caus 7. Quaest 1. c. 5. Vivente Episcopo Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ c. The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Successor comes not in place till the Predecessour be gone that as long as the Bishop liveth no man can succeed him that there cannot be two Bishops in one Place this is most certainly true in the sence wherein we now speak of Bishops and sufficient to our present purpose That which follows about the certainty of Linus his succeeding Peter of an uninterrupted Succession of the Concession of Papists Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem Aetatem seniorem quadragessimi aut quinquagessimi anni habens Dom. noster c. has already been largely discussed in these Papers It is possible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Bishops and yet be Mistaken in their Order of Succession and 't is certain all is not to be taken for Gospel that Irenaeus reports even in matters of Fact for he tells us our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years and said he had this from all the Elders of Asia who received it from St. John himself How well is it that we have a more sure Word of Prophesie and History too than the Testimony of Irenaeus As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death accounts are so various and the probabilities on each hand so fair that no modest man will be Positive in it but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it and his Disciples make no Question but he has done it infallibly The Vindicator had some Reason to put that Question concerning the Apostolical Succession in the Patriarchal Churches which this Gentleman quarrels with because he observed T. W. made Linus succeed Peter in the See of Rome Simeon James in the Chair of Jerusalem Ananias I suppose it should be Ananias the Cobler of whom before St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria and the account runs upon this Supposition that the Apostles divided the World into several Provinces and each of them was Bishop of his proper district and those are called the Apostles Successors that came into their several Sees after their Death and these being but such a number it would follow that the Succession must be only propagated in these Patriarchats this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the consequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succession which he only erected in those Churches where he had an Apostle at the Head of the Roll he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other that none but the Patriarchs were the Apostles Successors but intimated that such a Succession as T. W. described would only be found in those
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
ignorant in saying that Timothy and Titus and Linus were made the Successors of the Apostles in their Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles were still living for in this case the Apostles might have outlived their Successors and if we believe some Historians they did so and if this be ignorance in the Vicar it can be no extraordinary piece of Wisdom and Illumination in the Citizen he confesses this is a mystery and so he says is all the Gospel but he must not take upon him to obtrude such stuff of his own upon the World because the Gospel is a mystery thanks be to God a man may easily discern betwixt the mysteries of the Gospel and those of T. W's making But if this Notion won't pass under the pretence of Mystery he will invent a reason for it which we have in these Words They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical Power if the Apostles whilst living had not conferr'd it upon them could the Apostles have ordained then after they were dead No truly no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead but were all that the Apostles ordained their Successors in Apostolical Power then the Presbyters which they ordained must be so too He says The Apostle by ordaining them in his Life-time secured the Succession to them and the Government too in the Apostles absence But I wish he had told us how they could secure the Succession to them unless they could have secured them from dying before them and for securing the Government to them in the Apostles absence that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters but if they were invested in Apostolical Power they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apostles Presence as in their Absence for the Apostles had all the same Power and had it alike whether together or asunder In short if it be really true that the Bishops must either be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles lived or they could never be so we must conclude they could never be so for whilst the Apostles lived they could not have Successors in their Office especially such as claimed their Power by such Succession The second Point is equally censurable viz. That he is no true Bishop that was not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards to the Apostles This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved and that the Papists whose Interest it is to make men believe so confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See The Gentleman replies I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession that all established Catholick Churches do assert it and that in every Diocess it is as sacredly recorded as the Succession of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones and challenges his Adversary to prove the contrary Well I 'll be so civil to him as to tell him that which it seems he knew not before touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succession Eusebius himself notwithstanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Successors of the Apostles Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuously confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But how many or who were the true