some whole Peoples readily imbraced the Christian Religion Behold Reader how plainly and fully Eusebius relates the thing we plead for viz. that those Officers were altogether extraordinary unfixed and temporary § 5. Wretch'dly therefore does D. M. castrat this full and plain discourse while he only says that an Evangelist in the Notion of Eusebius was a Person that preached the Gospel to those that had not heard of it or resisted it and thus dissembles the whole matter in question which Eusebius clearly determines And according to this Relation of Eusebius 2 Timothy 4. 5. he is enjoined to do the Work of an Evangelist and never made a long stay at one place for even after the time of his pretended Ordination to the Bishoprick we find him not rarely with the Apostle Paul as his Attendant or Fellow Labourer which not only his joint Superscriptions to the second Epistle to the Corinthians and these to the Philippians Colossians both his Epistles to the Thessalonians and to Philemon but also the long Journeys and Peregrinations wherein we find Timothy still imployed irrefragably make manifest for after he is supposed to have been Bishop of Ephesus he was accompanying Paul in his Voyages Acts 20. 4. and was with him Prisoner at Rome as is probable from Philippians 1. and 1. Heb. 13. 23. as also frequently imployed in long Voyages to several Churches and that in Businesses which could not be expeded in a day as is evident 1 Cor. 4. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 10. Philip. 2. 19. Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 21. So that if he was Bishop of Ephesus he will prove a sufficient Patern for non-residence Most of which things may be supposed of Titus whose frequent long Journeys are mentioned by the same Apostle Yea they have just as good ground in 2 Tim. 4. 10. to fix Titus his Episcopal Chair in Dalmatia which was the Fancy of Aquinas and others as they can ever shew for their dream of its being among the Cretians And indeed the very Phrase from which they gather the Prelacy of Titus as we have already observed of Timothy gives real ground to conclude the contrary For this Cause saith he I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in Order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders From which place any ingenuous Man shall be compell'd to inferr that Titus was only left there to supply some present want and to return again much rather than that he was the fixed Arch-Bishop of Crete § 6. It 's amazing then that in defiance of so clear Antiquity yea and so clear and full Scripture evidence some dare to transform Timothy and Titus unto ordinary and fixed Officers why they see that among the ordinary and fixed Church-Officers they cannot find what they covet the Scriptures making Bishop Pastor and Presbyter one and the same but yeelding no place to their Diocesan Bishop a Lord and Ruler over other Bishops or Pastors They are compell'd therefore in imitation of the Romanists who degrade the Apostle to find the Bishop of Rome and Antioch just so to handle the Evangelists that Peter be not alone but may find other degraded Companions if he shall by chance in his Journey from one of his Sees to another visit Crete or Ephesus § 7. But more strange is that most precarious Assertion of D. M. that Philip the Evangelist had no Power of Ordination But it 's yet more admirable how to establish Timothy a Bishop he can adduce the eleventh Act of the Council of Chalcedon surely had he read the learned Stillingfleet who hath for ever baffl'd them in this their Allegation he had blush'd at the very mentioning thereof And we learn from Hierome that Titus after he had given some Instruction to the Churches of Cret◠was to return again to the Apostles and to be succeeded by Artemas or Tychicus for comforting of these Churches in the absence of the Apostle Judge Reader if Hierome thought Titus was fix'd Arch-Bishop of Crete It 's questionable saith Chrysostome if the Apostle had then constituted Timothy Bishop there for he saith that thou might'st charge some that they teach no other Doctrine Thus he without a word more for solution of this his Doubt Judge therefore if from the very Scripture whereon alone they would found Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus he really concludes not the quite contrary Doctrine It 's doubtfull saith a most earnest Prelatist Salmeron the Jesuit if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus for altho' he preach'd and ordain'd some to the Ministry there it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place for Paul preach'd also there above two years and absolv'd the Penitents and yet he was no Bishop Add that now and then the Apostle call'd him away unto himself and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his Epistle And in the second Epistle he commands him to come to him shortly Timothy was also an Evangelist of that Order Eph. 4. He gave some Apostles c. So that Dorotheus says in his Synopsis that Timothy preach'd through all Grecee but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop but that in the constitute Church of Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles c. It appears therefore that he was more than a Bishop altho' for a time he preached in that City as a Pastor and ordain'd some to the Ministry Hence it is that some call him Bishop of Ephesus And to conclude this matter the celebrated Stilling fleet ingenuously grants that Timothy and Titus were no fixed Bishops or Pastors but Evangelists notwithstanding saith he all the opposition made against it as will appear to any who will take an impartial survey of the Arguments on both sides § 8. As for the Apocalyptick Angels tho' with Beza we should affirm that by one of 'em one single Moderator is mean'd we yeeld them nothing but e contra cut the sinews of their Argument With this D. M. ingages not only he calls the Alterableness of the Moderator which Beza holds as defensible ridiculous which is said without proof and tho' it were so touches not the marrow of our Answer But they shall find their Foundation yet weaker for such a structure so soon as they shall with attention read over the contexts of the place now in Controversie The seven Stars which are the seven Angels are said to be held in God's right hand whereby without peradventure is signified the great care our Lord had of the Pastors of these Flocks in order to the promoting of the great Gospel-Design the gaining of Souls to himself But Bishops I mean Diocesans as such and distinct from other Pastors are not at all Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments by whom mostly this Gospel-design is effected Moreover how few should they be to whom this care was extended and how small comfort should the bulk of the Labourers in the Word and Doctrine be able to reap from the
