he hath for his opinion cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense but be satisfied with the truth that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established viz. that Ordination and other acts of Church-power are done by Pastors not by virtue of any superadded power or Delegation that they have from men above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors though the conveniency of exercising it hic nunc requires the concurring of some more circumstances Ergo that other Pastors joyn in Ordination that it be not without the limits which are fixed for order for the inspection of that Society of Pastors whereof such an one is a Member or if it be without these limits that it be not without a special Call from them who should there exercise their Authority The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion supposing what hath been already said By this saith he we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God yea by what we have said may be seen how unlawful it is supposing the equality of the power of order But we must also suppose and it hath been yielded the equality of the power of Jurisdiction at least in actu primo and that may shew us the unlawfulness of Episcopacy And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction Yea we have made it appear that they speak most congruously to the thing for it is Christs Office to give the exercise of power to such men by giving them the Office on which it followeth and therefore they who take it from them and give it to them to whom he gave it not do take his Office But it is a mincing of the matter to talk of a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction when indeed setting up of a Bishop is a laying others aside from the exercise of it at all and suffering them to do nothing that way but by his Authority yea that which we have all this while disputed against is yet less intollerable than is our case where Bishops have most absolute and Lordly powers and delegate it to whom they will Lay-men or others and Presbyters have no power at all Sect. 22. Another Argument he propoundeth p. 198. from the perfection of Scripture from which it doth much derogate to say that in it Christ hath not laid down an immutable form of Church-Government This Argument he almost tusheth at but that is easier than to answer it solidly Unto it he bringeth three Answers all which will not make up a satisfactory one The first is the perfection of the Scripture here meant is in reference to its end this I grant which is to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners and sufficient to bring men to Salvation which is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God Now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any ways necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches liberty Reply I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author I observed it before to slight with confidence that which he hath little to say against in reason What a pittiful come off is this that the not determining the form of Government is not against the perfection of the Scripture because it is not a thing necessary but left to the Churches liberty What it is to beg the question if this be not I know not for the question is whether the form be determined in Scripture or left to the Churches liberty the latter he maintaineth we assert the former and prove it because otherwise the Scripture were imperfect He answereth it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect because the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty Is this the easie dispatch of this Argument which was promised 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners then sure in a special way of Religious manners or practises among which is the way of managing Church-Government being a Religious thing for we speak of Government as it is peculiar to the Church hence then it must belong to its perfection to lay down this especially seeing the Scripture hath told us that this is one of its particular ends to direct the Pastors of the Church how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. but this it cannot do compleatly without setting down a form of Government for general Rules will not tell a Pastor whether he must exercise his ruling power with others or lay it over on my Lord Bishop Ergo the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confesseth to be in it 3. By things necessary I hope he doth not mean only necessary to salvation but necessary to these particular ends propounded in the Scripture one of which is the right managing of Church-Government Now if all things necessary to this be laid down in Scripture there cannot want a form of Government in it for without that Government cannot be managed His second answer is that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture with an opinion of its necessity doth destroy the Scriptures perfection and so in that sense every additio perficiens is corrumpens such are the Popish Traditions but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its necessity doth not destroy it Reply This is a poorer shift than the other For 1. It is not the adding of a form of Government to what is in Scripture that we make unlawful or against the Scriptures sufficiency for sure if it be not in Scripture it must be added seeing Nature maketh it necessary but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead against and therefore this Answer doth not at all touch the Argument neither is the example of Popish Traditions to the purpose for we do not say that they are against Scripture perfection because they are held not to be found in it for that is most true but because they are thought needful to be added to it 2. It is against the perfection of Scripture to say any addition to it is necessary for attaining its end whether that particular thing added to it be necessary or its defect may be as well supplied by another thing of that kind as if any should maintain that we must have more Sacraments than are in Scripture and should