Successors of the Apostles and thought sufficient to govern the Churches founded by them is hard to say excepting those which perhaps some one may gather out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate says What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures Are all the outcries of Apostolical Tradition of Personal Succession of Unquestionable Records resolved at last into Scripture it self by him from whom all these Pedigrees are fetched Then let Succession know its place and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them There are two things to be done before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line first He must have a true Catalogue of the Names of all such Bishops as have filled the See and then he must be able to demonstrate that none of them came in after a Surreptitious manner without Episcopal Ordination the former is difficult but the latter much harder and yet without it the former will amount to no more than a Wild-goose row of hard Words and Names 1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a satisfactory Catalogue even in that See whose Bishops have made the greatest noise and figure in the World and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will consult Baronius for him I suppose he will forbear making challenges for the future Licet plerique sive vitio Scriptoris acciderit sive alia ex causa c. the learned Annalist shews Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearsing the Catalogue of Roman Bishops down to his own times begins thus In the principal Chair sate first Peter then Linus succeeded to him Clemens to him Anacletus passing by Cletus as thinking him the same with Anacletus but on the other hand Epiphanius omitting Anacletus mentions Cletus speaking thus The Succession of the Bishops of Rome is in this Order Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Clemens Evaristus St. Austin following Optatus omits Cletus thinking him the same with Anacletus St. Jerom speaking of Clemens says he was the fourth Bishop of Rome from Peter that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the second of these Jarring accounts Baronius says Num. 48. Si in ordine tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur The Author of the Roman Ceremonial endeavours to reconcile these things by a fine Conjecture Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse Jesus primum denominatione Successorem constituit ea ratione c. Jesus Christ appointed his Successor by Name and after the same manner Peter also named Clemens but on this Condition that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him but they knowing that this way of naming ones Successor would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church would not accept of Clemens but chose Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter but that afterward when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was chosen by the Senate it self Of these Primitive times the great Scaliger thus speaks Prolog in Euseb Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo c. That interval of time
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
where we live in its Holy Devotions and so do Dissenters join with the Churches where they live which are as true Churches and their Devotions as Holy as if they were more large and splendid for any thing that yet appears to the contrary In the 60th Page he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not essential to a Bishop nor to have Presbyters under him for Milles the Martyr had no Christian in his Diocess But it is Ordination that makes a Bishop If therefore our Ministers have all the Ordination that is necessary to a Bishop by the Word of God they are Bishops though they be but Pastors of single Congregations and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Bishop must have a distinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter Ambrose in 1 Tim 3. Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdos to advance him into a Superior Office he has lost the Cause and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him And if the Pastors of single Congregations have all that is essential to Bishops then our Diocesans are a new Species of Bishops which St. Cyprian disowned in his Prefatory speech to the Council of Carthage And indeed it is liable to very just prejudices for when Bishops have taken away from the Pastors of Particular Churches these Rights and Powers which God hath given them and engrossed all to themselves and their Diocess is become too large for their Personal Inspection and Administration they are forced to set up Officers of humane institution to exercise those powers under them which they have ravished from Gospel Ministers that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues they may gain that pre-eminence which some Men began betimes to contend for See Mr. Baxters treatise of Episcopacy never yet answered There is nothing more plainly shews these Mens contempt of Antiquity when it speaks not on their side than denying the Peoples power of Election Rational Defence p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197. which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Testimony of the Fathers as Dr. Rule has proved And though we will not say such consent is essential to the Ministerial Power yet it is certainly necessary to the Pastoral Relation for the Bishops and Ministers could have no certain cure in such places where the Civil Magistrate does not interpose but by the Peoples consent This Gentleman tells us the consent of the Ministers and People of the Diocess is not necessary but it is left wholly to the discretion of the Church and I wonder what that Church is to whose discretion this is referr'd when the Ministers and People are left out will he say it is in the Power of the Bishops of other Diocesses to impose a Bishop upon any without the consent of