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
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
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
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
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
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
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator who presided among them and did with the rest authoritatively Consult and Determine this we grant but it maketh nothing for him 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie I cannot well guess If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest that is what we hold If that he had a negative Vote so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent he ought not to call for Proof from us against that the Probation is to be expected from him who affirmeth it If that he determined by himself and the rest were but his Council this we deny also and he must prove it It is enough that we prove that others with the Bishop Moderator or Praeses did manage the Affairs of the Church for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient What followeth in several pages is to prove that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests so of the Bishops from the Presbyters This would indeed weaken our Argument if it had no more force than he giveth it If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons without distinguishing Bishops or Presbyters among themselves But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some but in all places where they are mentioned and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices Work Qualifications or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use make nothing against our Argument unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters they ascribe also a superior power to them which he often asserteth but never proveth We confess that after the Apostles age the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone nor had superior power to the rest I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author when he shall please to attempt this proof Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. where he engageth with another of our Arguments than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative wherewith his Discourse is interspersed § 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power upon all occasions with great Courage and Assurance What my last Antagonist brought for this end out of the Writing of that holy Martyr I have endeavoured to Answer with what success it is not mine to judge if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations or bring new ones I shall not decline the Debate with him That Polycarp as he hath it p. 32. distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters while he inscribeth his Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Who saith our Author if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren This reasoning I say is so remote from Concludencie that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it For first whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred as Polycarp being an older man than the rest or Praeses in the Meeting it is ridiculous to infer from this either Superiority or solitude of power 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle and the rest Assenters to it that might give occasion to his being named 3. Will any say that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie for N. Moderator and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named Such stuff is not worth refuteing P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension Apage nugas Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church like that of the Lords among the Gentiles Yea we deny not all preferment in the Church may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister or an Elder yea or a Deacon All which are Preferments if compared with the people and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction That Blondel Salmasius and Dally laboured to support this Argument as our Author represents it is falsly asserted p. 35. As is also that this Opinion about Parity was never heard of before the days of Aerius If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig whose Memory is venerable in the learned World must here also be lashed as ignorant of Divinity and of the Fathers because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument as stated by us in this his Discourse only his unmannerly as well as false Assertion p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling He may see if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute that they have other yea better Arguments and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument represented in its full Strength SECTION V. Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me Vindicated HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side he might have found thrice as many more and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say But this and the two Arguments above debated with him are all that he will allow us to have on our side His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name while he calleth them who possessed the Government and Revenues of the Church Atheists and Enthusiasts and that without exception or Limitation Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England as well as others charactered by him We will not retaliate but the learned and religious world had and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry and judge that Atheism and other sinful Evils have been diffused into the Church after that time though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves and all
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
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
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
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
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
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
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
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
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