they were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God being Evangelists therefore they were to have no Successors unless the Lord did so call them Further they were not fixed in these places but for a time they did not live and die there which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office Again he argueth that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment which considered with the former would seem a strange omission were either of these forms necessary Ans. This is no strange omission nor should it so be esteemed by this Author who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches to be of the Law of Nature viz. that they should meet that one should moderate that there should be Appeals c. as I observed out of him before 2. We deny that it is omitted yea this Author in saying otherwise contradicteth himself for he will not deny but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government and he affirmeth that they are applicable to either form Ergo to Pastors acting in Parity neither was it needful that there should be directions to them which are not applicable to Bishops governing because the managing of the work is the same in both ways except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society or a single person governing which also it doth teach 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. where it is not obscurely held forth that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery which inferreth that Presbyters ought so to be ordained and not by a Bishop alone 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles it is no wonder they being written to particular men but it is determined in other Scriptures viz. where Christ giveth the Keys not to one but to all the Apostles then the only Church Officers and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus not to one Bishop but to the Elders in common Act. 20. 28. Of this he saith p. 184. it is equally a duty whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others or all joyning in equality But by his leave when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus for to them he speaketh not to these of other Churches of Asia as he dreameth the Text may be understood upon what ground I know not there is no doubt left whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common or of some one set over the rest And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule reaching even to us as he himself saith p. 185. of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. and if so then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority He argueth thus p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who might be able also to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them c. Ans. 1. Yea he doth here commit power of Preaching and of governing joyntly to Timothy to be transferred by him to others for of both these I suppose Tim. had heard from Paul why then must we here understand the one rather then the other in that he mentioneth Teaching not Ruling it is because Teaching is the main business and hath the other power necessarily joined with it by divine Institution 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned and here it cannot be deemed needful because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors but they who are able to Rule too whence it followeth that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders but told not what Power did belong to them a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture is in concludent such as this is From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. I pass his clearing of it from being an Argument for Episcopacy he inferreth two things p. 186. 187. First that the Superiority of some Church Officers he should have said Presbyters for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation These saith he follow though their Office be supposed extroardinary and that they acted as Evangelists Ans. It will follow indeed from these examples that Superiority is not contrary to Nature nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church Also it will follow that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that the Lord should immediately when he seeth cause appoint such Superiority and what if we say it followeth that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that in some extraordinary cases that Superiority may be allowed for a time But none of these are the thing in Question for this doth not follow that because the Lord did immediately call these men and gave them Extroardinary Power over others therefore he hath not instituted that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity which is here disputed His third head of Laws formerly mentioned he toucheth p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government which I confess are not peculiar to one form But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such which himself instanceth as that complaints be made to the Church it is an odd exposition to say i. e. Tell the Bishop The Church implieth clearly a Plurality p. 187. had it been the will of Christ saith he that there should be no Superiority of Pastors there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it Ans. 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn This is very peremptorily spoken 2. What needeth any prohibition when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it this was a prohibition of it now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters as hath been already shewed Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity that Christ should Institute a certain Form as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do His first Ans. To this is that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it which is all that founders of Republicks looked after viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons and subordination that
not think this in particular necessary but leave it to the Churches liberty what particular Sacrament should be superadded But Master Stillingfleet's Opinion maketh an addition necessary viz. that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty Ergo it is against the perfection of Scripture and this addition being of a thing in its general nature necessary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at viz. the right governing of the Church and not being found in Scripture so much as that men may determine it it is such an additio perficiens as the Author confesseth to be corrumpens 3. By this Answer none of the Popish Traditions are additions to the Scripture or imply its imperfection for though they be held necessary in the general yet in particular they cannot so be held for either they were freely determined by the Church and so they might not have been and therefore are not necessary or the Church was necessitated to determine them by some antecedent objective truth in the things if so they must be the Dictates of Nature which are no additions to Scripture wherefore this Answer destroyeth it self 4. At least by this Answer all the Popish and Prelatical Ceremonies and whatsoever superstitious men can devise to bring into the worship of God is no addition to the Scripture nor a blot upon its perfection for these are not held for necessary things but indifferent and only necessary when commanded by Authority which necessity I suppose Mr. Stilling will plead for to his form of Government Now this Consequence I hope he will not own wherefore he may be ashamed to own that from which it doth so clearly follow His third Answer is yet of less weight viz. that the Essentials of Church-Government are in Scripture not the Circumstantials Reply