the same Office in the Church and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose if one had the Empire of the whole World and lost that and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom I think his Office is not what it was Beside if we should yield all that he here alledges it were no loss to our cause for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle but that complexly and in conjunction with others as is above shewed Another Consideration that he hath is the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection but some travelled further than others yet this did not change their rectoral Power or Jurisdiction no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power to narrower Limites make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church the Rules of Order and the multitude of Converts which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence I reply to this 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by and it is observable how naturally and frequently this learned Author and some others of his Gang do shew their Byass to that side If nothing but Order and Circumstances and not Divine Institution do confine Bishops to their Sees whether larger or less extended and every one of them have actu primo as may be deduced from this Doctrine universal Jurisdiction why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them and the rest be subject to him Some think that this belongeth to good Order though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo to the Universal Church yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ as every Apostle had they have not that Commission go teach all Nations this was the peculiar work of Apostles to travel and plant Churches the work of Bishops if such an Office be in the Church is to stay at home and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these the World was the Province of each of them though by mutual Consent or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost who guided their Motions as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7 9 10. they went into several places of the World yet so as they observed not that Division very critically for we find them meeting sometimes and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence and Agreement of them among themselves alone but it is Gods Appointment though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular be a work of men for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church but he hath set them over their particular Flocks Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them and must give account of them and not of the Souls in all Churches § 8. His Notion p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot I know is to be found in Eusebius Dorotheas and Nicephorus and some others of the Ancients and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them as this Author doth neither shall I be at pains to disprove it it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet Iren p. 232. seq by eight Arguments that this Author will not easily answer and particularly he sheweth that Acts 1. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth p. 103. Another thing I observe is p. 104. that he saith neither the Apostles nor their immediat Successors were so confined to particular Sees but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole as far as was possible and as Christian charity did require or allow notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches and by their Travels and he concludeth that the confinement to a particular See doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood but from the Rules of Prudence Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and canonical Constitutions I first take notice that this is still beside the Purpose for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ We say that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church there are other things wherein they differ as hath been shewed 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another is denyed and he can never prove it The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited It is true some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem but that is with respect to his Residence not to the confinement of his Authority he was determined to stay there as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World not in Pilgrimage but on many other Occasions that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church Euseb lib 2. c 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus say he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem but this they take out of Egesippus as themselves confess a most Fabulous Writer and both of them relate out of him several things concerning the same James that all do look on as idle Dreams 3. It is also without warrant that he asserteth that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees more than the Apostles were If he understand of the Evangelists we shall debate the case afterward If of ordinary Pastors of the Church I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches which were not furnished with Pastors or otherways had need of their help so do Ministers at this day and ought to do and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles or their Travels which he mentioneth but that they had universal Jurisdiction as every one of the Apostles had we deny and he hath brought no Proof of it 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood if one Pastor could feed Christs Flock more were
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not
that a great Change there was by compareing the Practice and some Canons of Cent. 5 6 7. c. with the Apostolick Writings 2. We think there is no impossibilitie in such a Change as I have acknowledged considering the corruption of Men yea the sinful infirmities of good Men some of whom may be apt to Usurp and others to overlook evils that are not easily observable in their Progress And considering how suddenly Changes to the worse have fallen out in the Church see Moses Praeâ—ictiâ— Deut. 31. 27 28 29. see also Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent Apostacies of Israel after the death of their good Kings made this so evident that it can never be denied nor ought to be wondered at 3. This Change did not come suddenly nor all at once and therefore was not so obvious to everie ones Observation that it was not complained of by any we cannot say not having the compleat and distinct Records of the first Ages farre less can it be affirmed that it was not observed by some who might Lament it in Secret but for Peace sake and because the things they had to Complain of were dark and doubtful and but small and almost insensible Declensions from what had been before they would make little noise with their dissatisfactions It is well known that thus Degeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of the Church and I wish it be not at this Day Verie often a well Reformed Church doth thus degenerate whose Maladie is like latent Diseases which are little observed till they be past Remedy § 43. I adde 4. The true Account of this Change of the Church is given by way of Praediction by our Lord himself on the Parable of the Tares of the field Matth. 