rule of our Religion either in their Historical or other Writings We give that Deference to the Scripture alone Again we impute no such Apostacie to the first and best Saints but to them who at some distance Succeeded them as hath been declared and we know that in after Ages even among them who go under the name of the Fathers other things were Changed as well as Church Government § 44. That our Reformers from Popery whom he calleth the first Presbyterians p. 149. did not plead a Jus Divinum is no Argument against us for few of his Party to this day plead for a Divine Right to be on their side as he and some few others do And himself and his Complices made no noise with it when the Oath of Supremacy and the Test were in Fashion our Reformers did not disowne it and they had not the Occasion and may be not the Light to assert it that after-times had Whereas it is palpable that Interest maketh some of his Side to change their Note If Beza wrote smoothly to the English Episcopal Clergy and some more freely to Mr. Knox and Mr. Melvil I know no blame in that piece of Civility unless he can say that Beza ceded in many of his Principles to please the English Church which cannot be alledged His imputing Force and Violence to us and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us we pass as angry and empty Words but no Arguments we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be such whether they be for us or against us but build not our Faith on any of them except such as are contained in the Scriptures of Truth And here he bringeth in p. 150. the Controversie about Ignatius's Epistles and imputeth to Dally and others that they reject them on no other ground but because they owne Episcopacy It is not fair dealing to impute such Prevarication to a Person of Monsieur Daillies Worth after he is laid in the Grave He will not pretend p. 156. to debate the matter about the Authority of these Epistles but p. 150. and what follow runneth out in a high Commendation of Doctor Pearson on that Subject and many confident Assertions that what he hath said cannot be Answered I shall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author But am not convinced by his Arguments I am sure there is not that Evidence nor Certainty in them that is sufficient for us to build on in a Matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in as is the Government appointed by Christ in his Church He telleth us Monsieur L'Arroque attempted to Answer the Bishop of Chester but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party and his Collections are Answered by Nourry The truth is L'Arroque was prevailed upon by some of the Episcopal Party as witnesseth the Translator of L' Arroques Historie on the Eucharist in his Life p. 5. by some specious Arguments from the Unseasonableness of Debates among Protestants to desist from that Work and it never was perfected therefore it might be the more easily answered and we cannot judge what Esteem it would have obtained it seems they dreaded the Strength of it Whether we ever were able to bring one plausible Argument for that Cause the Reader must judge we will not in this stand to his Decision which he confidently maketh p. 141. he declineth ibid. renewing the Debate about these Epistles wherefore I hope I may be excused if I do so too And he asserteth that their Cause loseth nothing by their being laid aside as I also affirm that our Cause may be maintained if they be allowed to be really what he would have them to be Some Citations out of them I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examined And if he had thought fit to produce moe it is like they might be found to do no hurt to our Cause Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius he might have received what should satisfie about it A Distinction between Bishop that is Moderator and Presbyter and Deacon we owne as well as these Acts do which is all he mentioneth as making for him in these Acts. He citeth Wal. Messal p. 153. asserting that these Epistles were written in the beginning or middle of the second Century this is but the Guess of the Learned Salmasius but our Author doth not tell us that Salmasius in the same place setteth forth that they could not be written by Ignatius from some Absurdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them This Gentleman mistaketh when he saith he that wrote thom could not represent Ecclesiastical Policy different from what it was in the days of Ignatius that is to say he could not mistake He should have proved this by demonstrating that that Person tho he knoweth not who he was had the Gift of Inerrability and if he ascribe that to a Person whos 's other Characters he knoweth not he might as well say that no Writer of that Age could misapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former Is it not possible that this Person might be another Diotrephes who while there was some Tendency to a Declension from Parity did zealously forward it and run a little before the soberer and better Men of that time and that his Zeal for the Opinion he had taken up might make him misapprehend or misrepresent what was the Opinion of the true Ignatius it is a Dream that it followeth from the Concession or Guess of Salmasias that that Author gave 〈◊〉 a true Idea of the Ecclesiastical Policy of the beginning of the second Century and another that he must represent Church Policy as those in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writings so visionaire to use his own word as this is For could not this unknown Person differ in the Apprehension of this Matter from most yea from all his Contemporaries and it is strange that our Author should suppose that this personate Ignatius was a Martyr or a Bishop as he doth p. 154. He pleadeth next for the Epistles of Ignatius from the Diligence and Authority of Eusebius and saith that he hardly could be imposed upon in an Affair of this Consequence A. This is to beg the Question to say that the Church was in this imposed upon he should prove that the Churches then thought these Epistles to be written by Ignatius for Eusebius I think few who are vers'd in Antiquity will lay so much weight on his Historical Authority as this Author doth Himself giveth ground to suspect some things that he wrote as I shewed before and others have observed yet more ground for it It is a pleasant Argument the Church was careful to gather up some hard Bones of Ignatius that the Lyons had left Ergo they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind
was fallen upon because they could not get Men to Oversee other Ministers but because they could not get Men to Preach to the People in every Congregation Therefore they resolve that the few well Qualified Men that they had should not only each of them have a fixed Charge of his own but should be obliged to Preach in other Parishes and be Impowered to Place Ministers in them assoon as they could be had 2. It is a groundless Fancy that they thought Ten or Twelve Superintendents too few for the whole Kingdom for when Ministers increased they made no moe yea when afterward in the times of Defection from our first Establishment of Church Order they set up Bishops the Church did not think Twelve too few for the whole Kingdom 3. He doth exceedingly Mistake the Change that our Reformers did intend as insinuated in that Passage It was not that Superintendents should be continually Resident in one Place wheras they were at present to travel within their District for in this present Setlement they had their proper Charge where they were to Preach and might Reside there three or four Months and enter upon their itinerat Visitation again which Course if they should Break off they could not do the Work of a Superintendent which was chiefly to Visite and Plant Churches When this was done and Places generally provided with fit Pastors their Work and Office was at an end 4. At this time doth evidently relate to the Peoples want of Preaching as the Motive to this Appointment and to the Planting of Churches as the End and Design of it Wherefore when this End is attained and that time no more Existent I mean of that Exigence of the Church there was no more use for them and the Event Proved that as that End was by Degrees attained their Power was gradually Lessened till they were wholly laid aside 5. The Words cited make it evident that this was not intended for a lasting Prelacy in the Church far less for an Episcopacy standing on a Jus Divinum For the Assembly where this Book of Discipline was Established do give them Charge and Commandment they do appoint their Work set Limits and Bounds to their Power they Command them in the very Circumstances of their Work this would be thought strange Presumption in a Meeting of Ministers thus to treat their Bishop 6. To say that their Authority was designed to be perpetual but these Injunctions about some part of their Work was to be Temporary is to speak at Random and to put what Sense we please on other Mens words it is to tell us what this Author would have the Reformers to mean not what is the plain Import of their Words For the Commandment and Charge these are the Words of the Book of Discipline by which they were made Superintendents did include one part of what is Injoyned as well as another part of it and when ever this Work that was Injoyned them ceased their Commission behoved to be renewed as is obvious to any who readeth the History of our Reformation their Injunctions were often Changed till they had no more Work to do and then they were Abolished § 14. Let us now hear how this Author will Prove that the Passage under Debate must have the Meaning that he hath put upon it His first Argument the Composers of the first Book of Discipline in which that Passage is were generally to their Dying day of Prelatical Principles Ans. 1. The Consequence is naught for however the first Draught of it might be framed by the Six Persons whom he Nameth out of Knox p. 287. yet let the Reader turn over to the next page where a Formula is set down according to which it was Subscribed and he shall find that they Approved it conform to the Notes and Additions thereto and it was well known that some Papers being Amended and Licked over and over again by many Persons as this was have at last Differed much from what the first Compilers intended Another thing also may be Observed in that Form of assenting to the Book o◠Discipline that they were careful to Reserve to Bishops Abbots and Priors and other Prelats and benefic'd Men which else have Adjoyned themselves to us say they to brook the Revenues of their Benefices during their Lifetimes they sustaining and upholding the Ministry and Ministers as is therein specified for Preaching of the Word and Ministering of the Sacraments Here the Bishops even such of them as were Protestants are put in the same Categorie with Abbots and Priors and there is no Provision made for their Spiritual Power but for their Temporal Goods and no Successors are intended for them only they are provided for while they live yea the Administrators of Word and Sacraments are here contra-distinguished from the Bishops as well as from Abbots and Priors Doth any thing here look like Prelatical Principles yea is not the whole Strain of this Passage contrarie to them therefore whatever the first Compilers of the Book of Discipline might be it is evident the Approvers of it were not of the Episcopal Principles Ans. 2. He sheltereth his Assertion under the Ambiguitie of Prelatical Principles if he mean these Men were for Superintendents who had a Temporarie Limited Prelacie we shall not Debate that with him if he mean that they were for a Jus Divinum of the Prelacie that he and his Partie owne or for a Perpetuitie of any other sort of Prelacie we shall consider his Proofs for that which are Winram and Willock were Superintendents and so was Spotswood of whom his Son saith he was a constant Enemy to Paritie this proveth nothing against what I have said except he can assure us that Arch-Bishop Spotswood could not through Prejudice and Respect to the Cause he had Espoused mistake and misrepresent his Fathers Opinion in that Dowglas another of them was Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews That proveth him an Apostate from the Way he had owned and we know how he and his Way was disliked by the rest of his former Associats John Row another of them defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy at a Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575. Here is a pitiful Shift and foull Misrepresentation The Truth of the Storie is even according to Spotswood as well as Petrie not to name Calderwood lest he alledge that I have read no other Historian a Question arising in the Assemblie about the Lawfulness of Episcopacie six Brethren were appointed to Debate the Question in a Conference three were appointed to be on the one side and three on the other it was Master Rows Lot to be on the side of the Lawfulness of Episcopacie can any Rational Man thence infer that he was of that Opinion And if he were of that Opinion there is enough said to take off any Inference that could thence be made against us John Knox was the other of these Compilers whom he will make Prelatical now when he hath been dead a
was endeavoured toward the setting up of Episcopacy he bringeth Reasons for the States Men and Reasons for the Church men that might move them and that with as much Confidence as if he had been at the Consult the States Men considered that Episcopacy was still established by Law the Ecclesiasticks made one of the three Estates and to take it away was to shake the Civil Constitution and they might have been called to an account for it when the King should come to Age who was then Minor But this is a pure Fallacy the Bishops were still by Law possessed of their Temporalities Revenues and Parliamentarie Priviledges but not of their Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction it was the preserving of these not of this that the Courtiers were accountable for with respect to the Civil Constitution That this was the best way to preserve the Right of the Church is said without Book unless he can prove that Christ gave her such Rights her Civil Rights might have been and afterward were otherwise preserved It was very evident that many of the States Men were Acted by other Motives I do not say all of them were for a Jus Divinum or Acted Conscienciously