If he meaneth as sure he doth the Essentials of Government in its general and abstract notion in which it is not practicable without a particular form he saith nothing to the purpose The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government though it have these if he mean the Essentials of a particular form he destroyeth his own cause Now we maintain that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government but so much as is sufficient light to direct the practice of Government this cannot be without the institution of a particular form for Government otherwise is not practicable If it be said that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requisite for the compleat practise of Government but the determination of circumstances which cannot belong to Scripture perfection Ans. This we deny if by general Rules he means as sure he doth such as do not determine a particular form it is some more than a circumstance whether Pastors exercise that power Christ hath given them or commit it to a Bishop I hope it is more than a bare circumstance in Civil Government whether the power be in the hand of one or a few or all the people even so 't is here yea herein lieth the very Essence of a form of Government if this then be not found in Scripture the Essentials of a form are wanting but a form is essential to Government considered as practicable Ergo some of the Essentials of Government are wanting CHAP. V. HAving refuted as he supposed the general Arguments for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture he cometh now to particular Arguments which are brought for some one Form and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter which I am confident never any did make Use of to prove what he opposeth We shall let him pass with his supposed Victory over these and only take notice of what opposeth the Truth we hold or the Arguments by which it is established I shall only note not insist upon his large Harangue by which in the beginning of this Chapter he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Government as himself with prejudice and following custome and education rather than truth and being loth to quit that opinion though false which once they have been engaged in To which I say nothing but let every one search his own Conscience and see what grounds is Perswasion standeth upon I hope the sincerity of many will be able to bear them out before God and the solid Reasons they are able to produce will make them stand before men against such reproaches of this Adversary Neither shall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealousies of many who fear that they who cast Church-Government thus loose that the Magistrate may dispose of it at his Pleasure do fetch the strength of their Arguments and the life of their perswasion from no better Topicks then design to please them who can reward this their pains or to hold fast that which is good as some have spoken of their fat Beneficts what ever side of the World be uppermost to which end this opinion is a notable mean I desire to judge no man the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too but this I am sure of we have no Worldly baits to allure us at this time to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government and if the Interest of Christ did not more move us than our own we might with much Worldly advantage yield the cause We do not insist on any of Christs acts towards the Apostles in calling them sending them out either first or last as Arguments for the Form of Church-Government knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal can be no Rule for the ordinary cases of the Church Wherefore I pass over all that he writeth in this Chap. till p. 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scripture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church The first is Mat. 20. 25. to which is parallel Luk. 22. 25. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and they that exercise authority over them are called Benefactors but ye shall not be so Though I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose yet I see not the weight of what he hath said against this place being brought as an Argument against Imparity His Answer is made up of two First he asserteth and solidly proveth against Papists that it is not the abuse of Power that is here forbidden but that the Power it self spoken of is forbidden as incompetent to Church-Officers his Proofs for this I need not repeat I accept it of him as a Concession Secondly He saith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden and so it doth not make against Imparity in Church-Officers Reply He keepeth his wonted way here which is to take much pains to prove what is least in debate with the adversaries he dealeth with we do not question but the Power it self not the abuse of it is here
lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans. 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ. 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two
Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290. is That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms which he maketh out by going through the several places The first is Acts 11. 30. where it is said That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders There is nothing here saith he to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea Answ. I wonder why he should have brought this as the first or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer for the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design he doth not so much as mention for I think it is very little insisted on by either party nor can I remember that I have met with it as brought to prove either Parity or imparity Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders for which I lay down briefly these grounds First The Elders here spoken of are the Governors of the Church this he doth not deny 2dly They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem This he saith is not sure for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea But against this I argue 1. It is not enough to say they might be but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea we bring probable grounds for what we assert but what can be said for the contrary It is a bold way of expounding Scripture to say such a sense it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense but some ground to the contrary 2. However the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea 't is spoken of as one single act of theirs delivering the others to a company of Elders met together Now it is not imaginable that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion for what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms Yea we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand as that they could meet about it Neither hath that conceit of some any probability that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge but of this after These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem not only Acts 15. 6. Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council but Act. 21. 18. That these were the Elders of Judea come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost as Mr. Still guesseth is a most irrational conceit for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so And besides these believing Jews ver 20. who are said to be zealous of the Law can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs though they were not there neither that they were those of the Country of Judea they might be of Jerusalem it self but I incline rather to the first Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place these were then the Elders of Jerusalem 4. It is then observed both by the ordinary gloss and by Lyra in loc That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them Ergo they are the Elders of Jerusalem which here received it Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem then this Church of the rest there is the same reason was not governed by a Bishop but by Presbyters acting in Parity It is strange if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop if there were any such person in such a matter Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14. 23 when they had ordained them Elders in every Church to which he joineth the 3d Tit. 1. 5. that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City Of which places he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them But granting all that he alledgeth a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places thus there was at least in every Church one Elder in the Apostles times and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church as appeareth by comparing vers 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters for one of these are over many Churches Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity for if every Church had its Elder or Elders and these all were Rulers then the Rule was not in the hand of
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull
we are ready to defend against what this Author will object For the second condition viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding then it is not a consequence but an express Law and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction And besides it is a hard task to put any one upon to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture What if Anabaptists who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence as this where something is said in Scripture from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow and where it is expresly said in Scripture that it doth follow from this that Infants must be baptized he would find this an hard task and yet he requireth the same of us What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine wanteth force It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution yet they may declare an Institution we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by Scripture consequences as well as in points of Truth And though Positives be indifferent it is not needful that Divine Institution be directly declared for their binding seeing it is the Will of God revealed that bindeth us not his Will revealed in such or such terms He were a bad Servant that would do nothing of his Masters Will but what he declareth to him directly and in the Imparative Mood such Servants to God this Author would have us that so we may have the greater latitude to be the Servants of Men taking their Will instead of Divine Institution § 11. His second Argument p. 182. is this All the standing Laws for Church Government in Scripture may be applyed to several forms ergo there is no one Form prescribed For proof of this he reduceth all the Laws about Church Government to these three heads 1. Such as set down the qualification of Officers 2. Such as require a right managing of their Office 3. Such as lay down Rules for the managing their Office On these he insisteth distinctly Before I come to what he saith on these three Heads let me answer generally to the Argument And first by standing Laws I suppose he meaneth such as are expresly set down in the form of Laws and then we deny his consequence for though these do only respect Government in its more general consideration yet that doth not hinder but the species of it may be determined another way viz. by Apostolick practices or consequences drawn from Scripture 2. Though we should grant that all the Laws set down in Scripture are equally applicable to either form yet the one Form viz. Parity may be determined in Scripture thus Parity and Episcopacy do agree in many things suppose then they agree in all that is commanded in Scripture and that Episcopacy be so far warrantable no wonder that they be not discriminated by these Laws but then here comes the differences Parity requireth no more for its establishment but these Scripture Laws and so it holdeth it self within the bounds of Divine Institution but Episcopacy goeth beyond this boundary by setting up a new Officer in the Church which the Scripture knoweth not and so one Form is determined though not by any Law condemning the other expresly yet by the Laws that warrant it and the want of any Law to warrant the other 3. We deny that all the Scripture Laws reducible to these three Heads do relate to either Form in that wherein they differ But let us hear his proofs He beginneth with the first Head p. 183. where I confess that all the qualifications of Persons which he mentioneth may be applied to either Bishop or Presbyter But then 1. This is an Argument that Bishop and Presbyter are one or rather that there is no such distinction by the Will of Christ for sure there are distinct qualifications required the one being to Rule the other to Obey wherefore if the Apostles had thought there might be both Bishops and Presbyters in the Church surely he would have set down the qualities of a Bishop as he is distinguished from a Presbyter as well as he setteth down the qualities of a Presbyter Confirmatur a man may be a well qualified Presbyter acting under a Bishop and yet not qualified to be a Bishop wherefore if the Apostle had thought it lawful to set the one over the other his qualifications of Church Officers are very lame seeing he doth not shew us who among the Presbyters is fittest to be made my Lord Bishop as well as he sheweth who among the People are fit to be Presbyters 2. The Laws concerning qualifications do require in all Presbyters an ability to rule the Church and do suppose them to be rulers of the Church as is clear 1 Tim. 3. 