13. 24. c. this with other Corruptions grew while the Guids of the Church slept which case in some degree or other is incident to the best of Men and as in process of time the Ministers of the Church grew more remisse this evil had the more advantage to grow Of this I have Discoursed else-where Rational Def. of non conformitie I shall now attend my Antagonist endeavouring to Run down this apprehension of things with many hard Words which amount to no more but this that it was impossible to be brought about because of the observablenss and suddeness of the Change and the Faithfulness of the Guids of the Church that then were set over her All which is already Answered His ingeminating his Question about the possibility of this Change P. 142. his saying that this cannot be imagined if we believe the other parts of Evangelical History are but words that evanish into nothing on supposition of the Account that I have given of it for we deny that the Evangelical History whether Sacred or Humane giveth us Account of such a constitution of Episcopacy as he imagineth in the first Ages That no Historian took Notice of it though it was most memorable p. 143. is still his rotten Hypothesis that this Change should have been made suddenly and all at once and I adde the History of the time of the Rise and Progress of this is defective and uncertain as I have shewed Sect. 32. We do not say that it was Agreed upon by some ambitious Ecclesiasticks as he P. 144. such Men might carrie it on in their several places without Consultation Nature and a corrupt Heart prompting them to it and the World and Satan tempting them yea it might in some degree be promoted by better Men than these unawares taking that for their Due which was not so for its being submitted to tamely which he mentioneth ibid. that was not to be wondered at because of the Humility of some and minding other work for the Peoples Edification leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it and their not observing this Change which by in insensible Degrees made its Progress so in the dark § 44. He p. 145 c. draweth some absurd Consequences by which he laboureth to load our Assertion that the Apostolick Government of Paritie was in after Ages changed into Prelacie The 1. is that they who were marked for the Sacred Function by the Lord Christ after some Experience Judged it necessary to Change Parity for Prelacy 2. That this Change was brought about not in any of the ordinary Methods by which things of that nature are transacted among Mankind but instantly and in a miraculous manner 3. That the immediate Successors of the Apostles were all Presbyterians this we hold but that these Presbyterians most of them Martyrs for Christianitie preferred Prelacy to Paritie 4. That in their Opinion there was no other Remedie againstSchism and Confusion He saith these Conclusions are evident and necessarie if their the Presbyterians Hypothesis be allowed Such Consequences from our Opinion we utterly deny and Challenge him to Prove their Dependance on it The judicious Reader will easily see that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit that we hold that this Change was made suddenly openly and all at once if he find us Maintaing that let him load our Opinion with as many absurd Consequences as he can devise And we neglect his triumphant Repetition of his continual Cant p. 145 146. about the Universal Consent of the Christian Church and its being received without Contradiction But to establish this last Notion he telleth us that none before Aerius opposed Episcopacy of whom and his Actings he taketh the liberty to give such Account as he thought sit for his design that his Motive was Ambition and missing of a Bishoprick was dull had no Parts This in this learned Authors opinion must needs be the native Consequent of his being a Presbyterian for he reckoneth them all such I have given a more true account of Aerius § 16. of § 6. Established on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendeth to which is none but his own He needed not to spend a whole page to tell us what he meaneth by the Impossibility that he ascribeth to the Change we speak of let him understand it as he will we are not concerned who have given account of that Change which maketh it both possible and easie to be understood p. 148. He hath another Argument if it be different from what he hath said before we must not say that the primitive Church immediately Succeeding the Apostles so soon Apostatized from their Original Establishment else we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine and what is Suppositions in the whole frame of our Religion This he enforceth by telling us they might Change other things and if the first and best Christians were not to be trusted in matter of Fact they are less to be trusted in matter of Opinion Here we have yet more plainly expressed the Popish Principle that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith we do not so Trust the first and best Churches except the Apostles as to make them the
Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All
more than with rational refutation Acts 17. 19 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion is looked on by some as what was new in that time So was Luthers Doctrine and Calvins and that of the other Reformers in their day respectivè If my Antagonist can make it appear that our Opinion about Parity was never countenanced by Scripture nor practised in the Christian Church till of late in Geneva or Scotland Let it then pass for a Noveltie and on that account be condemned but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie tho for many Centuries it was not practised under the Reign and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ We are very willing according to the place of Scripture he putteth before his Book to ask for and walk in the old paths but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People as some expound the place of the way that Moses taught them and which they walked in who we are sure did not err as Grotius expoundeth this place of the way of Abraham Isaac and Jacob we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did in making the Golden Calf tho that was a very old practice and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes both Antient and Universal § 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction and first the ill words that he very liberally and at 〈◊〉 random bestoweth on these who are not of his way calling their Principles and Writings Lybels Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to complain of them whom he supposeth do persecute them I am sure it should less be his work to Rail with such unmanly and unchristian revilings at them who no other wayes oppose him and his Partie but by dint of Argument He doth p. 5 6. Suppose The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority and telleth us How in the Primitive times they were opposed by men chosen by the People who calculate their Doctrine to the fancies and humours of the Multitude and prostituted the Gospel to promote error and delusion in stead of serving our blessed Saviour they became slaves of the People by whom they were originally imployed and because they were so unhappily successfull as to