very Solid and Demonstrative To this purpose they cite Act. 20. 17. 28. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. and several other places Whether a Bishop be of a Higher Order than a Presbyter does not now fall under our Enquiry nor is it in it self very material Sometimes they might be consider'd of the same Order with regard to the Priesthood common to either by which both Bishops and Presbyters were distinguish'd from the body of the People and other Subordinate Officers of the Church though at other times when Authority and Jurisdiction is nam'd the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is always reckon'd above a Presbyter Here we are carefully to Observe that when the Inspir'd Writers Dichotomiz'd the Clergy into two Orders they but follow'd the Dialect and Example of the Jews who thus divided their Ministers also into Priests and Levites though the Highest Order was again Subdivided both by the Jews and the Christians when the Priests were consider'd with regard to that Subordination establish'd among themselves and without any regard to the Body of the People This is very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Jews as well as to the Idiom of the Hellenistical Tribes of the Apostolical Age The first confounded the name of the High Priest with that of a Priest without any other distinguishing Charcteristic or Discrimination For Proof of this see Levit. 1. 7 8. And the Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar and lay the wood in order upon the fire v. 8. And the Priests Aaron's Sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the Altar Here we plainly find that in the first Establishment of the Mosaic Oeconomy in which the Patriarchal Subordination of Priests was still retain'd the High Priest is nam'd by the same appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the Title of a Priest was promiseuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinate Yet it was never question'd but that there were extraordinary Privileges and Dignities reserv'd to the High Priest amongst the Jews though thus plac'd amongst the other Priests without any Nominal Distinction nor do we find the Title of High Priest ever affix'd to the particular name of Aaron or Eleazar in all the Pentateuch nor is the word High-Priest it self mention'd in the Books of Moses but either twice or thrice and that only with regard to the Administration of after days Yet this Homonomy of names could not be reasonably pleaded then against the Subordination of other Priests to Aaron nor against the Deference due to his Pontifical Character Was it then to be expected that the Apostles or Apostolical Men when they occasionally mention'd the Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the currant Language and Pharaseology of their own Country-men who divided their Clergy into Priests and Levites as if there were no more but two Orders even when the meanest of the Jews knew that the Dignity of the High Priest was very honourable and distinguish'd from all Subordinate Priests by all marks of Eminence and Authority It is true that in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High Priest is very frequently distinguish'd by his Proper and Special Character yet in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy neither Aaron nor Eleazar were called High-Priests when they are particularly nam'd and if in those days any had been so mad as to have infer'd from this confusio Nominum an Equality between all Priests he would certainly have been expos'd for the Offices themselves were sufficiently distinguish'd by those Special Ministries and Jurisdictions that were peculiarly appropriated to the one and deny'd to the other such as were visible to the observation of the meanest among the Jews We do not at all deny but that Bishops might be call'd Presbyters in the days of the Apostles and justly so too though they had other Presbyters under their Government and Inspection for the use of the Word Presbyter was another thing then than now if we consider it in its full Latitude and Extent With us it signifies such Priests as assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastical Administrations and are accountable to him for their Performances And though all Presbyters are not Bishops yet all Bishops are Presbyters and to infer an Equality of Offices from the promiscuous Use of Names I think is neither good Logick nor good History We do not now Plead as some Ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtain'd in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the New and though we meet with the same Dichotomies of the Clergy in the New Testament as are frequently seen in the Old we ought not to conclude from thence that there was an Equality among them of the Higher Order in that Division no more than there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testment for that same Highest Order or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was again divided into two viz. the Supream and Subordinate And not only they but the Jews also of the Apostolical Age divided their Clergy into two Classes when they spoke of them only as in Opposition to the People they made no other distinction amongst them than that of Priests and Levites But then again upon other Occasions they Subdivided the Priests into the Highest and Subordinate Order when they consider'd the Hierarchy in it self and distinguish'd