Minister and People And must we by the Church understand the Bishops alone without Ministers and People as if they had nothing to do in those matters that are left to the Churches Discretion This lets us see what these Men drive at and how gladly they would enslave the whole World to the humours of a few and those not always the wisest or best of Men. That the Nomination of our English Bishops is vested in the King is very pleasing to Dissenters especially under the Government of one so Wise and Good as ours is But then we must say the Power they receive from the King and Laws is not properly Spiritual Power And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us circa Sacra by the appointment of our Governours as far as by Law we are under their Jurisdiction And certainly many of them are too wise to pretend to any more since our Laws expresly condemn such pretensions as has been already proved by the very Letter of the Law in that case The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator shewed his Abilities in mentioning Ignatius who advises the Bishop to hold frequent assemblies and to enquire after all by their names not despising the Men Servants or Maid Servants and he would fain shew his Abilities in enervating so plain evidence and would impose upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures which we must help him to prove We must prove That those Assemblies met only in one place that they were no more than ordinary Congregations that the Bishop had no body to assist him in the remoter parts of his charge that no man else acquainted him with the frailties and misdemeanours of particular These and a great many more such Negatives we must prove which we are no way obliged to do we insist upon the plain words of Ignatius and he must prove his peradventures himself or we shall take no notice of them The Author of the Enquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive Churches offers to prove that these Diocesses were no larger in the number of Church Members than our present Parishes But whether that be so or no I will not be positive For it is manifest enough the first step towards Prelacy was committing the Government of the Church to one which before was managed by several in common the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be By keeping new formed Congregations under their Jurisdiction and we have early instances of such Incroachments These Men take the Liberty of making words signifie any thing that serves their present purpose If Ireneus say the Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles there Presbyter must signifie Bishop for fear of spoiling the Plea of Succession Review p. 65 66. If Tertullian say they never receive the Eucharist from any but the Presidents there President must not signifie the Bishop but the Presbyter for it seems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Presidents though there be a Bishop in Cathedra amongst them Such Men will never be at a loss for something to say Though the Vindicator trusting perhaps to his memory mentioned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instead of Baptism yet it amounts to the same thing for if the Bishop was to take the Confessions of all that were to be Baptised his Diocess could not be of the same Model with ours which such a thing would be altogether impracticable This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator should be so nice in the Notion of Succession p. 19. And afterwards so loose as to make it no more but conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship but the wonder will cease when he considers that in the former place he took Succession in the Sence T. W. used it as that which gives the Bishops their Title to Apostolical Power and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers use it whose words will never prove that the Apostles left them their Apostolical Power but onely that ordinary Pastoral
the Primitive Church liable to the same Exceptions But I hope we are not to be blamed for the dullness of his understanding The Expression is Plain and Pertinent He knows very well what Exceptions we make against the Power of our English Prelates c. Now if he can prove that the same Objections lye against the Primitive Episcopacy he shews thereby that they are frivolous and unjust and throws them out of doors as militating against Scripture Bishops as well as ours one would have thought the meanest Citizen in Chester might have understood this but it will never be better when men take upon them to be Authors in spight of Nature and Education He condemns the Vindicator as having no regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity for speaking of Scripture Rules before they were written this lets us see What Mercy we may expect from him when we stand in need of it We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can and as to this matter a few Words will evince that his Reflection is very unjust In his former Paper Arch-Rebel p. 2. speaking of the Progress of the Gospel and planting the seven Asian Churches in St. Johns time he adds Though there was a Multiplication of Churches yet no Variation here the Vindicator enquired What does he mean in saying there was no Variation Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worshop that 's gratis dictum if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules though we are afraid that will scarce hold yet we wish it had been so still Now it seems the Vindicators Errour was he spoke of Scripture Rules in the Apostolical Age and they were not then written No That 's something strange were not the Gospels and Epistles writ by Evangelists and Apostles during the time of their Lives No Legend that ever I heard of tells us of their rising from the dead and writing to the Churches And if they writ their Epistles containing Rules for Divine Worship why may not those be called Scripture Rules What if