and the Chair yet they succeeded him not in his Apostle-ship but the latter Bishops in neither c. And Lightfoot a renown'd Divine of the Church of England proves that the Apostle-ship was an Order for ever unimitable in the Church The Apostles saith the same Author could not ordain as Apostle by Imposition of Hands as they could ordain Elders but they are forced to use a Divine Lot which was as the immediate Hand of Christ imposed on him that was to be ordained that Opinion took little notice of this circumstance that hath placed Bishops in the Place of the Apostles by a common and successive Ordination Dr. Barrow whose Works are publish'd by Bishop Tillotson and therefore are to be lookt on as his is copious on this Subject Apostles also saith he did Govern in an absolute manner according to Discretion as being guided by infallible assistance to the which they might on occasion appeal and affirm it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicat it They did indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each Church they did assume fellow Labourers or Assistents in the Work of Preaching and Governance but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in Authority Priviledges or Gifts for who knoweth not saith St. Austine that Principate of Apostle-ship to be preferr'd before any Episcopacy And the Bishops saith Bellarmine have no part of the true Apostolical Authority And now judge of the Spirit of these Men who are glad most falsly to brand these famous Bishops and others the most eminent Doctors of that Perswasion as being guilty of the most abominable Crime of Socinianism providing they can thereby bespatter and make odious the Presbyterians Judge also of D. M's Query whether the Apostolical Power as to it 's permanent necessary and essential Branches was not in its nature Perpetual and Successive and by them transmitted in solidum as they receiv'd it from our blessed Saviour to single Successors in particular Sees and not to a Colledge of Presbytsrs in the modern Notion As to the last part of his Query and his Presbyters in the modern Notion I know none such if 't be not these of the Hierarchicks their half Ministers for which there is no ground in Scripture And accordingly it's certain that the Apostles left the managing of the Church to neither Bishops nor Presbyters in his sense both of them being Chimera's but to Colledges of Bishops who are also Presbyters both being one in Scripture during the Apostolick age But tho' we should grant them all the Query seeks supposing which all the Ancients affirm the equality of all Bishops who at the beginning were reciprocated with Congregations he 's yet but where he was and has really done nothing for the establishing of his Hierarchy Judge lastly of that doughty Argument of the Papists and our Hierarchicks for Prelacy to wit that Bishops succeed to the Apostles and Presbyters to the 70 Disciples which has been generally reckon'd by Protestants among Rome's dotages and as such refuted in their Popish Controversies and to name no others by Iunius and Willet who answers that not only Bishops but all faithfull Pastors are the Apostles Successors and that even according to the Pope's Decrees not Bishop but Priests succeed the Apostles and Deacons not Presbyters succeed the 70 Disciples And now to go on with D. M. and his Fellows all their cavilling to make Timothy and Titus Hierarchick Bishops is but the product of a late Popish Dream For the Fathers when they so called them or the Apostles mean'd not of Bishops in this sense § 3. Wherefore Willet Answers that it is most like Timothy had the Place and Calling of an Evangelist and that the Calling of Evangelists and Bishops which were Pastors was diverse This Answer which so approv'd a Divine of the Church of England gave the Papists D. M. calls a ridiculous subterfuge For saith he the Work of an Evangelist has nothing in it opposite to or inconsistent with the Dignity of a Bishop c. A most disingenuous tergiversation and sliding from the Office of the opponent or probant to that of the defendent seeing this was one of his special Scripture-Arguments whereby to establish his Hierarchy and it 's sure that if Timothy and Titus might do what they did under another Notion and Capacity than that of a Diocesan Prelate his Argument goes to wrack As does also his perversion of 2 Tim. 4 5. for he insinuats that from Timothy's being injoined to do the Work of an Evangelist it will no more follow that he deserved the Name than Daniel's saying Ch. 8. 27. that he did the King's Work will prove him a King But had he ever considered the rest of the Epistle the context of the place and the Signification and Notation of the Word Evangelist he had clearly seen that the Apostle so adapts this Work of an Evangelist to Timothy that the Name and Character properly belongs unto him He adds That any who now convert Jews or Pagans are as properly Evangelists as any so called in the primitive Church and thus insinuats that Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus were no extraordinary Officers which except a few Novelists wedded to their Fancies is condemned by all Men. § 4. And that there was such a Function by which some in the days of the Apostles were raised far above the rank of ordinar Pastors or Doctors and placed in the very next degree to the Apostles themselves whose Office was mostly ambulatory going from Church to Church in the exercise thereof is in part intimated by Sedulius and Theodoret and others upon Ephes. 4. 11. but more fully by Eusebius who informs us that even after the Death of the Apostles divers remained who were in a far higher rank than the rest of their Successors who being saith he the admirable and divine Disciples of so great Men built up the Churches the Apostles had founded promoving the preaching of the Gospel and sowing Seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and wide thro' the whole World for many of these Disciples that were yet living whose Minds the Divine Word had inflammed with a vehement desire of Wisdom fullfilling our Saviour's Command and dividing their Goods among the Poor and thus leaving their Country exercised the Office of Evangelists among these who had not yet heard the Doctrine of Faith by most diligent preaching of the Gospel and furnishing their Hearers with the Holy Scriptures these so soon as in any remot and barbarous Country they had laid the Foundations of Faith and ordained Pastors and had committed to these Pastors the care of this New Plantation being content therewith and accompanied by the Grace and Power of God hast'ned to other Countries for even to that time the Divine Power of God's Spirit wrought Miracles by these Men so that at the first hearing of the Gospel
