Office not upon Jus Dominicum the Law of God in the Scriptures but Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem the practice of the Church Add hereto that both Fathers and Councils equally in Opinion and Practice stuck no less to the lawfulness of Patriarchat than that of simple Episcopacy and yet I believe few among real Protestants will either assert the Divine Right of this Office of Patriarchat i. e. that it had any Warrant for it in the Word of God or yet that those Fathers and Councils so believed Which present Consideration furnisheth us with another Argument sufficient to evince that the ancient Châ—rch founded this Office only upon Custom and as they thought Christian Prudence and not at all upon the Books of the Old and New Testament § 2. Neither do the most Learned of the Modern Episcopals in the least swerve from this Opinion amongst whom I reckon D. Forbes who having for a while with the greatest tenderness and fear handled this Matter propones at length the Question If Episcopacy be of Divine Right And yet declares himself highly difficultated what to Answer for absolutly deny it he will not and positively assert it he dares not he therefore confounds it with a Synodical Moderatourship and then fairly tells us that it is of Divine Right because of the general Scripture-Precepts of Church-Order and Decency And indeed he carries himself all along in this Matter with so much nice Caution Ambiguity and Fear that he evinces the desperation of the Episcopal Cause to which so learned a Man could afford no better Defence than really to destroy what he pretends to vindicat Neither is the most Learned Bishop Vsser of another mind who has reduced it to a meer shadow and nonentity And Willet though he says that a difference is needfull for Church-Policy yet affirms that this cannot be proved by the Word of God and that in the Apostles times a Bishop and Presbyter were neither in Name nor Office distinguished And he at large answers all Bellarmine's Arguments to the Contrary See the Appendix to the second part of the forecited Question Of this same Judgement is their applauded Hooker viz. that there is no ground for their Hierarchy in the word of God while he declares himself against all particular Forms of Church-government and acknowledges that nothing for Diocesan Prelacy can be brought therefrom The necessity of Policy saith he and regimen in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain Form to be necessary in them all And the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one but sundry Forms of Discipline may be equally consonant unto the general Axioms of Scripture It hath been told them that Matters of Faith and in general Matters necessarie unto Salvation are of a different Nature from Ceremonies Order and the kind of Church-Government that the one are necessar to be expresly contained in the Word of God or else manifestly collected out of the same the other not so that it is necessarie not to receive the one unless there be something in Scripture for them the other free if nothing be alledged against them And the Learned D. Stilling fleet is at no smal pains to cashier and expunge among the rest of peculiar Forms of Government This Diocesan Prelacy out of Scriptural-Articles and not only acknowledges but also musters not a few Arguments whereby to Prove that it hath no Ground in Holy Scripture And Dr. Morton Though a zealous Defender of Episcopacy Asserts that Hierome made not the Difference between Bishop and Presbiter of Divine Institution he assâ—nts to Medina the Jesuite and asserts that there was no Difference in the matter of Episcopacy betwixt Hierome and Aerius He averres further that not only the Protestants but also all the primitive Doctors were of Hierome ' s mind And finally he concludes that according to the Harmonious Consent of all Men in the Apostolick Age there was no Difference between Bishop and Pesbyter but was afterward introduced for the removal of Schism And Jewel Bishop of Sarisburie a Man for Piety and Ability Second I am sure to few that ever filled an Episcopal Chair most expresly asserts the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Here saith he Mr. Harding findeth great fault for that I have translated these words ejusdem Sacerdotii of the same Bishoprick and not as he would have it of one Priesthood God wott a very simple Quarrel Let him take whether he listeth best if either-other of these words shall serve his turn Erasmus saith id temporis idem erat Episcopus Sacerdos Presbyter these three Names viz. Bishop Priest and Presbyter at that time were all one And but what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests or Presbyters and Bishops Thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition Or is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far and unto whom he reacheth the Name of an Heretick Verily Chrysostom saith Inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil between a Bishop and a Priest which is all one with Presbyter in a manner there is no difference St. Hierome saith somewhat in a rougher sort Audio Quendam c. I hear say there is one become so Peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops be all one Thus far Jewel The Bishops and Priests saith the famous Bishop Cranmer were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion And In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for Election or Appointing thereto sufficient In the same MS. saith Dr. Stillingfleet it appears that the Bishop of St. Asaph Therleby Redman and Cox were all of the same Opinion with the Arch-Bishop that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same and the two latter expresly cite the Opinion of Jerome with Approbation Thus we see by the Testimony chiefly of him who was Instrumental in Our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytry but only as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrat for the better governing in the Church And having proved that Whitgift and with him the whole Body of the English Episcopal Divines were of the same Judgement thus concludes By which Principles the Divine Right of Episcopacy as founded upon Apostolical Practice is quite subverted and destroyed Now judge if Dr. Sandersone spoke not without the allowance ye acontrary to the express Mind of his Brethren when he says that the Difference among the Advocats for Episcopacy is only Verbal and that all of them even those who yeeld that it is not of Divine Right no less
most learn'd of the Episcopal Perswasion acknowledg'd the truth of our Assertion on supposition that any credit is to be given to our Historians with whom also joins the learn'd Dr Stillingfleet So saith he if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time He gives also instances of other ancient Churches without Diocesan Bishops § 13. It had been more manly therefore and honest for D. M. to have at least attempted a refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet than to have dar'd his Adversaries to bring but one example of Churches without Diocesan Bishops seeing he knew there were store already giv'n even by Episcopals no less than Presbyterians which hitherto stand unanswered Let them also chaw their cude on that famous and well known Distinction of a first and second primitive Church acknowledged by Semeca and others even Popish Divines notic'd by Vsher and embrac'd by Stillingfleet in the former whereof Diocesan Episcopacy was not yet come in fashion nor was any such thing as a Difference either in Name or Office between Bishops and Priests or preaching Presbyters then in Being From all which judge with what brow D. M compares the account of our ancient Church-government to a supposed Fiction of the King of China and his Presbyterian Lady And by this dealling of D. M. I am put in mind of another piece of his Art who averres that all brought by Salmasius and Blondel to prove that Hierome was for the Scriptural and Apostolick Identity of of Bishop Presbyter and whatsoever is said by them for Presbytry is refuted by D. Pearson in his Vindicâ—ae Ignatianae I must not saith D. M. transcribe the acurat and unanswerable Dissertations of several learned Men who have sufficiently exposed the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this head particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester vind St. Ignat. But no where did ever Dr. Pearson ingage with these Authors on this subject nor does he any such thing only he has some few excursions which touch not the marrow of the Controversie and therefore is nothing to D. M's purpose whether the advantage be yeelded to Salmasius and Blondel or to Dr. Pearson He abuses also some passages of Hierome to prove him self-repugnant but all such depravations had been by Iunius and others against the Papists and by Stillingfleet in his Irenicum clearly discover'd the places unanswerably vindicated even before he wrote his Vindiciae which their vindications of Hierome as also many other defences of the same Author brought by Salmasius and Blondel he scarce once adventures to handle But he has vindicated Ignatius they will say and this is enough But suppose that he had as really evinced these Epistles to be the genuine Work of Ignatius as he 's groundlesly pretended to have don 't yet so far is their inference from being good that as we shall hear the quite contrary follows viz. that in the Ignatian age Bishops were all one with the Pastors of single Congregations Hence it appears that this was one of D. M's pious Frauds to skarr his vulgar Reader for others he could not hope to catch thereby from the New Doctrine of Presbytry Section VIII Prelacy opposite to the Principles of our Reformers I Said when we renounc'd our Obedience to Anti-christ we sent amongst the rest of the Romish leaven Prelacy packing thither which tho' we had no more Arguments our Confession of Faith compil'd by our Reformers clearly evinces We detest say they Antichrist's worldly Monarchy with his wicked Hierarchy Of which Hierarchy as is acknowledg'd by the Council of Trent Bellarmine the Bishops make a principal part And the Episcopal Office with its distinction belong solely to their Hierarchy otherwise they confess there 's no Difference between Bishop and Presbyter At them therefore these words of the Confession must especially level And his subtility who would save the Prelats from this blow by seeking the foundation of a distinction where 't is not as if by the word Wicked the Confession pointed at another Hierarchy which is Pious must be reckon'd by all the disinterested to nigh of kin to his pericranium who to save another part of Romanism made a fair distinction between Lawfull and Vnlawfull Idolatry I say it can be no otherwise here for to speak truth their Hierarchy is nothing save the Corruption of Church-government and pride of her Governours rais'd by certain stories and tending towards the Papacy as its highest pinacle whereof both name and notion owe their Original to one who indeed was not the Father of lies yet in lying came so near him as readily any copy to its Original I mean the false Areopagite whose whole Book may really be term'd a fardel of Fictions Moreover this Confession was compil'd in the year 1581. when Prelacy had been unanimously by the whole Assembly in the preceeding year cast out of the Church And for many succeeding Assemblies their Declaration of their dislike and hatred of Prelacy and approbation of this Confession went hand in hand with whom then in both of these the King's Majesty join'd For the Assembly at Glasgow 1581. consisting for the most part of such as voted and were present in the Assembly at Dundie in the preceeding year when Prelacy had in terminis been renounc'd and ejected declares that they meaned wholly to condemn the whole estate of Bishops as they are now in Scotland and that this was the meaning of the Assembly at that time The King's Commissioner presented to this Assembly the Confession of Faith subscribed by the King and his houshold not long before together with a plot of the Presbytries to be erected which is registrat in the Books of the Assembly with a Letter to be directed from his Majesty to the Noble-men and Gentle-men of the Country for the erection of the Presbytries consisting of Pastors and Elders and dissolution of Prelacies and with an offer to set forward the Policy untill 't were establish'd by Parliament The King's Letter subscribed by his hand to the Noble-men and Gentle-men was read in open audience of the whole Assembly This Assembly ordain'd also that the Confession of Faith be subscribed as being true Christian and faithfull And in the Assembly 1595. amongst other things of the same tendency it was cleared that Episcopacy was condemn'd in these words of the Confession His Wicked Hierarchy See store of irrefragable proofs of this our Assertion in the Acts of the Assembly at Glasgow 1638. Sess. 16. § 2. They only bewray their ignorance if not worse while they give out that our Church in her first Reformation had Bishops as the word is now taken under the name of Superintendents For tho' this were true all they shall gain hereby would only be the fastening of a self-contradiction on Mr. Knox and the rest of these most honourable Instruments
and defended it against the Jesuite Petavius whom D. M. would patronize against both Protestants and Fathers The second of the Homilies ascribed to Augustine in Apocalypsin informs us that under the name of Angel not only Bishops but other Church-Rulers are likewise understood And again seeing Angel signifies a Messenger whosoever whether Bishop Presbyter or Laick frequently speaketh of God and declares how we may obtain eternal Life deservedly gets the name of an Angel of God And Aretas saith he calleth the Church it self the Angel And Primasius saith by these Angels of the Church are to be understood the Guides and Rectors of the People who ruling in particular Churches Preach the Word of Life to all Men for the name of Angel signifies a Messenger And again both Church and Angel is comprehended under the Person of the Angel And thus their main Scripture-Argument even the Fathers being Judges goes to ruine § 13. Yea the more sagacious of our Adversaries well perceive that neither this Scripture nor any other supports their Doctrine Wherefore Petavius never attempts to bring his Proofs from Scripture but only from Ecclesiastick Traditions Add hereto the words of Dr. Burnet As for the Notion saith he of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter I confess it is not so clear to me and therefore since I look upon the Sacramental Actions as the highest of sacred Performances I cannot but acknowledge these who are empower'd for them must be of the highest Office in the Church So I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct Office from a Presbyter but a different degree in the same Office to whom for Order and Vnities sake the chief inspection and care of Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be referred and who shall have Authority to curb the Insolencies of some factious and turbulent Spirits His Work should be to feed the Flock by the Word and Sacraments as well as other Presbyters and especially to try and ordain Entrants and to Oversee Direct and Admonish such as bear Office And I more willingly incline to believe Bishops and Presbyters to be the several degrees of the same Office since the names of Bishop and Presbyter are used for the same thing in Scripture and are also used promiscuously by the Writers of the two first Centuries Where he plainly contradicts Dr. Pearson who in favour of his Ignatius largely pleads for the accurat distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the second Century denies Bishop and Presbyter to be distinct Orders and finally acknowledges that in the chiefest parts of the Ministerial Function they are equal and so really denudes the Bishop of all the degree he left him But more clearly elsewhere I acknowledged saith he Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so I plead for no New Office-Bearers in the Church Next in our second Conference the Power giv'n to Church-men was proved to be double The first Branch of it is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispence the Sacraments And this is all that is of Divine-Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers both being vested with this Power But beside this the Church claims a Power of Jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and of appointing and executing the same all which is indeed suitable to the common Laws of Societies and to the general Rules of Scripture but hath no positive Warrant from any Scripture-Precept And all these Constitutions of Churches into Synods and the Canons of Discipline taking their rise from the Divisions of the World into the several Provinces and beginning in the end of the second and beginning of the third Century do clearly shew they can be derived from no Divine Original and so were as to their particular Form but of humane Constitution therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches Power to cast it in what mould she will A Presbyter acknowledges even Cornelius à Lapide is equal to a Bishop in the chiefest Order which is the Order of the Priest-hood § 14. To which add the Judgement of Dr. Hammond a Man so distemper'd with extreme Passion for the Hierarchy that he makes him that sat on the Throne Rev. 4. God the Father and the four and twenty Elders with their Golden Crowns an Image and Representation of the Metropolitan Bishop of Hierusalem and the four and twenty Bishops of Judaea in Council for Golden Crowns or Mitres he makes the Characters of the Episcopal Dignity Yet even he asserts on Acts 11. 30. Philip. 1. 1. that the Title of Presbyter in Scripture times belonged principally if not only to Bishops There being saith he no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted but Bishops only and Deacons This he at large confirms and so really overthrows Prelacy when he would fainest establish it joining with the Presbyterians in their grand Antiprelatick Principle viz. that simple Presbyter as the Hierarchicks phrase it without Power of Ordination or Government or a distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter is a meer stranger without all Foundation in the Holy Scriptures From all which 't is clear that these Bishops or which is all one preaching Presbyters in Scriptures and during the Apostolick age were nothing save Pastors of particular Congregations Section VI. Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the Writings of the Apostles his immediat Ancestors MOreover nothing can be more clear for the Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter than that known Scripture Acts 20. 17 28. They Answer that the Bishops of Asia not the Pastors of Ephesus were by Paul sent for which some would support from the 18 ver From the first day that I came into Asia c. But since as is clear ch 19. verse 10. from his coming into Asia he had been most in Ephesus he might truly say so much tho' the Ephesians only had been present but suppose he spoke to others beside we are at no loss the Question is if he gave not tho' amongst others the Title of Overseers or Bishops to these he sent for verse 17. And if these were not the Elders of Ephesus They yet object the words of Irenaeus viz. That Paul called together to Miletum the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring Towns But as for his seeming here to distinguish Bishops from Presbyters this Scripture where they get both Names and which Iraeneus had then in his view and his frequent promiscuous using of these Names perswade me that he only respected the 17 and 28 verses and so took Bishop and Presbyter Synonimically for one and the same His adding of the neighbour Towns to Ephesus might flow from his inadvertency whereat no attentive Reader of Irenaeus will marvel and yet this is as likely to have crept into the Version for the Original of Iraeneus we have not because these Elders their belonging to
fourth or the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first let any-one judge that doth but consider how common a thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new Disposition of the Roman Impire by Constantine Yea Carolus à sancto Paulo who was most versant in these Matters and with him Dr. Stillingfleet believe that for the first six Centuries Philippi was no Metropolis § 4. But I will not enlarge in overthrowing a Fancy so wild and gross But in the end of the second Century saith Dr. Burnet the Churches were framed in another mould from the Division of the Empire and the Bishops of the Cities did according to the several Divisions of the Empire associat in Synods with the chief Bishop of that Division or Province who was call'd the Metropolitan from the Dignity of the City where he was Bishop And hence sprang Provincial Synods and the Superiorities and Precedencies of Bishopricks You see how the chiefest of Prelatists disown and disclaim this Metropolitan Fiction but none more fully than Dr. Stillingfleet who has nervously baffl'd all their Pretences prevented whatsoever Dr. Maurice advanced for I speak not of Mr. Clerkson who has also sufficiently done it and finally more particularly ruined all their Pretexts for Philippi's Metropolitan-ship either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick sense during the first Century or Apostolick age Judge therefore of Dr. Maurice his Candor which minds me of another piece of his Legerdemain to evite the force of Philippians 1. 1. For if saith he in Mr. Clerkson ' s Opinion the Bishops mention'd Philip. 1. 1. be no other than Presbyters then this place is impertinently alledged since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledg'd to have belong'd to one Church but if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sense and then conclude from this Passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi his Opinion is as singular as that of Dr. Hammond which he endeavours to refute for my part I must profess I am not concern'd in this Dispute and I could never find reason to believe them any other thing than Presbyters Or were these Bishops only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal Authority Then our Author must give up the Question and in stead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but Presbyters only if he thus contend he will abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word which he takes in one sense and the Church in another That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever deni'd that many Bishops in the allowed and Ecclesiastical sense of the word had the oversight of one City sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians Where he sleely supposes as granted that Bishops in Philip. 1. 1. must either be understood of their simple Presbyters or of Diocesan Bishops and then equipps his horn'd Argument no other ways than if he had professedly declined all Dispute till once his Adversary had out of kindness yeelded the Question which is only about the Scriptural and Apostolick sense of the word and notion of the Office of a Bishop if that and the Office of a preaching Presbyter be not in Scripture one and the same and consequently if these at Philippi were not Scriptural Bishops no less than they were Presbyters Now that he concern'd not himself in this Dispute nor was in earnest in it I deny not his slippery dealings make it but too too apparent his simple intimation that these were only their simple Presbyters I pass having already blown off all their noticeable Depravations of Philip. 1. 1. I have yet mett with and observe that he following the Romanists insinuats that we cann't understand the Scripture's meaning untill we have their Churches Commentary His ambiguous and unhandsome conduct is no less apparent in these his Phrases common Ecclesiastical sense which he takes in one sense and the Church in another For either he may mean that the Church when she speaks of Bishops who were in after times understands by this Name only Diocesans and so touches not in the least contrary to what he insinuats the Churches received sense of this Text nor what Notion she had of Scriptural-Bishops Or his sense may be that when she speaks of Apostolick and Scriptural Bishops she then still means Diocesans and Rulers over their simple Presbyters and this he must mean if he speak to the Purpose And then I inquire what Church was of this mind Surely neither Primitive nor reformed Churches I except not that of England whose greatest Lights we have already heard disclaiming all Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy and identifying Bishop and Presbyter Yea many even of the Romanists are forc'd to confess so much There are Catholicks saith the Jesuite Justinianus who have stuck in the mud of Aërianism The Church then he means must be only a few factious Novelists who in despite of both Divine and Humane Records and the common Sentiment of Christians dare to obtrude on the World as a Fundamental of Religion their privat and wild Fancies Neither is it strange that so few imbrace this conceit of denying the Scripture-Identity of Bishop and Presbyter § 5. For beside these Scriptures now adduc'd let them but look unto 1 Tim. 1. 3. where they shall find a transition from Bishop to Deacons without any mention of intermediant Presbyters and consequently the Identity of these Offices Bellarmine Answers that the Apostle gives a general Instruction to the Clergy that under the name of Bishops Presbyters all the superior Clergy is comprehended But seeing they make a Distinction of these Offices so necessary it was requisite they had been handl'd in particular and not hudl'd up in a general seeing no where in Scripture there 's any more particular Distinction of Bishop and preaching Presbyter assigned but Bellarmine's main Answer to this and all such Scriptures is that the Names Bishop and Presbyter were then common to both Orders which Answer all the Hierarchicks and more particularly D. M. borrow from the Jesuite But I answer and argue with Junius against Bellarmine that seeing the Names were then common and a real community of Names imports a community of things which by these names are signifi'd it necessarily then follows that as the Names were then common so were the Offices design'd by these Names But to see the Reform'd conquering and the Jesuites foil'd some are much pain'd and in special D. M. who spends about 17 pages for the support of Bellarmine's Answer the substance whereof and of his first three Queries is that Still in the Pentateuch 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 promiscuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinat
in Philippi there had been a Bishop superior to the plurality of Bishops saluted by the Apostle Yet on Acts 20. and 17. gives this Paraphrase Because many are ignorant of the Manner especially of the New Testament whereby Bishops are call'd Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops This much may be observed both from this place and from the Epistle to Titus and to the Philippians and 1. to Timothy From this place therefore of the Acts we may arrive at the certainty of this Matter For thus it is written from Miletus he sent and called the Elders of the Church it is not said the Bishops And afterwards he subjoins over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church and from the Epistle to Titus that thou mightest appoint Elders in every City as I ordain'd thee and from the Epistle to the Philippians to all that are at Philippi with Bishops and Deacons and as I believe the same may be gather'd from the frist to Timothy If any Man saith he desires the Office of a Bishop he desires a good Work a Bishop therefore should be blameless And shortly after let not a Widow be taken into the number under threescore years which the Transcriber of OEcumenius hath out of negligence inserted from the 5. Chap. and 9. ver in stead of the 8. verse of the 3. Likewise let the Deacons be grave c. For this is the Church Canon directing what manner of Man such an one viz. the Deacon ought to be Thus far OEcumenius and not a word more to this purpose where having really proposed the now much tossed Question mustres up four of the chief Places from which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter is commonly inferr'd and directs us to learn the Solution of this Doubt therefrom Hence 't is certain that OEcumenius no less than Hierome and Aërius of old and Presbyterians now believ'd the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter seeing he having brought up these Scriptures which even in the Judgement of our Adversaries creat to the Hierarchicks a vexatious Scruple and pungent Objection is so far from glossing them as thereby to leave any room for a Diocesan Bishop that he plainly informs us that these Scriptures only suffice to dissolve all our Scruples and period the Dispute 'T is evident then that OEcumenius commenting on Philip. 1. 1. or wherever he seems to say nothing against a superiority of Diocesans spoke only out of compliance with the Custom of his time or some such weakness Neither is the matter less clear of Theodoret who altho' he ascribes an Episcopal Dispensation over the Philippians to Epaphroditus yet even then he looks on him as no ordinary or fixed Officer which is really yeelded by Petavius and is plain from Theodoret himself The Apostle saith he calls a Presbyter a Bishop as we shewed when we expon'd the Epistle to the Philippians Which may be also learn'd from this Place For after the Precepts proper to Bishops he describes the things that agree to Deacons omitting the Presbyters But as I said of old they call'd the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters but these who are now call'd Bishops they then call'd Apostles But afterward the name of Apostle was left to the real Apostles And the name Bishop giv'n to these that were of old call'd Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thus was Titus the Apostle of the Cretians Timothy of the Asians Thus the Apostles and Presbyters at Hierusalem write to the Antiochians And on 1 Cor. 12. 28. first Apostles The Apostle saith not God hath sent onlie Twelve Apostles but also the Seventy And these who also received the like Grace For Paul himself after his Calling was of the same Order and Barnabas and many others And again he calls Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians Where 't is clear as the Sun that Theodoret by these his Bishops or Apostles understands only the real Apostles themselves together with Timothy and Titus and other such Evangelists and extraordinary Officers who never had any fixed Station And this was well perceiv'd by the Jesuite Medina who therefore really yeelds Theodoret with Hierome Aërius Augustine c. to the Presbyterians and warmly recented by Petavius who besides many other places spends at once near a whole Chapter to prove Theodoret a self repugnant blunderer Hence it 's clear that they cann't rent Theodoret from us untill Tullus-like they first rent him from himself Wherever therefore these Ancients so spoke as that they seemed not to oppose the Divine Right of Episcopacy 't is clear they did so out of carelesness or unwarrantable Compliance but mostly as may be gather'd from the handling Aërius mett with out of fear least they had derived on their Heads the hate of much of the then degenerating Church and secularizing Clergy Section VIII Moe clear Testimonies of the primitive Doctors against the Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy and for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter produc'd and vindicated THE Bishop saith Ambrose or rather Hilary the ancientest Commentator save some Fragments of Origen now extant because he opens the hidden sense of the Scriptures is said to Prophecy chiefly because he dispenses the words of future hope Behold the very Idea the Ancients still retain'd of a Bishop and yet it 's nothing but the real Notion of every true Pastor or Dispenser of the Word and Sacraments Which Order may now be that of the Presbyters For in the Bishop are all Orders for he is the first Priest that is the Prince of Priests and Prophet and Evangelist And whatsoever else is for fullfilling the Office of the Church and Service of the Faithfull And The Apostle calls Timothy a Presbyter whom he had instituted a Bishop for the first Presbyters were called Bishops so that one Dying the next succeeded And lastly in Aegypt the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop's absence where we see what he means by the Prince of Priests and that with him a Bishop was nothing but the first either in Age or in respect of Ordination amongst the Colledge of Presbyters without any other Preheminence or Power over the rest but what these respects gave them Which I 'm sure exceeds not the Dignity of a Moderator of a Synod or Presbyter But because the following Presbyters were not found worthy of the first place this way was changed by a Council that none by his being first in order but by his desert might be made a Bishop and that by the Votes of many Priests least an unworthy Man should rashly usurp the Office to the offence of many There were born Priests under the Law of the Race of Aaron the Levite but now all are Priests according to the Apostle Peter and therefore Priests may be chosen out of the People And on 1 to Timothy 3. But after the Bishop he straight way subjoins the Ordination of a Deacon and why But because of Bishop and Presbyter there 's but