even to get the Revenues in their hands Which he doth plainly enough confess while page 189. he telleth us of their Playing their Tricks and Robbing the Church For the Reason that he maketh the Clergy go upon viz. The ill Effects of the former Scheme laid in the first Book of Discipline that had arisen to the Church there is no Hint given by him of any such ill Effects as apprehended by the Men of that Time except that they who designed a Change for their own Ends would readily pretend some such thing neither he nor any else can prove that any Detriment to the true Interests of Religion did arise from it It is evident that some Church Men had a design to advance themselves though they were disappointed as to the advantagious part of their design they got the Titles and the great Men got the Revenues which he would fain deny or dissemble but it is so evident that he must contradict our plainest Histories if he deny it 3. That another was Moderator in the General Assembly than a Bishop is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height even by the greatest Efforts the Party could make at that time All he saith to this is that George Buchannan was chosen Moderator in the General Assembly 1567. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of Presbytery The Strength of this Evasion is soon taken off the Episcopal Church look on Bishops as so far above Presbyters that it is Essential to them to Rule and the Presbyters to be Ruled by them so that for a Bishop to be a single Member of an Assembly and a Presbyter to be Moderator is inconsistent with the Bishops Prerogative but Presbyterians hold no such distinguishing Principle they think a Minister is in a superior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder but do not think that the one hath Jurisdiction over the other but that both have equal Ruling Power and therefore though it be now so Customary that only Ministers preside in our Meetings that it would be thought odd if it should be otherwise yet for a Ruling Elder such as Master Buchannan was and a Man of his singular Eminency to preside in a Meeting is not against any Principle of Presbyterians that I know of tho the Way we use is most Rational and Decent and there is no Reason for receding from it But to make this Observation yet stronger Calderwood p. 56. if I may Name him without Firing this Gentlemans Choller and being Charged with Ignorance and knowing no other History telleth us that never one of them had the Credit to be Moderator of the General Assembly which is a Token I shall not speak in his Dialect an infallible Demonstration that their Episcopal Jurisdiction was not then owned by the Church § 26. A fourth Observation I make on his Historical Debate is that he endeavoureth to prove against Petrie and Calderwood that the Articles at Leith were approved by the General Assembly that Episcopacy was s◠approved that it cost much Stuggling before it could be Abolished What he gaineth by all this I know not The Opposition that was made to that Way did soon appear and it was soon abolished that it is said that it was not allowed by the General Assembly is only meant of the first General Assembly that sat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith though afterward the Party grew stronger and got it approved I know none that asserteth that it was never approved in any General Assembly though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved might tempt one to think that it was never approved viz. That they sat in Assemblies and voted and that even as Bishops Their sitting and voting proveth that they were tollerated what he meaneth by sitting and voting as Bishops I do not well understand that Reduplication must either import the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority or it is a Word without Sense or Signification now that they Exercised Episcopal Authority in any of the Assemblies I do not find nor doth he attempt to prove it The Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews being present and first named in a Committee as p. 203. is such an Argument for Episcopal Preheminence as the Papists use not a few for Peters Supremacy that Superintendents are continued ibid. is a weak Argument for the Assemblies approving Bishops of the second Model as he calleth it It is another such Argument that the Assembly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Bishops Deans c. and wish these changed into Names less offensive that the Articles agreed on at Leith which contain his second Model are voted by the Assembly to be received but for an Interim These and some more of the same or like Importance are his Arguments for the Approbation of Episcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time I do not say they Acted as Men for the Divine Right of Parity it was a time of Temptation and many yielded too far but there was a Party that did not thus Comply and who prevailed to get this Yoke cast off at last many of the Acts of the Assemblies that he citeth do Direct the Bishops and Limit their Power and appoint them to be subject to the General Assembly and to have no more Power than Superin endents had this looketh like no good Will to Episcopacy but a Hedging it in when they could not for present cast it wholly out But he will prove p. 212 c. That all this was out of no Dislike to Episcopacy and that by a Petition consisting of nine Articles drawn by the General Assembly 1574. Wherein Bishops are several times mentioned and that as Acting as Bishops in Naming Ministers for Places where yet Superintendents and Commissioners are also mentioned as equally concerned in that Work yea in
meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland by saying and that frequently that no Error could get footing there in Scotland while Kirk Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies stood in their Force He concludeth his Second Enquiry with making a great Improvement against us as he thinketh of our saying that the Bishops set up in that he calleth his second Model had no more Power than Superintendents whence he Argueth Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power but the Assembly at Dundee 1580 Condemned Episcopacie and they Condemned also Superintendencie whence it followeth that they and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this not only forsook but condemned the Principles of our Reformers This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand But the Answer is plain and easie and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed That Assemblie did and the Presbyterians do condemn Superindendencie as what ought not to continue in the Church nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time in an extraordinarie Exigent And we affirm which our Author hath not yet disproved that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church § 