as that of Planting the first Christian Churches Lastly I appeal to all Protestants if his ascribing to every Bishop a Power of authorative preventing of Heresies i. e. a Power of making Canons that lean only on the Bishop's own Will and which he 's not oblig'd to prove from Scripture otherwise every Minister of Christ hath a Power and Authority by publick preaching and reasoning from the Word of God to prevent and overthrow Heresies and so D. M. speaks not to the purpose hath not a rank savour of what is no better than the grossest of Popery The Romanists give such an authoritative Power to one Pope but from a perswasion of his Infallibility this Author will have it unto every single Bishop tho' as yet he has not adventured to ascribe to each of 'em such a Priviledge and to explain if need were what he means by this authoritative preventing of Heresies § 2. Look but on page 95 et seq and you shall see him make every Bishop an Apostle in the strickest sense and priviledg'd with no less Power over the Church-Officers and People in his Diocess than an Apostle ever had or could exercise viz. a Power to Govern the Churches to give Rules and Directions to inflict Censures to communicat his Authority to others to hear Complaints to decide Controversies to Confer the Holy Ghost viz. the Gifts of the Holy Ghost that must needs attend the authoritative Ministry of holy Things and therefore that the Office of an Apostle is altogether ordinary and permanent The Apostolical Office saith he being essentially no other than this the ordinary Necessities of the Church require that it should continue till the second coming of our Saviour But the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost the Power of Miracles of Languages were only extriasick Advantages and not peculiar to the Apostles And to affirm otherwayes and say that the proper Apostolick Office is now ceased he makes proper to Presbyterians and Socinians But so far is he from speaking Truth here that the ceasing of the proper Apostolick Office and Power is asserted by the Body of Protestants even Episcopal no less than Presbyterian in opposition to the Jesuites his Masters who as he doth to his Diocesan Bishop arrogate an Apostolick Office and Power to their Pope Spanhem F. a fervent Apologist of the Hierarchicks assigns many Characters of the Apostolate as an extraordinary Calling either immediat or equivalent thereto Infallibility of Doctrine transcendent Efficacy and energy in Preaching admirable success therein the Gift of Tongues and of working Miracles all which things altho' some of 'em might have been in some measure in others were saith he in a more Divine and Eminent manner in the Apostles And he affirms that every one who was endued with a true and proper Apostolick Power had and could give such visible Proofs and ocular Demonstrations thereof and then concludes against the Pope thus let the Pope now descend from the Capitol let him as did the Apostles declare that he has the Gift of Tongues Divinely infused let him bring visibly the Gifts of the Holy Ghost from Heav'n let him work like the Apostles such illustrious Miracles and then we shall yeeld that he has Apostolick Authority and so shall we to the Diocesans when they adduce these Proofs of their Apostleship He asserts that they 're much deceiv'd who would bring the Apostles down to the Order of particular Bishops and demonstrats against Hammond that they were not at all call'd Apostles on the account that they were Bishops consequently that Apostle and Bishop are quite different things In short the very Sum and Substance of Spanhemius his Disputation is nothing save an Approbation and Confirmation of that common Sentiment of Protestants express'd by Beza The Churches saith he being once constitute this Office of the Apostle-ship was of necessity taken away he is a Tyranne therefore who does now profess himself an Apostle in the Church by Succession And by this one Observation viz. that whereever the proper Apostolick Power was they could give ocular and undeniable Proofs and Demonstrations thereof the Protestants for ever silence and baffle the Jesuites and their Progeny D. M. and such Companions ascribing a Power properly Apostolick to their Roman Antichrist and their Diocesan Prelats and fully remove all thier Quibbles on this Theme as Dr. Scot's Quirk the Substance whereof is there 's no mention in Scripture of the taking away of this Apostolick Office and therefore it yet remains But I forgot that for the permanency of a Power properly Apostolick D. M. cites Mat. 28. 20. And lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World As if not to mention Protestants even the more ingenuous Romanists as Lyra did not understand this place of Christ's assistance given to all Doctors of the Church without any Discrimination Moreover all his Exceptions and pretended Instances to the contrary are impertinent and severals of 'em false in matter of Fact as for Example nor is it necessary saith D. M. to make up an Apostle that he be immediatly call'd to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordain'd by our Saviour but by the Apostles But Spanhemius tells these Jesuites that the Lot that fell upon Matthias was really the voice of God no less than was that of the Division of Canaan of the Scape-goat c. And indeed as I said that the Office and Power properly Apostolick is long since ceas'd is the common Doctine of Protestants as Calvine None saith Sadeel against Turrian the Jesuite but he who is an Ignoramus in Divinity will confound an Apostle with a Bishop I assert therefore that God's immediat calling and choosing to preach the Gospel is essential to the Office of an Apostle But these say you were Presbyterians I deny 't not however they were then pleading the common Cause of Protestants and were never opposed herein by any save down-fight Papists only till that now we have to do with real Jesuites who yet mask themselves and will not acknowledge the name In the mean while I do not think they 'll say Spanhemius Fil. is a Presbyterian nor yet Nilus ' Bishop of Thessalonica who saith the Pope is not an Apostle the Apostles did not ordain other Apostles but only Doctors and Teachers Of this mind is also Willet Bellarmine saith Whitaker seems to say the Pope succeeds Peter in his Apostle-ship but none can have Apostolick Power but he who is properly and truly an Apostle for the Power and Office of an Apostle constitute an Apostle But that the Pope is neither truly nor properly an Apostle is prov'd by these Arguments whereby Paul proves his Apostle-ship as that he was not call'd by Men c. Gal. 1. 1 and 12. and Ephes. 3. 3. and 5. 1 Cor. 9. 1. Altho' saith Sutlivius the ancient Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter in Doctrine