capable of another Translation Thus only in the Matter of Ordination they have got up or set themselves above them Secondlie Of the Power of Ordination it 's being proper to Bishops he speaks most doubtfully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they seem c. saith he Thirdly Had he believ'd that the Power of Ordination by Divine Right belong'd to Bishops above Presbyters he had never said that there 's notwithstanding in a manner nothing between them surely Epiphanius thought the Power of Ordination made a most large and notable Difference Once again I shall with our Adversaries suppose that Chrysostome allows that Power of Ordination by Divine Appointment was appropriated to Bishops they cann't with reason deny but that in all other things to a hair he asserts the Equality yea the Identity of Presbyters with Bishops Now will they stand to Chrysostome herein Surely they will not for thus they should be oblig'd to let go all the Prerogatives and Priviledges Bishops both claim and exerce over their Pastors all their Power Paramount of Governing the Church and her Pastors all their exorbitant Wealth Grandeur Pomp and Splendor and in a word whatsoever renders to them the Hierarchie amiable or desireable and so should be really reduc'd to the condition of an ordinary Parish-pastor And were things so little I 'm sure would they care or stickel for upholding of any Distinction between these Officers hence let them blush any more to pretend to Chrysostome's Patrociny seeing all they can with the least colour plead for being giv'n not granted he really subverts their Cause and levells their Diocesan Prelat with a parochial Pastor § 4. Bellarmine Answers that Chrysostome and others while they say that onlie in Ordination a Bishop is above a Presbyter speak onlie of such things which no way agree to Presbyters for Iurisdiction and Confirmation may be performed by Presbyters by vertue of Commission from the Bishop But thus he really makes Chrysostome contradict himself Chrysostome said they differ'd nothing save in Ordination Bellarmine compells him to say that they have another Difference no less conspicuous than is between the King and his Commissioner who can do many regall Acts being warranted by him thereto Does such a Power lodg'd in the Bishop which agrees to none of the Presbyters make no Distinction between him and them Or rather does it not make up the far greater and more conspicuous part of the prelatical Eminency above the rest of the Clergy Add hereto Chrysostome's Books of the Priest-hood wherein altho' he expresly professes he was to treat of the Office of a Bishop yet in these Books there 's nothing but what concerns a congregational Pastor nothing but what concerns publick prayer dispensing of the Word and Sacraments and such Duties that terminat on the People alone but not a word of the Duties of the Bishop or Prelat over inferiour congregational Pastors as their Object which is a sure Demonstration that with Chrysostome Bishop Priest and Pastor were Synonymous Terms § 5. To these add Pelagius a grand Heretick indeed but never branded as such for ought he said of Church-Government who restricts all Church-Officers to Priest and Deacon And asserts that Priest without any Discrimination or Restriction are the Successors of the Apostles And Here saith he by Bishops we understand Presbyters for there could not have been more Bishops in one Citie but we have this Matter also in the Acts of the Apostles Where it 's clear that Pelagius altho' in conformity to the introduc'd Custome of distinguishing Bishops from preaching Presbyters he endeavour'd accordingly to expone this place with as little dammage thereto as is possible deduceth nothwithstanding the Ground of the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter from the Churches latter Custome of having but one Bishop in one City and not from any Scripture-Warrant and indeed when he brings to clear his Comment the 20. of the Acts 17. and 28. he plainly intimats that even when he and others of that Age seem most clearly to hold forth a Difference betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter they then believ'd no such thing to flow from Divine Institution And There is a Question saith he why the Apostle made no mention of Presbyters but comprehended them under the Name of Bishops because answers he this is the second yea in a manner the very same Degree with that of Bishops as the Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Philippians To the Bishops and Deacons when yet one City cann't have more Bishops than one and in the Acts of the Apostles Paul being to go to Hierusalem and having gathered the Elders of the Church saith among other things take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops Hence it 's most evident that he believed both Offices to be by Scripture-Warrant one and the same and not a meer Communication of Names only But the thing most observable here is that to prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he brings Philip. 1. and hereby shews us that some of the Ancients from whose accustom'd Phrases he departed not while he exponed it when they seem to inferr from that place only a Community of Names did really believe no such thing but were perswaded that Philip. 1. 1. quite overthrows all Distinction betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter And Sedulius asserts and proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and concludes from the Example of the Ephesian Elders or Bishops that there were many Bishops in one City contrary to the Practice of his Age and that among the Ancients Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same And Primasius proposeth the Question why the Apostle comes to the Deacons without any mention of the Presbyters And Answers in the very words of Pelagius Thus it 's clear even these whom the Hierarchicks take for the prime Pillars of Prelacy being Judges that there 's no Divine Warrant for Diocesan Episcopacy and that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture in Apostolick times are one and the same For saith Augustine with whom I begin tho' Younger than Hierome being longer to insist on the other tho' according to these Names of Honour which the Custome of the Church hath now brought in fashion the Office of a Bishop be greater than that of a Presbyter yet in many things Augustine is below Hierome where we see that the whole Difference was in Expression rather than reality and that even that was only by Custome not by Divine Appointment These words hath now brought in fashion answers Bellarmine are not opposed to the ancient time of the Church but to the time before the Christian Church so that the sense is before the times of the Christian Church these Names Bishop and Presbyter were not Titles of Honour but of Office and Age but now they are Names of Honour and Dignity D. M. follows his Master Bellarmine in this wretch'd Detortion and adds that this was but a
mannerly Complement to Augustine A piece of immodesty proper to D. M. not arriv'd at by the Jesuite Augustine then was only some frenchisi'd Spark that intended not to speak as he thought but I reply with Junius that this their Answer is clean contrary to Augustine ' s mind and intention for he was not so mad as to compare things so hetrogeneous as were the Rites and Customes of the Gentiles and these of the Church if it be said that he spoke of the Church of the Jews where pray is there any mention of Bishops in all the Old Testament and History of the Jewish Church I add that if this had been Augustine's meaning he had too much drepress'd and in too unworthy Terms express'd Christ's Institution to busk a Complement for Hierome But Augustine saith D. M. reasons from the Succession of Bishops This Romish Cavill is a 1000 times baffl'd and by none more sufficiently than by Dr. Stillingfleet who shews that from such Reasonings of the Fathers and their mentioning of Successions of Bishops it can never be proved that Bishops were of a higher Order or had any other Power over Presbyters nor that in all places there was so much as any Difference at all between them nor that they mean'd ought save a Succession of Doctrine and that no less is said of Presbyters Lastly Bishop Jewel advanceth this very passage of Augustine and thereby proves the Identity of Bishop and Priest or Presbyter And he thus Englishes Augustine's words The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest not by Authority of the Scriptures but after the Names of Honour which the Custome of the Church hath now obtain'd § 7. Let us saith Hierome attend diligently to the words of the Apostle saying that thou should'st Ordain Elders in every City as I appointed thee and what kind of Presbyter ought to be ordain'd he declares in the following Discourse If any saith he be blameless the Husband of one Wife c. and after he Inferrs For a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God Therefore both Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same And before that by Sathan's instigation there were Divisions about Religion and it was said in the Churches I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas the Church was govern'd by a common Council of Presbyters But after that whomsoever any had baptized were by them counted their own not Christs it was Decreed thro' the whole World that one Chosen out of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom all care of the Church should belong and the Seeds of Division be removed But you may think that this is our Mind and not the Mind of the Scriptures that a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same thing and that the one is a Name of Age and the other of Office Let them read over the words of the Apostle to the Philippians where as Hierome professedly asserts the Presbyterian Thesis so he clearly proves it by the Presbyterian Arguments And I would fain learn wherein as touching the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he differ'd from Aërius They differ'd as much answers Bellarmine as Heaven and Hell For Hierome still held that a Bishop was greater than a Presbyter as to the point of Ordination and that doubtless by Divine Right Bellarmine is herein follow'd only by some of the more impudent of his Brethren as Bayly the Jesuite and Petavius and last of all appears their perpetual shadow D. M. with whom Hierome is a grand Asserter of the Episcopal Hierarchy and Aërius a grand Heretick But Junius answers to both the Jesuites and their Genuine Issue that Hierome when he said what doth the Bishop except Ordination which a Presbyter does not understood it only of his oun time But Bellarmine saith Junius confounds the time as doth D. M. that he more easily may deceive the Simple We have heard already that many of the greatest Lights of the Church of England yea and of the Romanists have exploded this shamefull and Jesuitical Attempt of making Hierome for the Divine Right of Prelacy or for any Difference between Bishop and Presbyter To which add Dr. Stillingfleet For saith he as to the Matter it self I believe upon the strickest Enquiry Medina ' s Judgement will prove true that Hierome Austine Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact were all of Aërius ' s Judgement as to the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and Presbyters in the primitive Church c. Of what Church then shall we count D. M. and his Brethren who only scrape together these most dishonest and a thousand times baffl'd depravations and perversions of the Jesuites and being plum'd with the feathers of so unlucky Birds can appear without any more shame and blushing than as if they were the innocent penns of a Dove But Hierome subjoins Bellarmine who is transcrib'd by D. M. acknowledges that the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter as also the Princely Prerogatives of Bishops was introduc'd by the very Apostles when 't was said I am of Paul c. But it 's answer'd by Junius that the former of these can never be prov'd from Hierome and the latter Hierome denies while he saith when these whom any baptiz'd were counted their own c. Where saith Junius Hierome shews that 't was not when this Evil was at Corinth only but when 't was spread thro' the whole Churches And the latter of these continues Junius Paul denies while he reproves this Evil in the Corinthians and yet neither in the first nor in the second Epistle makes ever the least mention of setting up a Bishop over them They who use this Argument saith Dr. Stillingfleet among many other Answers far better than ever such a Cavill deserv'd are greater Strangers to St. Hierome ' s Language then they would seem to be whose Custome it is upon incidental Occasions to accommodat the Phrase and Language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of Chrysostome ' s Fall cecidit Babylon cecidit of the Bishops of Palestine multi utroque claudicant pede All which Instances saith the Doctor are produc'd by Blondel but have the good fortune to be pass'd over without being taken nottice of And now judge whether there was more Ignorance or Impudence in D. M's following Query Whether the Opinion of St. Hierome be not disingenuously represented by the Presbyterians since he never acknowledg'd nor affirm'd any intervall after the Death of the Apostles in which Ecclesiastical Affairs were govern'd communi Presbyterorum consilio Bellarmine objects also as doth his Epe D. M. that Hierome says James was made Bishop of Jerusalem presently after the Death of our Saviour But both are repell'd by Iunius who shews that the common reading of that place of Hierome ' s Catalogue is corrupted And Answers that James was only left while the Apostles
Feet ye onght also to Wash one anothers Feet that every Apostle yea and every Believer is Lord and Master of the rest § 8. And writing to Euagrius I hear saith Hierome there is one so mad as to preferr the Deacons to the Presbyters that is to the Bishops For seeing the Apostle clearly teaches that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same how can a Server of Tables and Widows proudly preferr himself to these at whose Prayers the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood is consecrated you will require a Proof hear a Testimony Paul and Timothy to all the Saints in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons would you have another Example in the Acts of of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the Presbyters of one Church Take heed to your Selves and the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Rule the Church c. And that none may contentiously plead that in one City there were many Bishops here also another Testimony wherein it 's most evidently proved that both Presbyter and Bishop were one and the same and then produces the 1 to Titus and 1 to Timothy 4. 8. 14. neglect not with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytry And 1 Peter 4 and 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. And all these to prove that he had undertaken viz that both Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same Now it 's most observable that that he inferrs this Conclusion not only from Scriptures written long after the first Epistle to the Corinthians where it 's said I am of Paul c. but even from the last Epistle of John the longest Liver of all the Apostles And therefore no less notticeable is D. M's extream stubborness and aversion from Truth who would force Hierome to introduce Bishops presently after that Schism mention'd 1 Cor. 1. And accordingly as his bad Cause oblig'd him to do with this and the rest of Hierome's Testimonies wholly smuther'd it And indeed all hitherto who have adventur'd to graple therewith have been conquer'd thereby yea even Bellarmine himself is compell'd to give up the Cause Hierome indeavours saith the Jesuite to conclude the equality of Bishops and Presbyters from the Epistle to Titus to the Philippians and from the Epistles of Peter and John which were written after the first Epistle to the Corinthians Neither can the Jesuite find another way to be even with Hierome but by arraigning him as fraughted with self-repugnancy levity and instability in this Matter and all the Arguments he brings to prove Hierome a Favourer of Episcopacy are only so many fruitless Attempts to make that appear But let us go on with Hierome But saith he the reason why after this viz. the writing of both the Epistles of John one was chosen and set over the rest was that there might be a remedy of Schism least every one drawing the Church of Christ to himself should divide it For in Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters still gave to one elected from amongst themselves and placed in a higher seat the Name of Bishop as if an Army should creat a General or the Deacons should chuse one of themselves whom they know to be industrious and name him Arch-Deacon On these words D. M. triumphs The Custome was saith he even from the days of St. Mark the Evangelist that a Presbyter was chosen who Governed the whole Society this in the Opinion of St. Hierome cuts off that imaginary Interval wherein the Chruch is said to have been Governed by a Parity of Presbyters Where he forgeth a Gloss no way contain'd in the words of Hierome whose Example of an Army and Deacons are only adduc'd to shew the manner of that Presbyter or nominat'd Bishop's entrance and not at all the measure of his Power over his Collegues And that no Power over the rest can be collected from this place is beyond Scruple clear from Hierome's present Scope who introduces this Ancient Alexandrian Practice to clear and prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter which according to him remain'd in the Church for a while after the Writings of John the longest Liver of all the Apostles Had D. M. perused Dr. Stillingfleet he had taught him that both Election and Ordination of this Alexandrian Bishop was only performed by his Fellow Presbyters that the Original of Hierome ' s exsors potestas any Power he mentions in Bishops over Presbyters is by Hierome attributed not to any Episcopal Institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves for what doth a Bishop continues Hierome except Ordination which a Presbyter may not do Here the Jesuites and their Follower D. M. dream they find a fine Distinction made by Hierome between Bishop and Presbyter but first they must make an unseasonable Antiptosis and compell Hierome to speak contrary to the express words of this place which are in the present Tense contrary to the scope and design of this Epistle which is professedly to shew the great Dignity of Presbyters yea even their Identity with Bishops and thereby to reach a sharper reproof to the petulant Deacon And contrary finally to Hierome's most clear and most frequently repeated Doctrine of the Scriptural Identity of both Offices Were it not madness then to dream with the Jesuits that in these words Hierome makes any Distinction between the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter who is here only asserting that in all places Rome excepted where the Presbyters were more depressed and the Deacons more raised than in other Churches even then in his time a Presbyter was allow'd by the Canons and Constitutions of the Churches to do ought that a Bishop might do save Ordination alone This his Design of holding forth the most great dignity of Presbyters yea even their equality with Bishops which Bellarmine acknowledges that he may the better compesce the Insolency of the Deacons Hierome all along this Epistle prosecutes and having again cited the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to prove that a Presbyter is contain'd in i. e. is one and the same with a Bishop otherwayes a Deacon is also in a Bishop and so Hierome had crossed his own Design by the very Argument wherewith he minded to compass it and having added some other Topicks to the same purpose thus concludes his Epistle And that we may know that the Apostolick Traditions are brought from the Old Testament that which Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons claim in the Church Nunc animis opus Aenaeae nunc pectore firmo All the Jesuites and their Complices will presently be about our Ears But Solamen nobis Soeios habuisse malorum Their Attaques are no less on Hierome than us wherefore this is one of the chief places brought by Bellarmine to involve Hierome in a maze of self-contradiction and make him propugn Prelacy who is followed by others of the Hierarchicks but
Hierome leave them as being altogether useless for support of the Pomp and Splendor of their Hierarchy To these add the Jesuite Celâ—otius who after a thousand Meanders and serpentine windings to elude and deprave these clear Testimonies of Hierome at length seeing all would not do rejects them all as the Forgeries of unlucky Aërian hands never written by Hierome For which Cellotius is chastised even by Petavius and others of the Loyolites themselves Into such Discord Confusion and Torment do Men usually throw themselves so soon as they obstinatly resolve to wage War with so clear and irradiant Verities And here it 's observable that in all times and in all Churches the Authority of Hierome has been exceeding great and above most of the primitive Writers which came not to pass without a special Divine Providence that he and in him the whole primitive Church whose Judgement in these Matters he most clearly delivers might remain as an unsuspected and an uncontroverted witness against some of latter Ages pretendedly Catholick but really Sectarian Novelists Among the great Services he did to the Church two Pieces are more especially notticeable viz. his most clear asserting and acurat distinguishing the Canonical Books from the Apocryphal above all who handled or wrote of that great and most necessary Article and which is the Matter in hand his Antiprelatick Doctrine of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter these not only Hieronymian but also truly Catholick Doctrines are with equall fierceness impugn'd by the Romanists and I appeal to the impartial Reader if their Exceptions against this latter be a whit more solide than these which are advanced against the former viz. Hierome's Judgement of the Canonical Scriptures which are to be found collected and learn'dly refuted by Dr. Cosin And indeed these Sophisters endeavouring to subvert these Catholick Doctrines of Hierome dash only on an Adamantine Rock for as never any Articles were better founded so notwithstanding of whatsoever practical Aberrations therefrom were fall'n into none were more universally imbrac'd receiv'd and handed down for to speak of the Matter of our present concern this Hieronymian Doctrine all following Church Writers ratifie and approve the bulk of subsequent Commentators Writers of Offices and of other Treatises as Salvianus Isidorus Hispalensis Amalarius Rabanus Maurus yea and intire Councils as that 2 of Sevil which ascribes the whole Difference and Sâ—periority only to Church-Canons and late Constitutions and after them Gratian and Lombard who affirm that in the primitive Church there was only Presbyters and Deacons and his Expositors among whom is Aestius who very fairly quites the Scriptures and tells us that this Superiority is not very clear from Scripture which is nothing but a Confession of the Truth of Hierome's Doctrine forced from this great Prelatist and School-man Yet adds Aestius this may be sufficiently proved another way To which words Dr. Stillingfleet occurrs Ingenuously said saith he however but all the difficulty is how a Jus Divinum should be prov'd when Men leave the Scriptures But in the recounting and transcribing of such Confessions or Testimonies I will not inlarge And now having rescued the principal Scriptures our Antagonists detort in favours of their Distinction between Bishop and Presbyters and vindicated some places commonly adduc'd for the Identity thereof as also evinced that the most celebrated of the Ancients did no otherways understand these Scriptures nor derive the Original of Prelacy from Divine Institution I may with confidence conclude that Ignatius had none before him of the Judgement that he if we believe the Hierarchicks so passionately favour'd Section IX The Testimonies of Ignatius's contemporaries disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak and confirming what we have prov'd to be his mind viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy HAving viewed the Apostolick Writings and dived into their most ancient Commentators and primitive Doctors and having found that in the time of the Apostles the immediat Ancestors of Ignatius there was in the Church no such thing as a Diocesan Prelate Let us next look unto what remains of his Contemporaries or these who lived near Ignatius's time and we shall have ground to deduce the same Inference And first it's observable that these Writers such as Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians for the rest that bear his Name are undoubtedly spurious Polycarp to the Philippians Hermas or Pastor Justine Martyr tho' they as occasion offers frequently mention Pastors Doctors Bishops Presbyters indifferently taking all of 'em for on and the same Office yet of a Diocesan Prelat or one set over other Pastors or over these that had Power of Dispensing the Word and Sacraments in all their Writings have not a syllable Which Argument against a Diocesan Prelat tho' negative is not to be slighted if we consider these Authors their closs Vicinity to the Apostles the occasion they had to have mention'd him had he been then existent their more than a Pythagorick silence concerning him Yea the same kind of negative Argumentation Eusebius uses while he disproves and explodes some Writings forg'd in the Name of John Andrew and other Apostles because saith he no ancient Ecclesiastick Writers mention these Books We shall find moreover that they positively disclaim Diocesan Prelacy I begin with Clemens Romanus who writing to the Corinthians commends their former carriage in these words Ye walked in the commands of God and being obedient to these that had the rule over you and giving your Elders due honour ye were wont to admonish the younger with Moderation to seek after things that are honest And again Wherefore the Apostles preaching the Word thro' the severall regions and proving by the Spirit the first fruits thereof ordain'd Bishops and Deacons for these who should believe neither was this a new Ordinance for many ages before it was written concerning Bishops for so in a certain place saith the Scripture I will appoint their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faith And Our Apostles by Jesus Christ our Lord knew that there would arise Contention concerning the Name of a Bishop and therefore being endew'd with a perfect Fore-knowledge they ordain'd the fore-said Officers and left unto us describ'd the particular services of both Ministers and Offices to the end that approv'd Men might succeed in the place of the defunct and execute their Office These therefore who are ordain'd by them or by other famous men with the Consent of the whole Church who blamelesly serv'd the Sheepfold of Christ with humility and quietness without baseness and who for a long time had a good Testimony from all These I say cann't be justly thrust out of their Office for we commit no light sin if we cast out these from the Bishops Office who holyly and blamelesly perform'd it Blessed are these Presbyters or Pastors who have perfited their journey and are dead and who have obtain'd
a profitable departure for they are not afrai'd least any thrust them out of their places into others For we see that you have cast some from their Charge which they perform'd with honour It 's base Beloved yea very base and unworthy of a Conversation that is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most stable and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two should raise sedition against the Presbyters And If I be the Cause of Contention schism and sedition I 'le depart and be gone whithersoever ye will and do what the People shall command providing only that the sheepfold of Christ with the Presbyters appointed over it may have peace And And you therefore who were the Authors of this Division subject your selves to your Presbyters Hence Observe First that he never names or so much as insinuats that in Corinth there was any Bishop Superintendent over the rest of the Pastors But as the Apostle to the Hebrews had done before him honours equally all their Pastors with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these that bear Rule over them Secondly That in imitation of the same Apostle Paul he names only Bishops and Deacons as the only Orders of Divine Institution by whom the whole Gospel-Service was to be perform'd Therefore afterward when he names Presbyters in distinction from the Flock and as Rulers over it he cann't be understood as Petavius and Pearson would force him to speak of Presbyters with Relation and Respect only of their Age but to give them this Demonstration as a peculiar Designation of a Church-Office and so the word Presbyter most of necessity with Clement coincide in its meaning with the word Bishop and both of 'em become Synonymous Terms to hold forth but one and the same thing Thirdly That the Apostles did not as we find afterward Decreed by the Synod of Sardica and admonish'd by Pope Leo chuse out only the greater Cities and neglect and forbear to place Bishops in lesser Villages that the name of Bishop hereby might not fall into Contempt but indifferently and without distinction of places every where settled them according as there was a probability they might serve the great end of their calling therein Fourthly That to found the Distinction and number of these Orders if we believe Clement the Apostles had no eye unto the Jewish Church-Polity so as to make it a Pattern for that of the Christian but only to what was prophecied and foretold by the Prophets concerning a new frame of the New Testament Church and thus Clement really contradicts all the Patrons of the Hierarchy who would still found their triple Orders on that of the High-Priest Priests and Levites of the Temple Fifthly That in Corinth it was attempted to throw out a plurality of real Bishops and cast them from their Charge and that the Sedition was not moved against one only but divers Bishops in that Church Many other things might be observed but these serve sufficiently to prove that there was a plurality of true Bishops of Corinth who were in nothing distinguished from Pastors of particular Flocks or preaching Presbyters § 2. Petavius notwithstanding cann't abide any such Inference from the words of Clement Wherefore he scrapes together several things whereby to ward off the force of these Passages and alledges that Clemens his silence of the Bishop of Corinth makes nothing for us For Pope Siricius saith he in his Epistle to the Church of Millain maketh no mention of their Bishop altho' in that mean time Ambrose occupied the Chair But the vast Difference between the Cases and the Circumstances of the Churches of Corinth and Millain quite nullifies the Jesuites Instance The People of Millain jointly both Clergy and Laity had thrust out Jovinian few or none of them for ought we hear being prosylited to his Doctrine wherefore Siricius had nothing to do but shew them in General that he had excommunicated Jovinian with two or three others who had fled to Rome for Sanctuary So there was no special Ground or Cause why particular mention should be made of Ambrose the Bishop or any other whether of the Clergy or Laity the whole Body thereof for ought now known being without any Schism earnest enough for the expulsion of Jovinian and only expecting what the Bishop of Rome which they acknowledged as the first See and whether Jovinian had fled would do in this Matter Whereas one the other hand Clemens writes to a Church cut in pieces with a Schism in their own Bowels infected with Sedition of no small part of the People against their Pastors broken with as appears plain a division of the very Pastors themselves and this grown to such a hight that some of the Pastors were thrust from their places and driv'n out now in this Case the Bishop had either the best of it and so the seditious part merited a severe and special reprimand on the account of their Opposition to and Separation from their Bishop and thus he should certainly have been mentioned or else he was the Cause of the Division or at least joined with the injurious and therefore should have been particularly reproved or admonished Clement it 's true names none but the influence which the good or evil Carriage the Bishop had and could not but have in such a Matter had certainly obliged Clement either to mention his name of give some signification of him if there had been any Diocesan Bishop existent in Corinth Clemens speaks of several Pastors of Flocks which I think none will deny intimats the diversity of their Carriage in that Business and gives Directions accordingly How can it be apprehended that he should pass over the chief Pastor and go to the rest without so much as the least Direction unto him the least mention of him yea or the least insinuation that there was in Corinth any such thing Petavius's next Attempt is on these words of Clement where he tells that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons And the Jesuite contends that two distinct Orders are not here mean'd but that the word Deacon is only explicative of the former word Bishop and cites several places where the word Deacon is taken in a signification of Honour and applied to the Apostles and Civil Magistrates And afterward terms Salmasius ridiculous for saying that Clemens nam'd only Bishops and Deacons without mention of Presbyters For saith the Jesuite Presbyters are more frequently mention'd by Clement than either Bishops or Deacons But certainly these Orders are again and again mention'd by Clement without adding any thereto ordetracting therefrom when he appears to reckon up all the Church-Officers that are of Divine Institution And altho' the word Deacon be sometimes taken for the Designation of a higher Office Yet as Petavius himself else where observes It is with the addition of such a word or phrase as guides our Judgement and gives us to learn that by it is not understood this