gratifie their lusts they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre or to plead for Truth to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith vvise men vvill judge It is rather to be lamented than denyed that there are such Ministers in the Christian yea in the Reformed Church but I may confidently say they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men than among the Presbyterians in Scotland Whom it is evident that by all this Discourse he designeth to defame We preach against this Inclination even as it is in mens hearts and vve censure it vvhen it appeareth in their practise either to the promoting of Error or disturbing the Peace of the Church More of this he hath p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises and looser theorms and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie and true faith that worketh by love to airie notions and mistakes Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper or of the Presbyterian Ministers I shall leave to others to determine I am sure they who know the Scots Presbyterians and do not spitefully hate them will not say that either their Doctrine or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose Whether the Presbyterian or Prelatick Church Discipline as they have been exercised in Scotland come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church it 's easie to determine by them who have seen the one and can judge of both without prejudice § 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion had their immediate commission from heaven and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned If he mean the Apostles I shall not contradict his Assertion but must look on it as most impertinent Seing the other who he saith had their Authority from Men were distinguished from and opposite to not only the Apostles but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church who were in or after their dayes Also the Assertion so understood could make nothing for Prelacy or against Paritie in the primitive Church which seemeth to be the design of this Passage If he understand it of Bishops who he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles this is a new opinion with a Witness and for any thing I know himself first hatched it and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians so new as this of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions Sure if it be so they must then shew their credentials from Heaven and the signs of Apostles wrought in them As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King 's Congedelire and their Consecration and also all the debate that is about their Prelation and will excuse us from owning them till we be satisfied in this matter wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous § 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches and unaccountable Extravagancy while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence and Impiety Supposing without any semblance of Proof◠that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded but demolished when Episcopacy is laid aside and that without these sacred Vehicles viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie to use his own words I know not what can be called by that Name It is of the same strain that the extravagance of these last dayes which is wholly charged on Presbytery is boundless and Sceptical and Christianity is more dangerously wounded by the delusions of some that are Baptized Presbyterians then by the open blasphemies of Infidels and that the first viz. the Presbyterians are altogether inaccessible by reason that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations and will not be instructed their Errors are made stronger by their vanity And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose To which I have no other
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
even in this matter Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion wherein we either please God or sin against him on such a Sandy Foundation Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro in the Church of Antiochia lib. 3. ad Autolycum near the beginning he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods and hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not do as it were beat the Air his work is to be found Biblioth Patr. T. 2. This Passage is p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles is defective dark and uncertain This is not only found now at this distance of time but it was early complained of by Eusebius who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things than we have lib. 3. C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how many and what sincere Followers or Successors have Governed the Churches planted by the Apostles it cannot be confirmed but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church on Scripture and not on the Fathers And in his Preface to his History he telleth us he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way having only some small Tokens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and there as it were Also that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer who unto this day and it was the Interval of three hundred years have in this behalf he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops imployed any Diligence Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this or any other Writer concerning these times that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium quo tracts Quadratus Ignatius florebant plane cum Varrone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari potest is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit praeter admodum pauca quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant Swetonius Tacitus Plinius quem hiatu◠ut expleret Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clementis nescio cujus non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippi non melioris scriptoris sine delectu ea deprompsit Tilenus no Friend to Presbytery saith full as much he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times and that a fine actorum Apostolorum ad Trajani tempora nihil habemus certi Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House § 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself and all others beside the Prophets and Apostles from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion not exempting that about Church Government This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct for the same Arguments that our Author and his Complices use in this Debate they improve in the other Controversies and with the same advantage For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the one case it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined to which I shall now add August lib. 2. contr Manichae of the Scriptures he saith 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed aut codex mendosus est aut interpres erravit aut tu non intelligis In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas longe tamen est impar authoritas Jerom is much and often in this strain Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr Scio me aliter habere Apostolos aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror quo modo Tertull. Novatum