the Menaces utter'd in the Old Testament against Tyre and her King had for their Object Parmenianus the schismatical Bishop of the Donatists who lived at Carthage that had once been a Tyrian Colony but in the time of Parmenianus was inhabited by Romans who had either quite extirpated or expelled thence the whole Race of the Tyrians With no less lightness but more danger did Justine Martyr long before Optatus endeavour to perswade the Gentiles that all Mankind were Partakers of Christ because they were Partakers of Reason and Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also signifies Reason Where we see that Justine leans only on a pitifull Equivocation the deceit of which could not be unknown to him who natively spoke Greek Neither were Origenes Methodius and others as Hierome witnesseth more solide in their Writings Yea Hierome himself distinguisheth between Progymnasticks and Dogmaticks alledging that in the former of these a Disputant hath liberty to muster up many Arguments in which he hath no confidence § 4. To these we may add both their Homilies and Expositions wherein it 's not easily determined when they spoke their own minds or when they gave us only Transcripts of others to believe and defend which they held themselves but little obliged Yea Hierome oftner than once tells us that it was the common Practice of the Writers of these times to give the Expositions of others and yet conceal the names of the Authors and so involve the Reader and make him take for their judgement the things they never believ'd § 5. If we search into the causes of so strange dealing we have heard out of Hierome that one of 'em was meer sloath and neglect See much more to this purpose in Dallaeus de usu Patrum Another Cause why they both spoke wrote and practised otherways than they knew could be warranted by Scripture was their unjustifiable Compliance with both Jews and Pagans good perhaps intentionally being out of design the better to Proselyte them but eventually proved as unhappy as its Practice was unwarrantable and destitute of Scripture ground Hence their Deacons were named Levites their Bishops Priests and High-Priests the Lord's Table the Altar and the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice and at length Diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops were instituted in imitation of the Pagan Flamines and Protoflamines Another Cause thereof which especially takes place in their Homiles and Expositions was the multitude of Alterations and Corruptions well grown before any of these Homilies and Commentaries we now enjoy were extant these were too deeply rooted to be opposed and therefore they believed themselves under a kind of necessity to accommodat their Comments and Declamations thereto at least so to temper and compose them that they should not thwart therewith Of this sort of Conduct we have a clear instance in Augustine who sometimes commends and praises several unscriptural Ceremonies But elsewhere speaking his Mind more freely disapproves them as both unwrantable and burdensome He indeed there intimats that some things commonly observ'd throw the World tho' they were not written yet might be kept as having come from the Apostles or general Councils such as was the Observation of the Lord's Passion Resurrection and Ascension But even this as is most probable he yeelded out of humane Weakness and Fear to oppose the then prevailing Innovations for the needlesness of such preterscriptural Observations he evidently declares elsewhere saying that all things which belong either to Faith and Manners are plainly contain'd in Scripture From all which is clear that we cannot at all be sure if the Fathers Commenting on the places in hand either knew their true meaning or if they did sincerely gave us what themselves believed § 6. And that in their Explications of these Texts we have not their genuine Sentiments is to me evident First because they gave such Reasons of their Exposition as the greatest Prelatists count stark nought Thus Bellarmine rejects and overturns the Grounds of every one of these Expositors in particular except these of Chrysostome only who yet hath nothing of any moment above the rest for Chrysostome exponing Philip. 1. 1. alledges only in defence of his Exposition that the sole Title and Name of Bishop was common to both Orders but this is refused by Dr. Hammond and others and as we shall hear by Chrysostome himself But the Jesuite intending to retain that Exposition thought himself obliged to embrace some of their Defences whereas in truth they themselves never believ'd them to be solide but only the growing Corruptions being too strong to be opposed and some of 'em having got an Episcopacy which was then creeping in and which they depending on the Churches Authority thought they might retain they believ'd that for the fashion they might so gloss the Scriptures whereby Episcopacy is wounded that the People should not perceive the unwarrantableness thereof Secondly The main ground common to all these Expositions why they expone any of these Texts as if they condemn'd not a Diocesan Bishop is a sufficient evidence that they were far from being in earnest in their Glosses for they still alledge that there behoved to be a Bishop above these Bishops in Philippi whom Paul salutes because there might not be Plurality of Bishops in one City This Practice indeed was for the most part current in this time tho' not universal as we learn from Epiphanius informing us that even in these times there used to be a Plurality of Bishops in one City Yet quite contrary to this Text which they either carelesly or timourously shuffl'd They judged saith Dr. Stillingfleet the Practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the sense of their Age because their could be but one Bishop in a City And Petavius grants that many true Bishops were sometimes at once in one City And altho' the Episcopal Order be of Divine Right yet at 's not of Divine Right that there should be only one Bishop in one City this was only brought in by the Authority of the Church and Councils and accordingly Hierome and Ambrose are to be understood By what Law saith J. Taylor speaking of Philippi and that not as a Metropolis may there not be more Bishops than one in a proper sense in one Diocess Where 't is not unpleasant to hear so great a Prelatist by one Interrogation overthrowing the whole Episcopal Cause and propugning the main Plea of the Presbyterians viz. that in Philippi alone there were many who had not only the power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments but also of Ordination and Jurisdiction and were every way Bishops in a proper sense Thirdly Some of these Expositors proclaim what we alledge for OEcumenius who like the rest intimats as if