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
the very same Officers the very same Men that he means by the name Bishops rather than e contra see Pray the Letter it self apud Flav. Vopis in Saturnino § 11. 'T were easie to shew divers succeeding Fathers to have been of Justine's Mind and Strangers to Diocesan Episcopacy ignoring all Discrimination between Bishop and preaching Presbyter or Pastor I shall only here with one Chamier against Bellarmine and the rest of the Jesuites assert against their Successors and Defenders under whatever Name they be known that according to Irenaeus the Churches were committed to the Presbyters no less than to the Bishops that these who are now reckoned Popes High-Priests universal Bishops are only Presbyters in the Judgement of Irenaeus and that in him Presbyters are not so much as once distinguished and far less separated from Bishops From what is said appears the vanity of D. M's Popish Query Whether all things duly considered a more evident and universal Tradition for the Superiority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter can be reasonably demanded and whether the Argument from universal Tradition be not in this Case the most proper and most necessary And whether the Tradition for the Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter be not more universal unanimous and uncontradicted in the Primitive Ages than many other Traditions that are unquestionably received What these his other Traditions are we are not ignorant The Doctrine certainly of the morality of the Sabbath of Baptism and of the Holy Trinity and the like these they think lean only on Tradition and that the Institution of their Diocesan Prelats Metrapolitans and Arch-Prelats and other such Effects and Inventions of a degenerating and apostatizing Church are better founded than these most Scriptural Catholick and necessary Doctrines Section X. Other Observations and Arguments eversive of Diocesan Prelacy AND now in the next place I would gladly learn how they will describe or whereon they can found their Romish or which is all one their Hierarchick Diocesan Bishop For as Augustine well observes it is a name of Labour and Travel not of Honour and Dignity and indeed it imports only Watchfullness Labour and Care as its most native and proper Signification and on this account only the King gets the name of Bishop in Hesychius as he gets the name of Pastor in Homer And Hesychius gives it no less to every Watchman Thus the word Bishop denotes a vigilant Watchman in Suidas where he tells us that some bearing this Name were sent by the Athenians to observe the Affairs of their subject Cities who were called Watchmen So is the same word understood to denote only Care and Labour by Jullius Pollux whereas on the other hand the word Presbyter when taken for a Function or Office natively imports Rule and Honour A Presbyter acknowledges even Saravia is a Name of Honour and was given to the more honourable and to the Magistrats among the Jews in the Old Testament and was thence transferred to signifie the Governours of the Churches of Christ in the New Testament but they are called Bishops from their watchfull Care which is a Name of Work and Labour The name Presbyter saith Dr. Stillingfleet as the Hebrew ZAKEN tho' it originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a Name both of Dignity and Power among the Jews in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only Dignity but Power the Presbyters among the Jews having Power both of Judging and Teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the Name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary Power by it which was in use among the Jews to shew the Difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other Name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel state which was the Original of giving the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel a Name importing Duty more than Honour and not a title above Presbyter but rather used by way of Diminution and Qualification of the Power imply'd in the name of Presbyter c. The Hierarchicks therefore should act much more rationally if they turn'd the Tables and gave the name of Presbyter to their Diocesan and that of the Bishop to their inferiour Curats who usually do most of the Pastoral Work In the mean while it 's sure from what we just now learned out of these Authors that during sounder Antiquity before men equally abused Names and Things a Bishop could never be either ane Order or Degree or any thing else above a Prsbyter But from Names if we pass to things and look into Scripture and sounder Antiquity we shall find the ancient Bishop so different from the present Diocesan that the very Idea's and notions of the two are diametrically opposite one to another The Apostles themselves Acts 6. 2 4. following the Commandment of their Master found it their Duty so assiduously to labour in Preaching and Prayer that they thought it unreasonable to be diverted even by the Distribution of the Collections and Care of the Poor which otherwayes was a Work both lawfull and pious And to Timothy who if we believe the Hierarchicks was ane Arch-Bishop of a vast Diocess it 's injoyn'd as his proper Task to Preach the Word to be instant in season and out of season to reprove to rebuke exhort with all Long-suffering and Doctrine I need not here multiply Texts read and read over again the whole New Testament and you shall find that the Exercise of Prayer Dispensing the Word and Sacraments was the main Duty and perpetual Imployment of every Pastor or Minister of Christ. Look on the other hand to the bulk of the Hierarchick Lord-Bishops they haue a quite different Work and Exercice and if any of 'em happen to spend some time in the Ministerial Duties how are they commonly gaz'd on and depredicated as Men of extraordinary Condescension superlatively stuping to a piece of Service far below the Episcopal Grandeur and unusual to the Order Are they not then quite another thing than the Apostolick and Scripturall Bishops This Apostolick Example the Conscientious Primitive Bishops or Pastors clossly follow'd not so much as once dreaming that any who was ordain'd a Minister of the Gospell and intrusted with a Flock might on whatsoever pretext neglect to exercise himself perpetually in Prayer and Dispensing the Word and Sacraments This they judg'd his constant Imployment and this was the Practice of all the sincere Bishops even after the Distinction of Degrees was introduc'd as appears in the weekly and sometimes the dayly Homilies and Lectures of Chrysostome and Augustine which are yet extant And it 's already
that is Elders These ordered and determined every thing that concern'd the synagogues or the persons in it Next them were the three PARNASSIN or Deacons whose charge was to gather the Collections of the rich and to distribute them to the poor All the Presbyters saith the Learned Le Moyne took not on them the burden of preaching and exponing the scriptures some were taken up in serving at the administration of the Sacraments searching into scandals visiting the sick strengthning the weak and providing for the Churches profit but the business of preaching belonged only to the Apostles the Bishops and the first Presbyters Hence in times of the ancient Church the Bishops perpetually preached which the inferior Presbyters did not except they were admitted thereto by the Bishops and chief Presbyters Most memorable to this purpose are the words of the learned Jesuite Sirmundus Anciently saith he the Bishops only and no others preached the word of God for this was their proper province and work 't was afterwards tho' not alike soon every where allowed to the Presbyters to preach this was soonest begun in the East as is clear from the practice of Pierius Chrysostome and others who preached while they were only Presbyters And now judge tho' nothing else had been adduced but what is just now brought from these profoundly learn'd and most unsuspected Arbiters if the Regimen and Way of the true primitive Church was not according to the Gospell Humility and Simplicity most opposite to a terrene Domination Prelaticall Grandor and Power over other Pastors and the vanity of preterscripturall and superstitious Ceremonies if she then enjoy'd not Bishops or Pastors Ruling Elders and Deacons if then whosoever had power to dispense the Word and Sacraments with the Charge of any particular Flock or Congregation was not reciprocally one and the same with a Bishop and finally if the primitive Way was not entirely one with that of our Church of Scotland and others of the reformed Churches which is now known by the name of Presbytry Hence it 's carefully to be noted how odd and grievous Alterations were made both as to the use of Terms and in the Offices they had primitively signifi'd in Scripture In yea even after the Apostolick Age we find that the word Bishop whereever it holds forth an ordinary Church-Officer alwayes signifying a Labourer in the Word and Doctrine and Dispenser of the Srcraments Pastor of a Flock or Congregation We find also the Word Presbyter taken as its equivalent denoting this very thing elsewhere as is now made evident the word Presbyter signifies no Pastor of a Flock but only one who was to assist him in Ruling and Guidance thereof some also of this latter kind of Presbyters designing the Ministry there beeing then few or no Theological Schools were trained up for the Office under the Inspection of Bishops or Parochial Pastors and accordingly whiles assisted them therein But this was only accidental to the Office of a ruling Presbyter Afterward there was a new kind of Church Office invented whose chief work was not to feed any Flock or Congregation and yet was reputed the Pastor of many Flocks which was a compleat Contradiction His Province was mainly to rule and domineer over a multitude of both Pastors and Flocks him they called the Bishop Another Office epually new and unknown to Scripture and prime Antiquity was a kind of semipastor or half Minister who was to do all the Ministeriall Work and yet was so far from having any Pastorall Power that on the contrary he was only the subject and substitute of another and him they called the Presbyter As for the other sort of Presbyters they came in time to be well nigh intirely abolished and forgotten The like Chrysostome observes of the Deacons saying that in his time such Deacons as the Apostles ordained were not in the Church Hence it 's not strange if the Ancients while sometimes they violent the Scriptures to make them favour what in their oun times was obtaining and at other times while either out of design and freedome or casually they light on the true Meaning of the Scriptures speak most perplexedly of Bishops and Presbyters and afford no small ground of Wrangling and Disputation to all that are exercised in this Controversy In the mean while such Immutation was not made in a day 't was sloe and apparently plausible like the weed which at lenth you may see that it is groun up yet its act of growing ye shall never perceive This Alteration as even Spanhemius F. no enemy to the Hierarchy observes began first in great Cities and beside the generall occasions or rather pretexts for it which we already noted there was this colour more peculiar to great Cities in Rome for example tho there were Christians sufficient to make up severall ordinary Congregations yet at some special times all or most of these used to meet at one place and accordingly were accounted but one Church This might occasion the making of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one particular Moderator among the Pastors who got some primacy of Order and at these more solemn meetings of the People appeared spake most and in time got the appropriation of the name Bishop all this was notwithstanding only a meer prostasy he must nixt have a power over his Collegues in the City the Bishops the parochial Pastors of the Country and lesser Cities are next to be invaded This Fermentation which had small beginnings and still grew untill all was soured suelled especially and was most operative in a time of peace whereof in the third Century they had a good space even from the Death of Valerian untill Dioclesian's Persecution The Emperors themselves saith Eusebius then so much favoured them that they not only gave them Liberty of the publick Exercise of their Religion but also made some of them their Chamberlains and Governours of Provinces In this time the alteration of both Government and Worship was certainly not a litle promoved For nothing then reign'd among the Christians but contention ambition They were not content continous he with the former Edifices but builded large Churches from the foundation But when thro' too much liberty we fell into sloath and negligence when every one began to envy and backbite another when we managed as 't were an intestine warr amongst our selves with Words as with Swords Pastors against Pastors and People against People being dashed one on another exercised flrife and tumult when deceit and Guile had grown to the highest pitch of wickedness When being void of all sense we did not so much as once think how to please God yea rather on the other hand impiously we imagined that human Affairs are not at all guided by Divine Providence we dayly added Crimes to Crimes when our Pastors having despised the Rule of Religion strove mutually with one another studying nothing more then how to outdoe one another in strife
All Men agree that this Nation viz. Scotland had Palladius their first Bishop from Pope Coelestine And again thus you are instructed how to refuse these who alledge that Sedulius the Christian Poet whom Pope Gelasius so much extolls had for his Master Hildebert the Arch-bishop of the Scots for seeing even Sedulius himself lav'd in the time of Theodosius the Emperor how could he have had for his Master Hildebert the Arch-bishop of the Scots seeing there was no Arch-bishop yet ordain'd in Scotland and Palladius is without debate affirm'd to have been the first Bishop of that Nation This is yet more plainly express'd by the most learn'd Antiquaries of our Country all of them agree in this that before Palladius the Church was rul'd and guided without any Diocesan Bishops For as Fordun hath it before the coming of Palladius the Scots following the Custom of the primitive Church had Teachers of the Faith and Dispensers of the Sacraments who were only Presbyters or Monks And Iohannes Major saith the Scots were instructed in the Faith by Priests and Monks without Bishops And Hector Boethius Palladius was the first of all who exercis'd any Hierarchical Power among the Scots being ordain'd their Bishop by the Pope whereas before their Priests were by the suffrages of the People chosen out of the Monks and Culdees Add hereto the known Testimony of Buchanan and of Sir Thomas Craig To pass over saith he that most silly ' Fable of the three Archflamins and the twenty eight Flamins it 's plain that there was no Bishop in Britain before Palladius who is by the English themselves call'd the Bishop of the Scots or if either the Brittons or English have any let them name them and at what time they flourish'd § 3. Yea so clear is this Truth that the most learn'd of our Adversaries have found no better way to elude when they cannot clide it than as Torniellus in another case said of Bellarmine to endeavour the penetrating of a most firm wall and cast the History about fourty of our ancient Scotish Kings as a forg'd legend Among these is Loyd Bishop of St. Asaph but both he and Dr. Stillingfleet are nervously refuted by the learn'd Sir George Mâ—kenzie Advocat and that their main purpose and undertaking was utterly desperat he makes soon appear And tho' saith he this Author could prove that we were not settl'd here before the year 503 yet that could not answer the Argument viz. that is brought against Episcopacy from the Scotish primitive Church-government for the Culdees might have been settl'd before that time And thus in a few syllables he demonstrats that the Bishop as to his ultimat design had only his labour for his cost But Sir George being too sagacious not to foresee that from the mutual strugglings between himself and the Bishop any man might easily conclude that Presbytry was the primitive Government of the Church of Scotland and having been one of the prime Instruments to put in execution the prelatical Fury judg'd himself concern'd in credit to say somewhat in favours of Episcopacy and attempt the stoping of such an Inference Wherefore to this purpose in a Letter to the Earl of Perth prefix'd to the defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland He makes several assayes The first whereof is That this is one of the meanest Arguments that ever were us'd by a Presbytâ—rian And that it is a weak Argument saith he appears from this that I have met with very few Laicks in all our Countrey who had heard of it nor with one even of these few who had valu'd it But be it so that the Argument seem mean we gain notwithstanding a most sufficient Argumentum ad hominem seeing our ablest Adversaries value it so much yea Sir George himself clearly acknowledges this while he saith and what can the Presbyterians think of their other Arguments which they value much since this which they valu'd so little is thought of such force by a learn'd Bishop as to deserve a whole book the cutting off of 44 Kings and the offending a Nation of Friends But it 's nothing tho' the Laicks had neither valu'd nor heard it seeing as himself grants Blondel with whom join the rest of the Presbyterian Writers urg'd it Hence appears that this Argument is by both Parties judg'd to be of great force and consequence for the solution whereof the Advocat brings nothing save what is altogether unworthy of any ingenous man As for example since saith he it cannot be deni'd but that these who ordain'd our Presbyters were Bishops it necessarly follows that Episcopacy was settl'd in the Christian Church before we had Presbyters or Culdees Wherein as to the solution of our Argument which was the scope of his Letter he only begs the Question and gives us what is impertinent thereto and contradicts moreover these our Historians whose credit he so excellently vindicats seeing as we heard they plainly tell us that our ancient Anti-diocesan practice was the very custom of the primitive Church And when our Historians say that the Abbots of Icolm-kill had Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of the Province that is to be understood as Beda observes more inusitato after an unusual manner And yet he compares this practice of the Abbot to that of a King who makes one a Bishop and to the practice of a Mother who makes her Son a Church-man now if it be any strange or surprising thing for a King by his Congé d'eslire to make one a Bishop or for a Mother to educate her Son in order to be a Church-man and procure some place for him let any man judge And later Historians saith the Advocat meeting with these ambigous words in our Annals Designatus Electus Ordinatus were by a mistake induc'd to appropriat these words to the formal Ceremony of Ordination and Imposition of hands As if any man in his wit could take these words to mean any other thing than Ordination providing they be as they are in our Annals spoken of one Church-man in relation to another Moreover he knew sufficiently that the best Records of our Country expresly say that our Church was rul'd by Presbyters without Bishops and so leave not the least room for tergiversation Bede is one of these Authors who creat them so much vexation for speaking of Icolm-kill the Isle saith he still uses to have for its Rector an Abbot who is a Presbyter to whose Jurisdiction the whole Province and even the Bishops themselves after an unusual manner ought to be subject according to the example of their first Teacher who was no Bishop but a Presbyter Hence it 's clear that even in Bede's time Bishops were but of smal note here and their power much less than in other Churches They are therefore much pain'd with Bede's words and chiefly St. Asaph who amongst other odd things he excogitats tells us that the Superiority this Presbyter had
our Reformers believed it to be an indispensible part of the Christian Religion positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures Do not therefore his saying establishing however no such thing as Parity c and the rest of his Discourse mutually give the lie and flee in the face of one another And indeed he here at once overthrows whatsoever he said on this Subject and now for ever to silence all reasonable men and stop them from such desperat adventures as this of our Authors take the following Argument Whatsoever our Reformers believed to be without the express and positive Testimony of the Scriptures that they believed to be a damnable Corruption in Religion and as such to be avoided This the major is put beyond scruple by what we have brought from the first Book of Discipline Knox and the Confessions of our Author Now I subjoin But they believed that Episcopacy was altogether without any express or positive Testimony yea or any Warrant or Ground from the Word of God the Books of the Old and New Testament Ergo c. The minor is no less evident from what is already adduc'd and moreover from the latter Helvetian Confession which was all save the allowance of the remembrance of some Holy Days which they expresly disprov'd approv'd and subscribed by our whole General Assembly at Edinburgh December 25. 1566. For in that Confession mark it pray carefully and by no means forget that our Church and Reformers who approv'd and subscrib'd this Confession firmly believ'd that whatsoever is without the express Commandment of God's Word is damnable to Man's Salvation they say There 's giv'n to all Ministers in the Church one and the same Power or Function And indeed in the beginning Bishops and Presbyters ruled the Church in common none preferr'd himself to another or usurped any more honourable Power or Dominion to himself over his fellow Bishops But according to the words of the Lord who will be first among you let him be your Servant they persevered in Humility and helped one another by their mutual Duties in Defending and Governing the Church In the meantime for preserving Order some one of the Ministers did call the Assembly and proposed these things that were to be consulted in the Meeting He did also receive the Opinions of others and finally according to his Power he took care that no confusion should arise so S. Peter is said to have done in the Acts of the Apostles who notwithstanding was never set over the rest nor indu'd with greater power and honour but the beginning took its rise from Vnity that the Church might be declared to be one And having related Hierome's Doctrine of the Idenity of Bishop Presbyier thus they conclude Therefore none may lawfully hinder to return to the ancient Constitution of the Church of God and embrace it before human Custome Thus far the Authors of that most famous Confession who both in the Title page and after the Preface expresly assert that our Church of Scotland together with the Churches of Poland Hungary Geneve Neocome Myllhusium and Wiend approved and subscribed this their Confession From all which it 's easie to gather and perceive with how black a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our first Reformers and whole primitive Church Protestant branded Prelacy or Imparity amongst Pastors Section IX The Forraign reform'd Churches truly Presbyerian BUT let 's hear the Judgement of the rest of the Reformers and Reform'd transmarine Churches Gerard a famous Lutheran divine altho' for Orders sake he admit of some kind of Episcopacy which really he makes as good as nothing above a Moderator-ship yet even for that umbrage allows nothing but humane Institution and will acknowledge no distinction by Divine Right between Bishop and Presbyter The Papists saith he especially place that superiour Power of Jurisdiction which they make to agree to Bishops in this that the Bishops can Ordain Ministers but the Presbyters cannot And all along this Question he strongly proves that during the Apostolick age there was no such thing as a distinction between a Bishop and a preaching Presbyter and enervats all the Arguments that both Romanists and other Prelatists commonly bring to the contrary But we need not insist on the Testimonies of particular Men we have the joint suffrages of the body of Lutheran Divines Luther himself being the mouth to the rest in the Articles of Smalcald It 's clear say they even from the Confession of our Adversaries that this Power to wit of preaching dispensing the Sacraments Excommunication and Absolution is common to all that are set over the Churches whither they be called Pastors Presbyters or Bishops Wherefore Hierome plainly affirms that there is no difference between Bishop and Presbyter but that every Pastor was a Bishop Here Hierome teaches that the distinction of degrees between a Bishop and a Presbyter or Pastor was only appointed by humane Authority And the matter it self continues Luther and his Associats declares no less for on both Bishop and Presbyter is laid the same Duty and the same Injunction And only Ordination in after times made the difference between Bishop and Pastor And by Divine Right there is no difference between Bishop and Pastor § 2. As for Calvin his judgement in this matter was altogether conform to his practice which by the very Adversaries themselves is made the very Patern of Presbytry for he asserts the Idenity of Bishop Presbyter Pastor and Minister and this Idenity of Bishop and Presbyter he founds on Titus 1. and 5. compared with the 7 as Hierome had done long before him and Presbyterians do now And when he descends to after times succeeding these of the Apostles he tells us that then the Bishop had no Dominion over his Collegues sc. the Presbyters but was among them what the Consul was in the Senat and his Office was to propone Matters enquire the Votes preside in Admonition and moderat the Action and put in Execution what was decreed by the whole Consistory All which exceeded little or nothing the Office of a Moderator And that even this saith he was introduced through the necessity of the time by humane consent is acknowledged by the Ancients themselves But I shall not insist in citing Calvine nor Beza who every where is full sufficiently to our purpose both of 'em being aboundantly vindicated and evinc'd to be Presbyterian in a singular tractat by the most judicious Author of Rectius Instruendum from the attempts of one who pretended to be Mathematico-Theologus but was in reality Sophistico-Micrologus And were there any doubt concerning these as indeed there 's none their Practice and that of the Church wherein they liv'd our very Adversaries being Judges sufficiently discuss it and prove them to be truly Presbyterian and to them subscribes the stream of transmarine Writers Systematicks Controvertists and Commentators As for Example the famous and learn'd Musculus asserts and proves from
one Ordination for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter not every Presbyter a Bishop for he 's the Bishop who is first among the Presbyters Finally the Apostle shews that Timothy was ordain'd a Presbyter but because he had no other Presbyter before him he was a Bishop And from thence he shews how Timothy can Ordain a Bishop for 't was not lawfull for the Inferiour to Ordain a Superiour § 2. Hence appears the perverseness of Bellarmine affirming that Hilary says only there was no need of a new Election but denies not saith he the necessity of a Consecration or Episcopal Ordination A flat Contradiction of Hilary's express saying that there 's but one Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter and that even Timothy was of no higher Order than that of a Presbyter whose whole primacy consisted in his meer being the first Presbyter in respect of age or time of his Ordination as Hilary hath taught us And so as he doth also all-along thro' the fore-cited Passages explains fully his calling the Bishop Prince of Priests which the Cardinal also objects and shews that thereby we 're to understand only such a Dignity as either meer priority of Ordination or Seniority yeelds Thus Hierome also understands this Title who calls Peter Prince of the Apostles and yet asserts that any Priority Peter had was given to his Age only which in that very place he makes as good as nothing Informing us that the Church was equally founded on all the Apostles and that the rest no less than Peter received the Keys Take but another place of Hilary By Angels saith he the Apostle means the Bishops as we learn in the Revelation of John who being Men are challeng'd for not reproving the people or commended for their Vertues And because Sin entred by the Woman she ought to have this token that in the Church for the reverence to the Bishop her head ought not to be free but cover'd with a vail and she has not power to speak because the Bishop represents Christ's person she ought therefore because of the Original of Transgression appear subject before the Bishop as before the Judge because he is the Lord's Vice-gerent Here we see that according to Hilary there was a Bishop over every Congregation and in every place of publick Worship frequented by Men and Women and that the Apocalyptick Angels were only such Congregational Pastors From which we may well gather that when any in these early times had the name Bishop more peculiarly giv'n them yet the Primacy could be but only of Order and nominal which is fitly illustrated by the Athenian Archons Petavius therefore to shield his Cause from so deadly blows does his outmost to discredite these Commentaries and make their Author some obscure fellow and to prove they belong not to Hilary the Luciferian he brings two passages thereof that shew their Author to have been of the Roman Communion which Hilary deserted But might he not have been of that Communion when he wrote the commentaries and yet deserted it afterward This the Jesuit attempts not to disprove But whosoever this Author was or by whatsoever name known neither are we hurt nor the Hierarchicks helped thereby his Authority is unquestionably great being cited by the Councils of Paris and Ayx no mean Conventicles under the name of Ambrose afterward the learn'd as Bellarmine and the Divines of Lovain gave these Commentaries to Hilarie a Roman Deacon and stout Opposer of the Arrians the Foundation of which Opinion is strong For Augustine oftner than once attributes these Commentaries to Hilarie And it 's likely that Petavius knew that the Authority of this Writer was not to be shaken with all his Cavills but only at that time he had found nothing else to say wherefore he afterwards excogitats more Quibbles to darken and deprave this Author and chiefly strives to make Hilary speak nothing for the Right of Seniority and against the Election of a Successor to any deceasing Bishop He says therefore that when Hilary tells us that one dying the next or following succeeded we must not understand it in respect of Years or Ordination but any of 'em indefinitly taken who was notwithstanding afterward to be elected by the Clergy but all the Presbyters in time becoming unworthie of the Episcopal Honour the Method was altered and another not out of the Colledge of Presbyters but out of some other Order according to their desert was admitted unto that Office To support which Gloss he brings Hierome's saying that the Presbyters of Alexandria named one elected from among themselves Bishop as if Hierome were not speaking of Alexandria alone and to instance therein that Prelacy came not soon to any growth or as if Hierome and Hilary could not agree in its being of humane Original and yet differ in the circumstances of its rise The rest of his prolix Discourse on this Theme is only a train of meer Cavills and Clouds too thin and airy to feed a very Chamaeleon all which are quite dissolv'd and disappear if we but look into one small parcell of Hilary's words where he tells us that after the Method was altered then the Bishop whose desert raised him was constitute by the Judgement or Votes of many Priests or Presbyters For this Clause being of design inserted by Hilarie to shew the Opposition between the latter and the former Method of coming to the Primacy proclaims that as after the Change Suffrages and Election were used so before this Change there had been no such Custome With this the Jesuite darrs not ingage nor with Hilary's making the Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter the same his making Timothy only a Presbyter his placing all the Essence or Constitutive of a Bishop in being the first Presbyter of the Colledge his giving a Bishop to every Congregation c. These I say he never adventures once in the least to handle wherefore surely he was conscious to himself that he spent both Pains and Brains for the sole production of a bulkish nothing § 3. To Hilary I add Chrysostome which Theoplylact his real Epitomator transcribes After saith he the Apostle had discoursed concerning the Bishops and described them declaring what they ought to have and from what they ought to abstain omitting the order of Presbyters he descends to the Deacons and why so But because between Bishop and Presbyter in a manner there is no difference seeing that also to the Presbyters the Care or Government the Church is committed and whatsoever he said of Bishops agrees also to the Presbyters in Ordination alone they are Superiour and they seem to have this onlie more than the others Where he clearly overthrows all their Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter notwithstanding that to some he may seem to give the Power of Ordination to Bishops above Presbyters For First The words are most