Arnob. nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos ut bona eorum eligamus evitemusque contraria juxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est eligite The same he saith also of his own Writings in Hab. Zech. Si quis melius imo verius dixerit nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus Ambros. de incarnatione C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur non ego dico a me quia in principio erat verbum sed audio non ego affingo sed lego c. Cyril Hierosol Cat. 12. Meis commentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non attende possis enim forte decipi sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis c. Yea the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please and teach in general that they are not always to be followed as Dally and Turretin shew out of Cajeton Canus Maldonate Petavius and Baronius who often reprehendeth the Fathers even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact and doth not this very Author so far forget himself as to say that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age p. 73. as I above observed and if Jerom did mistake why might not the rest also the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward de Causa Dei lib. 2. C. 3. corroll p. 601 602. is consonant to what I have said He sheweth that the Fathers did often seem at least to favour Hereticks particularly Pelagius and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate
to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed and his Answers refuted § 5. of this Section § 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth p. 185. He had in his Apologie required that we should tell when they began to be Observed and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles It was told him this is Iniquum Postulatum and the Consequence is naught Both because of the Defectiveness of History and they came in by insensible degrees Next it was shewed from the silence of Scripture and of the History the first Ageâ— that Christmass for of that was the Question was not Observed for 300 years after Christ which was Conâ—â—rmed by Easter being much noticed but it not and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem and ancient Histories cited by them also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it all this he thought fit to overlook only he Examineth the Assertion which he doth falsifie by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter And laboureth to prove out of Origen and some others that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not for if they were then used and injoyned by the Church scripture silence of them is enough to us and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them I searched no further but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it But now when I have further considered that Matter I â—â—nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame he first citeth Origen contra Celâ— mentioning the Christiaâ— Festivities but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work where this Passage may be found that it might be Examined The like Omission in another about a Word of Augustin he agregeth at great length p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths which are not forbidden Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place Col. 2. 15. also of Easter that in and before Origins days was observed and contended about His other Citation Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find though I lookt over that Homilie May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated as most of the Writings of the Fathers have His next Author is Hippolitus as he is Cited by Photius all his Proof out Hippolitus is he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam and a Conjecture that himself layeth no weight on it is NIAC is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus the rest of the Line being defaced The Answer to all this is easie 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie if he had it 2. Photius who lived â—n the Ninth Centurie may be rejected by an Argument Ad Hominem which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories concerning our Conversion from Heathenism p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theopâ—aniam cannot prove his Point unless that he can Prove that that Word from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation or GOD manifeâ—â— in the flesh which is the proper Import of it but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery which was its current Signification when Photius wrot For his Niac it is so wide and groundless and a strained Conjecture that few wisâ— Men will be fond of mentioning it much less of making an Argument of it he supplieth it I know not by what Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles the Authority of which we cannot own unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum I denie not that in Process of time they did degenerate into Holy Days such as he pleadeth for and becoming so Numerous they became a Burden to the Church and were diâ—used till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized but at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them made after the ordinarie Service of the Church and that Age and some that followed were so respectful to the Martyrs for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges whence it may be Inferred that from these Commemorations to other Holy Days is no good Consequence He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie It is no consequence the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres who Succeeded the Apostles Ergo they could not forget the Apostles themselves if they understand such a way of Commemoration the Reason I have already given § 21. He Inferreth p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed because Easter and Pentecost were so The Consequence will not hold and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost the Feast of Weeks may be added but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own He Answereth an Objection that was brought that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth there was no need to determine that Question and all Christians he excepteth some Presbyterians are agreed that this Determination was not Neâ—essarie and that Christians in different Nations make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live they Commemorate the Mystery but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact He sayeth the Vindicator left this Consideration alâ—ogether untouched In this he is in the Wrong and is Guilty of what he blameth another for There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is all which he hath left untouched They are it was never heard of that the Birth day of any Person was kept but on the Day on which the Person was Born That if this Determination be needless the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration which none ever affirmed It was also told him that others particularly Master Hooker pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers whereas no more was intended but that Master Hookers Arguments which are lookt on as the strongest on his side are inconsistent with his Notion while he