went thro' the World for the Commodity of that Church and was never absolutely ordain'd a Bishop by the Apostles for James himself was an Apostle Of the same Mind is Salmasius that James resided not at Jerusalem as one of their Hierarchick Bishops but as an Apostle And yet D. M. is not asham'd to tell his Reader as the Concession of Salmasius that we have a Diocesan Bishop establish'd in the person of St. James the Just in the City of Jerusalem Now that Hierome understood James's Episcopacy in the sense giv'n by Junius and Salmasius against the Jesuites is most apparent especially if we consider how the Ancients us'd to speak of the Apostles and Apostolick extraordinary Church-Officers in the Stile of their own times and how positive Hierome was for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter during the Apostolick age and first primitive Church Add hereto that Hierome as he shews in his Preamble to Dexter was altogether uncertain of much of what he wrote in his Catalogue of Writers which is yet more clear from his account of Paul for the writes that he was a Native of Gischalis and during the Wars between the Jews and Romans sted with his Parents to Tarsus when Gischalis was taken Which I 'm sure Hierome a Man so well acquaint with the Affairs of the Jews who had no Wars with the Romans for many years after the time wherein the Fabler whom Hierome transcribes suppos'd these Wars to have been commens'd and Gischalis taken could never believe but only because he could light on no better transcrib'd things as he found ' em Which removes tho' no more could be said D. M's Objection from Hierome's mentioning of Ignatius his Epistles whereon D. M. with no small Ostentation insists He follows also Bellarmine objecting that Hierome makes Bishops the Apostles Successors But Junius Replies that Hierome denies not this to be also the priviledge of Presbyters It 's also objected by Dr. Pearson that Hierome in his Epistle to Heliodorus speaks of the Deacons as the third Order And seeing this of all the passages of Hierome produc'd by the Papists to involve him in self-repugnancy is most plausible take it at full length If a Man saith Hierome desires the Office of a Bishop he desires a good Work These things we know but add what follows A Bishop then must be blameless c. and having express'd the rest of the things which there follow concerning a Bishop the Apostle uses no less diligence in setting forth the Duties of the third Degree saying Likewise let the Deacons be grave c. But passing that he was scarce more than a Child when he wrote that Epistle and wrote clearly for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in his riper years it 's certain he pretends no Divine Warrant for this Tripartition Yea from the very words they would now detort it 's most evident that tho' Hierome following the Custome of his Age mentions a third Degree he notwithstanding takes both Paul's Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same thing Moreover in this same Epistle Hierome makes all who had the Power of Dispensing the Sacraments Successor to the Apostles which the Jesuites and their Supporters appropriat to Bishops hence they are baffl'd with the very places of Hierome they endeavour to abuse § 7. But I return to Hierome Philippi continues he is a single Town of Macedonia and truly in one City there could not be called are they as moe Bishops But because at that time they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters therefore he spoke indifferently concerning both Bishops and Presbyters From these words saith Petavius It can be evidently demonstrated that Hierome believed that Bishops and Presbyters were not one and the same Order yea even in the Age of the Apostles For had he so believ'd he had never said that there could not be a plurality of Bishops in one City when surely there was a plurality of Presbyters As if Jerome's whole discourse scope and conclusion were not directly opposite to what the Jesuite impudently fathers on him who in the words Petavius abuses only meets with some Wranglers as he elsewere terms them who to elude the proof Jerome brought for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Philippians 1. 1. absurdly contended that in the City of Philippi alone there were a multitude of Bishops distinguish d from and superior to other Pastors But yet this may seem doubtfull continous Jerome to some except it be confirmed by another Testimony It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Apostle was come to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he said take heed to your selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of Christ. And observe this diligently how the Apostle calling the Elders of Ephesus which was but one City afterwards names them Bishops if any receive the Epistle which under Paul's Name is written to the Hebrews there also the care of the Church is equally divided amongst a plurality For he writes to the People Obey your Governours and be subject to them for they watch And Peter who received his Name from the strength of his Faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder We have enlarged on these things that we might shew that among the Ancients Bishops were all one with Presbyters Hierome then never as Petavius and his Followers impudently pretend thought that there had hapned no alteration or that Bishops bore greater bulk in his time than they had done in the Age of the Apostles but by little and little to the end the seeds of Schism might be remov'd the whole care was devolv'd upon one wherefore as the Presbyters know that by the Custome of the Church they are subject to their prefect so let Bishops know that rather by Custome than by the Truth of Christ's Institution they are greater than Presbyters and ought to Rule the Church in common with them imitating Moses who when he alone had Power to Rule the Israelites chused other Seventy with whom he might judge the People Here say they is a proof of Superiority of Bishops by Divine Right but they should remember that Hierome here undertook to prove the quite contrary And it 's most injust to fish and search for self-contradictions in any Author when with ease he may be understood otherways as the Matter is here Hierome is arguing a majori ad minus from Moses his Practice who tho' he had sole Authority by Divine Right yet shar'd it with others to that which ought to have been done by the Bishops of his time whom only Church Custome not Christ's Appointment had raised over other Pastors And indeed they might on equal grounds inferr from John 13. 14. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your