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
seeing as Blondel at large shews the phrase natively yealds only this sense viz. Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that Colleage And thus D. M. may as well inferr Peter's Superiority and Power over the rest of the Apostles from Acts 2. 37. To Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Moreover Blondel demonstrats how on diverse accounts Polycarp without any Eminency and Power over the rest may be particularly nominated rather than others as because he was first in Order and Years But I insist not herein but referr to Blondel who hath nervously baffl'd this their pitifull Coujecture D. M. adventures to ingage with nothing of what he saith and yet is not asham'd to bring to the Field so blunted a weapon I pass also D. M.'s two Arguments for Polycarp's Diocesan Episcopacy drawn from the pretended Succession of Diocesan Bishops in Smyrna and the Epistles of Ignatius mention'd by Polycarp having overthrown both of 'em already and proceed to the Testimony of Hermas who thus speaks Thou shalt write two Books thou shalt send one to Clement and one to Graptes and Clement shall send it to foraign Cities for to him this is permitted and Graptes shall admonish the Widows and Orphans but thou shalt read it with or relate it unto the Presbyters in this City who govern the Church Where we see that not any one Bishop but a Colledge of Presbyters call'd doubtless afterward by the same Author Bishops govern'd the Church of one City Yet D. M. pretends to find here a palpable Evidence of Episcopacy For saith he the sending of the Encyclical Epistle to foraign Cities is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of Clement then Bishop of Rome But if he conclude from this place of Hermas that Clement had any Power over these to whom he was to send that Book or Epistle as for Clement's being Bishop of Rome it 's so far from being insinuated here that the quite contary is from this very place most evident he may as well inferr from Col. 4. 16. that they had Power over the Laodiceans whither they were to send and cause to be read the Apostle's Letter Secondly D. M. ascribing to the Bishop of Rome Power over foraign Cities erects a Pope rather than a Bishop But I 'll assure him he came not in so early for seeing there was undoubtedly one Bishop at least in every particular City so soon as there were any in the World this place of Hermas if it bear D. M's Inference and give a Power to Clement over foraign Cities insinuats nothing of a Bishop's Dignity above Presbyters but of the power of one Bishop over another or rather of a Pope over other Churches A falshood most unanimously exploded by Cyprian Jerome Augustine and the rest of the Ancients D. M. seeks also for his Prelacy in these words of Hermas viz. The Earthly Spirit exalts it self and seeks the first seat Some contend for Principality and Dignity But what if Hermas had said that some contended to get an Empire and Popedome over the whole Church would D. M. hence conclude that it was lawfull or then practised in the Church or when the Apostles contended who should be the greatest Had Christ before that time assured them of the lawfulness of such an Office and told them that they were to have one to be a Prince over the rest By no Logick therefore can it be inferred for Hermas his words that a chief Seat or Principality for both are one and the same with Hermas was then either exercised or held lawfull Again tho' both had been then in Custome no Power of one over the rest can be hence concluded seeing the chief Seats are given to the Moderators of Synods and other Presidents of Assemblies who have no primacy of Power but only of Order And again The polished and white Stones saith Hermas are the Apostles and Bishops and Doctors and Deacons who walked in the Clemency of God aâ—d exercised the Office of a Bishop and taught and served And Such are some Bishops that is Governours of the Churches and these who have the Charâ—e of the Services § 7. In both places saith Blondel he makes only two Degrees that of the Bishops who governed the Churches and that of the Deacons who had the charge of the Services for it 's acknowledged by all that the Doctors are all one with the Bishops when they are said to have performed the Office of a Bishop and that the Apostles as they are opposed to Bishops were placed above the whole Clergy This repons D. M. is Tergiversation with a Witness and a fraudulent Trick in Blondel since Presbyters in the primitive Church are frequently distinguished by the Name of Doctors and Blondel's Commentary is a manifest violence offered to the Text for Doctors are not said to have performed the Office of a Bishop but to have taught and this is very agreeable to their Character being so much imploy'd by their respective Bishops in teaching the Catechumeni and the natural position of these words will allow of no other meaning Which Answer D. M. hath learned from the Practice of our late Bishops during whose Epocha the Buffund might have hid himself well nigh the whole year from the Bishop's fury in the Bishop's pulpit seeing he scarce ever came thither to play the Doctor or ought else As for the Ancient and true primitive Bishops they perpetually preach'd or taught saith Le Moyn Moreover the Fathers generally take Pastor Bishop and Doctor for one and the same as Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Sedulius and after them Aquinas Haymo Benedictus Justinianus with others on Ephes. 4. 11. Of the same mind are Hierome Augustine and Anselm and the pretended Clemens Romanus cited by Gratian and Benedictus Justinianus and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage Of the same Mind are the ablest of our Episcopals as Field Hammond and Heylen So truly did Blondel say that Bishop and Doctor is universally taken for one and the same Neither was ever the Presbyter either in Cyprian or any other Ancient called Doctor in opposition to the Bishop but to other Ecclesiastick Presbyters who taught not of whose existence as was before touched we have most sufficient assurance But D. M. in contradiction to the Apostle would have a Bishop who is no Teacher or Preacher like the Droll who said he mett with Priests who were no Clerks And seeing with Hermas there are but two Orders of Church-men and Bishops and praesides Ecclesiarum Church Governours are reciprocal Terms taken for one and the same and seeing that his Presbyters are expresly term'd Church-Governours it 's most evident that he takes Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same and that the word Doctor is purely exegetick or explicative of the word Bishop and that both of them which I 'm sure is not unfrequent in all sorts of Authors evidently signifie one and the same thing § 8. I now
proceed to Justine Martyr who thus gives an account of the state of the Churches their particular and weekly Assemblies for receiving the Word and Sacraments After this Bread and Wine tempered with Water is brought to the Ruler or Governour of the Brethren which when he hath received he gives praise and glory to the Parent of all The Deacons give to all present Bread and Wine tempered with Water after they are Consecrated by Thanks-giving and carry them to such as are absent And on Snnday all who live either in Cities or in the Country come together into one place And when the Reader has ceas'd the Governour makes an exhortatory Sermon The voluntary Contribution is laid up with the Governour who distributes it to the Orphans c. Where it 's not only observable that Justine following not the pretended Ignatius but the Apostle Clement Polycarp Hermas mentions only two Orders of Church-men viz. Governours and Deacons but also that he gives a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop to every Congregation and that Justine's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with the Bishop who was then in being is yealded by the fiercest Hierarchicks Heylen who yeelds his whole Plea and says that Justine's President of the Congregation or Bishop ordinarily celebrated the Eucharist and Preach'd God's holy Word and Maurice Well then 't is all one how this ancient Church-Ruler be named whither Presbyter Governour or Bishop seeing there was one for every Congregation that mett for receiving the word and Sacraments the Controversy between us and the Hierarchicks which is not about Names but Things is fully ended if they stand to Justine's Decision § 9. Dr. Maurice would have Justine to be understood as speaking only of the Diocesan Bishops Church For saith he to carry the Bread and Wine to all absents in their severall Duellings was not convenient nor easy in numerous Congregations and they knew not well who were absent But this Perversion is too wretch'd palpable to wheedle any in in his right wit out of Justine's plain Meaning Dr. Maurice knew well enough that in these times of such Fervor and Love among Christians and such Veneration for the Lord's Supper they doubtless most exactly observ'd the Ordinances and absented not without speciall and weighty Causes And seeing the Custome of receiving the Elements at home when they could not come to Church was then in vigour and believed to be their Duty if these Elements were given to Absents as their proper Communion or were only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last remains of the Custume of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Love Feasts I now dispute not they took special care to signifie their Absence and Causes thereof by their Relations or Christian Brethren to their Deacons and such as were concerned to know it Neither if we consider the Church-Discipline of these times is it to be doubted that the Deacons had an exact List of all to whom they were each Lords Day to give the Sacrament and consequently by no means could be ignorant who were either absent or present Wherefore tho' the Deacons had been fewer than they were they could easily tho' the whole Congregation had been never so numerous carry the Elements to these very few whom sickness or other lawfull and weighty Reasons had confined to their Habitations all which Dr. Maurice well enough perceived and therefore he 's here no less feeble in his Actings than a man breathing his last and advances only such triffles as may make his Friends ashamed and confirm his Adversaries Neither do I wonder hereat seeing he undertook the Defence of a palpable untruth for not only speaks Justine of the Christian Assemblies in common without the least exception but clearly tells us that he speaks of the meatings of all the Christians for receiving the Word and Sacraments not only in Cities but in the Country a place too base for the Cathedral and Diocesan Bishops Chair and of all such Congregations as in the first day of the Week as the Apostle speaks made Collections or had Deacons for that end which belongs to every Congregation where the Word and Sacraments are dispensed Neither is this ought but what we have discover'd to be the Mind of their Ignatius himself and seconded with the Suffrages of the greatest Friends to Prelacy § 10. Wherefore most vain is D. M's Labour to prove that it follows not from Justine that there were then only two Orders of Church-men Seeing Justine giving a Governour or Bishop to every Congregation quite overturns Diocesan Episcopacy And more vain yet is this that as what he undertakes tho' proved is nothing to his purpose so the Reasons he brings prove nothing of what he undertakes For his first Reason viz. That Justine intended only to give a true account of what was ordinarly performed in the Christian Meetings in opposition to the abominable Stories propagated against them by their Enemies so that he had no occasion to reckon up the several Gradations of the Hterarchy is equally favourable to Prelatists and Papists who may as well use it for a Sanctuary to their Pope as they to their Prelats And indeed had there then either been a Pope over all or a Prelate with Princely Power as D. M. pleads for over a multitude of Churches the Christians seeing they were frequently reproached with an intended Rebellion had found themselves obliged in a special manner to apologize for their Princes and absolute Lords who would have been looked on as little less than the Emperour's Rivalls and Arch-Promoters and Heads of the supposed Insurrection Moreover which we have already noted and fully shews the nullity of D. M's Reason not only Justine but all the genuine Writings of them that went before him mention only like Justine these two Orders of Church-men D. M's second Reason viz. That the Christians were most shy to publish any thing relating either to the Mysteries of their Religion or the Constitution of the Church more than was absolutely necessary in their own Defence c. is another lurking place for Romanists when urg'd to shew the Antiquity of their Innovations and indeed if it do any thing it tends to prove that no Party can make any Advantage of ought spoken or written by the Fathers and if so have att the Foundation of Diocesan Prelacy its prime Advocats acknowledging that no Argument for it can be draun from Scripture but only from the writings of the Fathers His third Reason is that as the Offices so the names of Bishop and Presbyter were not only known to be distinguished in his days among the Christians but he brings no genuine Writer of that Age to prove this and that it is most false is already evinced but even the Heathens knew so much and cites Adrian's Epistle to Servianus but it 's highly probable that the Emperour if we allow him any knowledge of these Affairs understands under the name of Presbyters
no Inhabitant there no place for my L. Bishop's grace nothing whereon to exercise the Episcopal power save rubbish and desolation In none of the Churches saith Dr. Stilling fleet most spoken of is the succession so clear as is necessary For at Jerusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem was from the time of the destruction of the City by Titus when the walls were laid even with the ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian I shall yet in the last place adduce a few passages and I intreat my Reader seriously to weigh them and from whom they came for I am sure they will give great light and satisfaction to all the truly conscientious and disinterested The sixt Anathematism saith a Romanist was much noted in Germany in which an Article of Faith was made of HIERARCHY which word and signification thereof is aliene not to say contrary to the holy Scrsptures and tho' 't was somewhat antiently invented yet the Author is not known and in case he were yet he is an Hyperbolicall Writer not imitated in the use of that Word nor of others of his Invention by any of the Ancients and following the Stile of Christ our Lord and the Holy Apostles and primitive Church it ought to be named not Hierarchy but Hierodiaconia or Hierodoulia And Dr. Heylen who like to Balaam blessing Israel when he would fainest have cursed them uses to establish a Presbyterian Parity of Pastors while he is most desirous to destroy it makes the Bishop in Justine Martyr ' s time all one with the President of the Congregation and ordinary Preacher of God's Word and Celebrator of the Eucharist therein And pleads that in Tertullian's mind Baptism was a work most proper to the Bishop in regard of his Episcopacy or particular Office And the Doctor contends out of Tertullian that in his time Christians receiv'd the Eucharist only from the Bishop's hands and so there were no fewer Bishops than Congregations who mett for hearing of the Word and Celebration of the Sacraments What shew of reason can be given saith Dr. Stilling-fleet why the Apostles should slight the Constitution of the Jewish Synagogues which had no dependance on the Jewish Hierarchy and subsisted not by any Command of the Ceremonial Law The Work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priests as such but as Persons qualifi'd for instructing others And We are to take nottice that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospell do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law whose Office was Ceremonial and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function It is then a common Mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospell succeeded by way of Correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law which Mistake hath been the Foundation and Originall of many Errors For when in the primitive Church the name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospell-Ministers from a fair Complyance as was thought then of the Christians only to the name used both among Jews and Gentiles in process of time corruptions increasing in the Church those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation brought in the things themselves primarily intended by these names so by the metaphoricall names of Priests and Altars at last came up the Sacrifice of the Mass without which they thought the names of Priests and Altars were insignificant This Mâ—stake we see run all along thro' the Writers of the Church as soon as the name Priests was apply'd to the Elders of the Church that they derived their Succession from the Priests of Aaroâ—'s Order In short he still contends that the model of Governing the Christian Church was an exact imitation of that of the Synagogues which were no other thing than the particular parish Churches among the Jews and in every one of which there was a a Bishop paralell to him who in the Apocalypse is the Angel of the Church And Dr. Lightfoot is of the same mind The Apostle saith he calleth the Minister Episâ—opus from the common and known title of the CHAZAN or Overseer in the Synagogue And Besides these there was the publick Minister of the Synagogue who pray'd publickly and took care about reading the Law and sometimes preached if there were not some other to discharge this Office This person was called SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church and CHAZAN HAKENESETH the Chazan or Bishop of the Congregation The Aruch gives the reason of the name The Chazan saith he is SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church or the publick Minister and the Targum renders the word ROVEH by the word HOSE one that oversees For it 's incumbent on him to oversee how the Reader reads and whom he may call cut to read in the Law The publick Minister of the Synagogue himself read not the Law publickly but every Sabbath he called out seven of the synagogue on other days fewer whom he judged fit to read He stood by him that read with great care observing that he read nothing either falsly or improperly and calling him back and correcting him if he had failed in any thing and hence he was called CHAZAN that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Bishop or Overseer Certainly the signification of the word Bishop and Angel of the Church had been determined with less noise if recourse had been made to the proper fountains and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words taken I know not whence The service and worship of the Temple being abolished as being Ceremonial God transplanted the worship and publick adoration of God used in the synagogues which was moral into the Christian Church to wit the publick Ministry publick prayers reading God's Word and preaching c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same the Angel of the Church the Bishop which belonged to the Ministers in the synagogues There were also three Deacons or Almoners on whom was the care of the poor c. Among the Jews saith Dr. Burnet he who was the chief of the synagogue was called CHAZAN HAKENSETH the Bishop of the Congregation and SHELIACH TSIBBOR the Angel of the Church And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the synagogue as they could be as they retained many of the Rites so the form of the government was continued and the names remained the same And In the synagogues there was first one that was called the Bishop of the Congregation Next the three Orderers and Judges of every thing about the synagogue who were called TSEKENIM and by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
as themselves acknowledge were subject to many considerable lapses and escapes 165 The causes thereof 167 Several reasons demonstrating that if ever the Fathers so glossed these texts as not to hurt Diocesan Episcopacy they then gave not their genuine sentiments 168 SECT VIII Moe clear testimonies of the Primitive Doctors against the Divine right of Diocesan Episcopacy produced and vindicated The testimony of Ambrose or Hilary Bellarmine's perversion discovered 171 Petavius's vain attempts both to exauctorate and deprave Hilary 173 The testimonie of Chrysostome 174 He 's vindicated from Bellarmine's depravation 175 The testimonies of Pelagius Sedulius and Primasius 176 Augustine vindicated against Bellarmine and his Plagiary D. M. 177 Apart of Jerome's testimony on the epistle to Titus vindicated against the dishâ—nest dealing of Bellarmne and D. M. 178 No ground to think that ever Jerome accounted James Bishop of Jerusalem 180 All Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments are in Jerome's account the Apostles Successors 181 The rest of Jerome's testimony on the Epistle to Titus vindicated 182 His testimony out of the Epistle to Enagrius vindicated against Bellarmine and D. M. 183 This doctrine of Jerome most catholick and universally received 188 SECT IX The testimenies of Ignatius his Contemporaries and Suppars disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak and confirming what we have prov'd to be his mind viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy Negative testimonies 190 Clemens Romanuâ—'s positive and clear testimonies 192 Petaviuâ—'s exceptions met with 194 As are these of his Underling D. M. 197 The testimony of Polycaâ—p where Dr. Pearson's strange evasion is routed and D M â— ill gronnded vaporing exploded 199 The testimonies of Hermas where the vanity of D. M. â— Romish Cavills is discovered and Blondel vindicated 200 The testimonie of Justine Martyr where Dr. Maurice's perversions are detected as is also the unreasonableness of D. M's reasons against Justine Martyr's plaine meaning 204 Irenaeus identifies Bishop and preaching Presbyter 206 D. M's Popish querie 207 SECT X. Other Observations and Arguments eversive of Diocesan Prelacy A Bishop is a name of labour a Presbyter a name of honor Ibid The true notions of the Apostolick and Hierarchick Bishop diametrically opposite one to another 209 The example of the Apostolick Bishop followed and the Idea thereof retained by all the true primitive Bishops or Doctors which is all one with the notion of a laborious Pastor of a Congregation Ibid. This is confirmed out of the Council of Sardica and others of these times where Dr. Maurice and Dr. Beverige their sly and perverse dealing is discovered 2â—0 The subjecting of one Pastor or Church to another finally resolved into a Romish slavery 213 Every Disepnser of the Word and Sacraments is a true Bishop 214 That in the least Village and meanest Countrie-places where there was a Congregation there was a true Bishop largely evinced where Dr. Maurice his exceptions is obviated Ibid. All Bishops equal among themselves hence their Hierarchy is overthrown 216 Their Romish argument from the pretendedly uninterupted succession of Diocesan Bishops enervated 217 The argument drawn from the lists of Bishops in Rome and such great Cities satisfied First From the positions already demonstrated which are further confirmed Secondly From the confessed uncertainty of these lists Thirdly From this that in Rome there was at once a plurality of Peter's pretended successors Fourthly From this that Peter was never at Rome which is largely demonstrated Fifthly from the evident falsity of the lists of the Bishops of Jerusalem 218 That the government of the prime primitive Church was truly Presbyterian made out from a cloud of most unsuspected Authors 225 A prostasy gradually turned into a Papal Tyranny 230 The Ancients kept fast the Foundations of Christianity but strayed exceedingly in superstitious additions 231 The Hierarchicks embraceing diverse novell Enormities desert the Primitive Church where Heylen's preversion of the Ancients is discovered Matthew 20 25 c. vindicated and D. M's Romanism and Judaism detected 223 The Bishop of Aiace his Christian Discourse unchristianly eluded and slighted by the Trent-Hierarchicks 239 ERRATA pag. lin read 2 7 r. this 4 23 r. thereto is sufficient 7 1 r. palpably 8 10 r. Jac. 14 1 r. the feares of the. 26 33 dele comma 32 penult r 158. Ibid ibid r 163. Ibid. ult r 53. 37 25 dele y 59 10 dele as 69 21 r hope of their 80 25 r is injoyn'd 82 32 r life 84 1 r Act. 85 13 r their 87 ult r disaprov'd 92 15 r liked 104 33 r from 125 7 r leanes 129 6 r Apostles 137 13 r breaking on bread 140 30 r whereon 150 28 r Apostles 168 21 r expositures 175 24 r other Pastors 178 5 r in 184 12 dele that 185 18 r Apostolical 186 28 r were 188 27 adde it 197 26 dele it 202 18 r from 207 1 r our 214 6 r or Ibid. 7 r of 216 ult r are 217 20 adde acknowledged Ibid. 31 r them Ibid. pen. r de cornu 219 20. r breaks 223 1 Babylon and is called a Persian i. e. a Parthian City and the Metropolis 237 16 r allowable 239 28 r would ADDENDA pag. 71. lin 21. But saith Heylen Cosmographie pag. 332. beeing once settled in an orderly and constant Hierarchy they held the same untill the Reformation began by Knox when he his Associats approving the Genevian Plat-form took the advantage of the Minority of King James the sixt to introduce Presbyterian Discipline and suppress the Bishops pag. 96. lin 9. What was the mind of the Waldenses Hussites saith Voetius speaking of the Opposers of Prelacy Polit. Eccles. part 2. pag. 833. is evident from their most accurat History written by Joh. Paulus Perrinus which is not extant save in their vulgar Tongues Nazianzeni Querela et Votum Justum OR The Fundamentals of the HIERARCHY examined and disproved Part I. Which briefly handles the prime Arguments for the Hierarchy as also some of its Concomitants and Qualities Section I. The Scope of the ensuing Treatise THE purpose of our present Discourse is not directly to handle that much tossed Debate if an Office in the Church for species or kind superiour to that of dispensing the Word and Sacraments hath any footing or warrant in the Word of God Neither will this be judged necessary by any who call to mind that many Treatises disproving the divine right of Episcopacy as Altare Damascenum and Rectius Instruendum have had so good success that for ought I know they stand intirely without any shadow of an Answer Yea the most learned that ever pleaded for the Lawfulness of Episcopacy will not blame us though we yeeld no Scripture-ground to it but only consider it in it self as a thing indifferent of which mind among the Ancients were not only those who denyed not the exercise of his Office to be Lawfull as Hierome but also the very Bishops themselves as Augustine all of them founding this
Stilling fleet And amongst many others these his wâ—ords are most observable for having taken notice that Eusebius makes it a most hard Matter to know who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches they planted adds say you so is it so hard a Matter to find out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them unless it be mention'd the Writings of Paul What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagrams made of the Apostolick Churches with every one's Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we having nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures And must then the Tradition of the Church be our Rule to interpret Scriptures by An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless to bend the Rule to the croocked stick c. Again it 's certain that for divers Centuries Bishops were nothing like what they are now either in exercising Civil Power or Jurisdiction over other Pastors or yet in the largeness of Dioceses so that the Term Bishop in respect of the two is little better than an equivocal It 's certain also that the ancient Church wanted not her own Blemishes which was well perceived by her Doctors who still look'd on the Word of God only as the Rule of Faith and Manners on which they never founded the Episcopal Superiority Hence this their Argument carries nothing of Cogency Section VI. The Instance of Aërius condemn'd by Epiphanius prov'd to be unserviceable to our Antagonists TO Illustrat and Corroborat this their Argument from Antiquity they adduce the Instance of Aërius who was for this his Judgement of Presbytry as well as for Arrianism condemn'd and counted Heretick by Epiphanius But it is certain that Epiphanius censur'd Aërius not only for his being Anti-episcopal and as he believ'd because Arrian but also for his rejecting of Lents set and Anniversary Fasts and for denial of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead Now either purer Antiquity join'd with Epiphanius in asserting of the necessity of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead and other such Fopperies or they did not and if they join'd with him therein then our Prelatists if they be Protestants are concern'd to reflect better of how little weight their Argument from the Ancients pressing their unwarrantable Additions can be unto them But if they say that sounder Antiquity consented not to Epiphanius while he urged Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead and such Anti-scriptural Fictions we return that neither did the choicest of the Ancients agree with him in his Plea for Prelacy The Judgement of Hierom is so well known herein that the Bishop of Spalato acknowledges that Hierom can by no means yea not byforce be reconcil'd to their Cause Hierome's Judgement saith Saravia was private all one with that of Aërius and contrary to the Word of GOD wherefore we shall examine his Arguments And on this account he is much offended with Hierome accusing him of Vanity Self-contradiction and Prevarication And Alphonsus de Castro sharply reproveth Thomas Waldensis another Papist who had intended to pervert the Testimonies which are commonly alledg'd for Presbytry out of Hierome There De Castro having prov'd out of divers places of Hierome that he was truly for the Scriptural and Apostolick Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter concludes against Waldensis that of necessity there must be another way taken to Answer the Passages alledg'd out of Hierome for Presbytry And at length flatly opposes himself to Hierome in this Matter and saith that we ought rather to believe the Decrees of Popes and Councils than the Doctrine of Hierome though both very Holy and Learn'd And Medina another Champion of the Hierarchy cited by Bellarmine asserts the same of Hierome saying He was of the same Judgement with Aërius in this Matter Bellarmine is very displeas'd with his Brother for his Ingenuity and therefore attempts to bring Hierome over to the Episcopal Party but instead of performing this Task he only fruitlesly endeavours to set Hierome at variance with himself The like success had another of the same Fraternity who like Bellarmine attempted to draw Hierome to his Faction Bayly the Jesuit And yet with these the most disingenous of the whole fry of Loyolites some called Protestants stick not warmly to join themselves and plead for a Patrociny to their Cause from Hierome § 3. Yea not only was Hierome of the same Judgement anent Episcopacy with Aërius but also as even the Jesuite Medina acknowledges the most of the Greek and Latine primitive Doctors and in special Ambrosius Augustinus Sedulius Primasius Chrysostomus Theodoretus Oecumenius Theophilactus This their Opinion saith Medina was first condemned in Aërius then in the Waldenses and lastly in Wicklef but this Doctrine was either dissembled or tolerated by the Church in them for the Honour that was had to them while on the other hand it was always condemn'd in these Men as Heretical because in many other things they swerv'd from the Church Many Papists and other Prelatists cannot away with this Medina's free dealing and use many shifts to refute him and draw these Fathers to their Party But to use the Words of Rivet Whosoever shall consider their Answers collested by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 6. annot 319 323 324. they shall presently perceive that all their Distinctions are most pitifull Elusions and that indeed all these Fathers were no less Presbyterian than Aërius although they accommodat themselves to the Custom then received least for a Matter not contrary to the Foundations of Religion they should have broken the Vnity of the Church What do our Opposits herein but espouse what the Romanists in whom any ingenuity remains have long since disowned § 4. But tho' Epiphanius were the mouth of all Antiquity and the only fit Judge in this Controversie the Triumph of our Adversaries should be very small for Aërius to Prove the Idenity of the two having adduced a parallel of many particulars Epiphanius denieth nothing of these to belong to Presbyters except only Imposition of Hands he yeelds therefore that both of them equally have Power to Baptize to occupy the Chair and finally to perform all Divine Worship Our Antagonists therefore offering to vouch the Prelacy they plead for by the Authority of Epiphanius promise much more then they can perform for what pray is this Power of Imposition of Hands or Ordination compared with what they covet and pretend to support by Epiphanius his Authority I mean the both great and many Differences between Bishop and Presbyter § 5. In the mean while Epiphanius his unjust dealing towards Aërius is most palpable for he sticks not to give out that Aërius his Judgement of the Identity of Bishop Presbyter was look'd on by the whole Church as an intolerable Heresie condemned by the Word of God when