to that of Ignatius foisted in a great many Passages wherein nothing but the illimited Power of all Church-men is depredicated and the blind Obedience of the Laity is enjoin'd and commended I 'm confirmed in my sentiment by Ignatius his Epistle to the Romans who certainly had as truly a Bishop as the Smyrneans Magnesians or any other saluted by Ignatius but of the Roman Bishop or of the Honour and Obedience due to him in all this Epistle we find not a syllable Certainly had this servile Obedience to the Clergy been such a fundamental Article of the Christian Religion as all along through these other six Epistles he makes it he had not failed to have inform'd the Romans thereof seeing nothing I believe can be alledg'd to exime the Romans more than other Churches from paying such Honour to their Clergy 'T is vain to repone that he was then on his Journey to Rome and was shortly to see that Church and might on this account forbear seeing they may after this manner of arguing prove the whole Epistle spurious or at least superfluous this Duty of Obedience to Church-men if we believe these six Epistles being so necessary a part of the Christian Religion that 't is never to be forgotten but at all times with the greatest zeal and fervency to be inculcated § 3. Yet in defence of all these most dangerous Injunctions of his Ignatius Dr. Pearson saith That there could be no fitter remedy against Heresies then that the Churches should adhere to the Pastors whom Ignatius knew to be Orthodox But such an adherence as these Epistles every where command is so far from being a Remedy against Heresies and Schisms that as the sad instance of the Romanists witness it has been the greatest Augmentation and the most deadly humour in all the Disease But why did he not acquaint the Romans with this Remedy Did he suspect their Bishop as unsound Or thought he that every Roman Christian was above danger and infallible And indeed the scarce paralellable extolling of Church-men through all the former six Epistles the perpetual silence thereof in that to the Romans loudly proclaim that either they were write by different Authors or else that they have undergone no few Additions and Corruptions which his Epistle to the Romans had escaped seeing I think they will scarce adventure to say that the Epistle to the Romans sometime had in it such Injunctions of Obedience to the Roman Clergy which by some chance or other were afterward obliterate § 4. Again what can we make of that proud boasting in his Epistle to the Trallesians as if he had been the only Muster-Master to the Angels But Pearson tells us That it 's not strange tho' Ignatius a Bishop who had long conversed with the Apostles could write something concerning Heavenly Things which are so often mention'd by the Apostles and he stiffly denies in opposition to Daille That such knowledge is not giv'n to Mortals and perhaps saith Pearson we know not well what Ignatius mean'd when he wrote these things concerning Angels and yet who will say but that he knew them himself And then he acknowledges that Ignatius discourses of his Know not giv'n to any Mortal seeing for the proof hereof it 's enough to repone the words of Elephas to which of the Saints wilt thou turn thee Surely not to Paul seeing it can never be made evident that he either taught others or ascribed to himself the knowledge of these Ignatian or rather Pseudo-Ignatian Mysteries Altho' therefore we know not the meaning of these his words we shall I believe incurr little hazard thereby and if he knew them himself I shall not debate Certainly if we judge of the Author by his Work we shall have little ground to apprehend that his Judgement was of the greatest reach for remove a very few flowers this so much celebrated Garden shall be nothing but a den of weeds neither can better be expected where any intrude into the things they have not seen as the Author of this Passage appears to have done boasting of that wherein neither the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures nor the primitive Christians profess'd themselves to be skillfull for altho ' the Ancients acknowledged that there were or might be such Dignities Distinctions among Angels yet who before the Impostour that borrowed the name of the Areopagite adventured to profess their acquaintance with the particulars thereof But most of all I admire that he for his purpose alledges Irenaeus as if the Mysteries of God were nothing else but a convertible term with the Politicks or Tacticks of Angels With how much more reason may we understand the Mysteries mention'd by Irenaeus to be these magnifi'd by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 16. which without Controversie are equaly great and proffitable Lastly as to Chrysostome he cites no where wherfore I cann't so easily make a judgement concerning him otherwise ' tseems he may be understood of a greater measure of knowledge of the Mysteries frequently spoken off by the Apostle And withall I observe that Dr. Pearson still insinuates and intimates as if Ignatius and other primitive Christians receiv'd from the Apostles other mysterious Doctrines not to be committed to writing different from what is comprehended in the holy Scriptures wherein notwithstanding the whole Counsel of God is delivered which Opinion is much fitter for a Jewish Cabalist or Romish Traditionary than a Protestant Doctor § 4. M. Du Pin imbraces and only contracts Pearson's Answer saying that the knowledge of the Orders Offices and Stations of Angels might be affirmed by an ancient Bishop all Christians knew Heavenly Things And Ignatius says nothing of Angels but what had been said by St. Paul But herein he palpably contradicts himself and affirms what he had before deni'd for to prove the Forgery of these Books that bear the Areopagites name Du Pin gives us this Argument He viz. the Author of these Books distinguishes the several Orders of Angels and observes their difference things that were unknown to the ancient Writers and concerning which they were not sollicitous to be informed as S. Irenaeus assures us in lib. 2. ch 55. He opposes also Dr. Pearson who as we have heard deduced from this same Irenaeus a quite contrary Doctrine § 5. Thus far I had proceeded secure of any other Controversie concerning this Passage when I was surpris'd to find Dr. Wake the Englisher of these Epistles make Ignatius together with his language change his Doctrine and speak quite contrary to what he had delivered either in Greek or Latine for thus he Englishes the now controverted words of Ignatius For even I my self altho' I am in bonds yet am not therefore able to understand Heavenly Things as the description of the Places of the Angels and the several Companies of them under their respective Princes the things visible and invisible but in these things I am yet a Learner But this Version is by no