and other places no small number of excellent Men to Scotland who doubtless did no small service to God therein and especially in the time of Fincormachus when as all observe a great many fled hither who were famous both for Life and Doctrine yea long before this even in the time of Tertullian our Church was well known to much of the Christian World as appears from his clear Testimony The places of Britain saith he to which the Romans could not yet pass are notwithstanding subject to Christ. And if any have called Scotland barbarous or not well reform'd before the coming of Palladius Sir George learn'dly refutes them and names severals and among them even Stannihurst otherways an enemy to our Nation who have done it and he well observes that the reason why some speak of us as then not well enough reform'd was because of our want of agreement with the Church of Rome § 6. As to the last part of the Bishop's discourse saying that it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with the matters of the Church c. And wherein he is seconded by St. Asaph who falls foul on Presbyterians on this account as if they were darkners of all Church History c. They should know that as our Historians call'd these Monks they also call'd them Priests sometimes Presbyters or Bishops or Doctors and frequently Culdees Our people saith Boeth also began most seriously at that time to embrace the Doctrine of Christ by the guidance and exhortation of some Monks who because they were most diligent in Preaching and frequent in Prayer were call'd by the Inhabitants Worshippers of God which name took such deep root with the common People that all the Priests even to our time were commonly without difference call'd Culdees i. e. Worshippers of God Elsewhere this Author call'd these Teachers and Guides indifferently Priests Monks and Culdees Thus also speaks the best of our Historians some of whom we have heard calling them Presbyters and Admistrators of the Sacraments Hence 't is clear that when they call them Monks the word is not to be taken in the later Popish sense for a Layhermite for these our primitive Pastors were only call'd Monks by reason of their strictness of life and frequent retirement to Devotion when the publick work of the Ministry did permit it and perhaps also divers of them abstain'd from Marriage that they might keep themselves free from the World and its care without urging this on others as was the practice of the famous Paphnutius in the council of Nice From all which I conclude that before the coming of Palladius we had a settl'd Church without the least umbrage of their Hierarchy § 7. I add that long after that it had but very slender footing here seeing according to Spotswood they had no distinct Titles or Dioceses whose words are neither had our Bishops auy other Title then that of Scotorum Episcopi or Scotish Bishops whereby they were distinguish'd before the days of Malcomb the III who first divided the Country into Dioceses appointing to every Bishop the limits c. Yea after most strict search for a long time posterior to Palladius he can scarce find the least footsteps of Episcopacy And again long it was after the distinction of Dioceses before they were admitted to any civil Places or Votes in Parliament Hence nothing is more certain than that for many Ages the Church of Scotland knew nothing of their Hierarchy the first Rudiments whereof were bronght from Rome which was sent packing thither again when we renounc'd our obedience to Anti-christ § 8. Take but one other particular and I take leave of the Advocat he 's much displeas'd with St. Asâ—ph terming him a Caresser of Fanaticks for affirming that in consequence of this our Argument taken from the confess'd Practice of our primitive Church we might reasonably conclude that when we covenanted against Episcopacy we had only us'd our own right and thrown out that which was a confess'd Innovation in order to the restoring of that which was our primitive Government A notable and never to be forgotten Concession of so learn'd an Adversary as is this Bishop Let 's hear what the Advocat returns him It will not follow saith he that because our Church in its infancy and necessity was without Bishops for some years therefore it was reasonable for Subjects to enter into a solemn League and Covenant without and against the Consent ef their Monarch and to extirpat Episcopacy settl'd then by Law and by an Old Prescription of 1200 years at least But this most unfair Representation of our Arguments antecedent is I trust now sufficiently discover'd wherefore I have nothing to do here with it not yet am oblig'd to evince the consequence he denies seeing 't is not to be accounted ours but his own who made the antecedent Of the Grounds why the Nation entred into a Covenant I also discours'd already In the mean while I can't but take notice of his settling Episcopacy by Prescription a Romish Argument which whatever it may do in Law has no place here His Prescription I 'm sure essentially differs from that of Tertullian against the Heresies of his time seeing he liv'd in a very early Age when especially if ever Prescription could have place in the Church and the Doctrines which he defended were generally and uninterruptedly held by the Pastors even from the Apostles times and more ancient than the Heresies against which he prescribes whereas in the present case all things are clean contrary For as the Advocat himself here supposes the original of Scotish Episcopacy is several Ages posterior to that of the Apostles so that if the Argument could militat for either Party it serv'd well the Church of Scotland against Prelacy and not at all e contra But tho' things had been quite otherwise there had been no fear of harm from their Prescriptions seeing as Vincentius Lerinensis admonishes In refutation of inveterat Errors we must recurr to the sole authority of the Scriptures And Optatus Milevit plainly asserts that Christ's Testament abundantly suffices to determine all and every particular Controversie among Christians Thus we see how pleasant a spectacle these two Champions afford us the Bishop forms the Major Proposition and asserts on supposition of the Antiquity of our Royal Line and veracity of our Historians that our Church acted with reason enough and was only recovering her own Right when she cashier'd Prelacy The Advocat in attempting to disprove this the Bishop's Proposition has only giv'n such prevarications and elusions as most strongly confirm all the dis-interested of the truth thereof As for the Minor Proposition that our ancient Royal Line is not forg'd but real and our historical Monuments most true and credible the Advocat himself to the conviction of all the unbyass'd in both his Books makes appear It remains therefore as a conclusion of undoubted verity that our Church was