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is whether Prelacie and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People ever since the Reformation He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true this Question will soon be dispatched for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed He might if so it had pleased him saved the labour of this tedious Debate in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said unless we could which is impossible have the Vote by Pole of all the Individuals of the Nation and that in all the Times and Changes since the Reformation The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs he may for me abound in his own sense I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians yea of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest â—…minencie for Vertue Understanding and Rouk and yet not Presbyterian that Presbyterie was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie I judge they mistake but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt I would have him also consider that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie and Establish Presbyterie the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow and countenance by their Authority this Government of the Church but we think it standeth on a surer bottom than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth which Grounds I have laid down in this Work if he can Beat us from these we shall become his willing Proselyts and quit though we will not Revile it as he doth this Act of Parliament as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State or of the Church or was more designed to ridicule or to refute Presbyterie that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done but we are in utrumque parati to despise his Mocking and to Answer his Material Arguments though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done about Matters that be remote from the main Question § 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576 and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had Beza also and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church Ans. I believe so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence it was no small Mercie and Matter of Joy that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church when as many as were needed could not be had and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem yet it is no good Argument the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful therefore they inclined to have them or Bishops perpetuated in the Church Another great Argument is even in after times and the more advanced State of Presbyterie when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London for their forwardness in that way yet all things went peaceably in Scotland as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie and their Inclination to Presbyterie seing the Nation have these years past been in Peace though he and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be That Episcopacie prevailed 1610 Proveth no more for the one side than the prevailing of Paritie 1592 and again 1690 Proveth for the other side Yea submitting to Episcopacie so far as to sit in Synods and Presbyteries with a Bishop was no Argument of Approving it in the case of the Church that then was when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie and Bishops thrust in on them It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority and were called again only by the Bishops Authority He Chargeth Calderwood and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie that he had said that it was Statute in Parliament 1565 that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth
in former times Presbytery continued only Bishops were superinduced therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations till driven from them but at the last Settling of Episcopacy Presbytery was razed so far as Men could and what Shew of it was left stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to it being an owning of a Power in the Church which they are convinced is unlawful His fourth Argument is No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History to whom that Name is more agreeable than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Answer to this the Donatists were mentioned as Schismaticks more justly reputed such than the Scots Presbyterians can be And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance to whom I confess what was said agreeth more directly viz. That they separated because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists in many Circumstances that do no way concern the present Purpose and in which are some Mistakes as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records as that Lapse of Memory is ascribing somewhat to the Donatists which agreeth better to the Novatians and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks they both had the same Rise Donatus in Africk and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome together with one of the same Name who upon Discontent came from Carthage to Rome and joyned with him in making a Schism both of them were as they thought disobliged by the Election of a Bishop the one that Caeciliaenus was Elected who as he alledged was ordained by a Traditor yea was a Traditor himself that is in time of Persecution had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt the other that Cornelius was made Bishop both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church than the rest of the Pastors had the one that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy through their Communion with them who had been Traditors the other that they who so had fallen or otherwise in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to Church Communion again nor get Absolution though he nor his Followers did not deny that they might obtain Mercy from God upon true Repentance the contrary of which some impute to them both of the Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Puritans both of them separated from all the Churches of the World and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour especially the Donatists and among them the Circumcelliones who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them Both of these Schisms spread far and wide It is observed by some that there were of both sorts Men of strict Lives Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith of the Donatists Cresconius said they confessed the same Jesus born dead and risen again they had the same Religion and the same Sacraments and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head but about the Body not about Christ but about his Church Augustin de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith they were agreed in the Creed in Baptism and other Sacraments of our Lord also Ep. 162. he telleth us that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome and his Brethren â—ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Caeâ—ilianus had ordained which Condescendence is also evident from Collat 1. Carthag Art 16. apud Optat. Milevit p. 45. 