that is Elders These ordered and determined every thing that concern'd the synagogues or the persons in it Next them were the three PARNASSIN or Deacons whose charge was to gather the Collections of the rich and to distribute them to the poor All the Presbyters saith the Learned Le Moyne took not on them the burden of preaching and exponing the scriptures some were taken up in serving at the administration of the Sacraments searching into scandals visiting the sick strengthning the weak and providing for the Churches profit but the business of preaching belonged only to the Apostles the Bishops and the first Presbyters Hence in times of the ancient Church the Bishops perpetually preached which the inferior Presbyters did not except they were admitted thereto by the Bishops and chief Presbyters Most memorable to this purpose are the words of the learned Jesuite Sirmundus Anciently saith he the Bishops only and no others preached the word of God for this was their proper province and work 't was afterwards tho' not alike soon every where allowed to the Presbyters to preach this was soonest begun in the East as is clear from the practice of Pierius Chrysostome and others who preached while they were only Presbyters And now judge tho' nothing else had been adduced but what is just now brought from these profoundly learn'd and most unsuspected Arbiters if the Regimen and Way of the true primitive Church was not according to the Gospell Humility and Simplicity most opposite to a terrene Domination Prelaticall Grandor and Power over other Pastors and the vanity of preterscripturall and superstitious Ceremonies if she then enjoy'd not Bishops or Pastors Ruling Elders and Deacons if then whosoever had power to dispense the Word and Sacraments with the Charge of any particular Flock or Congregation was not reciprocally one and the same with a Bishop and finally if the primitive Way was not entirely one with that of our Church of Scotland and others of the reformed Churches which is now known by the name of Presbytry Hence it 's carefully to be noted how odd and grievous Alterations were made both as to the use of Terms and in the Offices they had primitively signifi'd in Scripture In yea even after the Apostolick Age we find that the word Bishop whereever it holds forth an ordinary Church-Officer alwayes signifying a Labourer in the Word and Doctrine and Dispenser of the Srcraments Pastor of a Flock or Congregation We find also the Word Presbyter taken as its equivalent denoting this very thing elsewhere as is now made evident the word Presbyter signifies no Pastor of a Flock but only one who was to assist him in Ruling and Guidance thereof some also of this latter kind of Presbyters designing the Ministry there beeing then few or no Theological Schools were trained up for the Office under the Inspection of Bishops or Parochial Pastors and accordingly whiles assisted them therein But this was only accidental to the Office of a ruling Presbyter Afterward there was a new kind of Church Office invented whose chief work was not to feed any Flock or Congregation and yet was reputed the Pastor of many Flocks which was a compleat Contradiction His Province was mainly to rule and domineer over a multitude of both Pastors and Flocks him they called the Bishop Another Office epually new and unknown to Scripture and prime Antiquity was a kind of semipastor or half Minister who was to do all the Ministeriall Work and yet was so far from having any Pastorall Power that on the contrary he was only the subject and substitute of another and him they called the Presbyter As for the other sort of Presbyters they came in time to be well nigh intirely abolished and forgotten The like Chrysostome observes of the Deacons saying that in his time such Deacons as the Apostles ordained were not in the Church Hence it 's not strange if the Ancients while sometimes they violent the Scriptures to make them favour what in their oun times was obtaining and at other times while either out of design and freedome or casually they light on the true Meaning of the Scriptures speak most perplexedly of Bishops and Presbyters and afford no small ground of Wrangling and Disputation to all that are exercised in this Controversy In the mean while such Immutation was not made in a day 't was sloe and apparently plausible like the weed which at lenth you may see that it is groun up yet its act of growing ye shall never perceive This Alteration as even Spanhemius F. no enemy to the Hierarchy observes began first in great Cities and beside the generall occasions or rather pretexts for it which we already noted there was this colour more peculiar to great Cities in Rome for example tho there were Christians sufficient to make up severall ordinary Congregations yet at some special times all or most of these used to meet at one place and accordingly were accounted but one Church This might occasion the making of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one particular Moderator among the Pastors who got some primacy of Order and at these more solemn meetings of the People appeared spake most and in time got the appropriation of the name Bishop all this was notwithstanding only a meer prostasy he must nixt have a power over his Collegues in the City the Bishops the parochial Pastors of the Country and lesser Cities are next to be invaded This Fermentation which had small beginnings and still grew untill all was soured suelled especially and was most operative in a time of peace whereof in the third Century they had a good space even from the Death of Valerian untill Dioclesian's Persecution The Emperors themselves saith Eusebius then so much favoured them that they not only gave them Liberty of the publick Exercise of their Religion but also made some of them their Chamberlains and Governours of Provinces In this time the alteration of both Government and Worship was certainly not a litle promoved For nothing then reign'd among the Christians but contention ambition They were not content continous he with the former Edifices but builded large Churches from the foundation But when thro' too much liberty we fell into sloath and negligence when every one began to envy and backbite another when we managed as 't were an intestine warr amongst our selves with Words as with Swords Pastors against Pastors and People against People being dashed one on another exercised flrife and tumult when deceit and Guile had grown to the highest pitch of wickedness When being void of all sense we did not so much as once think how to please God yea rather on the other hand impiously we imagined that human Affairs are not at all guided by Divine Providence we dayly added Crimes to Crimes when our Pastors having despised the Rule of Religion strove mutually with one another studying nothing more then how to outdoe one another in strife