of Mentz who only informs us that the Heresie of Aërius consisted in despising Sacrifices for the Dead From all which to me it 's more than probable that there 's no ground to believe that ever Aërius Arrianiz'd Section VII No Diocesan Bishops in several Ancient Churches THo' their Argument brought from Antiquity be already satisfi'd we shall yet give some Instances of Churches which for several Centuries were really without Diocesan Bishops St. Patrick the Irish Apostle is commonly said to have ordain'd several hundreds of Bishops in Ireland who I 'm sure could not be Diocesans Dr. Maurice being displeas'd with this Instance rejects Nennius the Author from whom we have the account of St. Patrick's ordaining 365 Bishops as fabulous But it 's not in their accounts of the numbers of Bishops but of the Deeds and Miracles wrought by Bishops and others of their Saints that the fabulousness of the Writers of these times is commonly to be observ'd He next quarrels with the common reading of that Author alledging that He speaks only of the Bishops in France and Britain in communion with St. Patrick not of his Irish Bishops But I think we may in such critical Learning give Bishop Vsher the Preference who neither judg'd this Book fabulous nor its common reading to be suspected And this account of the great number of Ancient Irish Bishops is strongly confirm'd by what Clarkson cites out of Bernard and Baron shewing that there were well nigh as many Bishops as Churches This the Doctor passes over in silence which was scarce fair enough dealling Neither can the Doctor 's ordinary salvo viz. that the Practice was not generally approv'd nor of primitive Constitution here serve them for whatsoever differ'd from the Roman Model was presently made a Novelty And tho' Bernard and Lanfranc dislike the Practice of having so many Bishops yet they adventure not to instance any time wherein the Irish had been rul'd by a few Diocesans And lastly the Authors most regardable herein inform us that this Practice of having so many Bishops had place even in St. Patrick's time and meer infancy of the Irish Church § 2. Most visible footsteps of this also appear in the African Church during the time of Cyprian for in that Council of Carthage where he presided there was no smal number of Bishops conveen'd tho' doubtless there were many moe Bishops in Africk who could not be all Diocesans seeing few then were Christians in Africk save a small part of the Roman Colonies only Yea the hamlets and villages these Bishops had for their Jurisdictions are so obscure that the learn'd Pamelius is at a stand where to place them And long after in the time of the Vandalick Persecution as Victor Vticensis relates there were in the Zeugitan or proconsular Province alone 164 Bishops others reckon moe Now this was but a small part of what the Romans possess'd in Africk and few beside the Roman Colonies were at that time Christian for the Moors or old Africans who beside what they had in the Cities possess'd almost the whole Country are by the same Victor without exception call'd Gentiles and many of the Romans themselves had not yet imbrac'd Christianity Now subduce from that small number of the Zeugitan Province who were Christians the many Arrians and other Hereticks and Schismaticks whom these Bishops did not reckon as a part of their Flocks and surely there shall scare be found so many as to make up above 164 Parishes Dr. Maurice tells us that all the African Bishops in Cyprian's time could not have suppli'd the Dioceses of one Province in the V or VI Century Which if true is a strong Confirmation of what we plead for viz. that they then were nothing less than Diocesans seeing as is now evident there were even in the fifth Century but a very small number of Christians in Africk compar'd with the rest of the Inhabitans And in Cyprian's time it may well be judg'd that there were some hundreds of Bishops in the Roman Africk But in such Cases not the extent of Bounds but number of Souls is to be considered Wherefore he should be a wild Reasoner that should conclude from Africa's having a dozen or such a number of Bishops or Pastors for surely there were but few at the entry of Christianity that there needed be no more afterward and so make that number the Standard to discern how many Bishops by primitive Right were to be plac'd in all Africa And this is a Kin to what he says elsewhere that tho' there were Bishops in small Towns this was not the primitive State of the Church it may be indeed nor yet at the first entry of the Gospel were there Bishops in most part of the great Towns but was this for fear of Multiplication of Dioceses no surely but these few were all could be then gotten The substance of his Answer here is that Africa was most large fertile popolous The first of which is readily granted but the second not so easily much of these Regions being more fertile of sand and Serpents than of Corn and Wine and this in part discredits the third seeing so much as was barren is not to be suppos'd Popolous wherefore it 's surprising to find him making the Old Roman Africk more Popolous than France is now He supposes that Africk had but 500 Bishops and yet might have 40000 villages But I answer that if the villages were considerable and had Christian Inhabitants for otherways this is nothing to this purpose then had Africk 40000 Bishops for H. Thorndick acknowledges that Bishops in Africk were so plentifull that every good village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church Which words of H. Thorndick are cited by Clarkson but dissembl'd by the Doctor In the mean while I can find nothing which can shake what I have said above or overturn as for example what I have noted from Victor's words and oblige me to lessen my substraction Add to what is said the words of Dr. Burnet In St. Augustin's time saith he it appears from the journals of a Conference he had with the Donatists that there were about five hundred Bishopricks in a small tract of ground But we need not cross Seas in pursuit of ancient Churches free of Diocesans seeing our Country Scotland affords us so luculent a proof of our Assertion The words of Prosper Aquitanicus in his Chronicle annex'd to that of Eusebius and Hierome are most clear and cogent Palladius saith he is ordain'd by Pope Coelestine for the Scots that had already believ'd in Christ and is sent to them to be their first Bishop Never was a passage of any Historian more universally believ'd than this of Prosper which Beda◠and a MS. Chronicle of Scotland in the Library of Glasgow yea the whole stream of Historians repeat and approve but none more amply and plainly than Cardinal Baron whose words are
over the Bishops was only in respect of the royalty of the Isle which the King gave the Abbot As if ever Bede or any man else could have mark'd such a Superiority as strange and unusual it being nothing but what every Prince or Lord of any place still practises who altho' he subject himself to a Bishop in Spirituals yet in respect of Temporals and the Royalty uses to retain the Superiority But which ' utterly spoils the Bishop's comment Bede tells that all Columbanus got was the possession of a little Isle able to sustain about five Families for building of a Monastry without the least mention of his being invested with the Royalty thereof or any other Island and yet to him were all the Bishops of the whole Province all the Bishops of Scotland saith the Saxon Chronicle cited by the Bishop himself subjected so that this pretended Royalty of Columban over the Island becomes a vain dream tho' 't were real could do him no kindness the whole Prouince being certainly a far other thing than any such Island wherefore the Superiority this Presbyter had over these Bishops must needs have been in Ecclesiastick affairs and this was really remarkable and unusual But of this enough for whosoever believes that the errand of this most ancient Preacher and Propagator of Christ's Kingdom was to win an earthly Kingdom to himself and that the King shar'd with him his Soveraignity and Realm may as soon swallow the whole legend of Constantine's Donation to Sylvester But to return to the Advocat as in the things that he touches he wholly prevaricats so he never handles our main Argument which is taken from what is related of our Churches practice preceeding the coming of Palladius He only refers to Spotswood who says Buchanan is of opinion that before Palladius his coming there was no Bishop in this Church what warrant he had to write so I know not except he did build upon that which Joannes Major saith speaking of the same Palladius The Scots he says were instructed in the Christian Faith by Priests and Monks without any Bishops But from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith to conclude that the Church after it was gathered had no other form of Government will not stand with any reason For be it as they speak that by the Travels of fome pious Monks the Scots were first converted unto Christ it cannot be said that the Church was ruled by Monks seeing long after these times it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with matters of the Church nor were they reckon'd among the Clergy But it 's strange how he can alledge Buchanan to be supported by no Authors except Major for Palladius his being Scotland's first Bishop he could not but know that not only Major but also Fordun Bede with many others within the Isle Prosper Bergumensis and among the later Historians the Magdeburgenses Baron with many other Transmarines assert it And this last affirms that none can deny it § 4. It 's true Spotswood says that Boeth out of ancient Annals reports that these Priests were wont for their better Government to elect some one of their number by common suffrage to be Chief and Principal among them without whose knowledge and consent nothing was done in any matter of importance and that the person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus a Scots Bishop or a Bishop of Scotland But they reap little advantage here for in Boeth's words y there is no mention as the Bishop without book affirms whether these Annals were ancient or modern But whatever they be Hector gives ground to believe that he had Annals declaring the contrary as appears by his words above cited where he homologated that common sentiment of Christians and told us that Palladius was our first Bishop and that none before him had any Hierarchical Power in Scotland To alledge therefore Boethius as espousing their cause here is ony to set him at variance with all Christians and by the ears with himself But grant it were as Spotswood says yet there should no small dammage accreu to their Cause seeing on supposition hereof it follows that the Episcopal Ordination was altogether wanting in the primitive Church of Scotland it not being supposeable that this one man could Ordain all the Pastors in Scotland yea that even this their great Bishop had no other Ordination himself but what he receiv'd from Presbyters § 5. The Bishop's following words from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith c. are altogether void of reason For it 's granted that after the coming of Palladius which is the time whereunto he must refer the gathering of the Church she then indeed began to have another Government and never man yet pleaded that because the Church of Scotland was not govern'd by Bishops before Palladius therefore 't was not really govern'd by them after his coming which is the Inference the Bishop's words seem to deny But I believe there is more in them for they are abstruse and judge their meaning to be that tho' we had no Bishops before Palladius yet this can be no ground to conclude that we ought to have none afterward our Church being then rude and in her infant state The Advocat is of the same mind saying that before Palladius his time our Church was constituenda or unsettl'd But who can believe it For first it 's generally suppos'd that Palladius came to free this Church from Pelagianism and not to establish Church-government Secondly Is 't credible that the Church of Scotland after so long a continuation and flourishing of Christianity had been rather than any other Churches without any certain form of Government This is certainly a thing unparalellable even according to our Adversaries who tell us that every Church very soon after its beginning had its Diocesan Bishops and so a certain form of Government Thirdly Yea altho' many other Churches had been without all Government for such a tract of time there is ground to believe that Scotland could not they lying most of this time under the persecuting Sword whereas we read of no persecution in our Church even while our Kings were Pagan and our King Donald the I the first crown'd Head in the World that ever subject'd it self to Jesus Christ very much encourag'd the Christians and was seconded herein by severals of his Successors And altho' some of 'em were vitious and their Reigns short or vex'd with Wars yet such trouble never struck directly against Christianity like the fury of the Pagans throngh the rest of the World and others were both excellent Men and had longer and peaceable Reigns as Findochus and Cratilinthus but especially Fincormachus an excellent man and a great promoter of Religion and therefore as is most presumable was a great Instrument under God for the settlement of our Church-affairs Add to all this Fourthly That the terrible Storm of Persecution through the Roman World drove then from the Brittons
Presbyters elected and ordain'd their Bishop There is nothing saith D. M. said by Boethius but that the Bishops were elected from among both the Priests and Monks And true it is there is no more said in the words D. M. cites but 't is as true that elsewhere Boethius expresly says that the Pastors Priests or Culdees themselves by common suffrage elected this Pontificem or Prefect Add hereto that if Boethius have said ought inadvertantly or obscurely he is to be correct'd or explain'd by the harmonious and most express Testimonies of Fordun Major Buchanan Craig and other such most learn'd of our Antiquaries all of whom are beyond scruple most positive for what we affirm § 11. Next he assaults Prosper's Testimony alledging that according to Baron Palladius was not sent to the Scots in Britain Baronius saith D. M. never thought that Palladius was sent by Pope Coelestine to the Scoto-Britanni but rather to the Irish. And whatever the Testimony of Prosper be Spondanus and Baronius leave the Vindicator for they understood Prosper ' s words of Palladius his mission to Ireland and not to that part of Britain which is now call'd Scotland To prove this his Assertion he adduces but which was his wisdom untranslated these words of Baron that he viz. Palladius was brought also into the Isle of Ireland but was soon taken away by Death is related by Probus who wrote the Deeds of St. Patrick Egregiously reason'd Probus saith that Palladius went once into Ireland therefore Baron thought the words of Prosper not at all to be understood of his coming into Scotland Surely this Author may be allow'd a chief place in their next Book of Sports for the Sabbath Yea these words that he was brought also c. seem clearly to hold forth that he was sent to another place beside out of which he came into Ireland and what place this was the immediatly preceeding words evince the same year and in the time of the same Consuls St. Prosper saith that Palladius was sent to the Scots being ordain'd the first Bishop That he continues Cardinal Baron was brought also into the Isle of Ireland c. Where 't is most evident that Baron distinguishes the Scots to whom Prosper saith Palladius was sent from the Inhabitants of Ireland But to cut off all further debate of this matter the Cardinal clearly demonstrats what we plead for while he expresly says that they highly honour Palladius his Relicts which are buri'd in the Mernes a Province of Scotland And the Cardinal continuing his Discourse of the same Scots whose first Bishop in his Judgement Prosper makes Palladius to have been saith that their late Queen viz. Mary was the Glory of the Catholick Faith and a Martyr but I insist not on a matter so evident the Advocat hath learn'dly made it out and prevented all such attempts of D. M. and the like Enemies of our Countrey § 12. He having thus abus'd Baron prepares next for the depravation of Prosper himself telling us that all that can be inferr'd is that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Roman mission But Prosper's words are clear and without any such limitation Palladius saith he is ordain'd by Pope Coelestine for the Scots that had already believed in Christ and is sent to them to be their first Bishop Behold our very Assertion and why we should yeeld it and in lieu thereof imbrace its contrary I am yet to learn He adds that as soon as the Pope aspired to his unlimited and universal Supremacy there were several Bishops sent to other Churches already constituted not to introduce Episcopacy which was the Government of the universal Church but rather a subjection to and uniformity with the Roman See But tho' all this were as true as some of it is false it 's nothing to the purpose except he find good Authors wherein a Bishop sent to a People who not only were Christians but also govern'd by Bishops before he came is called without restriction their first Bishop And Boethius continues D. M. understood the History of Palladius in this sense Which tho' 't were yeelded stands him in little stead seeing all the Historians Antiquaries of our Countrey and as we have heard from Card. Baron with whom joins our learn'd Advocat all men every-where else understand Prosper in the sense we plead for believing that there was no Bishop in Scotland before Palladius But 't will not satisfie D. M. to wrest Prosper's words except he also at once overthrow his whole Chronicle telling us that it is not thought by the learned to be the genuine Work of Prosper All he brings for this is a conjecture of Petrus Pithoeus fancying that the Chronicle ascrib'd to Prosper appended to that of Eusebius Hierome is of a different stile from that of a confus'd fragment which he took for a part of the true Prosper's Chronicle wherein there is nothing concerning Palladius But why the meer conjecture of one man should be enough to discredit that Chronicle so universally ascrib'd to Prosper I leave to the Judgment of the learned Vossius indeed mentions this fragment but if it be preferable to the vulgar Copy determines not neither for ought I know did ever any save D. M. embrace this faint Conjecture of Pithoeus and indeed there must be brought incomparably better Arguments before that confus'd fragment either be preferr'd to or vye with the universally receiv'd Copy immemorially under Prosper's name affixed to Hierome's Chronicle Moreover seeing this Schred is most disordered and the words now under debate most universally believ'd to have been written by Prosper 't is highly probable on supposition that this fragment is a part of the true consular Chronicle that it once contain'd that passage tho' throw mutilation and either negligent or malicious transcribing it hath now lost it however the matter be we are at no loss for never was there a sentence more unanimouâ—ly ascrib'd to any Author than this concerning Palladius is to Prosper and is by all both ancient and modern acknowledg'd so that all their endeavours to prove this passage supposititious and that it belongs not to Prosper or some else of equall Antiquity and Authority are the last efforts of meer desperation And indeed had they not in defiance of the whole Christian World and Truth it self resolv'd per fas aut nefas to maintain that there was never a Church without Diocesan Bishops before the time of Calvine and Beza they had never adventur'd their skulls on what is so hard firmly bottom'd and so universally believed Have we not already heard fully how the most knowing and zealous for Prelacy while they sustain'd the truth of our Countrey Histories and yet labour'd to disprove what we now plead for gave only in favours of their latter Assertion triffles so empty and prevarications so apparent that 't is most presumable they believ'd nothing of what they said how the
of our Freedom from Mystical Babylon our Adversaries acknowledging that Mr. Knox and his Fellow-labourers in the Church-policy did exactly follow the Genevan Model which these men use to make the Original of Presbytry It 's confess'd also that John Knox refus'd a Bishoprick in England on this account that it had Quid commune cum Antichristo Whereby tho' nothing else could be brought 't is clear as the Sun that Knox I may say the same of most of his Fellow-labourers in the Reformation was intirely averse from their Hierarchick Domination § 3. Wherefore the Author of a late Book call'd The Fundamental Charter of Presbytry examin'd and disprov'd quite skips over these Evidences of Knox's being Antiprelatick notwithstanding that the only design of the far greater part of his Book was directly to prove these out Reformers and Knox in special to have been of the prelatical Perswasion However let 's hear the chief of the Answers he gives to such other Proofs hereof as he adventures to engage with § 4. The first is a passage of Knox's letter to the Assembly viz. Vnfaithfull and Traitors to the Flock shall ye be before the Lord Jesus if that with your consent directly or indirectly ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk under wâ—at pretence that ever it be Remember the Judge before whom ye must make an account and resist that Tyranny as ye would avoid Hell-fire To which our Author answers denying that Knox by Tyranny here means Episcopacy and saith that 't is impossible to make more of the Letter than that Knox deem'd it a pernicious and tyrannical thing for any Person whatsoever to thrust unworthy Men into the Ministry of the Church Which Answer evanishes so soon as we shall understand the occasion of Knox's Letter Some powerfull Courtiers had then sacrilegiously invaded a great part of the Churches Revenues and were greedily grasping the remainder to the great grief of all good Men and detriment of the Church which both in her Assemblies and otherways vehemently urged that these Revenues should be imploy'd on sustentation of Ministers many of whom being unprovided were ready to starve and on maintaining of Schools relieving the Poor and other such pious Uses These Courtiers therefore to free themselves of such unacceptable Monitors and secure them of what they had gotten plot the reduction of a kind of Diocesan Bishops Abbots Priors and other such Popish Orders with whom they were to make a sacrilegious Compact and to give these titular Church-men some small pittance of the Revenues the rest being possessed in their name by these Courtiers Now at the very time of the writing of Knox's Letter this was in agitation and a design laid to practise upon some of the Assembly as shortly thereafter at the Meeting in Leith appear'd at which and elsewhere in these times there were not wanting among the Ministers who moved with hope of Domination over their Brethren and some small augmentation of Rent made no bones of such simoniacal Pactions or to use the express words of the Confessions of their best Friends such durtâ— and vile Bargains And now judge what Knox mean'd by his Exhortation to keep out unworthy Men and resist Tyranny And 't is most presumable that Spotswood sufficiently saw that Knox's Letter goares Prelacy otherwise he had not mangl'd the same and wholly omitted all mention of Tyranny § 5. And that this Knox's Letter levell'd at the Bishops then about to be introduc'd is further evident from his refusal to inaugurat John Douglas Bishop of St. Andrews his denouncing an Anathema to the Giver and Receiver of the Bishoprick and his open professing his dislike of the whole Order At this our Author takes exception saying The certain Manuscript from which Calderwood says he had this relation is uncertain But he should have look'd into Petrie who names the Author William Scot that eminent Minister at Couper Now that 't is like enough that Knox who was then at St. Andrews said so and express'd suitable resentments of the durty Bargain between Morton and Douglas who by a simoniacal Paction got into the See is by our Author expresly acknowledg'd And indeed if we consider the indignity of the Crime and the Lyon-like boldness of Mr. Knox against such Vices 't is altogether incredible but that he vented his resentments with a Witness and to the noticing of all thinking Men then present yet all this is skipp'd over by Spotswood For he knew well enough that this Relation should have shew'd how little kindness Knox bore to their Hierarchy Moreover which is most noticeable in this matter these who then favour'd Prelacy being generally such simoniacal Pedlers were so far from writing the several Actions and Church-transactions of these times that they made it their care to suppress and destroy the publick Monuments of the Church Witness B. Adamsone one of the Articles of whose Confession to which as is acknowledg'd by Spotswood he subscrib'd was that not without his special allowance some leaves of the Books of the Assemblies were rent out and such things as made against the Bishops their estate were destroyed in Falkland before the Books were deliver'd to the King's Majesty Which considerations suffice to prove the truth of that historical Relation He alledges next that tho' we had reason to believe that Knox said and did so yet it follows not that he was for the Divine Right of Parity Adding That 't is like enough Knox said so for dreadfull Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church But this Invasion was so linked with the introduction of Prelacy that they had both common Friends and Enemies so that Knox declaring against either must be judg'd equally averse from both And indeed the introduction of Prelacy was consequentially this very destruction and consumption of the Churches Goods against which Knox inveigh'd Or dare he say that it had satisfi'd him if they had been consum'd in sustaining the Luxury and Grandour of Bishops Abbots and Priors whom the Court was about then to introduce providing only these Church Revenues had been kept from the secular Nobility Moreover 't is evident to whosoever reads Knox's words that the Invasion of the Church-patrimony was far from being the sole Ground of the dislike he shew'd to Episcopacy The Matter in short is when John Douglas was made Tulchan Bishop of St. Andrews Mr. Knox refused to Ordain him denouncing Anathemaes to the Giver and to the Receiver and when John Rutherford Provest of the old Colledge had said that Mr. John Knox ' s repining had proceeded from male-contentment the next Lora's-day John Knox said in Sermon I have refus'd greater Bishoprick than ever 't was and might have had it with the favour of greater Men than he hath this but I did and do repine for discharge of my Conscience that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that Order This last Clause viz.
only from these titular Bishops and Rent-gatherers to the Courtiers supported with all the might Wit and Artifice of an awfull gripping politick Regent and no few other potentand subtile Courtiers driving their own ends as has already appeared and is most evident from the best accounts now extant of these Affairs and this is the undoubted Cause why the six Collocutors at the Assembly in August 1575. think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the Question of the Function of Bishops But he who stilleth the noise of the Seas the noise of their waves having restrain'd these impetuous Tempests how cordially did our Church proceed to the utter extirpation of Prelacy Forsamekle they are the words of the Assembly holden at Dundee Anno 1580. July 12. Sess. 4. as the Office of a Bishop as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realme hath no sure warrant authority or good ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God but brought in by the folly and corruption of mens invention to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God the whole Assembly of the Kirk in one voice after liberty given to all Men to reason in the matter none opponing themself in defence of the said pretended Office findeth and declareth the samine pretended Office used and termed as is above said unlawfull in the self as having neither fundament ground nor warrant in the word of God c. And in all this our Church as she clearly here expresses did nothing save what she was oblig'd to do by her own Principle in the first Book of Discipline which affirms that all thing necessary for the instruction of the Church is contain'd in the Books of the Old and New Testament And that whatsoever is without express commandment of God's Word is to be repress'd as damnable to Salvation Our Reformers therefore except our Adversaries say which even impudence it self dare not say that they believ'd the Hierarchy to be founded on the express command of God's Word were bound by this their Principle to oppose it as a manifest corruption and according to this Principle whensoever Prelacy by force of the secular arm and fraud of serpentine policy and as one well words it by terrors and allurements crosses and commodities banishment and benefices for by other means it could never be admitted overwhelm'd this Land and discover'd the Hypocrisie or Gallio-like Disposition of many all the true Lovers of our Reformation still then had in greater or lesser measure as their love was to this truly Protestant yea truly Catholick and Christian Principle of our Reformers their Feasts turned into Mourning their Songs into Lamentation their Tears for Meat and their Harps hang'd on the Willows And now suppose that our Reformers in that unstable condition of our Church and very first rudiments of Protestancy had in some of their Doings or Saying afforded some colour or appearance either for the scruples of the curious or the quirks and cavils of the captious does not pray this most unanimous most clear and every way most unexceptionable Act of our most full and free Generall Assembly that consisted for the far greater part of the very same Men who were the Actors and Promoters of our first Reformation most fully open our Remormers their minds shew their ultimat tendency and scope and finally for ever determine the present Controversie § 8. He hath more to say of John Knox I return therefore to attend him His next Plea is with Calderwood about Beza's Letter to Knox where he denies that Beza wrote being inform'd by Knox of the Courts intention to bring in Bishops and adds that if any thing of Knox ' s Sentiments can be collected from Beza ' s Letter it seems rather he was for Prelacy than for Presbytry For Beza saith he seems clearly to import that Knox needed to be caution'd against Prelacy Beza's Words are But I would have you my dear Knox and the other Brethren to Remember that which is before your eyes that as Bishops brought foorth the Papacy so false Bishops the relicts of Popery shall bring in Epicurism to the World They that desire the Churches good and safety let them take heed of this Pest and seeing ye have put that Plague to flight timously I heartily pray you that Ye never admit it again albeit it seem plausible with the pretence or colour of keeping unily which pretence deceiv'd the ancient Fathers yea even many of the best of ' em Where Beza without giving any proof thereof clearly supposes as a thing believed by Knox no less than by himself that the Bishops whom some were then labouring to introduce into Scotland were false Bishops the relicts of Popery which had already been once driv'n out of Scotland and on this supposition as any Orators use to do from Principles common to themselves and these to whom they are speaking he admonish'd him and the rest to beware of this Plague Certain it is then if we believe Beza that he knew if by a Letter from Knox or otherwise concerns not the matter in hand that Knox judg'd the Bishops then to be introduc'd to be no others than were the Popish Bishops whom Knox and his fellow Reformers had lately expuls'd Scotland and both sorts of Bishops to be equally false and Anti-christian And now consider this Letter of Beza written near the same time with that of Knox to the Assembly and the disinterested shall soon perceive that the former explains the latter and sufficiently shews what Knox meant by the Tyranny mention'd therein Moreover whosoever finds so much against Episcopacy in Beza even tho' it had been spoken by him without any relation or respect to Knox and remembers how universal and firm Concord was between these excellent Persons Qui duo corporibus mentibus unus erant will easily conclude that Knox bore but small kindness to Prelacy § 9. He comes next to prove Knox was not for Parity Had he been saith he so perswaded how seasonable had it been for him to have spoken out so mnch when he was brought before King Edward ' s Council The Question was then put to him whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the Ecclesiastical Ministration according to the Rites and Laws of the Realm of England Yet he answer'd nothing but that no Minister in England had Authority to separate the Lepers from the whole which was a chief part of his Office Plainly founding all the unlawfulness of being a Pastor of the Church of England not only the unlawfulness of the Hierarchy which he spoke not one word about but on the Kings retaining the chief Power of Ecclesiastical Discipline As if Knox had judg'd nothing in the Church of England unlawfull but the King 's retaining the Ecclesiastical Discipline in his own hand which all Men even Episcopals no less than Presbyterians know to be an arch and palpable untruth Does not as for example our Assembly Anno 1566.