6. Edit Paris 1631. § 13. Our Author tells us that we ought to have named Schiâ—maticks in the Primitive Church whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians which I shall shew in these Three things 1. They had no good nor sufficient Ground to separate we declare that we will never separate because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion as the Novations did nor because some Ministers and People are not so innocent as they should be as the Donatists did we condemn their Schism as much as he doth What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact as was made appear First By some Judges appointed by the Emperour to try the matter next by a Synod held at Arles And lastly by the Emperour after a full Hearing of the Matter and if it had been true it was no just ground of Separation though it had been a great Grievance The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all because the Church was not culpable in such Admission which they did unreasonably blâ—me Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable What we dislike is an usurped Power set up in the Chuch and humane Ceremonies imposed on us and our owning of these formally in Words or materially in our Practice is made a condition of our Communion with the Church It is true if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable and that what we dislike is Warrantable he may blame us for none Complyance but what is the Question between him and us if we Scruple without cause the blame lieth on us if not the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things Wherefore the Determination of this Point who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present dependeth on the Question now under Debate about Episcopacie and Ceremonies 2. We always were willing to unite with them if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways which themselves confess to be indifferent I mean the Ceremonies and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie directly nor indirectly The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace It is not what they do that skareth us from them but what they will needs force us to do 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion as the Schismaticks of old did Who either of their Clergy or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate 4. We do not condemn their Church as no Church as the Donatists did to all beside themselves we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of which had to do with the Donatists that Church was willing to forbear them even in their most unreasonable Separation and to indulge such as were of
a Religious Conversation but differed from the Church without cause in matters of lesser moment The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies acknowledged to be such but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these which they could not do without wounding their Conscience If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church on on frivolous pretences as he supposeth p. 222 he gaineth what he contendeth for but he findeth it easier to suppose this than to Prove it It was said by his Antagonist that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors which Presbyterians do not the Bishops being none of our Pastors He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians in their Erecting Altar against Altar Answer 1. That is not all that we plead for as is clear from what hath been said I have shewed § 8. Cases in which even lawful Pastors may be forsaken and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them But I say 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule And I am willing that Matter be Determined 1. By the strength of Argument if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to we must yield 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church which was positive plain and unanimous in this that the People should chuse their own Bishop and other Church-Officers see Instances Enquirie into the Constitution c. of the Primiiive Church c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog Test veritat p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation in any Man to a People on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical and without their own Consent This is our case the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government the Magistrat not the Church made a Change and set Men over the People to be their Bishops whose Office they could not own and whose Persons they had no concern in I Question whether the Primitive Church I mean the first Ages would have counted it Schism to disown such and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors who had been called by them setled by Church Authority among them and laboured among them to their Comfort and Edification His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris is contrarie to Petavius rationar tempor lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him his Assertion p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church is so false that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it If he understand it of Preaching Deacons he should have said so and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church § 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks is from the Doctrine of Cyprian of which he is so confident that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator not a Diocesan to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings If I had read much more than either he or I have I should not so often nor so superciliously vilisie others If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now undertaketh to refute Which Book I have Answered with such reading as I could attain both of Cyprian and other ancient Writers in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written before I saw it I am not willing to Transcribe it being the most part of that Book He may read it if he thinketh fit and if he or any other will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age I shall be willing to be Informed by him His Triumphant Conclusion p. 225. evanisheth into smoak if what hath been said be duly Considered He begineth another Debate about Preaching Moralitie which he passeth in a Word overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head While it was told him that not all the Clergy but he and such as he was so blamed Also that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured but Applauded and lookt on as necessarie but what we Quarelled was that some do only Preach Moralitie