Stilling fleet And amongst many others these his wâ—ords are most observable for having taken notice that Eusebius makes it a most hard Matter to know who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches they planted adds say you so is it so hard a Matter to find out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them unless it be mention'd the Writings of Paul What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagrams made of the Apostolick Churches with every one's Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we having nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures And must then the Tradition of the Church be our Rule to interpret Scriptures by An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless to bend the Rule to the croocked stick c. Again it 's certain that for divers Centuries Bishops were nothing like what they are now either in exercising Civil Power or Jurisdiction over other Pastors or yet in the largeness of Dioceses so that the Term Bishop in respect of the two is little better than an equivocal It 's certain also that the ancient Church wanted not her own Blemishes which was well perceived by her Doctors who still look'd on the Word of God only as the Rule of Faith and Manners on which they never founded the Episcopal Superiority Hence this their Argument carries nothing of Cogency Section VI. The Instance of Aërius condemn'd by Epiphanius prov'd to be unserviceable to our Antagonists TO Illustrat and Corroborat this their Argument from Antiquity they adduce the Instance of Aërius who was for this his Judgement of Presbytry as well as for Arrianism condemn'd and counted Heretick by Epiphanius But it is certain that Epiphanius censur'd Aërius not only for his being Anti-episcopal and as he believ'd because Arrian but also for his rejecting of Lents set and Anniversary Fasts and for denial of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead Now either purer Antiquity join'd with Epiphanius in asserting of the necessity of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead and other such Fopperies or they did not and if they join'd with him therein then our Prelatists if they be Protestants are concern'd to reflect better of how little weight their Argument from the Ancients pressing their unwarrantable Additions can be unto them But if they say that sounder Antiquity consented not to Epiphanius while he urged Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead and such Anti-scriptural Fictions we return that neither did the choicest of the Ancients agree with him in his Plea for Prelacy The Judgement of Hierom is so well known herein that the Bishop of Spalato acknowledges that Hierom can by no means yea not byforce be reconcil'd to their Cause Hierome's Judgement saith Saravia was private all one with that of Aërius and contrary to the Word of GOD wherefore we shall examine his Arguments And on this account he is much offended with Hierome accusing him of Vanity Self-contradiction and Prevarication And Alphonsus de Castro sharply reproveth Thomas Waldensis another Papist who had intended to pervert the Testimonies which are commonly alledg'd for Presbytry out of Hierome There De Castro having prov'd out of divers places of Hierome that he was truly for the Scriptural and Apostolick Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter concludes against Waldensis that of necessity there must be another way taken to Answer the Passages alledg'd out of Hierome for Presbytry And at length flatly opposes himself to Hierome in this Matter and saith that we ought rather to believe the Decrees of Popes and Councils than the Doctrine of Hierome though both very Holy and Learn'd And Medina another Champion of the Hierarchy cited by Bellarmine asserts the same of Hierome saying He was of the same Judgement with Aërius in this Matter Bellarmine is very displeas'd with his Brother for his Ingenuity and therefore attempts to bring Hierome over to the Episcopal Party but instead of performing this Task he only fruitlesly endeavours to set Hierome at variance with himself The like success had another of the same Fraternity who like Bellarmine attempted to draw Hierome to his Faction Bayly the Jesuit And yet with these the most disingenous of the whole fry of Loyolites some called Protestants stick not warmly to join themselves and plead for a Patrociny to their Cause from Hierome § 3. Yea not only was Hierome of the same Judgement anent Episcopacy with Aërius but also as even the Jesuite Medina acknowledges the most of the Greek and Latine primitive Doctors and in special Ambrosius Augustinus Sedulius Primasius Chrysostomus Theodoretus Oecumenius Theophilactus This their Opinion saith Medina was first condemned in Aërius then in the Waldenses and lastly in Wicklef but this Doctrine was either dissembled or tolerated by the Church in them for the Honour that was had to them while on the other hand it was always condemn'd in these Men as Heretical because in many other things they swerv'd from the Church Many Papists and other Prelatists cannot away with this Medina's free dealing and use many shifts to refute him and draw these Fathers to their Party But to use the Words of Rivet Whosoever shall consider their Answers collested by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 6. annot 319 323 324. they shall presently perceive that all their Distinctions are most pitifull Elusions and that indeed all these Fathers were no less Presbyterian than Aërius although they accommodat themselves to the Custom then received least for a Matter not contrary to the Foundations of Religion they should have broken the Vnity of the Church What do our Opposits herein but espouse what the Romanists in whom any ingenuity remains have long since disowned § 4. But tho' Epiphanius were the mouth of all Antiquity and the only fit Judge in this Controversie the Triumph of our Adversaries should be very small for Aërius to Prove the Idenity of the two having adduced a parallel of many particulars Epiphanius denieth nothing of these to belong to Presbyters except only Imposition of Hands he yeelds therefore that both of them equally have Power to Baptize to occupy the Chair and finally to perform all Divine Worship Our Antagonists therefore offering to vouch the Prelacy they plead for by the Authority of Epiphanius promise much more then they can perform for what pray is this Power of Imposition of Hands or Ordination compared with what they covet and pretend to support by Epiphanius his Authority I mean the both great and many Differences between Bishop and Presbyter § 5. In the mean while Epiphanius his unjust dealing towards Aërius is most palpable for he sticks not to give out that Aërius his Judgement of the Identity of Bishop Presbyter was look'd on by the whole Church as an intolerable Heresie condemned by the Word of God when