what not our Author must sustain that Knox reckon'd up whatsoever he judg'd to be Sins and Abuses in that Church otherwise he does nothing But dare he say that Knox there did so Spoke he ever a word of the Tippet Corner-cap and Surplice there being Badges of Idolaters and Marks of the odious Beast Hath he one syllable of Christmas Feasts and such holy Days which he also judged superstitious and sinfull Or of the Faults of their Service-book about which as all Men know fell out the Controversie at Francfort or the depriving Ministers of Power to separate the Lepers from the whole at which our Author grants Knox to have been offended But Knox calls Cranmer that reverend Father in God Ergo. Bellè As if forsooth Knox might not use a Phrase of the common stile of the times but he must be presently concluded a propugner of the Hierarchy Was not at the Assembly in Edinburgh March 1570. whereof John Knox was a Member one of the Heads of Adam Bishop of Orknay ' s Accusation which by the Assembly he was desir'd to redress that he stileth himself with Roman Titles as Reverend Father in God which pertaineth to no Ministers of Christ Jesus nor is giv'n them in Scriptures John Knox continues our Author said the false Religion of Mahomet is more ancient than Papistry yea Mahomet had established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crown'd with a triple Crown c. Can any Man think subjoins our Author John Knox was so very unlearn'd as to imagine Episcopacy was not much Older than Mahomet Or knowing it to be Older that yet he could have been so ridiculous as to have thought it a relict of Popery which he himself affirm'd to be Younger than Mahometism But was Knox so very unlearn'd as not to know that divers Popish Errors and Dotages had generally obtain'd and got good footing before the time of Mahomet Do not these who know any thing know so much Have we not heard how he rejected as unwarrantable and unlawfull Christmas Feasts and such holy Days Will our Author acknowledge they obtain'd not before the rise of Mahomet or the Pope's triple Mitre I think he will not Have we not seen how good space before these times other Innovations as unction of Poenitents and Caelibacy of Church-men were coming in fashion and countenanc'd by the most famous Councils Knox had been unlearn'd indeed if he had not known so much he spoke therefore only of the maturity and more open appearance of the Man of Sin and as he expresses of his coming to his triple Crown and meant not at all that before Mahomet's time no Popish Doctrines were generally broach'd and imbrac'd yet so our Author otherwise he 's quite beside his purpose makes him to speak then which nothing more false and injurious to Mr. Knox can be express'd Hitherto we have been intertain'd with Sophistry so silly and Paralogisms so palpable that 't were unjustice done to this Gentle-man's Intellectuals not to believe that he sufficiently discern'd the Fallacies But he promiseth to make a mends for the future as yet he has only brought up his Rorarios and Velites but now the case is quite alter'd Ecce ferunt Troes ferrumque Ignesque Jovemque § 11. He has yet more to say yes more with a Witness Knox says in his Exhoatation to England Let no man be charg'd in preaching of Jesus Christ above that a man may do I mean that your Bishopricks be so divided that of every one as they are now for the most part may be ten and so in every City and great Town there may be plac'd a godly learned Man with so many join'd with him for Preaching and Instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds committed to their Charge But the Reader impartially weighing what we have adduced must yeeld that 't is impossible either from this or any other place to make Knox a Prelatist except we involve him in manifest self-repugnancy which there is no necessity to do for any thing here said For tho' Knox considering how the English were wedded to something of a hierarchick Splendor had indulged them in a good deal thereof it had been only a parallel Action to that of his Friend Calvin who tho' sufficiently Anti-ceremonial yeelds notwithstanding for a time and for Peace's sake to that Nation some of their Ceremonies which he calls tolerable Fooleries unprofitable Triffles c. Yet I have met with none who on this score has taxed Calvin of Self-contradiction But this ex abundanti for they cannot from these Knox's words conclude that he favoured so much as the least grain of the substance of Prelacy of each of their Bishopricks he makes ten which I think will bring his Lordship comparatively consider'd to a very narrow compass But to shew that he put a definit number for an indefinit he gives not only to every City but to every great Town a Bishop Now of Cities and Mercat-towns in England which there are not inconsiderable there are odds of 600 But that none may justly cavill let 's make a large abatement of the number where they may be smaller and yet I 'm sure so many remain as there should be ordinary Presbytries in England providing it were so divided Moreover the great End and Work of this Bishop Knox makes to be the preaching of the Gospel and instructing of the People of his Dominion and Power over the Clergy not a syllable yea he gives not to him alone the Charge of the Flock 't is their Charge the Charge of the rest no less than the Bishop they are join'd with him not his Curats under him And we have heard him already making the Office of a Bishop nothing else but what is common to all Pastors And if his Doctrine and Practice in Scotland may be allow'd as an Explication of his Exhortation to England this Bishop was subject to the Admonition and Correction of the Presbytry wherein he was Bishop Nothing therefore can necessarily be drawn from Knox's words except that this Bishop was to have if Temporary or continued I dispute not for it touches not the present Question a meer presidency of Order or Moderator-ship nothing of Dominion or Power to Knox's Bishop Nothing therefore of imparity amongst Pastors can from the words in hand with any good consequence be deduced Lastly whatever 't was it appears clear from these words that he allow'd this only for a time during the rarity of Preachers § 12. But hear somewhat more of the same Exhortation Touching the Reformation of Religion saith he ye must at once so purge and expell all dregs of Papistry Superstition and Idolatry that thou O England must judge and hold execrable and accursed whatsoever God hath not sanctifi'd to thee by his blessed Word or by the Action of our Master Jesus Christ. The glistering beauty of vain Ceremonies the heaps of things pertaining nothing to Edification by whomsoever
he superintended and let him use it as he pleased yet neither can the Imparity be counted considerable not the harm he could do very hurtfull for within half a year at most for there was a General Assembly twice at least every year they had a prospect of a General Assembly to right their wrong wherein every Pastor was to have no less Power than any Superintendent and no less capable to sit judge and censure the Superintendent than the Superintendent was on the other hand to exerce the like Power over him yea any Minister in the Assembly such sometimes as were none was as fair to be chosen Moderator as any Superintendent By the frequency of these Assemblies it came to pass that few or no matters of importance were determin'd in the inferiour Synods but came thither for their final Decision Wherefore if we narrowly look on these times we shall find that the Superintendents were rather appointed as Observers and Delators of Matters to the Assembly than any proper Judges thereof save when a special command was giv'n him to cognosce on such and such particular Matters He was frequently also charged with execution of the Assemblies Determinations all which was common to him with other Commissioners to whom the Assembly gave the like Charge and sent them not rarely to these very Provinces where there were Superintendents with equal Power and Authority to that of the Superintendent Sometimes they ordain'd Causes to be handled by the Superintendent with the assistance of these Commissioners sometimes by the Commissioner with the assistance of the Superintendents which Commissioners were sometimes Ministers of another Province and sometimes of that Province wherein was the Superintendent with whom they were join'd with equal Power Authority From all which 't is evident how much they are taken with the humor of cavilling who dare to ascribe to the Superintendents any real Superiority or Power over other Pastors or any thing repugnant to a compleat Parity But there is yet more even in his own Synod he could do nothing contrary to the Majority for he was to act nothing without the Synods Consent neither could he impede ought done by the Majority for he had no negative vote Yea he was made subject to the Tryal and Censures of the Synod of the very province where he superintended And here our Author is compell'd to acknowledge that there was a considerable difference between Superintendents and Bishops and indeed 't was considerable with a witness and so considerable that it really sets them on even ground with each Pastor of the word He adds that this was a great wrong and error in the Constitution and on this ocasion has a long invective against our Reformers in speciall Knox counting them Children Idiots Ungovernable and of bad Principles and spares not to flegg at all Scots men or Scotch mettal as he speaks But this is but a kicking against the pricks He knows all this helps him nothing nor is to the present Question which is not de jure but de facto what our Reformers freely and joyntly did Not on what grounds they did so He next retorts that according to the book of Discipline the Elders are allow'd to admonish correct and with the consent of the Church and Superintendent depose their Minister But First tho our Reformers had spoken just alike of the Elders and Ministers as they did of the Synod and Superintendent their words will not bear the like inference the power they give to the Elders could certainly be a spurr to the Ministers and yet they might be sure the few Elders of one parish would never make so bold with their Minister as the whole Synod might with their Superintendent Secondly There is no such allowance giv'n to the Elders concerning their Minister as to the Synod over their Superintendent the former much act only with the consent of the Kirk and Superintendent but nothing of this injoyn'd to the latter Yea our Author himself will have the power of Deposition to be a prerogative of the Superintendent and no doubt he or the Commissioner did in the Churches name execute her sentence To Depose therefore here and that with allowance of the whole context of that 8 head of Discipline which he cites is nothing else than to delate to the Church and Superintendent the crimes of the Minister and in their own sphere assist them in that action He adds he hath no where found that de facto the Superintendent was judged by his own Synod And it may be so for litle do we find of any thing was then done by provincial synods every thing of moment being left to the General Assemblies which were then most frequent Such a Constitution adds he inferrs no such thing as Parity among Church-Offices Those who maintain that the King is inferior to his Subjects in their Collection are not yet so extravagant as to say he is not Superior to every one of them in their Distribution But where Superiors or Equalls can be gotten the Men of this Principle will freely yeeld that none who are Inferiours in the Distribution ought to judge the Actions of their Superiours providing other Judges can be had who in this Case cann't there being but one King only in a Kingdom Hence they believing that none may live lawless think the King's Actions are cognoscible by these who are his Inferiours but altering their capacity in the Collection But is it so in the Case of the Superintendent whereof there were severals not one only as there is one commonly King in a Kingdom Seeing then he was to be judged by the Synod notwithstanding that there were other Superintendents in the Church 't is evident they counted every Brother in the Ministry his equal § 19. But the Superintendents saith our Author had a stock of prerogatives above other Pastors But be it so yet notwithstanding hereof if we suppose which I trust at the narrowest search shall appear the truth of what we have now adduc'd and the self consistency of the actings of our Reformers whom he would fain set at variance with themselves whatsoever Prerogatives he has really brought can never prove that the Superintendent had any Dominion over other Pastors or that they acted not in a true and real Parity so that from what is now said these his pretended Disparities are prevented and remov'd For example he tells us that Superintendents had a larger district were nominated by the Council elected by the Nobility and Gentry 't was not so with the Paroch Ministers But the Commissioners had no less districts and were appointed by the General Assembly which I 'm sure is of no less weight in the case than the Councils Nomination even tho' the Gentlemens Election be added thereto and yet who in his Wit will take him for any other Officer than is every Parish-minister or fall into the rovery of our Author who calls these Commissioners
temporary Bishops Paroch-ministers by the first Book of Discipline head 8 were deposeable by the Superintendent and the Elders of their Parishes The Superintendent was to be Judged by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province But the fraud is palpable the words of the Book of Discipline are that if a Minister be worthy of Deposition the Elders of his Parish may with consent of the Kirk and Superintendent depose him Where you see the Kirk or Minister and Elders of the Province are no less interested in the Deposition of a Minister than in the judging of a Superintendent He suppress'd therefore all mention of the Kirk which even Spotswood whom he cites expresses to the end he might make his Reader believe no Minister save the Superintendent only had any power in Deposition of Ministers But privat Ministers saith he were to be admitted by their Superintendents but the Superintendents by the Superintendents next adjacent and the Superintendents had the Power of Ordination The first Book of Discipline and several Acts of the Assemblies But had only the Superintendents the Power of Ordination yea not only was there no plurality of Superintendents present at the Action but also John Knox who was no Superintendent ordain'd or admitted Spotswood Superintendent of L. yea every particular Minister when commissionated by the Assembly had no less Power of Ordination or any other thing whatsoever than is either in the Book of Discipline or any where else giv'n to the Superintendent Neither might any one particular Minister while he was a Commissioner more than the Superintendent be translated from one district to another without the Counsel of the whole Church or Assembly neither were there meaner Qualifications requisite in any Commissioner And I think Knox who was never a Superintendent was in these not inferiour to any of ' em But he had a living five times so much as another Minister But then I 'm sure he had five times as much to do with it being perpetually to Travell Preach and Exhort far and wide c but if this Rule had been keep'd our Bishops had got five times less than any other Minister for rarely did they any such Duty either at home or abroad In the mean while The Power of Riches and the baseness of Poverty maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower But Superintendents saith he were constant Members of General Assemblies had Power to Visit and to try the like c. of the Ministers of all the Churches of the Diocess and were to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministry had Power of granting Collations on Presentations But whatsoever he had of these belong'd also to every particular Pastor when commissionated by the General Assembly but tho' the Superintendent or Commissioner is only nam'd in such Cases as in trial of the Candidats granting Collations Deposition of Ministers c. He is to be understood as the Moderator and mouth of the Synod where he Superintended for Example the Assembly in the case of transportation chargeth the Ministers to obey the Voice and Commandment of their Superintendent and yet by the very same Act none can be translated without the Consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks conveen'd in the Synodal Assembly and yet from this very Act he adventnres to conclude the Canonical Obedience of Pastors to their Superintendents But he had Power to nominal Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly For Assembly 1562. 't was ordain'd that no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly except he have Complaints to make or be complain'd off or at least be warn'd thereto by the Superintendent And the L. Glamis in a Letter to Mr. Beza saith that after the Reformation it fell out by custom that the Bishops and so many of the Ministers Pastors and Elders as the Bishops appointed came to the General Assembly But touching what he alledges as said by the L. Glamis I can find it no where save in the Works of Saravia and Beza's Answer to Glamis his second Question wherein these words are found neither meets with nor presupposes any such Clause But be it that L. Glamis said so what will they hence infer he says indeed that this came to pass after the Reformation but how long 't was after the Reformation before this was practis'd he says not ' T was saith he receiv'd by Custom by no Decree of the Church then or Acts of the Assembly And lastly he speaks of Bishops not of Superintendents And I never find that any about these times gave Superintendents the name of Bishops and so this makes nothing for our Author's purpose Wherefore if ever L. Glamis had any such Expression whereof I much doubt in my mind he mean'd it of the Tulchans who for some space after the Leith-convention made some steps toward such a Superiority otherwise all the accounts we have of these times and in special the Acts of our Assemblies demonstrat that there was no such Power or Priviledge giv'n to any then in Scotland yea so much our Author himself presently proves and overturns this his own Argument by citing another out of the Assembly July 1563 1568 he should have said viz. Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies They all voted and concluded as followeth viz. that if the Order already received pleases not by reason of the plurality of Voices it be reformed in this manner First that none have place to Vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks and Ministers brought with them presented as Persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge with the aforenamed shall be joined Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with Commissioners of Vniversities Secondly Ministers and Commissioners shall be Chosen at the Synodal-convention of the Diocess by the Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal-convention c. From this Act 't is clear that the former in 1562. has only been mention'd never concluded or at least cass'd and repeal'd by some intervenient Assembly otherways there had been no place or ground for the Act of 1568. which presupposes that ev'n these that were not at all thus Chosen at the Synod were free to come and Vote at the Assembly So far was this liberty from being put in the Superintendent or Commissioner's Power And indeed from this Act 't is most evident and 't is left on Record also by the Vindicatour of Philadelphus that before the time of this Act all Ministers who pleased were free to Vote at the Assemblies yet with our Author Petrie must be a mixer of lies for saying so much But Calderwood saith our Author leaves out intirely these words brought with them i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks presented as Persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge whereby the Power of Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of
Kirks is quite stiffled and the whole sense of the Act perverted For what sense is it I pray to say that the Ministers were Chosen by Consent of the rest of the Ministers when you tell not who was to choose or who they were to whose choice or nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that Consent But to stiffle the Power he pleads for to Superintendents was a Work impossible either to Calderwood or any man else the very Act it self most irrefragbly shewing they could have none save such as is in any meer Moderator of our Synods or Presbytries For be it which yet the Assembly expresses not that the Superintendents were to nominate Ministers for the Assembly yet they could do no more but only as the Synod by their Votes assented or choosed the nominated Persons whom if the Synod or its major part rejected these could not go to the Assembly yet some behov'd to go and consequently the Superintendent or Commissioner was to make a new Lite and name again and if these did not yet please another Lite and so on untill the Synod was satisfi'd and choosed some Persons or other according to their pleasure for the Assembly This much is undeniably contain'd in the Act and I 'm sure no Moderator of any Synod or Presbytry injoyes any less Power providing it deserve the name Seeing then Brought with them cannot possibly mean any peculiar Power I see not wherein Calderwood by ommitting them can be culpable Neither can he be accused of nonsense seing 't is sufficiently intelligible and plain how these Ministers and Commissioners could be chosen by the consent of the rest of his Brethren the Ministers and Gentle-men members of the Synod who by joynt and mutual consent chused them after the Superintendent or Commissioners nominating or liting which by a fraud too palpable he confounds with Election And here it 's observable in how much torment and perplexity this so clear an Act involves all of ' em Spotswood adduc'd it in his latine Pamphlet but is so soundly chastis'd by the Vindicator of Philadelphus that our Author finds not a syllable to say in his defence He pretends also to relate it in his History but with an essential Depravation for he leaves out these words Ministers and Commissirners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocy with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention For he saw it quite spoil'd his Cause and really left the Superintendent no Power but what was equally in any of the rest and foists into the Text these such Ministers as the Superintendents should chuse in their Diocesan Synods Neither can our Author be blameless in suppressing the following words Commissioners of Burghs shall be appointed by the Council and Kirk of their own Towns none shall be admitted without sufficient Commission in write And least this should turn to perpetual Election of a few and certain Persons it is concluded Ministers and other Commissioners be changed from Assembly to Assembly Whereby appears the Churches great care that neither Superintendent nor any other might have ought like an Episcopal Power and that all fit Persons might have equal priviledge of Voting at the Assemblies There yet remain many of his pretended Disparities but are no more significative of eminency or superiour Office no less communicable to the rest of the Ministers when Commissioners than were the former as will be evident to any who reads the Acts of the Assemblies among which he reckons the Superintendent 's modifying to Ministers their Stipends as if because Judas had the Bagg and bare what was put therein he had been Bishop over the rest of the Apostles In the mean while the Superintendents could do nothing of this but only as Moderator of the provincial Synod Another Deduction of no better metall is that the Laird of Dun Superintendent of Angus not as such but by vertue of a particular Commission giv'n by the Assembly to him and others join'd with him deposed a Regent of Aberdeen a place intirely without the bounds of his Superintendency therefore Superintendents as such had a Power Paramount and Episcopal And was not such an arguer a man of sense I pass the rest of his thirty Disparities not without admiration that such a fertile brain could not invent one other for one and thirty used to carry the Game Add to all this that tho' some that had been Popish Bishops in Scotland and imbrac'd the Gospel as Mr. Gordon of Galloway a man of no contemptible Gifts were by our Reformers allow'd without any new Admission to dispence the Word aud Sacraments yet they were never allow'd to exercise what they counted their Episcopal Function or looked on as Bishops of these Dioceses yea Mr. Gordon tho' he earnestly sought for it could never be admitted to Superintend in Galloway which is a clear Demonstration that our Reformers looked on the Episcopal preheminence as a meer Popish Corruption otherways why did not Mr. Gordon verbi causâ remain in the Power and Character he had enjoyed while Romanist It 's most clear also from all the accounts we have of the Tulchan Bishops that all men of all parties look'd on a Bishop as a thing altogether diverse from a Superintendent § 20. And now at length hear him yeelding the whole Plea There was saith he a Principle had then got too much footing among some Protestant Divines viz. That the best way to reform a Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in common with them but the essentials the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian Religion whatever was in its Nature indifferent and not positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as a Corruption as having been abused and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry This Principle John Knox was fond of and maintain'd zealously and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his influences In pursuance of this Principle therefore when they compil'd the first Book of Discipline they would not Reform the old Polity and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it keeping still by the main draughts and lineaments of it But they laid it quite aside and in stead thereof hammer'd out a new Scheme keeping at as great a distance from the old one as they could and as the essentials of Polity would allow them establishing no such thing however as Parity as I have fully proven And no wonder for as Imparity has obviously more of Order beauty and usefulness in its aspect so it had never so much as by dreaming entred their tboughts that it was a limb of Antichrist or a relict of Popery But was not Episcopacy in fashion in the Popish Churches And dare he yea or any mortal say that ever
Acts 20. Philip. 1. and the like Texts which we now use that Bishop Pastor and Presbyter are all one and the same and that in one Church there were at one time conjunctly many Bishops Of the same mind are all the Systematick Divines yea even Tilen himself while Orthodox We judge saith he not only with Hierome but also with Lombard Gratian Card. Cusan and others that the preferring one out of the Colledge of Pastors to the rest and giving him the name of Bishop was a humane Invention This Author indeed alter'd his mind concerning Church Government when he pelagianiz'd for then he turns altogether tho' to his cost a Hectorer of the Zelots of the Genevan Discipline Time would fail me in collecting Testimonies of this kind seeing there were ever few I may say none save a small handfull in Britain who have not asserted that during the Apostolick age there was no such thing as any distinction between Bishop and Pastor or preaching Presbyter and that among these there was an intire equality To these we may add the Testimonies of the most and famousest of the reformed Churches in their Confessions whereof we have seen not a few already while we related the Testimony of the Helvetian Confession together with the approbations thereof no less illustrious and pregnant is the Testimony of the French Consession We believe say they that all true Pastors where ever they be are endu'd with equal and the same power under that one Head Christ the Chief and Vniversal Bishop To the same purpose also speaks the Dutch Confession We believe say they that this true Church ought to be governed by that spiritual Policy so that there be in it Pastors or Ministers that may purely dispense the Word and Sacraments that there be also Elders and Deacons c. § 3. The harmonius and Catholick Testimony of all the reformed Churches are to some like pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides and therefore most various and hetrogeneous means are used to render it unserviceable And amongst other things we are told that many forraign Divines and Churches have a great likeing for their Diocesan Way and Zanchius say they counts all its Opposers Schismaticks But Maresius answers that Zanchius never allow'd of a Lord Bishop but only of such a one who is like a Rector of a Colledge whose Power I 'm sure is little or nothing above that of a Moderator Maresius adds that he can find in no place of Zanchius the words Prideaux had alledg'd And lastly as Maresius tells us Zanchius professes that he cannot but love the zeal of such as hate the names of Bishop and Arch-Bishop fearing least with these Names the ancient Ambition and Tyranny together with the destruction of the Churches should return Prideaux also alledges that Calvin writing to the King of Poland advises him to establish Bishops and Arch-bishops But has the same return from Maresius viz. that this is the Bishop's own Dream and that there is no such thing to be found in Calvin This dealing is not very laudable Neither are Means wanting to procure Advocats from Abroad one whereof brings many things either to defend or excuse the Hierarchy and to shew that it 's not ill link'd abroad and amongst other things saith that notwithstanding of what is in the Helvetian Confession its Authors condemn not the Liberty of other Churches as they manifest in their Preface protesting that in all this Confession they agreed with the Church of England But this Author cann't be ignorant that seeing according to that Confession Christ gave equal Power to all Pastors and according to what is alledg'd to be the Judgement of the present Church of England he did the quite contrary Their Preface can by no means prove that they allow of the Sentiments and Practice of the present English Church except he would have the Preface to contradict the Confession But all this he says is only to darken an evident Truth the meaning of the Preface being that between the Helvetians and the English there was no such fundamental Difference as prohibited mutual Charity one to another which many have given and may give to these who as they judge retain'd many Errors tho' not Fundamental The same Author objects that many Churches and amongst others that of the Helvetians have either Bishops over their Pastors or which is really the same Superintendents But to instance in the Helvetians they in their Confession saying that Christ gave a like Power to all Pastors c. and therefrom concluding that none may hinder to return to Christ's primitive Institution make most apparent that they intended no continuation of any Superiority amongst Pastors and consequently of no Bistops or their equivalent Superintendents but all this work he makes is dicis gratia for the fashion only for if in Helvetia or else where there be any umbrage of Bishops or Superintendents it 's really an Obtrusion and Erastian Usurpation and this we may learn from himself freely acknowledging that the chief legislative Power in the Church matters is in the hands of the supream Magistrat Otherways he confesses that the choisest of Writers and amongst others Hoornbeck make the Discipline of the Scots French Dutch and Helvetian Churches to be one and the same Moreover he sufficiently answers himself while he expresly grants that between the Superintendents or Bishops through Germany and these of England there is an infinit difference and that these in Germany have only a simple prerogative of Order but not at all of any Jurisdiction or any thing that can be properly term'd Power Thus he And I 'm sure that any Pâ—aeses of an Assembly hath no less Superiority than he here ascribes to these transmarine Superintendents or Bishops and indeed shortly to give an account of this Author besides as we have now seen he is oblig'd to pull back with the one hand what he had bestow'd on the Hierarchicks with the other his whole Discourse leans upon this Supposition that there is no certain Form of Church Government left by Christ in his Word on this depend his Glosses upon the passages we produced of the French and Dutch Confessions Vide inter alia part spec a pag. 171 ad pag. 189 where he all along presupposes and inculcats that tho' according to the Authors of the Confessions Christ gave equal Power c. to all Pastors yet in their Judgement if the Church will she may alter this kind of Government and change that Equality which Christ gave for an Inequality and give some Pastors a Power over the rest Which if it be not a Contradiction to these Confessions in stead of an Explication it looks as like it is one Crow can be like another For who can believe but that if the Authors of these Confessions had believ'd an indifferency of Equality or Inequality of Pastors they had either intimated