4 5. this is not applicable to Episcopacy for in Episcopacy it is not needful that Presbyters be able to rule seeing they have no exercise of that Faculty as God createth nothing in vain so he doth not require any qualifications of men in vain Is it imaginable that if a man be well qualified to Preach c. and yet unfit to rule that the Lord will have that man kept out of the Ministry for that want of a ruling ability seeing he should have no use of that faculty if he had it Ergo these qualifications are not applicable to Episcopacy where the Bishop alone ruleth If it be said that this maketh the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops unlawful not their being Rulers together with the Presbyters Ans. If Bishops be set over Presbyters they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity for we speak of Parity or Imparity of Jurisdiction or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren and if so they may rule without their Brethren seeing they may command them and make that power void which Christ hath given his Servants and so the force of what I have said doth return Again if Presbyters under a Bishop have Ruling Power either they may determine without or against his consent or not if so the Bishop is but a President if not the Presbyters are but Cyphers seeing the Bishop may do in the Church what he pleaseth Sect. 12. He cometh p. 184. to the Laws concerning a right managing of their work which I do not deny to be applicable to either form and no wonder for faithfulness is a commanded duty in what ever station God putteth a man But our Author taketh occasion here to infer the indifferency of either form 1. Because Paul did not determine in his Epistles to Tim. and Tit. which chiefly concern Church-Government whether any should succeed to Timothy and Tit. in Ephesus and Creet Ans. It is a bad consequence for the thing did determine it self for
one Superiour over many Churches Nothing can be questioned in this Argument except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church But this can in no wise be for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction if these then did rule the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches The next place is Act 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church These say we were Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church vers 28. not to one Bishop over the rest so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus and that they were the Bishops of Asia but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand only concludeth that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either which is most detestable Scepticism for if there be Arguments for both parts sure both cannot be true seeing they are contradictory neither can both be false for the same reason for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera altera semper est falsa then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing by answering to them or to hold to the one as true and not to hang between two But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus not the Bishops of Asia 1. which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not the Article in the Greek maketh it clear it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular where when it 's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might well be translated of that Church it pointeth out that Church and no other It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned and the demonstrative Article joined to it that that Speech should be understood of any other but that 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders not through the several parts of Asia Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus not other places and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers 16. wherefore 't is not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishops from many remote parts That which is alledged by some that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus and thence were sent for by Paul is most absurd for 1. There is not the least shaddow or reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long or often or at all but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent 2. What could be their business at Ephesus their work lay elsewhere and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment which will not infer ordinary residence there 3. The work of these Elders was particular inspection over their Flocks vers 28. over all the Flock which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus and had their charges lying up and down Asia for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary it is none at all viz. It is said vers 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons but he was not all the time in Ephesus but abroad in Asia as Act. 19. 10 22 26. Answ. at all Seasons must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus but that he had his residence and Preached most thâ—re which is evident from Act. 19. 1 9. 10. he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus this was at Ephesus and it is said that it continued 2 years i. e. for the most part of the time he was there and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part I weâ—e then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them As for the 1 Tim. 3 1. which is his other place we make no Argument from it but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop let them who assert the conâ—rary prove it His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined and therefore we may hesitate about them with points of truth revealed in Scripture as if we might also be Sceptick in these But sure the Comparison is miserably lame for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticism about the one than the other 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven the Flux and Reflux of the Sea there is some truth in them though men through darkness cannot see it neither must we say that nothing there is because there is nothing certain to us in these things or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government he will have no objective truth in it and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth but that we must believe what men say of it For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government I will but mention several Scriptures on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity which Mr. Still hath not so much as touched neither need I insist on them seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers and not enervated by him One place is 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power Another is 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community not of a single Person and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 8. 10. Also 1 Thess. 5. 12. They who ruled that Church who were over them and must be obeyed were many not one Person yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over