yet the quite contrary is so plain in the Writings of the Ancients down from the very Apostles that even Epiphanius himself could not be ignorant thereof Neither are his Deductions from Scripture more solid than his Allegation of the Suffrages of the Catholick Church is true all he brings from Scripture being 1 Tim. 5. 1. and 19. but he so grossy abuses these Scriptures that even Spalatensis himself and the ablest Patrons of Prelacy are ashamed of these Inferences But Epiphanius had less exposed himself had he as he did in the Matter of Lents set Fasts Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead and other such his dear and beloved Doctrines pretended only to Tradition and so the Lettice should have been fitted for the Lips and also his miserable weakness have been less apparent § 6. And though in the last place to render Presbytry more odious they still upbraid us with the Arrianism of Aërius we need be little concern'd therewith seeing we have the greatest Opposers of Arrians intirely Aërians to speak in the stile of our Opposits in the matter of Presbytry as we have already shewed But I must here add that it is upon no good Ground believed that ever Aërius was Arrian all the Schisms and Divisions though but very small among the Arrians themselves are diligently described by the Historians of these times as Ruffinus Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Theodorus Lector Philostâ—rgius and others but none of these or any others mention a word of the Schism of Aërius which if we believe Epiphanius was a Schism among the Arrians themselves for he tells us that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Pontus from whom Aërius made the separation was a down-right Arrian and persisted therein till his Death Add hereto that Augustine and others who in their Catalogues of Hereticks mention Aërius still in their Preambles intimat that their Author is Epiphanius I name Augustine on the vulgar supposition that he is the Author of that tract de Heresibus which yet is very doubtfull seeing it 's altogether improbable that he ever heard off far less read Epiphanius his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It 's altogether unprobable that they were then translated and it 's certain that Augustine was utterly unable to understand them in the Original Moreover we have in that Tractat Relations of the Nestorian and Eutichian Heresies not broached till after Augustine's Death Which Relations altho' some alledge to have been added by another to the rest which they think to be really Augustines yet seeing they are no less then the rest handed down under his Name tho' they now stand there as an Appendix for in the end of the Pelagian Heresie which is the last before the Appendix he promises more make a good proof that it 's not easie to discern the genuine part of that Tractat from the Spurious However this be from what is said the matter of Aërius resolves into this Issue that we have only the report thereof from Basilius and Epiphanius § 7. But that discourse of Basilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Aërius is mention'd is suspected well nigh condemn'd by Erasmus And to confirm what he asserts Robert Cock in his Censure of the Fathers adds divers Reasons as I am inform'd by Rivet for I have not perus'd Cock himself neither need I seeing in all that Tractat there is not the least mention of Aërius The ground of somes mistake was that instead of Aëtius who indeed was a most noted and pernicious Arrian by the escape of the Printer or some other accident the word Aërius had crept into Erasmus his Translation thereof But in the Original printed at Paris Anno MDXVIII there is Aëtius not Aërius They have saith he a certain old Quibble from Aëtius the head of his Heresie And indeed Basil could never have term'd Aërius or any thing said by him ancient seeing he was scarcely so old as Basil himself As for Epiphanius if we consider the Passion wherewith he manages the Debate with Aërius and his great credulity of whatever might favour his own Cause and his many Mistakes in Historical Matters he deserves little Credit in this Matter A mighty Tide of Passion which both blinds Mens eyes and opens their Ears to false Reports visibly appears in Epiphanius his whole conduct of the Dispute with Aërius and that he was most credulous believing the most light and groundless Reports and in matters of Fact of all men most frequently fell into Mistakes is attested not only by Melchor Canus and Baron in many places of his Annals among the Papists but also by the learnedest of the Protestants as Casaubon whose words are Epiphanius was a great Man but as is very evident he did most easily believe every most silly and groundless Report To which also the learned Rivet assenteth § 8. One Instance whereof appears in his Relation of the Donatists whom either out of misinformation or some other weakness he accuses also of Arrianism and tells us that they agreed with Arrius in Doctrine and that one Refutation would serve for both § 9. Augustine indeed speaks as if some of them believed the Son to be less than the Father But as appears from the same Author they erred rather in expression than reality for he presently absolves them from the Charge and informs us that between the Church and them there was no Question concerning this Matter And elsewhere he imputes this dangerous Expression to Donatus their Leader who had used it in some of his Writings but tells us with all that his Party follow him not herein Neither saith Augustine shall ye readily find one among them all who knows that Donatus had any such Opinion And Optatus plainly declares that in the great Foundations of Christianity there was no difference between the Orthodox and Donatists And indeed it is acknowledg'd by all except