they were not Collected as soon as they were writ were they not therefore both Scripture and Authoritative And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time and that this awful Sanction If any shall add to these things God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Refers not only to the Apocalypse but to the whole Canon and stands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules that were not written in the Time of the Apostles I despair of ever coming to an agreement with him And it is certain there is a very material difference betwixt us about the Rule and Standard of Controversie which must be first adjusted before we can well proceed any further for if we take different Measures we shall certainly give a very different account Mr. H. desirous to find out the true Notion of Schism takes for his Rule all those places in the New Testament where that Word is found This the Gentleman is offended at and tells him If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed then he had found out the true Standard of this Controversie And the Vindicator thought there was more Reason to be offended with him for declining the sufficiency of the Scripture as the standard of Faith and Practice this he censured as an affront to Scripture and common Sense too for when the Authority of that Creed depends solely upon its agreement with Scripture how senceless a thing is it to make that a truer Standard than Scripture whose Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it What defence now will the Citizen make As good as he can afford no doubt He charges the Vindicator with saying that an Article of Faith is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence which is as false as any thing in the World we appeal to the Readers Eyes and desire no other favour but that he Read true To bring himself off he acknowledges That the Scripture indeed is the truest touch-stone of Sin and Duty but he adds whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed must needs err and we are assured of the Errour by that Article it contradicts Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity yet it will not serve his turn for then he should not have accused Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard but have proved that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Case which are two different things a man may take a true measure and yet mistake in measuring a thing by it but to tell him in the former Paper of not finding out the true standard and to think to come off in this by blaming his Exposition of it is a very sorry shift which his Ignorance or Inadvertency has forced him upon And yet we must not let him go without further Examination about this matter for it is certain he is fallen into a most dangerous Errour making the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture for so he tells us Reply p. 11. We come to be infallibly assured that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture against the Divinity of Christ is False because it contradicts that Article I believe in Jesus the onely begotten Son of God and that in the Nicene Creed God of God very God of very God being of one Substance with the Father This is an Opinion which his own Spiritual Guides are obliged to chastize him for being so contrary to the avowed Principles of all Protestant Churches and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily asserted in their late Writings against the Papists to which I refer him for his better Information amongst others let him consult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock in his Preservative against Popery where having declared that the Protestants abide by that Part 1st P. 49. which they see plainly proved out of Scripture bids us put this Question How shall we know what is the true sense of Scriptures and proposes three ways either by an Infallible Interpreter or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or by such humane means as are used to find out the sense of other Books He rejects the Pretensions of an Infallible Interpreter and disapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Consent of the Fathers and concludes there is no way left but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the Signification and Propriety of Words and Phrases the Scope and Context of the Place the Reason of things the Analogy between the Old and New Testament and the like Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of He is infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ because the Compilers of the Apostolical and
is the Assembly of all the Saints And again The City of the Lord is the Church of the Saints the Congregation of the Just St. Austin speaking of the visible or mixt Church De Bapt. Con. Donat. l. 7. c. 51. distinguishes it into two Nations Jerusalem and Babylon the Faithful and the Wicked the latter may be in the Visible Church but are not really of the Church and says The Rights of the Church belong only to the Faithful Amongst the Divines of the Reformed Churches the Incomparable Jurieu speaks as fully to the purpose as we can desire Pastoraâ— Lett. Vol. 1. p. 151. He describes the Unity of the Church by the Unity of the Spirit the Unity of Doctrine and the Unity of the Sacraments and exposes the Bishop of Meaux for making the Unity of the Ministry necessary to Salvation saying They must have lost their Senses that suffer themselves to be deluded with such Imaginations as if the Medicine must be given by such a hand or else it would not heal but poison them and adds Ah my Brethren open your Eyes upon this Folly and be ashamed thereof be sure every hand that gives you the true Doctrine is good in that respect the saving remedy of Truth heals from whomsoever it comes And the same Person reckoning up the Innovations of the Third Age mentions amongst the rest Cyprian's corrupt Idea of the Church thereby opening a Door to the most