every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priesthood from one another of this we have clear Instances from Philo the Jew Was it not then reasonable that the Apostles should speak the Language of the Age in which they lived and that of their Predecessors Whether then the Clergy be divided into their several Classes by a Biparite or Triparite division both is very Agreeable to the Custom of the Jews If they compar'd the Priests amongst themselves and reckon'd up their Distinctions and Subordinations to one another then they were Divided by a Tipartite Division but if they spoke of them with regard to the People then the Bipartite Division was more Convenient so that the Community of Names was very observable when the Offices themselves were as truly Separated and Distinguished a they could be In like manner the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolical Age he that was Vested with a Prostasia was a much above the Subordinate Presbyters as the High-Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Subordinate Presbuyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Ranked without any Nominal Distinction or Discrimination Nay Salmasius himself grants that even when the pretended Equality
these Considerations I say we may easily perceive that the Argument pleaded against Episcopacy founded upon such Dichotomies is not only weak but very Foolish and Extravagant Yet Blondel Salmasius and Daille Men of great Learning and Reputation imploy'd much Reading and Artifice to support their New Hypothesis by this Argument and to wrest so many places of the Fathers to promote an Opinion which was never heard of before the Days of Aerius thô it must be confess'd that Men of extraordinary Learning have been impos'd upon by the same fallacies particularly our Country-man Sir Thomas Craig in his Book de Success Reg. Angl. But if he had read the ancient Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity with that accurate Attention wherewith he perus'd the vast Volums of Civilians Canonists and Historians he had certainly been of another Mind So visible is the Confusion of Names in the New Testament that Apostle Bishop and Presbyter are sometimes mentioned without any remarkable Distinction yet so as the Government of one amongst many is particularly Demonstrated Our Saviour himself is call'd an Apostle Heb. 3.1 sometimes the Word seems to be restrain'd to the Number of Twelve and Matthias upon the Apostacy of Judas is chosen to fill up the Number of the Twelve Apostles but in the same Apostolical Writings the Name of an Apostle is bestow'd upon several others besides the Twelve as S. S. Barnabas Paul Andronicus Junias Epaphroditus and others Our Saviour is call'd a Bishop 1 Pet. 2. 25. Again the Government of the Apostles is called their Episcopacy 1 Act. 20. sometimes the Name of Bishop is attributed to such Priests as were of the first Order invested with Apostolical Power and Jurisdiction 1 Tim. chap. 3. Tit. 1. 7. these places are so understood by all the Fathers Again the Bishops mentioned 1. Philip. 1 are understood by St. Chrysostom Oecumenius Theophilact and Theodoret to be the Priests of the second Order for they concluded Epaphroditus to have been then Bishop of Philippi as may be reasonably collected from Philip. 2. 25. Our English Version follows Beza and understands it as if Epaphroditus had been a Messenger sent by the Philippians to S. Paul but Salmasius is much more ingenuous and acknowledges That the Word Apostle in the sacred Scriptures never signifies any other than legatum Dei ad homines And this is very agreeable to the Opinion of Theodoret who thought that when the Bishops were named in the Apostolic Age so as to be distinguished from subordinate Priests they were then called Apostles thô upon other occasions they were promiscuously Named without any distinction I only mention this transiently not insisting upon it My business at present is to prove that the Community of Names was so familiar in the Language of the Apostolical Age that no Man can conclude from thence a Community of Offices St. Peter calls himself a Presbyter so St. John the Apostle and the Presbytery mentioned in the first of Timothy 4. 14. was a Senate compos'd of Apostles and other Presbyters whether of the first or second Rank is not certain but that S. Paul himself was one of them is evident from the second Epist to Timothy 1. 6. In the first Timothy is exhorted not to neglect the Gift which was given him with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery In the last he is put in mind to stir up the same Gift which he received by the laying on of St. Paul's Hands And in the beginning of Christianity as S. Chrysostom Witnesseth both Bishops and Presbyters were sometimes call'd Deacons which may be justly concluded from Coloss 4. 17. and the Apostles themselves are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the first of the Acts their Apostolical Ministry to which Matthias was assumed is called their Deaconship 1 Act. 17. Now I take it for granted that if any Man pretend to infer a Community of Offices from the Community of Names which we meet with in the Holy Scriptures he must needs confound the highest Order of the Church even the Apostolical Dignity with the lowest Rank of Ecclesiastical Officers Yet this is certain that the several Offices were carefully separated in those Days thô the Humility of such as were uppermost taught them not to be very forward to distinguish themselves from their subordinate Brethren by Titles of Eminence and Jurisdiction and the Bishops in the second Century transcribed the same Copy in their Behaviour who thô they were careful to preserve the necessary Distinction between the Priests of the first and second Order yet they studied the most modest Expressions of Humility and Condescension as may be seen from the forecited Inscription of S. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians that Apostolic Martyr and Prince of the Asiatick Church I have consider'd this Argument the more carefully in that I find it over and over again in all the Writings of our Ecclesiastic Levellers as their first and last Refuge to which they flee to and yet there is not any thing more Frivolous and Trifling for the Names of the lowest Officers in the Christian Church were frequently assum'd by the highest and distinction of Offices is rather inferr'd from their Practices Peculiar Ministries and Acts of Jurisdiction than from any Names that we can fix upon Thirdly If they cannot establish their New Doctrine of Parity neither upon the express Commandment of our Saviour nor upon the Consequences they manage a confusione nominum they endeavour to support it by some Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers When the Government and Revenues of the Church were sacrilegiously invaded by Atheists and Enthusiasts under Oliver Cromwel the Learned Blondel employed all his skill to make the Ancients contradict themselves and all contemporary Records When his Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they Read it that all was Pure and Undeniable Demonstration and our Country-men think they need return no other answer to any thing that is written against them than to say that Episcopacy and all that may be said in its defence is quite Ruin'd and Destroyed by Monsieur Blondel and Salmasius And thô there are but very few of them that ever read them and that every Line of their Writings that hath the least colour of Argument was frequently Answered and Expos'd yet such is the Power of Prejudice and Partiality that they shut their Eyes against the clearest Evidences that are produc'd by their Adversaries It 's enough for them to say that Blondel hath written a Book in their Defence of 549 pages and this in their Opinion may bar all Disputations of that Nature When we bid them name the place that they think proves their New Doctrine most plausibly they refuse any such close Engagement they will tell you that Jerome was of their Opinion and that their Learned Champion Blondel has sufficiently prov'd that this antient Monk was a Presbyterian I must not transscribe the Accurate and unanswerable Dissertations of several Learned
Men who have sufficiently expos'd the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this Head particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester yet I may be allowed to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity that are alleg'd by those Men to support their Doctrine of Parity that the Reader may have a Sample of their Partialities and Prepossessions and if none of the first Worthies of the Christian Church appear for the New Doctrine of Parity we may safely infer that there are little hopes to defend their cause by the Suffrages of after Ages And in the next place I will particularly examine Blondel's Argument from the Authority of St. Jerome and Demonstrate that he mistakes or which is much more probable hides and misrepresents the Doctrine of that Learned Father and if St. Jerome be not his Friend he and his Associates may despair of any other First I will examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity and the first that is nam'd is S. Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians This is the Celebrated S. Clement so Honourably mentioned by S. Paul himself Philip. 4. 3. together with some others whose Names are Written in the Book of Life who was fellow Labourer with the Apostles and Third Bishop of Rome by the Testimony of Irenaeus and probably sat in the Chair of Rome from the Year 64 until the Year 81 or 83. He wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to compose the scandalous Divisions and Schisms that had risen among them by the Pride and Vanity of some turbulent Brethren who valu'd themselves upon the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to the Contempt of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors It is thought by some that this Epistle was written towards the end of Nero's Persecution before he was advanc'd to the See of Rome It is very observable that Blondel before he produces any Testimony from S. Clement acknowledges that by the universal consent of the Ancients this very S Clement succeeded S. Peter in the Government of the See of Rome and thô they vary as to his Order of Succession yet all of them agree as to the thing it self His first Argument for Parity is founded on S. Clement's Inscription of his Epist to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From this Inscription he concludes that the Church of Rome was then Govern'd by a Colledge of Presbyters because the whole Church of Rome wrote to the whole Church of Corinth not mentioning the Distinction of the Clergy from the Laity when the Learned Blondel Reasoned at this rate he design'd it seems to please the Independent Party who were then most Numerous and Potent in England rather than the Presbyterians