the perpetual Practice of these times frees us from further debate herein I can never find that the Romans brought Christians from Asia or such remote places to be executed at Rome but still to the nearest seats of Justice as is clear in Polycarp and other most famous Bishops or Pastors And truly saith Dr. Stillingfleet the story of Ignatius as much as it 's defended with his Epistles doth not seem to be any of the most probable For wherefore should Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of Persecution execute their Power in punishing of Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a Journey to Rome to be martyr'd there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange Excursions as he did by the Story if the Souldiers that were his Guard wers so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all these uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge Antiquity is to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times And now from what is said jude if D. M. had any good ground to query whether there 's any good and solid Argument brought by the Presbyterians against the Authority of St. Ignatius his Epistles that is not already sufficiently answered Section III. The second Hypothesis viz. that the Antiquity of the trne Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes in Doctrine or serve to Prove that there was no Declension in his time MY second Assertion is that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes and that in his time some Churches not only might but actually were itching after several Novelties Which Assertion if once demonstrated renders Ignatius of little or no use to our Antagonists their Inference is that if Ignatius spoke positively in favours of Episcopacy and lived in a closs vicinity to the Apostles then there 's no doubt but the Apostles established such a Government which consequence like the Aples of Sodom resolves anon into smoake our Assertion being prov'd which I now come to demonstrate The Apostles of our Lord had not chang'd their earthly Tabernacle for that which is not made with hands when to their inexpressible sorrow they beheld not only particular Persons but even the greater part of some Churches they themselves had either planted or watered in stead of Grapes to bring forth will Grapes and in place of being the Repositories of the precious Truths of the Gospel become nests and cages of the most abominable Errors Other Churches there were that holding fast the Foundation of the Apostolick Doctrine but raising thereupon a structure of the stubble and hay of either Judaism or Paganism in one of which all of them had been educated had well nigh made up an Edifice of most Hetrogeneous Materials Hence it is that the Apostle is at such pains to Correct them in their Abuses of the Sacrament in their Superstition concerning Meat and Drink and their unwarrantable observation of Times that wanted all Divine Sanction § 2. But these infallible Guides being at length possessed of their Master's Joy Affairs grew yet worse for then the grand Enemy of the Church did in greater abundance and with more security sow his tares Hence it was that not only those who are justly branded for Arch-Hereticks and Schismaticks but even those who persisted Orthodox in the main Principles of Christianity were drawn into neither few nor inconsiderable Mistakes § 3. I 'm sure Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was a Man both in respect of his Antiquity and Authority among the primitive Christians little inferiour to Ignatius 't was he notwithstanding who either greedily imbrac'd or first of all hatch'd the gross Fancy of the Saints their corporal Kingdom for a thousand years after the Resurrection Moreover saith Eusebius speaking of Papias the same Writer alledges something as from unwritten Tradition viz. some strange Parables and Doctrines of our Saviour and some other fabulous things and amongst the rest he saith that after the Resurrection there shall be a thousand years wherein Christ shall reign on Earth bodily But to me he seems through misunderstanding of the Apostle's Discourse to have taken what was spoken mysteriously in a quite other sense from its true meaning For he was os a very weak Judgement as his Writings sufficiently declare He was notwithstanding the Author of this Opinion to the most part of the following Ecclesiastical Writers for they look'd only to his Antiquity as Irenaeus and whosoever else favoured his Opinion We see here a Man of no little Antiquity and Repute drawing the greatest Lights of the Church and consequently the rest of the Christians to a Doctrine destitute of all countenance from the Word of God § 4. Another Conceit no less Ancient but more wild was that of the Angels their carnal Knowledge of Women This was hugg'd by Justin Martyr who lived in the same Century with yea and not many years after Ignatius The Angels saith he transgressing their Order by carnal Copulation with Women fell from their primitive State aud begot Children who are now called Devils He was follow'd notwithstanding by Irenaeus Athenagoras the most famous Writers of their Age as also the stream of these that flourished in the succeeding Centuries Irenaeus also with a great many others held that the beatifick Vision is not enjoy'd untill the day of Judgement Now beyond peradventure such Leaders as these had the most part of the Churches at that time for their Fellows and Followers in these Opinions § 5. And seeing both such Pillars and the rest that lean'd on them were ready to swerve in Matters of Speculation or Opinion they were no less capable of straying in things belonging to Practice for there 's no more security promised to the Church from the one than the other Neither did the closs Vicinity to the times of the Apostles preserve the Churches from evident Lapses of this nature Was not the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water a matter of Practice and altogether destitute of warrand from Scripture in which we hear of nothing but the Fruit of the Vine drunken by Communicants And yet Justin Martyr informs us that the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water was the Practice of his time § 6. Another Instance of the most early Declension of the primitive Church in Matters of the same kind viz. the external Rites and Ecclesiastick Ceremonies was their observation of Easter concerning which the Controversies first arose between Polycarp and the Churches of the East on the one hand and Anicetus and the western Churches on the other Polycarp alledg'd John the Evangelist whose Disciple he had been for the Author of his Opinion but Anicetus and the Romans pretended the