cruel Doctrine that ever was advanced of which he thus speaks He made a false Idea of the Unity of the Church which be encloses in one external Communion and because the Unity of one visible Head was not yet invented he imagined I know not what Unity of Episcopacy which all the Bishops did individually possess whereof nevertheless each administred but a part This inconsistent Imagination gave place afterwards for the substitution of one single Head to the end that a visible Head might be given to the Unity of the visible Communion which might be the Center thereof The Bishop of Meaux brags much of four or five Passages in Sr. Cyprian P. 149. that ancient Doctor goes so far as to say There can be no Martyr but in the Church that when a Man is separated from its Unity 't is in vain that he sheds his Blood for the Confession of Jesus Christ This Maxim in a large signification may be suffered for indeed there may be Hereticks who confessing the Name of Jesus Christ but on the other side ruining the Foundations of the Christian Religion may die for the Religion of Jesus Christ to no advantage But the Application which St. Cyprian makes thereof is one of those Faults over which wise Men ought to draw a Curtain he proceeds so far as to apply it to the Nevatians Now it must be known that the Novatians were good Christians a thousand times better than the Papists since they did not ruine any of the Foundations but retained and believed all the Christian Verities only they were something severe in Discipline and would not receive those that fell in times of Persecution to the Peace of the Church was not this a fine occasion to say as Cyprian did That a Novatian was no Christian O what temper are the Doctors of the Roman Church that make use of those Excesses which ought to be hid out of honour to those Great Men that fell into them It was Cyprian's Zeal for the Peace of the Church and the Harred he had for Schism that ran him into that Excess as to think or say P. 150 151. That out of I do not know what Exterior Unity of the Church a Man could not be saved and it was in this Age that Men begun to corrupt the Idea of the Church I have transcribed thus much out of the Letters of this Illustrious Divine because some noted Men amongst us lay much stress upon the Authority of Cyprian in this Notion or One Communion and One Episcopacy though they can make bold to censure him themselves in the case of Rebaptizing Ep. 68. Ed. Goulart p. 201. and the Peoples Duty of withdrawing from the Communion of a Debauched Bishop in which he is very Positive and I know not why they should deny us that Liberty they take themselves But it may be the Opinion of an Eminent Divine of the Church would go further with some People than either Scripture or Fathers or foreign Authors And is it not the common sence of that Church that has so often told the World there is none upon Earth so Learned and Wise as her self that without the Unity of Episcopacy there can be no true Church no Sacraments no Salvation I confess her Chieftains have been free enough of such kind of Language when it has been her Glory to tread upon the Necks of poor Dissenters but when the Tables were turned and she had to do with an Adversary that could make as great a Noise about Catholick Unity and Communion as her self she learned more Modesty and Discretion Though they all acquitted themselves well in their late Rencounters with the Papists yet I know none that have come off more cleverly than the Examiners of Bellarmine's Notes of the Church Upon the seventh Note the Union of the Members amongst themselves We have this Account of Church-Unity P. 164 165. There is the Unity of submitting to One Head the Lord Jesus There is the Unity of Professing the Common Faith that was once delivered to the Saints There is a Unity of Sacraments a Unity of Obedience to all the Laws and Institutions of Christ the Union of Christian Affection and Brotherly Kindness The Unity of Discipline and Government by retaining for substance the same Form that was left in the Church by the Aposties an Unity of Communion in the Worship and Service of God Now to speak clearly there ought to be all these Kinds and Instances of Unity in the Church but we see evidently they are not all thore I mean in every part and Member of the Church and therefore they are not all necessary to the being of a Church but some of them are and they are The Acknowledgment of One Lord the Profession of One Faith and Admission into the state of Christian Duties and Privileges by One Baptism And this is all that I can find absolutely necessary to the Being of a Church And if they be the same Persons that Vindicate the Discourse of the Notes they speak yet plainer thus Vindic. p. 20 22. In such a divided state of Christendom as this is meer External Unity and Communion cannot be the mark of a true Church All true Christian Churches are United in the most Essential things Ephes 4.5 6. They have one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all and this makes them one Body animated by the same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church but still they are not One entire Communion