For if his Argument proves any thing it proves too much viz. That the Laity hath an equal share of Jurisdiction in the Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs with Bishops and Presbyters And thus he might conclude that when S. Paul wrote an Epistle together with Sosthenes Timotheus Sylvanus and all the Brethren that were with him that he had no greater Authority in the Ecclesiastical Senate than the meanest of the Laity Our Learned Country-man Junius gives a far more reasonable Account of this Ancient Simplicity of the Writings of the Apostolical Age than such Childish Reasonings and he tells us that St. Clement did not prefix his Name ut modestiae humilitatis posteris aetatibus exemplar imitandum proponeret and this was very subservient to his Design that he might Teach the Corinthians whom he exhorts to Concord and Humility by his own Example that true and undisguised Modesty which was then so visible in the Practice of the first Christians when both Clergy and Laity were of one Heart and one Mind The next attempt that Blondel makes to support his imaginary Parity in the Primitive Church is from St. Clement's dividing the Clergy into Bishops and Deacons according to the current Phraseology that prevail'd in the Apostolical Age. When they considered the Clergy only in opposition to the body of the People I have answered this already when I examined their Argument founded upon such Dichotomies But when we consider this particular place of S. Clement with regard to that Latitude and Promiscuous use of Names that was very current in those Days the Word Deacon may be understood to comprehend all those Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the modern Notion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables and then his Argument vanishes into nothing nay rather it is a strong confirmation of that which he would most willingly destroy for by Bishops and Deacons we may understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendants upon Tables for the Word Deacons in the Language of the Holy Scriptures is taken in the greatest Latitude that may be not only for such as were appointed by the Apostles particularly to the Ministry of Tables but also the Apostles themselves the highest Officers in the Christian Church are called Deacons Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Deacons by whom they believed even as the Lord gave to every Man And again who hath made us able Deacons of the New-Testament c. And upon other occasions they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And those who were ordain'd to the special Ministry or Tables were Originally constituted that the Apostles themselves might not be diverted from the Ministry of Deaconship of the Word And Tychicus is called a faithful Deacon as also Timothy so likewise Arthippus is commanded to take heed to his Deaconship thô it be not expresly determined what room he held in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy weather he was Bishop Presbyter or Deacons nay such was the Latitude of the Word Deacon in the Apostolical Age that it was applyed promiscuously to all the three Order of the Christain Hierarchy So that if we understand St. Clement according to the current extent of the Word we may safely judge him to have meant by Bishops the Ecclesiastical Governors and by Deacons all subordinate Ministers of Religion whether such as were promoted the Priesthood or the Deacons who were confin'd to their Attendance upon Tables What advantage then does Monsieur Blondel gain to his cause for though Presbyters in the modern Notion are not perhaps the only Persons who may be understood by the Word Deacon yet they may be comprehended as well as other Ministers of a lower Rank Let it be observed also that S. Clement speaks not of the Ecclesiastical Polity such as it was brought to perfection after wards by the Apostles but rather of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of our Saviour For thô all the Degrees and Subordinations of the Apostolical Government were founded upon divine Right yet they were not in one moment established in their True and Everlasting Figure but had their beginning as the Jewish Church went on from lessen steps to
that more perfect Scheme that was to continue until the coming of the Messiah This is certain that before the Apostles left the World they established such an Ecclesiastical Government as ought to continue in the Church until the second coming of our Savioar But let us suppose that where we meet with such Dichetomies in other Authors such a Parity as is intended by the Presbyterians may be understood yet when we view the Text of St. Clement more narrowly we must not presume to make any such Inference for the very same St. Clement Dichotomizies the Jewish Clergy who are known to have had their High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites yet he comprehends them all in this short and Bipartite Division For speaking of Jacob he hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And must we from hence conclude that there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testament because they are thus distinguish'd from the Laity without mentioning the several Gradations of the Hierarchy amongst themselves Nay so little do our Adversaries gain by straining the Language of St. Clement contrary to the Latitude and Simplicity of the Apostolical Age that the same Author comprehends all Ministers of