so much or been altogether silent thereof neither of which they did but gave to the World solemnly as the Confession of their Belief that Christ gave to to all Pastors equal and the same power and yet if we believe this Interpreter this that Christ gave may according to the Authors of that Confession be relinquish'd when Men will and Inequality it 's quite contrary introduced in the place thereof Is not this too like the dealing of the Romanists who when they are compell'd to acknowledge that the Apostles gave the Cup to the People yet pretend that they may deprive them of what Christ and his Apostles gave them Divers indeed have said that Church Government was among the Adiaphora and things indifferent But these were more wary then to say as he would have the Authors of these Confessions to say that Christ gave equal and the same Power to all Pastors yea such used not to grant that Christ gave either Equality or Inequality of Power but left all to the Churches management Moreover as he does us no dammage so I 'm sure he does the present Hierarchicks as little service for if this Hypothesis that no kind of Church Government is juris divini stand then the jus divinum of Episcopacy is lost and therefore I 'm sure they shall give him as little thanks as we 'T is also observable that when ever the Authors of these Confessions or other Divines of their Perswasion said that Communion with Churches of a different Government was not to be broken or any thing of that kind he presently inferrs that they judg'd any other form no less agreeable to the word of God than their own And here I cann't but take nottice of what I have met with somewhere in M. Claude's historical defence of the Reformation for at present I have not the book viz. that Diocesan Episcopacy is no less condemnable than Pilgrimages Purgatories or some such Romish dotages which he there names and how averse he was from Diocesan Episcopacy is observed by the Prefacer to the English Translation and yet if we believe some he gave large Testimonies of his great affection to the Diocesan cause And this brings to mind another Artifice for when any Protestant Divines considering the great Power of Popish Bishops and vehemently desiring Peace for the free Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel strain'd their Judgement and seem'd at any time to do or say somewhat that appear'd to comply with Episcopacy our Prelatists anone Infer that such Divines were great Lovers of their Hierarchy Thus for Example they abuse the Words and Actions of Melancton but they should remember that sometimes driving the same Design some of these Divines seem'd no less to comply with the Papacy it self as appear'd at the pressing of the Interim The same end drove Melancton when in a Conference at Ausburg as Osiander relates he seem'd to yeeld somewhat of Jurisdiction to Bishops for be hop'd that if Jurisdiction were granted them they would not so much oppose the Gospel But Philip consider'd not continues Osiander that the Fox may change his hair not his Temper Melancton granted also to the Pope provided he would admit the Gospel a superiority over other Bishops founded only on humane right and yeelded for procuring of the Peace of Christendom Thus Melancton through his extream desire of Peace forc'd his own Judgement for with Luther and the rest he subscribes the Smalkaldick Articles wherein as we have heard the Scriptural Idenity of Bishop and Presbyter is most clearly asserted But what ever they say to perswade us that these or other such Divines favour them we are little oblig'd to believe it for they believe it not themselves and these of our Adversaries that speak out their mind freely tell us that all the transmarine reformed Churches are really Presbyterian It were too much I 'm sure to transcribe what D. Heylin says of this for he freely grants it and then through a whole large Folio as such bespatters with the blackest of Railings and Calumnies every one of the reformed Churches in particular No less positive is Howell who makes Calvin the first Broacher of the Presbyterian Religion And a little after Thus saith he Geneva Lake swallowed up the Episcopal See and Church Lands were made secular which was the white they levell'd at This Geneva Bird flew thence io France and hatch'd the Huguenots which make about the tenth part of that People it took wing also to Bohemia and Germany high and loe as the Palatinate the land of Hesse and the confederat Provinces of the States of Holland Yea Bellarmine being to write against Presbytry lays down in the entry as undeniable that ' t is the common doctrine of both Calvinists and Lutherans § 5. To these may be added all such as were valiant for the truths of God and stoutly oppos'd themselves to Antichrist before Luther as the Waldenses and Albigenses of whom Alphonsus de Castro relates that they deny'd any difference between Bishop and Presbyter and herein differ'd nothing from Aërius This same may be learn'd from Thuan who compares them with the English Non-conformists So far from truth was D M. when he says that these only declaimed against the corrupt Manners of the Church of Rome but never declaim'd against the subordination of one Priest unto another This same doctrine held Wicklef and his followers denying that there is any difference between Bishop and Presbyter The Waldenses and Wicklef were in this as in the rest of their Articles follow'd by J. Huss and his Adherents who also asserted that there ought to be no difference between Bishop and Presbyter or among Priests Yea so Catholick and universall hath this doctrine of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter still been that it hath all along by the Romanists been justly reck'n'd a prime doctrine of Romes Opposers Nor shall yow readily find one before Luther for of such I now speak of Truth 's Witnesses who condemn'd not all distinction between Bishop and Presbyter § 6. And even in England it self after the Reformation the famousest Bishops and lights of that Church as Hooper Latimer and others could not without great difficulty and reluctancy admitt the exercing of the Episcopal Office the using of their Priestly vestments c to be in any sense lawfull so far were they from believing a Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy But as Voëtius observes the use of it was excus'd rather than defended The first or at least the Standard-bearer among the first that either in England or any where else in the reform'd World had the brow to assert its Divine Right appear'd in the latter part of Queen Elizabeths Reign neither was he a Native of Britain but a Flemming I mean Hadrian Saravia once a Pastor in the reform'd Netherlands but as Maresius witnesses reject'd by them as being an Enemy to both their Church and State Neither was
secular Clergy who were indeed become too secular and these were the Popes Agents and Emissaries who brought the World to receive the Mark of the Beast and wonder at her For before that time the Popes found more difficulty to carry on their Pretensions both from secular Princes and Bishops but these Regulars being warranted to Preach and Administer the Sacraments without the Bishops licence or being subject and accountable to him as they brought the Bishops under great contempt so they were the Popes chief Confidents in all their treasonable Plots against the Princes of Europe And when at the Council of Trent the Bishops of Spain being weary of the insolencies of the Regulars and of the Papal Yoke design'd to get free from it The great Mean they proposed was to get Episcopacy declared to be of Divine Right which would have struck out both the one and the other But the Papal Party fore-saw this well and opposed it with all the Artifice imaginable and Lainez the Jesuit did at large discourse against it and they carried it so that it was not permitted to be declared of Divine Right And by this judge if it be likely that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy The emptiness of which discourse is apparent For First The tendency and nature of Prelacy and the Topicks whereon they Found it aiming no less at one Head over all then at one Prelat over a few Churches make evident that he touches not the Argument in hand only giving out that some time by one accident or other the humbling and depression of the Prelats prov'd the Popes exaltation Secondly Strange I 'm sure and most demonstrative must the Reasons be that make null clear Matters of Fact or perswade Men that such things have never been and 't is undeniable that the Councils and other Caballs which from time to time rais'd the Pope gradually to his present hight were all consisting of or manag'd by Bishops and if any hapen'd to spurn at his rising the Pope got still far more then a plurality to crush them and indeed 't was impossible the Pope should have risen by any other means the whole sway of Church Affairs and guidance thereof being then in the hands of Bishops wherefore if the Pope was rais'd to despotick Soveraignity whereby he might absolutely dispense of Church Affairs and trample at pleasure on the fairest mitres they only are to be blamed having themselves advanc'd him to this transcendental Preheminency Thirdly Neither are the Bishops less guilty of this the Popes exaltation upon the account of their profound sloth and negligence the Author well observes that they were become too secular and indeed they were so immers'd in Luxury and Ambition that providing they might wallow in their Lusts and obtain from the Pope a Domination over other Churches they little valued any thing else Fourthly But 't is yet more admirable how he can alledge that the Regulars brought the World to receive the Mark of the Beast as if the Bishops for this he must intimat or he says nothing had been innocent he 's too learn'd not to know that gross Papal Darkness had over-spread the World ere ever any such Exemptions were giv'n or the Regulars distinguished from Seculars 'T is true indeed that the swarms of Friers were amongst the most pestiferous Locusts the World hath been pestered withall but to lay all or the greatest share of this Guilt of exalting the Pope on their shoulders is a shrewd evidence of partiality nothing being more notour then that as the Bishops were the main Assistants and Supporters in every Innovation he decreed so they with the greatest care rigour and fury press'd them on both Clergy and People Fifthly That the wicked fraternities in the several Orders of Regulars were the Popes Agents in contriving and sometimes effecting the ruine of Kings and Princes is but too well known and evident enough yet that the Prelats were no less guilty and far more efficacious herein is no less deniable Were there no Bishops supporting the Pope in his War against the Emperour Barbarossa Did not a crew of the same Cattel join him in Dethroning Henry the IV And at a word where did ever the Pope make his impresses but he was strengthn'd by their arm and support Sixthly But tho' Episcopacy at the Council of Trent had been declar'd of Divine Right what great relief had this been either from the Papal Yoak or insolencies of the Regulars it might perhaps for the time have procur'd some more Honour to the Bishops for the Pope's Italians of other Orders but might not the Pope notwithstanding by his boundless Authority and Supremacy he pretends over all Bishops have continued to gall and oppress their Order and also send especially where the negligence of Prelats invited him his Missionaries through the World yea thus the Pope's power paramount had not once been touch'd at that Council or hurt by such a Declaration Was his infallibility ever there question'd by the Bishops Did they at all endeavour the removal of the unsupportable Burdens and Slavery the Church groan'd under And should it not have been a great benefite to the Church or diminishing the Pope's power tho' his Holiness had pleased to declare the Divine Right of their Office Seventhly But whatever it was the Bishops aim'd at in the Council of Trent I 'm not much concern'd only I would gladly know how from this their Action it follows that Bishops had never been the Men or Episcopacy one of the means whereby the Papacy had been brought into the World which is the Author's Inference and is just as one should reason thus some of Alexander's Macedonian Souldiers vex'd with his tyranny and insolence and his preferring of Strangers attempted his down-throw the like may be said of some of the Souldiers of Julius Caesar Galba Didius Julianus Maximinus and others therefore they had not contributed to the raising and absolute Supremacy of these Princes And should not such an one be reckon'd an admirable Logician And yet this Inference should be far more pardonable than the former in so much as the thing the Bishops aim'd at against the Papacy if it can be call'd any thing came infinitely short of what these Conspirators attempted upon the powers they deem'd unsupportable And by this judge if the most earnest efforts of their chiefest Authors make it in the least improbable that the Papacy owes its rise to Episcopacy and if such pitifull paralogisms proclaim not that they can really find nothing wherewith to cover Prelacy from the heavy but just imputation of being the certain introductive of Popery § 6. This odd reasoning of the Doctor minds me of another of his of his Essayes or Retorsions which is of Kin to this Argumentation May not one saith he that quarrells a standing Ministry argue on the same Grounds a Ministers Authority over the People gave the rise to the Authority Bishops pretend over Ministers and so the Minister will
all the esteem their alone § 2. Doctor Field tells us That these were not Lay-Elders Neither as they themselves well know do we so term them but did as the Ancients reckon them among the Ecclesiasticks And we assert that these very Lay-Elders as he calls them are understood by Hilary For first this Practice of the Christian Church is by Hilary deduced from the Synagogue wherein there were Elders distinct from the Doctors or Pastors Secondly He attributes to the Elders as their Office only the Power of Consulting and Deciding as being Assessors to the Doctors in the management of Church-Affairs without intimating ought of their Power to dispense the Word and Sacraments Thirdly He expresly distinguishes them from all Doctors or Teachers of the Church and therefore excludes them from all Power of Preaching or Administration of the Sacraments But Doctor Field saith that Ambrose by the name of Teachers whose sloth and pride he condemneth in this place might fitly understand the Bishop seeing none but Bishops have Power to preach in their own Right and others but only by Permission from them But this Answer supposes that the time was when Bishop Teacher and Doctor were reciprocal Terms and that whoever had the Charge of never so small a Flock was the Bishop thereof for who can believe that ever any receiv'd the Charge of a Flock to whom he was only to preach and dispense the Sacraments as a Journey-man to another Lastly When Hilary speaks in the preterit Tense that the Church had such tells that their Office consisted in being Assessors to the Teachers and says that the use of these was laid aside he clearly intimats that the Elders he speaks of were well nigh abolished and then scarce in Being Which by no means can be said of the preaching Presbyters For let Bishops be not only as proud as Dr. Field would have them but even as Lucifer himself yet most certain it is that long after Hilarie's time the Bishops in all weighty Affairs used at least to consult the Presbyters and that both then and still afterward preaching Presbyters were existent But herein I will not inlarge See their Glosses of both Scriptures Fathers whereby we vouch this Matter removed to name no others by Didoclavius to which I find nothing replyed This clear Proof that there were in the primitive Church other Elders distinct from those preaching Presbyters who in the time of the Apostles not much distant from that of Ignatius were dignifi'd with the name of Bishop furnisheth us with an Answer sufficient alone to solve whatsoever they can deduce from these Epistles Their only Argument is that Ignatius distinguishes between Bishop and Presbyter why then by Bishop may we not understand a Pastor of one Congregation and under the name of Presbyter a Ruling Elder They can only repone that Ignatius mentions but one Bishop of any City he wrote to which yet required more than one Pastor But one Man may be called the Bishop or Pastor of such a place altho' he be placed in a Colledge where a Plurality equally participats of the pastoral Charge and Honour and that this Answer may please them the better I shall give them Ignatius for my Patron herein who writing to the Romans expresly termeth himself Bishop of Syria to whose Charge even our Adversaries being Judges Antioch only one City thereof was committed 'T is moreover certain and granted by our Adversaries that there was even in one City frequently a Plurality of Bishops But tho' 't were yeelded that neither Scripture nor Antiquity favour these Ruling Elders and therefore that these Ignatian Presbyters must be something else we are yet where we were § 3. Our inquiry is after a Diocesan Bishop we 're sent to Ignatius to find him but all after the strickest search we meet with is only a Bishop or Pastor of one single Congregation as these ensuing Places proclaim Let none saith he do any of these things that ought to be practised in the Church without the Bishop let that Worship be counted Lawfull that is performed by him or which he at least has permitted wheresoever the Bishop is there let also the Multitude be present even as where Christ is there is also the Church it is not lawfull either to Baptize or Celebrate the Lord's Supper without the Bishop but whatsoever he alloweth that is acceptahle to God that whatsoever is done may be established From which Passage it 's evident that Ignatius supposes and allowes one of these Bishops to each particular Flock or Congregation without whose Presence the Word and Sacraments were not to be dispensed and altho' he adds that in some Case his Allowance or Approbation did warrant the practising thereof yet I 'm sure none can Infer any thing therefrom except that at some rare times when the Bishop happen'd to be absent from his particular Flock which uses to fall out to every particular Pastor another approved by him might untill his return to his Congregation discharge his Office And again Let there be saith he frequent Gatherings of your selves together or Congregations Inquire thou speaking to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna or seek after every Man by his Name neglect neither servants nor hand-maids From whence it 's clear that this Ignatian Bâ—shop was particularly to be acquainted with and have particular Inspection of every one who was under his Charge which I'm sure cannot be easily performed by a Diocesan Bishop but is proper only to a Pastor of a particular Congregation or who can forbear to conclude as much from another Passage of the same Author where he saith Whosoever is not within the Altar is deprived of the Bread of God for if the Prayers of one or two have so much efficacy of how much weight must these be that are put up by the Bishop and the whole Church Sure I am the genius and ayr of this Passage proclaims Ignatius speaking of such a Bishop or Pastor as is under a Tye reciprocal between him and one particular Flock or Congregation And again In obedience to the Bishop break-Bread which is the Medicine of Immortality Neither is he a greater Friend to Diocesan Prelacy while he admonisheth the Church of Philadelphia in these words Children of the Light and of the Truth fly Divisions and Corrupt Doctrines and wherever the Pastor viz. the Bishop is thither you as Sheep follow him And again One Flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ and one Cup in the Vnion of his Blood one Altar and one Bishop Add to all this that Ignatius every where in these Epistles speaks to and of the Bishop as a correlative of and with respect unto the People or Flock and not Presbyters or inferiour Pastors as the proper Object of his Episcopal Office Seeing then all the Pastors of any Church he writes to might equally be term'd Bishop or Pastor of such a place seeing whatsoever he saith to or of Bishops hath
a particular reference to the Flock or People and seeing finally so many things spoken by Ignatius of these Bishops can agree only to Congregational Pastors I conclude that by these Ignatian Bishops not Diocesan Prelats but Pastors of particular Flocks not only may but of necessity must be understood And it 's further observable that Preaching Visiting of particular Persons and the rest of the Pastoral Work is either injoin'd unto or clearly intimated to belong to the Bishop only but nothing to the Presbyters save sitting in Council with him Now if our Opposites insist on their contrary Argument from the largeness of the Cities and from this that Ignatius still speaks but of one Bishop therein and hence conclude that he must be Diocesan the result of all must be a sharper Conflict between Ignatius and himself and so a fuller proof of the spuriousness of these Epistles it being evident from what is adduc'd that this Bishop was only a Pastor of a single Congregation yea so evident that it hath puzl'd the learn'dest of our Opposites § 4. Of this mind is Joseph Mede For speaking of these Ignatian Epistles It should seem saith he that in these first times before Dioceses were divided into those lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithfull united under one Bishop or Pastor and that was in the City and Place where the Bishop had his See and Residence like as the Jews had but one Altar and one Temple for the whole Nation united under one High-Priest And yet as the Jews had their Synagogues so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one tho' their Altar were but one there namely where the Bishop was On Sunday saith Justin Martyr all that live in Towns or in the Country meet together in one Place namely as he there tells us to celebrate and participate the Holy Eucharist Why was this but because they had not many places to celebrate in And unless this were so whence came it else that a schismatical Bishop was said to set up another Altar and that a Bishop and an Altar are made Correlatives See St. Cyprian Ep. 40. 72. 73. Et de unitate Ecclesiae And thus perhaps is Ignatius also to be understood in that forequoted Passage of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Where 't is clear that Mr. Mede well perceived the thing we now plead for in Ignatius viz. that this Bishop was only the Pastor of a single Flock Indeed fear to offend his Friends or something else made him say so little as he could and something that he ought not to have said while he would parallel this Altar with that of the Jews yet he 's express enough that all subject to the Bishop met in one place for Participation of the Sacraments and consequently for hearing of the Word and moreover really acknowledgeth that Dioceses then were only what Parishes are now and if so tho' they had other Oratories 't is nothing to the purpose of our Opposits which yet his perhaps proves him afraid to assert For he knew well enough that seeing as he grants all under his Charge took their Communion with the Bishop at his Church which as every one knows was then Celebrated at least every Lord's day any other Oratories for publick Worship had been altogether unnecessary with which superfluities the Church in these early and tempestuous days was not at all acquainted In vain therefore Dr. Maurice that he may at once abuse both Mede and Ignatius tells us that Altar in the primitive sense signified not only the Communion Table but the whole Place where the Chair of the Bishop and the Seats of the Presbyters were placed and in this sense there was but one Altar in one Diocess as there is now but one Consistory as is clear from Ignatius and Usher And to be in one Altar which is Ignatius his Phrase is only to be in Communion with the Bishop And this Dr. Maurice would have to be Mede's meaning thereof But the falshood of this is not only evident from Ignatius who all along as we have seen reciprocats his Bishop with the Pastor of a particular Flock but also from Mede's express words as we have already observed from them I pass as scarce good sense Dr. Maurice his saying that Altar not only signified the Communion Table but the whole place of the Bishop's Chair c. The Dispute not being what place or thing in a Church Altar signifi'd but if thereby in Ignatius one or more places for publick Worship be meaned yea this my sense of Ignatius Doctor Wake seems to grant while he says speaking of these Ignatian times that none officiated but either the Bishop himself or he who was appointed or allow'd by him and that they had in every such Place of their Assembling one Table or Altar at which they performed this Service We have heard already Mede rightly observing out of Ignatius that the Altar or Communion Table was only at the Bishop's Residence and where he officiated And we see from Dr. Wake that in every place of solemn Worship they had an Altar or Communion Table The Conclusion then is which we also already heard Mede acknowledging that there were then no fewer Bishops than Places of publick Worship which is the Truth and what we conclude from Ignatius And to these add the words of one who is neither unskillfull in these Matters nor yet Partial in favours of Presbytry In the beginning saith he the Bishops whole Charge was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the strain of Ignatius his Epistles especially that to Smyrna it would appear that there was but one Church at least but one Place where there was one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes for he saith there was one Bishop one Church and one Altar And now judge of the symphony of this Assertion with the Principles of the Author or how he could averr that if these Epistles be Genuine the Cause of Presbytry will be undone But of all things most strange and unaccountable is Dr. Pearson's Conduct in the Dispute who with indefatigable pains and vast learning wrote his Defence of Ignatius to the end as he pretends he might well nigh infallibly establish a Diocesan Bishop and yet has proved so far from hitting the white at which he ultimately levell'd that on supposition of the sufficiency of his Vindiciae he most sufficiently demonstrats the Identity of Bishop and parochial Pastor during the time of Ignatius and thus inavoidably ruines what he most earnestly intended to repair And now behold the vast Fabrick and Engine wherewith they threaten the utter Ruine of Presbytry turning upon and shattering to pieces their Dio cesan Hierarchy Nec enim Lex justior ulla Quam necis Artifices
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
some whole Peoples readily imbraced the Christian Religion Behold Reader how plainly and fully Eusebius relates the thing we plead for viz. that those Officers were altogether extraordinary unfixed and temporary § 5. Wretch'dly therefore does D. M. castrat this full and plain discourse while he only says that an Evangelist in the Notion of Eusebius was a Person that preached the Gospel to those that had not heard of it or resisted it and thus dissembles the whole matter in question which Eusebius clearly determines And according to this Relation of Eusebius 2 Timothy 4. 5. he is enjoined to do the Work of an Evangelist and never made a long stay at one place for even after the time of his pretended Ordination to the Bishoprick we find him not rarely with the Apostle Paul as his Attendant or Fellow Labourer which not only his joint Superscriptions to the second Epistle to the Corinthians and these to the Philippians Colossians both his Epistles to the Thessalonians and to Philemon but also the long Journeys and Peregrinations wherein we find Timothy still imployed irrefragably make manifest for after he is supposed to have been Bishop of Ephesus he was accompanying Paul in his Voyages Acts 20. 4. and was with him Prisoner at Rome as is probable from Philippians 1. and 1. Heb. 13. 23. as also frequently imployed in long Voyages to several Churches and that in Businesses which could not be expeded in a day as is evident 1 Cor. 4. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 10. Philip. 2. 19. Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 21. So that if he was Bishop of Ephesus he will prove a sufficient Patern for non-residence Most of which things may be supposed of Titus whose frequent long Journeys are mentioned by the same Apostle Yea they have just as good ground in 2 Tim. 4. 10. to fix Titus his Episcopal Chair in Dalmatia which was the Fancy of Aquinas and others as they can ever shew for their dream of its being among the Cretians And indeed the very Phrase from which they gather the Prelacy of Titus as we have already observed of Timothy gives real ground to conclude the contrary For this Cause saith he I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in Order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders From which place any ingenuous Man shall be compell'd to inferr that Titus was only left there to supply some present want and to return again much rather than that he was the fixed Arch-Bishop of Crete § 6. It 's amazing then that in defiance of so clear Antiquity yea and so clear and full Scripture evidence some dare to transform Timothy and Titus unto ordinary and fixed Officers why they see that among the ordinary and fixed Church-Officers they cannot find what they covet the Scriptures making Bishop Pastor and Presbyter one and the same but yeelding no place to their Diocesan Bishop a Lord and Ruler over other Bishops or Pastors They are compell'd therefore in imitation of the Romanists who degrade the Apostle to find the Bishop of Rome and Antioch just so to handle the Evangelists that Peter be not alone but may find other degraded Companions if he shall by chance in his Journey from one of his Sees to another visit Crete or Ephesus § 7. But more strange is that most precarious Assertion of D. M. that Philip the Evangelist had no Power of Ordination But it 's yet more admirable how to establish Timothy a Bishop he can adduce the eleventh Act of the Council of Chalcedon surely had he read the learned Stillingfleet who hath for ever baffl'd them in this their Allegation he had blush'd at the very mentioning thereof And we learn from Hierome that Titus after he had given some Instruction to the Churches of Cret◠was to return again to the Apostles and to be succeeded by Artemas or Tychicus for comforting of these Churches in the absence of the Apostle Judge Reader if Hierome thought Titus was fix'd Arch-Bishop of Crete It 's questionable saith Chrysostome if the Apostle had then constituted Timothy Bishop there for he saith that thou might'st charge some that they teach no other Doctrine Thus he without a word more for solution of this his Doubt Judge therefore if from the very Scripture whereon alone they would found Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus he really concludes not the quite contrary Doctrine It 's doubtfull saith a most earnest Prelatist Salmeron the Jesuit if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus for altho' he preach'd and ordain'd some to the Ministry there it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place for Paul preach'd also there above two years and absolv'd the Penitents and yet he was no Bishop Add that now and then the Apostle call'd him away unto himself and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his Epistle And in the second Epistle he commands him to come to him shortly Timothy was also an Evangelist of that Order Eph. 4. He gave some Apostles c. So that Dorotheus says in his Synopsis that Timothy preach'd through all Grecee but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop but that in the constitute Church of Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles c. It appears therefore that he was more than a Bishop altho' for a time he preached in that City as a Pastor and ordain'd some to the Ministry Hence it is that some call him Bishop of Ephesus And to conclude this matter the celebrated Stilling fleet ingenuously grants that Timothy and Titus were no fixed Bishops or Pastors but Evangelists notwithstanding saith he all the opposition made against it as will appear to any who will take an impartial survey of the Arguments on both sides § 8. As for the Apocalyptick Angels tho' with Beza we should affirm that by one of 'em one single Moderator is mean'd we yeeld them nothing but e contra cut the sinews of their Argument With this D. M. ingages not only he calls the Alterableness of the Moderator which Beza holds as defensible ridiculous which is said without proof and tho' it were so touches not the marrow of our Answer But they shall find their Foundation yet weaker for such a structure so soon as they shall with attention read over the contexts of the place now in Controversie The seven Stars which are the seven Angels are said to be held in God's right hand whereby without peradventure is signified the great care our Lord had of the Pastors of these Flocks in order to the promoting of the great Gospel-Design the gaining of Souls to himself But Bishops I mean Diocesans as such and distinct from other Pastors are not at all Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments by whom mostly this Gospel-design is effected Moreover how few should they be to whom this care was extended and how small comfort should the bulk of the Labourers in the Word and Doctrine be able to reap from the
And The Apostles retain'd the Phraseology of the Jews who spoke of Priests and Levites as two distinct Orders without mentioning the High Priest And When the Ancients Dichotomiz'd the Clergy they in other places plainly reckon up three distinct Orders of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon But is there never in all the Scriptures any Title Distinction or Marks of Eminence giv'n to one Priest which were not communicable to all of ' em Got ever all of 'em promiscuously the Title of High Priest or such distinctive Appellations Did the Apostles so retian the Phraseology of the Jews as that they sometimes make a Bipartite and sometimes a Tripartite Division of ordinary Church-Officers and give to any one ordinary Pastor sometimes at least a distinguishing Title and Marks of Eminence which are at no time communicable to all ordinary Pastors promiscuously As to the Ancients their sometimes Dichotomizing sometimes Trichotomizing the Clergy it 's most certain that in their Dichotomies they ey'd the prime primitive Church and in their Trichotomies their own times But Christ saith D. M. is call'd an Apostle a Bishop the Apostles Presbyters and Deacons But was Christ so call'd an Apostle that he had no other peculiar titles or marks of Eminence or that on the other hand the name Christ was giv'n promiscuously to all Apostles or ever giv'n to any of ' em Lastly was the Apellation of Apostle equally communicable to all Presbyters or ordinary Pastors as to the twelve and some few else extraordinary Officers All which he must swallow else he gives no relief to his Friend Bellarmine We Argue that seeing to no ordinary Pastor is giv'n any peculiar Appellation Character or Description but what is equally common to all there must be an Equality and Parity amongst all of 'em and this they can never get over Moreover among the Evangelists yea and among the Apostles Officers superior to ordinary Pastors the reformed Churches being Judges there was a compleat Parity as was also among the Deacons their Inferiours notwithstanding of all which the Hierarchicks must plead for certain Stories of Preheminence among the ordinary Pastors in favours whereof ne gry quidem they can bring from the Word of God the only Rule of Faith and Doctrine § 6. Add hereto Tit. chap. 1. where we not only find the Apostle using indifferently and promiscuously the two words Bishop and Elder but also he alledgeth the necessity of fit Qualifications in the one to prove that the same are required in the other the Presbyters that were to be Ordain'd must be blameless c. because a Bishop must be so wherein either we have an ocular Demonstration of the Identity of these two Officers or else which I abhorr to think the Apostles reasoning is more pitifull than the most equivocant Paralogism their being not so much as a nominal Connexion betwixt the Antecedent and Consequent and no less ridiculous than if one should reason that every Captain of a single Company must be able to guide and manage a whole Army because such Qualifications are required in a General Now seeing these Scriptures already vindicated to name no others evidently declare that there was no such thing as a Diocesan Bishop that there 's a compleat Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter and consequently a Parity of all ordinary Pastors they of necessity condemn the Hierarchick and Diocesan Imparity for I 'm perswaded these who alledge that they find in Scripture a Distinction between these Offices will judge that they may with reason enough conclude the Divine Right of Episcopacy Hence judge of D. M's fifth Query where and in what places of Scripture the superiority and jurisdiction of one Priest above another is forbidden And if it be not plainly forbidden then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Presbytry such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government is groundless and Chimerical From all which I conclude that if the Ignatian Bishop and Presbyter most be understood in the Notion of our Adversaries he then quite crosses the Apostles so his Doctrine is stark nought or which is a far more charitable Sentiment his Epistles have suffer'd no small interpolation Section VII The grand Objection taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients remov'd BUT the Fathers as our Adversaries pretend glossing on these Texts went quite cross to our Doctrine To the Bishops and Deacons saith Chrysostome What means that What was there a Plurality of Bishops in one City Not at all for at that time the Name was yet common so that a Bishop was also nam'd a Deacon that is a Servant And adds that both Timothy and Titus were Bishops Of the same mind say they were Hilary Epiphanius Theodoret OEcumenius and others which harmonius Consent of Ancients cann't but be the true meaning of the places in Controversie But as these and such Fathers confess and their Works proclaim they were like others subject to humane Weakness and Corruption fell into compliance with the growing Errors into immoderat heat prevarication and self-repugnancy and negligence to search for the Scriptures their meaning How loudly sounded the debate concerning rebaptizing between Stephen and Cyprian which â—ore almost the whole body of Christians into a pair of Factions With what heat was it prosecuted And which is most lamentable how pitifully was the truth on both hands deserted For altho' it be commonly believ'd that Stephen only held the truth and Cyprian and his fail'd yet Stephen and the Romans did no less betray it On the other extream while they asserted the sufficiency of Baptism altho' administred by the grossest Hereticks and capital Enemies of the Fundamentals of Christianity How great both before and after that time were the Contests about Easter How scandalous were the Contests between Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theophilus and between Hierome and Ruffine Not to name others in all which it is apparent how little they believed one another and how much many of 'em prevaricated in favours of their particular Fancies § 2. But their Contradictions to one another are less to be admired when we clearly perceive that one and the self same Author either out of negligence or some other weakness hath given us quite contrary Doctrines Justine Martyr which Sculteâ— observes in one place ascribes the whole Work of Regeneration to free Grace and in another destroyes what he had builded and places free Will in the room thereof And Clemens Alexandrinus as the same Scultet observes following Justine Martyr delivers the like inconsistencies about the same Theme he sometimes ascribes our Salvation wholly to Faith and again tells us that we may purchase it with the Treasure of our Works § 3. Of the same kind are their polemick Discourses wherein their study was much more directed to bespatte their Antagonists and alure the vulgar Auditor than solidly to support the Truth I shall never believe that Optatus believed himself when he maintain'd that all