has sufficiently taken off this Objection Agere de sui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Ecclesiae initiis and more particularly to that of Jerom Chamier de Occum Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180. manifestum est de suo loqui tempore c. It is manifest when St. Jerom says a Presbyter does every thing that a Bishop does except in Ordination he speaks of the time in which he lived and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove that formerly Bishop and Presbyter were the same because says he even now though the Names have been for a long time used for Distinction of Degrees yet excepting in Ordination there is nothing that a Bishop does but a Presbyter may do it also and therefore if after so long a Discrimination of Title and Degree Bishops have only gained this one Point of Power it is certain at first there was no difference at all this is the reasoning of that Father wherein he agrees very well with himself and is guilty of no such inconsistency as some careless or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him But that which seems most directly to confront these Witnesses is That Aerius is reckon'd amongst the Hereticks by Epiphanius for this Opinion and is represented as a Prodigy and his Opinion madness which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cause But a learned Prelate of their own will give them a sufficient answer to this Irenic p. 277. for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order it is strange that Epiphanius should be the first man that should charge him with it and that neither Socrates Sozomen Theodoret nor Evagrius before whose time he lived should censure him for it and why should not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon who is as express in this as any man in the World But some tell us He was an Arian others say he was put amongst the Hereticks for making an unnecessary Separation from the Church of Sebastia and Eustathius the Bishop thereof not that this was indeed Heresie but it was the custom of angry Bishops in those Ages to call all men Hereticks that stood in their way as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Heresies that Philastrius a Bishop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World It is too evident to be concealed that Epiphanius though otherwise a Worthy and Good Man was of a hot and eager Temper rash in his Censures and sometimes transported into great irregularities of Practice as appears by the disturbance he made at Constantinople Socrates c. 11 12. and the rude Language he gave to Chrysostom because he did not at his command banish Dioscorus and condemn the Books of Origen The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome gives us an instance of the rash and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius in condemning Aerius for Heresie in another point which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Heresies Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63 64. take it in the Words of our Author At the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the Names of Martyrs and Confessors and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their Private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without enquiring into the Reasons of it till by this Custom People began to conclude that such Prayers were profitable for the dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Intercessions of the Living which I confess was a very natural Thought and shews us the easie progress of Superstition that Customs taken up without any good Reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow Popular upon this Aerius condemns the Practice and he is reckoned amongst Hereticks for so doing He desired to know for what Reason the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and Prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in Sin might obtain Pardon which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary to live vertuously if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them when they were dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius but gives such Reasons as are no answer at all to his Questions He says it signifies our Belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another state are alive to God That it signifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of those who are gone hence That it is done to make a Distinction between Christ and all other good Men for we pray for all but him who intercedes for us all Very worthy Reasons of praying for the Dead c. Thus you see what a Monstrous Heretick Aerius was and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius The Truth is these two Heresies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters and the unlawfulness of praying for the dead are much of the same Nature and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both equally Learned and Satisfactory for it is very observable that in the same place where he condemns that monstrous prodigious Heresie of the Identity of Order he fairly confesses That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons Epiph. conr Acrium haeres 75. p. 905. all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Fathers we have suffrage of the Canonists Gratian cap. 24. Legimus dist 39. cap. 5. Olim dist 95. cap. 4. Nullus dist 60. cap. 16. Ecce dist 95. Lancel l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Glossae in cap. dist Concil Basil Duaren de sacr Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7. And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others as Lombard lib. 4. Sentent dist 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church saw it necessary for the better settling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Episcopacy above Presbytery and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed Sess 23. cap. 4. Can. 6 7. this Superiority and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inserted this Note Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus dist 43. That Bishops have differed from Presbyters always as they do now in Government Prelacy Offices and Sacraments but not in the Name and Title of Bishop which was formerly common to both And those Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council Chemnitius and Gentilletus Exam. part 2. Lib. 4. the one a Divine the other a Lawyer condemn this Decree the one by Scripture and Fathers the other by the Canon Law The Judgment of the Reformed Churches is so well known by the Harmony of Confessions that I shall not particularly enlarge upon it we have it there laid down
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and