Epiphanius that the Donatists were only guilty of Schism not of Heresie § 10. But Aërius they may object his Arrianism is sufficiently attested by what is recorded of Eustathius his Friend and Bishop and indeed Basil accuses Eustathius of Arrianism but for ought I remember the Historians of these times differ from Basil. § 11. They accuse Eustathius of Levity Deceit Macedonianism or the denial of the Holy Ghost's Divinity a most damnable Heresie yet different from Arrianism And herein also they represent him rather variable and unfixed than intirely wedded to this Heresie He once subscrib'd to the Orthodox Doctrine and was approv'd as such by Liberius the Bishop of Rome then Orthodox and other Catholick Christians But they write that he relapsed In the mean while when he was most for the Macedonians he said as he would not call the Holy-Ghost God so he durst not call him a Creature hence he may rather be counted among these who were most dangerously shaken than a down-right Macedonian and may for all is said of his
and other places no small number of excellent Men to Scotland who doubtless did no small service to God therein and especially in the time of Fincormachus when as all observe a great many fled hither who were famous both for Life and Doctrine yea long before this even in the time of Tertullian our Church was well known to much of the Christian World as appears from his clear Testimony The places of Britain saith he to which the Romans could not yet pass are notwithstanding subject to Christ. And if any have called Scotland barbarous or not well reform'd before the coming of Palladius Sir George learn'dly refutes them and names severals and among them even Stannihurst otherways an enemy to our Nation who have done it and he well observes that the reason why some speak of us as then not well enough reform'd was because of our want of agreement with the Church of Rome § 6. As to the last part of the Bishop's discourse saying that it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with the matters of the Church c. And wherein he is seconded by St. Asaph who falls foul on Presbyterians on this account as if they were darkners of all Church History c. They should know that as our Historians call'd these Monks they also call'd them Priests sometimes Presbyters or Bishops or Doctors and frequently Culdees Our people saith Boeth also began most seriously at that time to embrace the Doctrine of Christ by the guidance and exhortation of some Monks who because they were most diligent in Preaching and frequent in Prayer were call'd by the Inhabitants Worshippers of God which name took such deep root with the common People that all the Priests even to our time were commonly without difference call'd Culdees i. e. Worshippers of God Elsewhere this Author call'd these Teachers and Guides indifferently Priests Monks and Culdees Thus also speaks the best of our Historians some of whom we have heard calling them Presbyters and Admistrators of the Sacraments Hence 't is clear that when they call them Monks the word is not to be taken in the later Popish sense for a Layhermite for these our primitive Pastors were only call'd Monks by reason of their strictness of life and frequent retirement to Devotion when the publick work of the Ministry did permit it and perhaps also divers of them abstain'd from Marriage that they might keep themselves free from the World and its care without urging this on others as was the practice of the famous Paphnutius in the council of Nice From all which I conclude that before the coming of Palladius we had a settl'd Church without the least umbrage of their Hierarchy § 7. I add that long after that it had but very slender footing here seeing according to Spotswood they had no distinct Titles or Dioceses whose words are neither had our Bishops auy other Title then that of Scotorum Episcopi or Scotish Bishops whereby they were distinguish'd before the days of Malcomb the III who first divided the Country into Dioceses appointing to every Bishop the limits c. Yea after most strict search for a long time posterior to Palladius he can scarce find the least footsteps of Episcopacy And again long it was after the distinction of Dioceses before they were admitted to any civil Places or Votes in Parliament Hence nothing is more certain than that for many Ages the Church of Scotland knew nothing of their Hierarchy the first Rudiments whereof were bronght from Rome which was sent packing thither again when we renounc'd our obedience to Anti-christ § 8. Take but one other particular and I take leave of the Advocat he 's much displeas'd with St. Asâ—ph terming him a Caresser of Fanaticks for affirming that in consequence of this our Argument taken from the confess'd Practice of our primitive Church we might reasonably conclude that when we covenanted against Episcopacy we had only us'd our own right and thrown out that which was a confess'd Innovation in order to the restoring of that which was our primitive Government A notable and never to be forgotten Concession of so learn'd an Adversary as is this Bishop Let 's hear what the Advocat returns him It will not follow saith he that because our Church in its infancy and necessity was without Bishops for some years therefore it was reasonable for Subjects to enter into a solemn League and Covenant without and against the Consent ef their Monarch and to extirpat Episcopacy settl'd then by Law and by an Old Prescription of 1200 years at least But this most unfair Representation of our Arguments antecedent is I trust now sufficiently discover'd wherefore I have nothing to do here with it not yet am oblig'd to evince the consequence he denies seeing 't is not to be accounted ours but his own who made the antecedent Of the Grounds why the Nation entred into a Covenant I also discours'd already In the mean while I can't but take notice of his settling Episcopacy by Prescription a Romish Argument which whatever it may do in Law has no place here His Prescription I 'm sure essentially differs from that of Tertullian against the Heresies of his time seeing he liv'd in a very early Age when especially if ever Prescription could have place in the Church and the Doctrines which he defended were generally and uninterruptedly held by the Pastors even from the Apostles times and more ancient than the Heresies against which he prescribes whereas in the present case all things are clean contrary For as the Advocat himself here supposes the original of Scotish Episcopacy is several Ages posterior to that of the Apostles so that if the Argument could militat for either Party it serv'd well the Church of