Religion under one general Word whether Prophets Apostles Bishops Presbyters or Deacons and not only does he thus speak of the Priests of the true Religion but also of the * Egyptian Priests who are known to have had their several subordinations But that which is most material to our purpose is that the same St. Clement when he exhorts the Corinthians to Christian Order and Harmony sets before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple-Service how the High Priest Priests and Levites were distinguished by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and immediatly recommends to the Corinthians that every one of them should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 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 abolish'd under the New Testament and Jerome himself on whose Writings M. Blondel endeavours to establish his Opinion in his Epistle to Evagrius gives light to this place of St. Clements Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia For without all Controversie those traditions descended from the Jewish Church to the Christian as their true inheritance Nay St. Clement himself expresly distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Nor can it be an Objection of any weight that the first who were there Spiritual Governors are mentioned in the plural Number since this was an Encyclical Epistle Address'd to Corinth as the principal City and from thence transmitted to its dependencies How considerable the City of Corinth was in those Days every body knows and S. Chrysostom informs us that it was Populous and magnificent in regard of its Riches and Wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far was S. Clement from intending a Parity of Priests by his promiscuous use of words that he himself distinguishes plainly the spiritual Governors from the body of subordinate Presbyters and it is surprising to observe how much Men may be blinded with prejudice contrary to the Universal suffrage of the Ancients who place S. Clement so early in the Apostolical Succession of the Chair of Rome the Reader may see them all in one view prefixt to Junius his Edition of his Epistle to the Corinthians A second Witness made to appear an evidence for Parity is the venerable S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who by Ireneus Bishop of Lions is said to have been taught by the Apostles to have convers'd with many who had seen our Saviour and that he himself saw him in his younger Days and that he knew him to have been constituted Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles This is he who by S. Jerome is called totius Asiae princeps One would think that when they name S. Polycarp they had discovered some clear Testimony in his Writings to build their Hypothesis upon but instead of this nothing but a wretched consequence founded upon the Bipartite Division of the Clergy mentioned in his Epistle to the Philippians And yet the Epigraphe of S. Polycarp's Epistle clearly distinguishes him from his Presbyters who were then with him which runs thus Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church of God which is at Philippi And if he had not been vested with Episcopal Jurisdiction and Eminence amongst those Presbyters how was it agreeable to the primitive Modesty and self Denial to have named himself only in the frontispiece of this Epistle and to mention none of his Brethern save only by the general name of Presbyters This is mighty uneasie to Blondel and the evidence of Truth forces from him the following words id tamen in S. Martyris epistola peculiare apparet quod eam pr. vatim suo Presbyterorum nomine ad philippensium fraternitatem dedit ac sibi quandam supra Presbyteros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reservasse videtur ut jam tum in Episcopali apice constitutum reliquos Smyrnensium Presbyteros gradu superasse conjicere liceat There are two things that baffle this shadow of an Argument brought from the Epistle of S. Polycarp The first is that Irenaeus who was intimately acquainted with him and knew him to have been taught by S. John the Apostle and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna does refute the Heresies of the Valentintans from the unanimous Doctrine preserv'd amongst the single successors of S. Polycarp downwards to that very Period in which he wrote For if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodg'd in the College of Presbyters his Argument against the Hereticks from the Succession of single Persons teaching the same Doctrine first delivered by S. John and convey'd by S. Polycarp to the following Bishops I say such an Argument so manag'd could have no force nor was it possible for Irenaeus to have us'd it The next is this that in the same Epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians the Epistles of S. Ignatius are zealously recommended and we need not inform the Reader how much the Divine Institution Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters is asserted in those Epistles of which I am to speak in due time The Question then concerning S. Polycarp is whether we are to believe S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who was fully acquainted with the manner of his Education Apostolical Doctrine and promotion to the See of Smyrna rather than the dark and groundless conjectures of later Ages And from this single Instance alone we see how inflexible and Stubborn the Power of prejudice is how far it