and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit by which they should obey the Law acceptably and the Righteousness of CHRIST on account of which they and their Works that are moraly Good should be accepted and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed to shew his Mistakes in that Matter to all which he maketh no Return but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print nor heard him and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it but much more occasion was given for so thinking from a large Discourse in his Book that I was then Refuting Vindicating their way of Preaching in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST and the influence of his Spirit by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing as he hath done the Third time an Error of the Press which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author this I say sheweth the Mans temper I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious than it will on the Person whom he would Defame SECTION XI Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed whether by Bishops or the Pastors of the Church acting in Parity We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way in this Matter because of the Silence and Defectiveness of the History of these times and therefore it is a Mis-representation when he saith that we hold that they were Presbyterians if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense as made up of Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies we suppose they had a Government in that Church and that it was Managed by Church Officers and directed by the Word of GOD as they then understood it for this we can bring no other Proof but that they were Christians and we owe them that Charity having
was Missus and Ordinatus ad Scotos he was not sent to the Scots but to Ireland Do not the Words bear it in their very Face that he was sent to Scotland and was their first Bishop and after he had been there for some time he was brought over to Ireland it is not said Missus nor Ordinatus but Perductus his Mission was to Scotland what Casuality or Design led him to Ireland is not told us neither is it Prosper but Probus that mentioneth his going to Ireland and that he never was in Ireland I have shewed in the Place Cited § 6. He further endeavoureth to overturn our Argument from Prosper as he is Cited by Baronius where he attempteth two things 1. To shew that Palladius in Prospers Sense was not the first Bishop that was in Scotland but the first Bishop that was sent to them by the Pope This he buildeth on Prospers Words both as they are Cited by Baronius and also are in the Augustane Copy the first are Basso Antiocho consulibus ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius primus Episcopus mittitur And the other Copy is Basso Antiocho consulibus ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius primus Episcopus missus est I see not what moved him to transcribe the Words twice unless he see a Mystery that others cannot observe in the Difference that is between mittitur and missus est but he will have mittitur or missus est primus Episcopus to signifie that he was not the first Bishop but the first Bishop of the Roman Mission if he be allowed to put what Sense on Mens Words he pleaseth it must be so Baronius and Spondanus did not so understand the Words neither can any Man so understand them unless his Preconceived Opinion do Darken his Mind that he cannot see things as they are If Prosper had thought that there were Bishops in Scotland before he should have spoken more plainly and told us that the Pope sent him to Rule over the Scots Bishops or that whereas Scotland was formerly Governed by their own Bishops the Pope would have them thenceforth Governed by such as he set over them He telleth us of several Bishops sent to other Churches not to introduce Episcopacy but to bring them in Subjection to the Pope This I deny not tho he instanceth only in Austine the Monk who was sent to England but this furnisheth an Argument against himself for none of them is called primus Episcopus of such a Nation except he who was sent to Scotland Augustine is neither called primus Monachus nor primus Episcopus though as Beda hist. lib. 1. c. 23. hath it he was ordinandus Episcopus si a Gente Anglorum susciperetur He saith it is not evident from Prospers Chronicon whether there was any Formed Organized Church in Scotland when Palladius was sent by Caelestine This is wholly beside the Purpose for Prospers Testimony is not brought for that End Is it not enough that it is clearly proved out of Authentick Writers that the Scots were Christians anno 199 and Palladius came to them about 431. Now can he imagine that the Scots Christians all that time were not an Organized Church if he think that therefore they were Unorganized because they wanted Bishops this is to beg the Question § 7. His other Answer is not a Refutation of me but of Baronius who took the Chronicon consulare for Prospers Work whereas our Author saith it is none of his and for this he produceth the Authority of Pithaeus which is not sufficient against that of Baronius And even Pithaeus himself confesseth that Chronicon per consules digestum hactenus in omnibus Hieronomiani Chronici editionibus Prosperi nomine subjungitur All the Ground he hath for denying it to be Prospers is that the Stile differeth from what he calleth the true Chronicon whereof a Fragment only remaineth He telleth us also that Doctor Cave saith that the Chronicon consulare is much Interpolated but that doth not prove the Book spurious neither doth it derogate from the Testimony we bring out of it unless he can say that it is one of the Interpolations may be Foisted in by some Presbyterian which if he say it will make the Presbyterians older than our Author will allow He quarrelleth that I had asserted that the Christian Faith was received in Scotland in the beginning of the second Century and calleth it a Dream because we have no certain Records of any Progress of Christianity made in the Island at that time He should not have been so confident in this Matter without Answering what was brought for that Assertion or Dream whatever he will call it He should have disproved that Donald was our first Christian King that he began to Reign anno 199 that Palladius came to Scotland 431 in all which Space the Scots lived without Bishops If I have brought our Christianity any nearer to the beginning of the Christian AEra I shall confess an Error in Calculation which I deny not that I may readily fall into What he saith of Squeezing of his Words I cannot Answer for he neither tells where nor wherein for my Book lying open to his Remarks the Reader must judge whether it be so or not and what Advantage he hath got against it the Error of my Title Page putting of in stead of for the Clergy is not such as he would represent if they do