Ephesus alone is not only so clear from the 17 verse that the repeating of the word Ephesus would really prove a redundancy wherefore the Syriack omits it in the former part of the verse and expresses it in the latter and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus but also all the Ancients either affirm as Hierome or suppose that these Elders belonged only to Ephesus which even Dr. Maurice yeelds against Dr. Hammond and says that then properly speaking there might not be a Bishop amongst them all for they are Presbyters belonging not to several Congregations but to one Church and might have a Bishop But not only the promiscuous attributing to them the Names Bishop and Presbyter their being and that without any insinuation of their Subjection to a superiour Bishop enjoin'd by the Apostle to Oversee and feed the Flock and finally the very Repetition of this Fiction of their Hierarchy in the Apostolick Age sufficiently refute it Who continues he the Ancients thought was Timothy And thus all resolves into the fictitious Episcopacy of Timothy already overthrown Now 't is observable how they contradict one another and by halfs acknowledge to be false all they plead for for some as Dr. Maurice perceiving that the Ancients affirm and the Scriptures proclaim all these Elders to belong to the Church or City of Ephesus acknowledge these could be no Diocesan Bishops Others as Dr. Hammond in locum alibi and Petavius seeing that these are not only dignifi'd with the name of Bishop but intrusted with the care of the Flock and that without Paul ' s mentioning of any superiour Bishop when if ever there was ground to have mention'd him yeeld that of necessity these Elders must be Bishops or more than simple Presbyters Whence is all this Contradiction and Confusion of Tongues but from the force of Truth before which Men must either bow or break and be compell'd tho' after never so much interpolation and disguise to express what they would fainest conceal The matter is their Diocesan Bishop their simple Presbyter their distinction between Bishop and Presbyter are meer Antiscriptural Figments in the sustaining of which against this and the like Scriptures they are obliged to confront one another and in the throng of their blunderings intirely yeeld the Controversie § 2. The same line of confusion runs along their Answer to Philip. 1. 1. with the Bishops and Deacons c. whence 't is clear that there were in one City many Bishops who were no other thing than Presbyters and that these were no distinct Orders the Deacons being immediatly subjoin'd these were the Bishops of the several Cities of Macedonia under Philippi the Metropolis saith Dr. Hammond in locum 't is denied by Dr. Maurice I could never find reason saith he to believe them any other thing than Presbyters Philippi was a Metropolis because a Colonie saith Dr. Hammond but that this will not follow is acknowledged by Dr. Maurice Thus they are still by the ears But saith Dr. Hammond the Apostle might retain the Episcopal Power in his own hands and tho' absent might exercise it by Letters but they can give no ground why the like may not be said of the Apostle in reference to the rest of the Churches and so Timothy and Titus shall be dethron'd and our Adversaries endeavouring to Answer one of our Arguments loss two of their own yea all of them for it being no less presumable that John would keep the Episcopal Power over the Churches of Asia in his own hand then that Paul kept that of Philippi there shall be no ground nor colour to Metamorphose the Apocalyptick Angels into Diocesan Bishops Or it 's possible continues Dr. H. that then the Bishop's Chair was vacant But if so and a Diocesan so necessary as they pretend without peradventure the Apostle had not only mention'd it but also spent some part of his Epistle in directing and giving them Rules in order to their choice of a fit Successour Or the Bishop saith he might be absent and Epaphroditus by the Ancients judged Bishop of Philippi appears to have been then with Paul But this Dream of Epaphroditus his being Bishop of Philippi the Doctor in that very place condemns and overthrows and so frees us of further trouble about it § 3. Yea in none of these Answers does Dr. H. rest but as is said in this pretext that Philippi was a Metropolis over many subject Bishops leaning mainly on Acts 16. 12. whose Arguments were examined by Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. Clerkson Dr. Maurice tho' a grand Enemy to Hammond's grand Principle undertakes notwithstanding the defence of some of these Arguments against the latter but medles not with the former and saith that Beza ' s Manuscript hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hath also the Syriack and Arabick But OEcumenius and Theophilact and even Chrysostome yea and the received Greek Copy which Translators generally follow read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But seeing as the learned Stillingfleet demonstrats Philippi was not then a Metropolis in the Civil sence which is the Foundation of all their Structure 't is impossible that it can be call'd by Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first in respect of Dignity but only either must be mean'd as Luke may well be understood that it was the first Colony they mett with coming from Samothrace or in respect of Situation it being scarce within the Bounds of the proper Macedonia but on the Thracian side of the River Strymon the Boundary between Thrace and Macedonia yet it might be nearer to the proper Macedonia than was Neapolis and therefore is rather to be reckon'd a part of that Country than Neapolis could be wherefore on both at least certainly on one of these accounts appears the nullity of Dr. Maurice his Answer while he says that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first in Situation Of the same kidney is his saying that Philippi might be more considerable in Luke ' s time than in the time of P. Aemilius seeing this is a mean begging of the Question for he brings nothing from any Records which a Matter of this kind requires to make in the least probable the growth of Philippi between the time of Aemilius and Luke and Chrysostome speaking of Luke's time tells us that it was no great City Moreover Dr. Stilling fleet ex abundanti clearly shews through the several periods of time that Philippi was of no greater Dignity in the time of Luke than in the time of P. Aemilius Dr. Maurice adds as a proof of Philippi's Metropolitan-ship in Luke's time that the Bishop of Philippi is mention'd as Metropolitan in Liberatus the Council of Ephesus Sedulius and in an old Notitia To which I Answer with Dr. Stillingfleet in the like Case But what validity there is in such Subscriptions or Allegations in the latter end of the