Scotland against Prelacy and not at all e contra But tho' things had been quite otherwise there had been no fear of harm from their Prescriptions seeing as Vincentius Lerinensis admonishes In refutation of inveterat Errors we must recurr to the sole authority of the Scriptures And Optatus Milevit plainly asserts that Christ's Testament abundantly suffices to determine all and every particular Controversie among Christians Thus we see how pleasant a spectacle these two Champions afford us the Bishop forms the Major Proposition and asserts on supposition of the Antiquity of our Royal Line and veracity of our Historians that our Church acted with reason enough and was only recovering her own Right when she cashier'd Prelacy The Advocat in attempting to disprove this the Bishop's Proposition has only giv'n such prevarications and elusions as most strongly confirm all the dis-interested of the truth thereof As for the Minor Proposition that our ancient Royal Line is not forg'd but real and our historical Monuments most true and credible the Advocat himself to the conviction of all the unbyass'd in both his Books makes appear It remains therefore as a conclusion of undoubted verity that our Church was
be concluded the first step of the Beast's Throne But this retorsion being once handl'd shall hurt us no more then what we have already removed for take a Gospel Ministry unconfounded with a papal Hierarchy and then there is not the least colour or pretext for any Man 's ascribing to it the first rise of Popery the parity we plead for among Pastors of Flocks secures a Gospel-Ministry from any force or appearance of reason in any such assault whereas on which I 'm not now to dwell the Topicks establishing Prelacy tend no less to assert a Papacy But again the belief of a Gospel-Ministry as a thing altogether necessary for the Being of a Church is so well and so universally rooted in the hearts of all Christians that they compar'd with the rest have scarce amounted to a handfull who had the holdness to deny it and so there 's little hazard to be fear'd from these few contemptible Objectors and tho' there seem'd to be and the Objection should appear never so pungent yet it could be really of no weight against so necessary and indispensible an Ordinance Whereas on the other hand there 's so little necessity of Prelacy that the far greatest and best part of its Abettors and in these the Author himself as in due time shall appear grants that 't is no different Order from Presbytry has no footing in the Word of God and in a word to the overthrow of his Principles confounds a Prelat with a parochial Pastor Another grand but just prejudice against the Hierarchy is the looseness and prophanity most frequently cleaving thereto how prophane and scandalous they and theirs were during former Prelacy has already appear'd of the latter the matter is no less evident for at such a height growth during their Government yea under their wings did prophanity abusing of God's blessed Name and such gross immoralities arrive that to abstain from such vices and follow piety was a Crime well nigh able to make a Man pass for a Whig and Phanatick and what hazard did enshew these Sir-names none is ignorant All this and much more was not only evident to the body of this Kingdom but was also notic'd abroad and amongst others by their Friend R. Coke Yea his Majesty whom Divine Mercy sent for our Relief well knew 't and accordingly in his Declaration for Scotland has amongst many others this most memorable Sentence Although saith He the Dissenters have just cause of distrust when they call to mind how some hundreds of their Ministers were driven out of their Churches without either Accusation or Citation the filling of many of whose Places with Ignorant and Scandalous Persons hath been one great occasion of all those Miseries which that Country for a long time hath groaned under They may pretend that such Enormities were only accidental to Prelacy which may fall out under any Government but none versant in Church Story is ignorant how much mischief and scandal this Hierarchy hath cast upon Christianity Let them read Socrates and other Records of these more ancient times and they shall find that the Prelats tho' but beginning to appear and by far not so degenerat from the simplicity of the Gospel as afterward by their swelling tympany and aspiring to Domination induc'd the People to commit the most lewd and vile Pranks readily imaginable to the doolfull scandalizing of Jew and Gentile and their utter abominating of Christianity it self as is clear from the miserable Havock Destruction and Slaughter the contrary Factions of Bishops in the Plea for the Episcopal See between Damasus and Vrsinus prompted the People to commit from the most scandalous Pranks of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria the most unhumane and barbarous concomitants and consequents of the Deposition of Chrysostome with many other such open Impieties all caus'd and occasion'd by the Prelatick pride and insolency which publick and most scandalous Enormities had the Christian World retain'd the truly Primitive and Apostolick Parity we plead for could never have hapned for had the Superiority Riches and Grandour the very aples of these most unchristian Contentions been wanting and had every Pastor been kept at the earnest labour of Teaching Exhorting and Catechising a particular Flock or Congregation with only such a competent Stipend as suffic'd to secure him from the contempt of Poverty not to feed Luxury Grandour and such like Vices there had been no occasion of such lamentable Broyls This was observ'd by Nazianzen who himself was Bishop of Constantinople and therefore he earnestly wish'd that there had been no primacy of Place no Prelacy no Prerogative no Superiour or Inferiour Degrees of Pastors The marrow of Saravia's Answer to this most cogent place of Nazianzen is that he finds no fault with the Order of Degrees themselves but with Men and with the times wherein the ambition of the Arrians troubl'd the Church The common and blunt shift of the Romanists whereby to palliat the unlawfullness of their Papacy and a real and clear contradiction of Nazianzen's plain words And was not afterward the Papal and Prelatical pride and affectation of secular rule the prime source of the unspeakable Evils that reign'd all along before the Reformation and yet continue in the Papacy Is not that Kingdom where Prelacy is of most account fill'd with the most idle naughty and profain Clergy-men that are to be found at least in the Protestant World And how can it be otherwise seeing things or Offices retaining litle or