not owne it he should crave Pardon for making it if they do I have not Miscalled it tho I confess changing his own Word was an Oversight but I hope it is not a Beam but a Mote that he hath discovered by his Critical Skill SECTION XII Of Ceremonies and the rest of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Presbyterians which have not yet been touched THe last Effort made by this Author against the Presbyterians in his fifth Chapter is made up of his Essay against our Opinion about Ceremonies and other Miscellany Purposes which hardly can be reduced to one Head which I shall consider as his Discourse shall bring them in Before I Examine his Dissertation I observe two things in general concerning it The first is the course Treatment he giveth the Presbyterians without Exception as if he had them under his Feet in this Conflict before he enter on the Debate He calleth our Opinion or rather his own mistaken Apprehension of it for it is none of ours as will by and by appear a silly Theorem on which he saith we have broken the Unity of the Church and filled the Heads and Mouths of People with a thousand Airy and Unaccountable Fancies he calls what we say on this Head Raveries and a Labyrinth of Idle Talk Fooleries My other Observation is his odd Representation of our Opinion which he maketh to be altogether new and our own and indeed as he representeth it it is wholly new and none of ours but his
which are the Work of the Minister not of the Elder § 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it is that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted for it not only was the way of the Apostolick but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages as I have shewed Rational Def. of non conformity § 6. p. 197. c. and should now further have Debated it with him if he had insisted on it He misrepresenteth our Opinion while first he saith we maintain this Right to be unalterable whereas we think a People may lose it as to its present Exercise by their inhability or negligence and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church While 2dly He insinuateth p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People without due Restrictions and Limitations We think the People in this as in all their other Religious concernments are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery Congregational or Classical Instead of Arguing against this Way he laboureth to cast Dirt on it which easily may be wiped off I have proved in the Place Cited that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent or Objecting against them but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe for the 36. Canon of the Apostles it is Mihi 37. which he Citeth not only we Reject it with the rest as not Authentick nor Probative but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office and Charge Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent as well as without theirs that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike either on the part of the Pastor or of the People after Ordination which should not excuse them from mutual Duties and so it is nothing to our purpose How popular Election would hinder Uniformity more than the Patrons Election doth iss hard to be understood That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals doth not always hold People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning and more Religion than themselves And if they be of such perverse Inclinations they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery What he saith of the scandalous effects of Popular Election I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions were far more visible frequent and horrid when Bishops were otherwise chosen there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops in the Later Primitive times after that Office was settled in the Church What are we concerned more than his own Party is in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another Is any Church accountable for either the Follies yea or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members further than to Rebuke or Censure them according to the degree of Offence given when they come to be known I know of no such Wagers laid among our People tho may be there is too much of being Puffed up for one against another as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive timeâ— is most absurd if he mean that a great regard was not had to it as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church if he mean that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians and no more lookt after it is false and injurious § 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one Pâ—esbyterian and which had been sufficiently wiped off but he is resolved not to be satisfied I am wholly indifferent whether he be or not And yet this Charge he only mentioneth and therefore I shall not insist on it neither but it seems this was but Introductory to what he intended which is he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops I have abundantly Cleared this Matter and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius in 3d. Sect. of this Work § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh He telleth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisiâ—â—h properly to help one that is ready to fall this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith and higher in Authority of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop the Praeses A most ridiculous way of Arguing For 1. It supposeth the Question that Bishop or the Praesides Presbyterii are higher in Authority which we cannot yield 2. It can be far better applyed to Deacons who relieve them who are ready to Perish Next saith he Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of A. What Grotius saw I know not nor am concerned to know Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue that we must know these that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet may be might one say the Apostles by Baptism by casting out of the Church c. understood some other thing than we do at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek and we know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in that Language if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now he should have Proved it and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue he should have shewed it and not thought us so â—ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess built on a Possibility where he cannot shew so much as Probability His Advice hath been followed before it was given in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design He hath another Argument from the Context which yet is the same above-mentioned and Answered that the Apostle having in the preceeding v. he should have said in the same v. distinguished the several Offices c. that were then