hatefull Hypothesis of some giddy Papaturiants which as we have heard even the more candide of the Episcopalls disclaim and explode I shall shut up all concerning Clement with the Suffrages of two illustrious Names neither whereof I 'm sure did ever favour Presbytry I mean Grotius and Stillingfleet Had Episcopacy saith the Doctor been instituted on the occasion of the Schism at Corinth certainly of all places we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it and yet almost of all places these Heralds that derive the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles times are the most plunged whom to six on at Corinth And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them about another Schism as great as the former which certainly had not been according to their Opinion if a Bishop had been there before must have better Eyes and Judgement than the deservedly admired Grotius who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as an Argument of the undoubted Antiquity of that Epistle quod nusquam meminit exsortis c. that Clement no where mentions that singular Authority of Bishops which by Church custome after the Death of Mark at Alexandria and by its Example in other places began to be introduced but Clemens clearly shews as did the Apostle Paul that then by the common Council of the Presbyters who both by Paul and Clement are called Bishops the Churches were governed § 4. I proceed next to the Vindication of Polycarp Subject your selves saith he to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and as Virgins walk with a pure Conscience let the Presbyters be simple or innocent mercifull in all things turning all Men from their Errors visiting all who are weak not neglecting Widows Orphans and those that are Poor but alwayes providing such things as are good in the sight of God and Men. Here we learn that the highest Office then in the Church of Philippi was that of a Presbyter and that there was a Plurality to whom the Philippians were to be subjected without the least mention of a particular Bishop governing those Presbyters And which deserves no overly Consideration we here see that as when Clement gives an account of Church Orders he named two only so we have the same number expressed by Polycarp but they altered their Denomination of the former Order and they whom Clement calls sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters Polycarp calls still Presbyters It 's most observable also how both Paul and Polycarp subject the Church of one single City Philippi to a Plurality or Multitude of Pastors whom Paul calls Bishops and Polycarp Presbyters From all which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter most inevitably results § 5. And indeed this Passage of Polycarp so much gravells the Hierarchicks that Dr. Pearson is driven to his last Leggs and compelled to present us with a shift unworthy of its Author Who can prove saith he that the Bishop of Philippi was then alive who can shew us that the Philippians asked not Counsel at Polycarp for this cause that they then enjoyed not a Bishop for thus Polycarp bespeaks them These things Brethren I write not of my self to you concerning righteousness but you have moved me thereunto Thus Pearson and indeed it 's enough here to return the Question inverted who is able to prove if there had been a Bishop in Philippi that he was not alive For seeing he affirms it he or his Advocats are obliged to instruct what they say That which he pretends to from these words of the Epistle wherein Polycarp saith he was moved thereto by the Philippians themselves affords him not the least support there not being therein one syllable concerning the vacancy of the Bishops Seat or the Church Government during this Defect or how to fill the Chair Of all or any of these nec vol◠nec vestigium but only as is evident from Polycarp they seem to have desir'd of him some Direction concerning the blameless walk of any Christian. And indeed the Bishop within a very few lines fairly yeelds the Cause really acknowledging that he had said nothing to the purpose But seeing saith he these things are uncertain we have no certainty from the Discourse of Polycarp Well then it must follow for ought he knew that Polycarp knew no Diocesan Bishop in Philippi that he had never heard of his Death seeing nothing hereof can be gathered from him And that he had never heard of his Life or Being we may well conclude from this that he devolves the whole Church-Affairs upon a Plurality of Presbyters But once again Is it at all credible but that if Polycarp had written to the Philippians after the death of their Bishop and during the vacancy of the Chair he had comforted them after this so considerable a Loss and giv'n them Directions for chusing of a worthy Successor especially if as Pearson would have they had ask'd his counsell concerning this very Matter Had ever a Pastor like Polycarp neglected so seasonable an Office His profound silence therefore of the Death of any such Bishop in Philippi sufficiently demonstrats that this Dr. Pearson's Invention was only the product of a desperate Cause and that there was left here no doore of Escape And here let me observe that Philippi is no less fatal to the Episcopals than its neighbouring plains were to the Pompeians for they are stung and confounded with the very first words of Paul to that Church and as we have heard amongst their other wild shifts they answer that the Bishop was often absent But there was a good number of years between the writing of Paul and that of Polycarp to the Philippians and yet we see the Bishop is never come home Why taryeth the wheel of his Lordship's Chariot Hath he not sped at Court And having supplanted some of the Nobility made a prey of the Office of Chancellour or Treasourer that after so long absence there is no news of his return Nor are we ever like to hear any more of him for now say they he 's dead I had perhaps believ'd them were 't not impossible for one to die who was never alive But enough of this for such Answers would really tempt one to think that their Authors studi'd nothing more than to ridicule their oun Cause and afford Game to their Reader § 6. And here I cann't but nottice the ill-grounded vapouring of D. M. who from the inscription of the Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him concludes that he was vested with Episcopal jurisdiction and eminency amongst these Presbyters And so much he pretends to bring out of Blondel as as his forc'd Confession which is so far from being true that it 's brought in by Blondel as an Objection and silly Conjecture of the Episcopals which he diverse ways overthrows And indeed never was there a more wretch'd deduction fram'd
observed how Hilary makes the Bishop a sedulous Dispenser of the Words of suture Life And indeed all the Hierarchick Grandeur and Domination whereby a Bishop was intirely Metamorphosed into a quite other thing than what he had once been could never notwithstanding obliterate and blot out of thinking Mens Minds the true Scriptural Notion and Idea thereof The Episcopal Dignity consists in Teaching saith Balsamon And the fourth Council of Carthage decrees that a Bishop shall not be imployed in caring for his houshold Affairs but shall wholly occupy himself in Reading and Praying aud Preaching the Word § 12. 'T were endless to alledge all that may be produc'd to this purpose neither could any Man who ever seriously read the Bible have any other Notion of a true Bishop than what is common to every Pastor of a Congregation seeing the Apostle's Description of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. agrees equally to all of them And here it 's observable that still where Bishops are spoken of in Scripture not only is the Work and Office which is injoin'd them that of Teaching and Feeding but also the Name is correlative to the Flock and not to a Company of Clergy-men as Acts 20. 28. Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed the Church of God 1 Pet. 5. 2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or Bishoping it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly as we have oftner than once demonstrated over every particular Congregation there was a Bishop This Assertion may be strongly confirmed from the undoubted Practice of the Church in the fourth Century even when she was fall'n into no small Declension from the Primitive Purity For the Council of Sardica Decrees that a Bishop may not be placed in a Village or small Town where one Presbyter may suffice Dr. Maurice says that this Canon is justified by the Arrians their great multiplication of Bishops to strengthen their Party But the Council it self assigns a quite different Ground that moved them to make this Decree viz. that the Name and Authority of a Bishop fall not into Contempt Where we see the Design of abolishing the Primitive and Apostolick Custome of giving a Bishop indifferently to every Congregation whether in City or in Countrey was the Introduction of a secular Pomp and Grandeur into the Church which finally resolv'd into a Papal Slavery However this Sardican Canon had not so good effect but that about twenty years after a new Sanction thereto was found needfull for the Council of Laodicea Decrees that it shall not be lawfull to place Bishops in little Villages or Countrey Places but only Visitors and that the Bishops who were already placed in these little Villages and Countrey Places should for the future do nothing without the knowledge of the Bishop of the City Mark how a pace the mild and fraternal Church Regimen is turn'd into a Worldly Domination and Dignity to pave the way for a papal Tyranny These rural Bishops or Countrey-parish Pastors for they can be call'd nothing else whom Dr. Beverige acknowledges for real and true Bishops were also assaulted and the subjecting and inslaving of them to the Prelates and Clergy in the greater Cities design'd by other Councils as that of Ancyrum and of Neocesaria and of Antioch there they are called Chorepiscopi i. e. Countrey Bishops And it has been disputed if these were real true Bishops But the same Dr. Beverige not only yeelds but at large pleads for the Affirmative He pretends in the mean while that anciently Bishops were ordained in Cities only many whereof had according to the model of the Empire such ample Territories that 't was impossible for the Bishop of the City his alone to visit and sufficiently to guide them and so it seem'd needfull for such Bishops to have according to the amplitude of their Bishopricks one or two Coajutors in some Region without the City who might disburden them of some parts of the Episcopal Function which could not be done but by some consecrated Bishops Hence 't was that some of these great Bishops Ordain'd in some part of their large Provinces these Bishops but with this provision that these without their leave should do nothing of moment seeing these Regions also belonged to the Care of the City Bishop which we learn continues he from the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch where it 's expresly Decreed that no Country Bishop Ordain Presbyter or Deacon without the Bishop of the City to which he and his Region is subject But indeed there 's no such thing to be learn'd from that Canon it only says that the Chorepiscopus and his Region was subject to the City as they really were in a Civil Sense not to the Bishop of the City and tho they had said so it 's no proof of his Conclusion seeing they usually pretended Antiquity for the greatest Innovations How far either in or nigh to the Time of the Apostles the Church was from giving to the Bishop such a Princely Dignity as he pretends or from allowing him to do the Work proper to himself by substitute Vassals none acquainted with what remains of these Ancient times can be ignorant and is already oftner then once evinc'd And now I 'm sorry to find a Protestant of sence and Learning lean on that shamefull and most exploded Falshood viz. that the Apostles took the Government of the Empire for their Pattern of Church-Government and darring to publish such gross Falshoods whereof even the more ingenuous Romanists are ashamed The Ecclesiastical Degrees saith Suave were not Originally Instituted as Dignities Preheminencies Rewards or Honours as now they are and have been many hundred years but with Ministery and Charges otherwise called by St. Paul Works and those that exercise them are called by Christ our Lord in the Gospel Workmen and therefore no Man could then enter into cogitation to absent himself from the Execution thereof in his own Person and if any one which seldom happend retired from the Work 't was not thought reasonable he should have either Title or Profit And tho' the Ministeries were of two sorts some Anciently called as now they are with care of Souls others of temporal things for the sustenance and service of the Poor and Sick as were the Deaconries and other inferiour Works all held themselves equally bound to that Service in Person neither did any think of a substitute but for a short time and for great Impediments much less to take another Charge which might hinder that § 13. Bnd now to go on these Countrey Bishops or Pastors could not yet by all these Councils be Un-bishoped And therefore Pope Damasus must next fall on them and authoratively define that they were stark nought in the Church their Institution wicked and
contrary to the holy Canons And thus he acted suitably to his purpose seeing the enslaving the lesser and Country Churches to the Domination of these of the greater Cities made fair way for subjecting all to Rome which on many Accounts was greater than any of the rest He also hereby gratified and much obliged the Bishops of these great Cities who were desirous of nothing more than of Domination and accordingly they even at these times were giving him their mutual help for raising of the Papal Throne yea before the time of Damasus this same Council of Sardica which thought it too vile and base for a Bishop to Dwell out of a great City Decreed also That if any Bishop thought he was injured in any Cause by his Comprovincials and ordinary Judges it should in this Case be lawfull for him to appeal to the Bishop of Rome Let us honour say they the Memory of St. Peter that either these who examined the Matter or other neighbouring Bishops write to Julius Bishop of Rome and if he think it fit then let the Matter be tried and judged again and let him appoint Judges for the Purpose but if he approve of what 's already done and think not fit to call it into Question then the things already done shall be accounted firm and stable Thus these Fathers many whereof otherwise were excellent Men the first I think that ever gave such Deference and Authority to the Pope 't was not therefore incongruous that both of these Decrees should proceed from one and the same Council Hence it 's to be noted that the Tympany of these times had not only exerted it self in separating the things God had conjoin'd and in an holygarchick Confinement of the Power God had given equally to all Pastors unto a few whom they named Bishops a Name also equally belonging to all Christ's Ministers but also in subjecting of the Presbyters yea and even the Bishops of the Countrey to the very Presbyters of the City but much more the Bishops or Pastors of the Countrey to the Bishops of the Cities and these again to the Bishops of the greater Metropolitan Cities and so on till at length not to name the rest of the higher and lower roundles of this Hierarchick Ladder all centred in Rome Yet in these very times it was notwithstanding firmly rooted in Mens Minds that whosoever dispensed the Word and Sacraments and had a Flock or Congregation was a true Bishop as I have made out to be the mind of Hilary and many others of the fourth and fifth Centuries Moreover Optatus asserts that Preaching or Exponing is the proper Province of a Bishop But to proceed these Chorepiscopi or Countrey Bishops of Parish Pastors were in the third Century called absolutely Bishops at the Countrey Places or Villages so speaks the Council of Antioch He say these Fathers i. e. Paulus Samosatenus suborn'd the Bishops of the neighbouring Countrey Villages and Towns as also Presbyters his Flatterers to praise him in their Homilies Dr. Maurice answers that it appears not hence that these were Parish Bishops for Chorepiscopi had many Congregations As if these who dwelt not only in greater Towns but also in the very Countrey Villages which were near to Antioch and near to one another and that even where the far greater part of the Inhabitants were not of their Flocks yea were not at all Christians could be by any in their Wit judged to be any thing else save Parish Bishops or Pastors But let us hear one of the learn'dest of our Adversaries determining the Controversie That saith he which next occurrs to be considered is in what places Bishopricks were founded and Bishops settled We find in all Cities where the Gospel was planted and Churches constituted that Bishops were also Ordain'd Among the Jews wherever there were an hundred and twenty of them together there did they erect a Synagogue and a lesser Sanhedrin the Court of twenty three Judges Compare to this Acts 1. 15. where the number of those that constituted the first Christian Church is the same So it is like wherever there was a competent number of Christians together that a Church was there settled Yet in some Villages there were Churches and Bishops so there was a Bishop in Bethany and St. Paul tells of the Church of Cenchrea which was the Port of Corinth It is true some think that the Church of Corinth mett there Which Opinion he irrefragably Refutes and then proceeds saying Therefore it 's probable that the Church of Cenchrea was distinct from Corinth and since they had Phebe for their Deaconness it 's not to be doubted but they had Both Bishops and Deacons From the several Cities the Gospel was dilated and propagated to the places round about But in some Countries we find the Bishopricks very thick sett They were pretty throng in Asrick for at a Conference which Augustine and the Bishops of that Province had with the Donatists there were of Bishops two hundred eighty six present and one hundred and twenty absent and sixty Sees were then Vacant which make in all four hundred sixty and six there were also two hundred and seventy nine of the Donatists Bishops Thus he And now not to multiply Testimonies in so confessed and plain a Matter it 's most certain that at least for upwards of the three first Centuries you shall not meet with the meanest Dorp or countrey place where there was a Church or Congregation to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments but it had also its proper Bishop I averr no Example to the contrary either has yet no not by Dr. Maurice or any other been or can be brought from the gennine Monuments of these times Yea even from the spurious Writings of Impostures the greatest Adorers of the Hierarchy good proofs of this Truth may be adduced For the thirty eight of the Canons ascribed to the Apostles gives the care of the Ecclesiastick Goods to the Bishop as Justine Martyr gives to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who as we have seen already was purely a Parish Pastor And the 39 Canon saith Let the Presbyters and Deacons attempt nothing without the Bishop for to him the Lord's People is committed and for their Souls he must give an Account Now I demand of all Men brooking either Conscience or Candor if Souls could be committed to any save him who was their ordinary Feeder and Instructer And the Pseudo-Dionysius clearly intimats that wherever either Baptism or the Lord's Supper was administrat'd a Bishop was there and was the Dispenser thereof The High-Priest saith he that is the Bishop preaches to all Men the true Gospel every one that desires to Partake of these Heavenly Things coming to one of the learned in these Mysteries desires to be led to the High-Priest and he brings him to the High-Priest who receiving him with gladness as a Sheep on his shoulders praises the bountifull prinple by which all are
Plea for the Distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter tho' its Ground were no less solide than it 's naught and slippery becomes really of no subserviency at all to their Hierarchick Cause and so on this account is truly exhausted for providing the Pastor of any Parish or Congregation be constantly imployed in Preaching and Edifying the People we shall not envy him others so far as is requisite to assist him the People may be instructed the better Don't therefore Dr. Maurice and the Men of that stamp while they pretend that tho' there be allowed to every Congregation its proper Bishop yet there 's a most different and momentuous Controversie behind about the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter seek as the Proverb is a Knot in the Rush and triffle with a witness Give them moreover out of sole kindness that the Apostolick Power and Office is permanent and to be transmitted to all Bishops yet on Supposition of these Truths viz. that every Congregation had yea or may have its proper Bishop and that all Bishops are equal they shall be compelled to desert the whole of their Plea and acknowledge the sure Foundation and Lawfullness of what they call Presbyterian Parity Secondly Eusebius plainly says that it cannot be known who were the Successors of the Apostles to feed the Churches they had planted save what is to be collected from the words of the Apostles and so break the Chain at the Top where it should be strongest and shews that their best twisted Cords become Ropes of Sand to which as we already noticed the learn'dest of their own Writers subscribe Thirdly To come to Rome in particular altho' 't was the Head of the World and indeed the Head and Fountain from whence all the Hierarchicks draw their best support no Man of Reason whoever look'd into the divers yea and contrary Accounts given by the Ancients of the first pretended Successors of Peter can ever inferr that the Romans had in these early times of Christianity one peculiar Diocesan Bishop over the rest of the Pastors yea indeed Cletus Clemens Linus all whom if you compare the best Accounts they have you shall find to have been at one and the same time Bishops of Rome and Successors of Peter are a good evidence that he had no singular Successor at all This was so made out by the Protestant Writers that for ought I know the Romanists were despairing of any plausible Answer altho' I doubt not but they take Heart since some among the Protestants have used prodigious Endeavours to gratifie them and reconcile real Contradictions and fix the singular Successors of Peter I can scarce light on any of the Books they cite and yet I 'm at no great loss For 4 ly It 's certain that Peter was never at Rome which at once dispatches the grand Plea of all the Hierarchicks The whole stream of Writers who record Peter's Voyage thither either relate or suppose that his Errand was to oppose Simon Magus so that the Truth of both these Relations must stand or fall together But Simon Magus if we belive Origenes was never there Simon saith he the Smaritan and Majician endeavour'd by Sorcery to destroy some and I belive deceived many with his delusions But now throw all the World you shall scarce find thirty who follow him and I perhaps have called them more than they are Indeed there are some few in Palestine but in the rest of the Regions of the World his very Name is not heard off altho' he mainly desired that his Fame might be spread abroad and if perhaps there be any report of him at all it 's only to be learned from the Acts of the Apostles And Time which often has discovered things commonly taken for Truth to be altoger False hath verifi'd the words of Origenes For the Statue which gave the occasion of the fixion is now found to be the Image an old Sabin King or fictitious Deity called by the Romans Semo Sangus Sancus or Sanctus which Justine Martyr throw his unskilfulness of the Latine Tongue and a Cheat put upon him by some Samaritans took for Simon Magus as is acknowledged even by the learned Romanist Valesius The Inscription of this statue is Semoni Sango Deo Fidio Now according to the Genius of the Age the fraud prevail'd and Simon Magus must be brought to Rome made to effect monstruous Prodigies and therefore Simon Peter his old Adversary must also be sent thither to Conjure and Baffle him a second time And this is the prime Source of Peter's imaginary Journey to Rome and his fictitious Roman Episcopacy and the whole Papal Structure For as Simon Magus his coming to Rome is mention'd by none before Justine and by him only on this false Ground so Peter's Journey thither is before that time mention'd by none save Papias if he may be said to mention it for if at all he does it very obscurely And tho' he had been never so positive in this Matter it 's of small Consequence for as Eusebius already told us tho' elsewhere he forgets himself he was of so little Wit so fabulous and given to believe everything he heard that his Testimony merites little or no Credit Irenaeus indeed says that Papias was a hearer of the Apostles and himself also intimats so much but again clearly denyes it while he says that he used when he met with any who had been acquainted with the Elders to enquire what Andrew Peter Philip Thomas James John Matthew and the rest of Christ's Disciples had been wont to say And this he intimats had been his Practice only when he was a young Man and so gives us clearly to understand that when he wrote there was not one of the Hearers of the Apostles alive So far was Papias from being their Disciple 'T was he also who gives out that Mark wrote not his Gospel by Divine Inspiration but only by the help of his Memory 'T was he also who was the Father of the carnal and gross Chiliasts and the first who abused the Scriptures turning them all to Allegories and had not so much as the knowledge to distinguish Philip the Apostle from Philip the Evangelist The same Papias is the first Author of the report of Peter's Journey to Rome providing it may be said that he reportes it at all which mistake as Eusebius intimates flow'd from his misunderstanding of 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon c. And seeing that by Babylon in the Apocalyps Room is mean'd he and many of these times thro' their want of skill to distinguish between the Prophetick Mystick and Epistolick plain Phrase and Stile concluded that in Peter also Room is to be understood But this Gloss is so forraign and absurd that even the most learn'd of the Romanists as Petrus de Marca Bishop of Paris acknowledges that these Words of Peter are not to be
Did the primitive Church use Organs in Divine Worship Were they not first introduced in the seventh Century by Pope Vitalian And yet it is doubtfull if they were so soon received For Aquinas dislikes and condemns them Or where pray in the true primitive Church shall they find the Surplice Corner-Cap and Tippet Or where to name no more shall they find the Bishop allowed to involve himself in secular cares Civil and State Offices or Imployments Some used indeed when they pleased the Christian Emperor allowing it to make the Bishops Arbiters of their private Debates but to all the good Bishops as Augustine complains this was a most weighty Grievance But in more early times even this was not permitted for Cyprian condemns as altogether unlawfull that any Church-man should be so much as a testamentary Tutor to any Pupil And mark the ground he goes on For saith he whosoever are honoured with the Divine Priest-Hood or have a place in the Clergy ought only to serve at the Altar and spend their time in Prayer and Supplication For 't is written no Man that warreth intangleth himself with the Affairs of this Life that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a souldier Thâ—â— is such a clear and inevitable Condemnation of the Practice of the Hierarchicks that the Learned Annotators Pamelius and the Bishop of Oxford finding nothing wherewith to elude it skipp it over with deep silence And now judge if Cyprian was of one mind with the Bishop of Five Churches who will have the meaning of Paul's words cited by Cyprian to be that every Christian ought to abstain from those things which are repugnant to Christian Profession which are sins only and will not have the Apostle to speak any thing of Church-men in particular or if Cyprian would have expon'd the sixth of the Canons ascribed to the Apostles as doth Heylyn who makes the Canon only to mean that Bishops or inferiour Clergy-Men might not be Consuls Praetors Generals or undergoe such publick Offices in the State of Rome as were most sought for and esteemed by the Gentiles there Heylen is here somewhat intricat and his cause required it However the sum of his drift is that the exercising of these or the like Offices is allowed to any Pastor by the Canon Now altho' ' tallowed it not when the Empire was Pagan and he would prove something of this kind from 1 Cor. 6. where he must count all Magistrats thro' the Christian World Pagans and Unbelievers for otherways none shall ever prove from this Scripture so much as the lawfullness of a Bishop or Pastors judging and determining any difference between any two that referr themselves to his Arbitration And tho' he should prove it pray what is this to the exercising the Office of Consul General Praetor Chancellour Treasurer or the like pieces of such temporal Power and Grandor Judge moreover were there no more but Paul his words to Timothy 1. 4 13 14 15. And 2 Tim. 4. 2 5. If there be Leasure left any Pastor to be either Consul General or ought else of this nature and consequently if all the shifts they use on this head be not sufficiently overthrown by these Scriptures only But I had almost forgotten to notice how they torment themselves that they may torment and detort Cyprian For Saravia says that the Canon Cyprian speaks off was but particular and provincial only for the Church of Carthage But Heylen refutes Saravia his comment and says Cyprian spoke so because the Church was then almost destitute and unprovided of Presbyters As if Cyprian had not spoken of Chruch-men absolutely and without the least intimation of any such restriction and grounded his saying on a Scripture which whatsoever it speaks of Church-men confessedly says it of the mall be they many or few or in whatsoever time and place they live Moreover it 's most certain that in Matthew 20. 25 26 27 28. The Princes of the Gentiles c. And Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. And Luke 22. 25 26 27. All Pastors of Flocks are prohibited to exercise Dominion secular and state Dignity and a parity of the Apostles amongst themselves and in them a parity of all ordinary Pastors or Ministers of the Gospell among themselves is enjoyned D. M. pretends to engage with the latter part of this Inference but first he mis-states the question as if from these Texts we pleaded for a perfect equality of all the Officers of Christs house without distinction between extraordinary and ordinary Ministers or between Pastors and other Officers and so his saying that the Apostles exercised Jurisdiction over other Ecclesiasticks whether true or false is nothing to the purpose But saith D. M. Our blessed Saviour supposeth degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as other societies and therefore he directs the Ecclesiasticks who would climb up to the highest places in the Church to take other methods then these that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World He that deserved preferment in the Church was to be the servant of all Which answer he steals from the Jesuite Bellarmine who answers that Christ only directs ecclesiastick Princes teaches that as such they ought to rule their subjects not as do Kings and Lords but as Fathers and Pastors To whom Junius replyes that all this is quite contrarie to both Christs words and scope The sons of Zebedie saith he desired a Dominion this Christ rejects and refuses to give them again the falshood of this answer is demonstrated positively by Christs following words who in stead of this Dominion which they desired enjoyns them a humble Ministry and Service Wherefore there is a clear opposition between Dominion and Ministry the former belonging the World the latter to the Church Bishops are not saith Bellarmine here forbidden to exercise a dominion like that of godly Kings but only like that of Tyrranical Kings who know not God We deny replyes Junius that there is any such restriction neither can it be proved And accordingly Junius refutes and bafles all the Sophistrie that Bellarmine and after him our Prelatists ordinarly bring to prove that only tyrrany and not all sort of principality or superiority is by our Saviour in these Texts prohibited And with Junius joyns the whole stream of Protestant Writers But our Saviour saith D. M. did that himself among them which he now commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of this towards one another in obedience to the command now under consideration could not inferr a Parity unless that they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal For our Saviour recomends what he enjoyns from his own constant and visible practice among them viz that he himself who was their Lord and Master was their sevant and therefore it becomes the greatest among them in imitation of him to be modest calm and humble towards all their