had this Bishop as hath been shewn before could be nothing above a Presbyter none of those cross our design for the third viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles but it was done it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction he might be meerly a praeses so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in some places were more Presbyters in some fewer in some but one His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose only that the Apostles settled things by degrees not that ever they set up Bishops Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in converting more This we close with and from it and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument infer the quite contrary to his design viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course so far as necessity did permit in setling the Government of Churches and that they setled the Government in the hands of Presbyters acting in a Society where they could be had and singly where more could not be and that they never setled it in the hand of a Bishop Ruling over Presbyters All this is evident from what hath been said He taketh occasion p. 336 c. to speak against the Office of Ruling-Elders in the Church in which Dispute he toucheth not any except one Scripture of those arguments which are brought by the Defenders of that Office which is but a slight way of disputing against any Opinion It is not needful to our Design to handle this Debate fully till that be answered which is writen by the Author of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland by the Author of the Treatise of Ruling-Elders and Deacons by the London Ministers in their jus divinum Reg. Eccles. and in their Vindication of Pres. Gov. by Smect by Calv. Just. lib. 4. c. 4. sect 8. and lib. 4. c. 11. sect 6. by Peter Martyr Loc. com clas 4. c. 1. num 11. and many others Wherefore I shall only answer what this Author hath said against the Truth in this Point Whereas among many other Scriptures proving this Office 1 Tim. 5. 17. is brought as one there being implied there a distinction of Elders that Rule well and are to be honoured with double Honour into such as labour in the Word and Doctrine and another member of the distinction not expressed which can be none else but Elders who rule and do not labour in the Word and Doctrine i. e. whose Office it is only to Rule not to Teach publickly as Pastors Of this Scripture he pretendeth to bring a full clear and easie understanding viz. That of the Elders that were ordained in great Churches who had power to discharge all Pastoral acts but did not all attend equally the same part of the work some did most attend the Ruling of the Flock already converted others laboured most in converting others by Preaching and that according to their several abilities now these last deserved greater Honour both because their burthen was greater and their sufferings more This is no new though it be a false interpretation for the Author of Asser. Govern Ch. of Scotl. p. 48 46. bringeth it as one of Dr. Fields Answers to the same place or rather two of them which by our Author are put together But against this exposition of the Text I thus argue 1. This Gloss supposeth that there were Elders whose Office it was to Teach and to Rule and yet they did ordinarily neglect the one part of this their work and contented themselves with doing the other Is it imaginable that the Lord allows any Honour at all upon such and yet the Text alloweth double Honour even on unpreaching Elders though the Preachers have it more especially This Reason is strongly enforced if we consider that Church-Power communicated by Christ to the Officers of his house is not only a Licence or Permission as we noted before but a charge of which they must give an account as it is said of Church-rulers Heb. 13. 17. Neither do I see how any who by their Office are Preachers of the Gospel can free themselves of that wherewith the Apostle chargeth himself 1 Cor. 9. 16 Necessity is laid upon me yea wo is unto me if I Preach not the Gospel and of that charge laid on Timothy who was as much taken up with ruling as any 2. Tim. 4. 2. that he should Preach the word be instant in Season out of Season May men when Christ hath put them in Office and given them a charge choose what part of the work of that Office and Charge they will do and what not But I perceive this Man's principles lead him to subject all Christs Institutions to Mens will to cut and carve of them as they please Christ hath given Pastors a charge that they should Teach and Rule his Church He had pleaded before the Ruling-power may be taken from some and laid on others now he affirmeth the same of Teaching-power this is intolerable boldness 2. We have no better ground for judging of the diversity of Officers in the Church than by considering divers sorts of work which some did ordinarily with the Lord's approbation that others did not but were employed in other work What better Note can we have to know what is a Mans Office than his work which he is ordinarily employed in and that with God's own approbation Wherefore if some Elders Preached others preached not but Ruled we must think that these were distinct Officers and that their Office led them only to do what they did 3. This learned Author should have brought some reason for what he alledgeth viz. That these unpreaching Eledrs who Ruled had power to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not persuade us of it neither is there the least shew of warrant for such an Assertion If it be said that they preached sometimes and therefore could not be without Preaching-power Answ. It cannot be proved that there were any Officers in the Apostolick Church who had Preaching-power or did sometimes Preach and yet were so taken up with Ruling that they did not ordinarily Preach 4. We may with as much yea the same reason say That every Officer in the Church had all Church-power and might occasionally exert it though some according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part others another and that Deacons might preach and do all the work of the Pastors though ordinarily being
them Heb. 13. 7 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly Other places might be brought but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose but hath mentioned a few and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity is this I pass it because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it also because all or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form which we willingly yield Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before which he layeth down p. 322. Thus That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability which may tend to compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1. 1. That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was necessity for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be