lower Order of Church-Officers as Rom. 13. the Magistrate is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Minister of God But there is no such explicative word or particle in Clement to alter the common Signification thereof on which account we 're not lightly to resile therefrom But that which utterly overthrows the Jesuite's Cause is Clement's closs Conformity to the Apostle in his account of Church-Orders who 1 Tim. 1. 3. beyond all Scruple of any Party takes these words in the sense we plead for to Clement and makes not at all the word Deacon exegetick and explicative of the word Bishop but by it designs a distinct Order of Church-Officers from what is signifi'd by the other For doubtless Clement Paul's Fellow-Labourer took the words in the same signification and meaning wherein the Apostle had understood them And accordingly Clement for Confirmation hereof adduces the words of Isaiah 60. 17. which place as he then certainly found it in the Septuagint contains the words Bishops Deacons exactly as Paul expresseth distinguisheth Church-Officers and on this Ground Clement goes when he intimats that the Apostles in their Institution of Church-Officers had an eye to these words of the Prophet In vain therefore labours Petavius to disprove the Copy of Isaiah used by Clement and brings the Hebrew Hierome and others taking the word in a different signification for thus he hath not Salmasius or any other modern Defender of Presbytry but Clement himself whom he pretends to vindicate for his Adversary seeing we Dispute not concerning the Greek Copy Clement used but of the thing he inferr'd from these words of Isaiah according to the Copy he then cited Neither is it more to the Jesuite's advantage that the word Presbyter is several times found in Clement For seeing as is plain yea and the Jesuite himself not only grants but proves that it frequently there denotes not a degree of Age but a Church-Officer it must of necessity be a Term altogether Synonymous with the word Bishop For they themselves plead not for the Equipolency thereof with the word Deacon wherein Petavius himself shall afford us no small assistance who having but to no purpose seeing never Man denied it shewed that with Clement the word Presbyter is sometimes taken appellatively to denote old Age but no Church-Officer subjoins these remarkable words At other times Clement so uses the word Presbyter as thereby to signifie a certain Function and publick Office in the Ministry and a certain Dignity in the Church which he calls an Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop From this plain Testimony of a Man in learning and love to Prelacy second to none that ever undertook its Defence it 's clear as the Light it self that with Clement the word Bishop and the word Presbyter when he takes it for a Church-Function are Terms altogether Synonymous For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop be competent to Clement's Presbyter and things as they ought receive Denominations from Forms wherewith they 're cloathed then this Presbyter in the Judgement of Clement is really a Bishop and indeed this is superlatively clear to any who but with an open and unprepossess'd Mind reads the places of Clement we have already produced Howbeit the Testimony of such an Adversary gives no small additional Confirmation to the Truth thereof Yea the same Adversary in the same place acknowledges that even then the Title of Bishop was also common and in after times only appropriated to one And again It 's clear saith Petavius from this place that there was a Council or Ecclesiastick Senate ordain'd by the Apostles at Corinth whose Dignity and Office Clemens calls Episcopacy and the chiefest of the Clergy he names Presbyters as also from this which Clement afterward writes It 's base Beloved yea most base c. And he names the same Presbyters Pastors and Church-Governours of the Christian Sheepsold And now judge how the Jesuite after these Concessions could yet say that it follows not from hence that in Corinth or at other Cities there was no peculiar Bishop § 3. And here again we find D. M. at his old filching Trade transcribing Petavius his Perversions of Clement or bringing what is no more serviceable to either Cause or Credit as that Clement comprehends all the Jewish Clergy under the name of Priests and Levites Therefore Inferrs D. M. It follows not from Clement his naming only Bishops and Deacons that Bishops and Presbyters are not in Clement distinct Offices But D. M. should remember that Clement not only Dichotomizes but Trichotomizes the Jewish Clergy into three Parts But does he any where so divide the Christian Clergy He not only names the two Kinds of Offices but so names them as to identifie and take for one and the same Bishop and Presbyter which Petavius and D. M. and their Brethren by all means labour to make him distinguish But St. Clement saith D. M. exhorting the Corinthians to order sets before them the subordination under the Temple-Service how the High-Priest Priests and Levites were distinguish'd by their proper Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one of them should continue in his proper Order Now continues D. M. when we consider the primitive Method of reasoning from Jewish precedents St. Clement had never talked at this rate if the Jurisdiction of one over many Priests had been abolished under the New Testament But why does he mutter for it if he can bring ought for his purpose he must also Inferr from this passage of Clement that as there was a High-Priest over all the Jewish Church so there must be another High-Priest over all Christians And that all Christians must bring Oblations and Sacrifices to the Temple at Hierusalem for from these Topick does Clement exhort the Corinthians to Harmony Whether then D. M. be a Romanist or a Jew may be a Question for unquestionably his way of reasoning symbolizes with both of them The Truth is nothing can be inferr'd from this place of Clement but that as under the Old Testament every one whether Church-man or Laick was to abide in his own Order without raising Schism or Confusion so it ought to be under the New Testament St. Clement himself continues D. M. distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An express untruth and I challenge D. M. and his Complices to prove it Nor can it be adds D. M. an Objection of any weight that the first who were their Spiritual Governours are mention'd in the plural number since this was an Encyclical Epistle addressed to Corinth as the principal City and from thence transmitted to its dependencies c. By which words if he speaks sense he intimats that there were in the Apostolick age Metropolitan Cities in an Ecclesiastick sense whose Bishops according to the Civil Dignity of these Cities were Metropolitan and had their numbers of inferiour and dependent Bishops A most nauseous and