nothing of what did primitively constitute them produce quite contrary effects to these design'd by the Authors thereof But nothing is more plain than that the simplicity of the Gospel-Ministry is alter'd into a secular Grandour more by far resembling the Princes of the Gentiles than the Apostles of our Meek and Lowly Jesus who came not to be ministred to but to Minister Now the best of things once degenerat become most noxious what can therefore be expected from such but that they should suit their Government and Policy change the Spirit of a Gospel-Ministry for that of Pomp and Secularity grow intirely Carnal and so become the source of Prophanity in stead of Holiness Part II. Wherein the Epistles of Ignatius are more particularly consider'd and the Plea of the Hierarchicks therefrom examin'd Section I. Of the Author and his Work IT is evident and clear to the more thinking and ingenuous part of the Christian World how Rome's Advocats while they Agent her Cause from the truly Canonical Writings of the Apostles and Prophets after some few struglings sorry evasions and feeble resistance are compell'd to give back and in reality abandon their Posts but were they permitted to use Apocryphal Writings which they say are Ancient enough and written not long after the Holy Scriptures were not these also pull'd out of their hands by demonstrating the spuriousness thereof they should perhaps make a greater appearance and keep the fields somewhat longer The same also is the fate
fear him the more for whomsoever the Lord of the House sends to Govern it we ought to receive him as him that sends him Let us manifest that we ought to receive the Bishop as the Lord. And again in the same Epistle thus I know who I am and to whom I write I 'm condemn'd ye live in Peace I 'm in danger ye sure ye are a Passage to these who are slain in the Lord The Condisciples of Paul sanctifi'd and made Martyrs worthy blessed under whose footsteps let me be found when I enjoy God And to the Magnesians Because I was found worthy to see you in your Bishop Damas and your worthy Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius and my Fellow servant the Deacon Sotion whom let me enjoy because he 's subject to the Bishop as to the Grace of God and to the Presbyters as to the Law of Christ. And again Study to do all things in the Concord of God the Bishop presiding in the Place of God the Presbyters in the Place of the Confession of the Apostles and my most sweet Deacons having committed to their Charge the Service of Christ. And within a few lines Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father being one with him neither by himself nor by his Apostles so do ye nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters And to the Philadelphians So many as belong to God in Christ Jesus these remain with the Bishop And in the same Epistle I cryed in the midst of the Congregration I spoke with a loud voice take heed to the Bishop the Presbytry and the Deacons Some-body thought that I spoke these things foreseeing a Division but he in whom I am bound bears me witness that I had this knowledge from no Man bnt the spirit preached saying without the Bishop see ye do nothing And in his Epistle to the Trallesians Whom I Salute in fullness and an Apostolick Character And again For when ye are subject to the Bishop ye seem not to Walk according to Men but according to Jesus Christ. And in an other place of the same Epistle And in like manner let all Men reverence the Deacons as the command of Jesus Christ and the Bishop as Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father and the Presbytry as the Council of God and Senat of the Apostles without which there is not a Church and thus I counsel you to esteem of them for I have gotten an Example of your Charity and retain the same with me in your Bishop whose very composition is a great deal of Discipline and his mansuetude Power whom I believe the very wicked reverence And afterward in the same Epistle Can I not write unto you Heavenly Things But I sear that I should thereby endammage you being but Children and forgive me least not being able to comprehend them you be strangl'd For I am not bound in every respect but can be able to know things Heavenly the Orders of Angels their Constitutions Principalities things visible and things invisible And again Thus shall it be unto you if ye be not Proud and remain unseparable from God the Bishop and Apostolick Orders And again in the same Epistle Farewell in Christ Jesus if ye be subject to the Bishop as to the command of God and in like manner to the Presbytry But I 'm weary and did never translate more of any Author with less delight or pleasure not because I 'm in the least gravell'd by what is here said concerning Bishops altho' the whole strength of what the Episcopals deduce from Ignatius be wrapt up in these Passages yea I 'm perswaded that from these very Places the Hierarchy's wounded under the fifth Rib. But because the most part of what we have quoted as also no small part of what is behind is altogether insulfe putide and more tasteless than the white of an Egg and the Reader may easily perceive by these Examples that the Spirit and genius of this Author is quite different from what can be looked for in Ignatius a prime Martyr of the primitive Church In all these Epistles 't is clear as the Noon-sun that a head-strong Passion and a furious Zeal of enslaving all Christians under an illimited and blind Obedience to all Church-men as so many Romish Holinesses did intirely possess and reign in the Author of these Epistles The Apostle indeed sometimes admonishes the Churches of the Duties and Esteem Christians should pay to Church-Officers but withall uses but rarely to handle that Subject and with the brevity and modesty that became him ascribing to them only the Titles of Watch-men and Labourers Bishops or Pastors and the like which best became the simplicity of the Gospel whereas on the other hand the pretended Ignatius so far swerves from this humble and Apostolick strain that none tho' they search the Writings of the most corrupt Ages shall be able to find any that in exaltation of the Clergy and depressing and subjecting of the Laity out did him How secure should Basilides and Martial two Spanish laps'd Bishops have been had their Flocks believed this Ignatian Doctrine who having consulted Cyprian If they might not desert these and chuse new Bishops were by him resolved in the affirmative and admonish'd to chuse other Pastors but had they believ'd this pretended Ignatius it had been with them the blackest impiety to have separated from their Bishop or attempted so to do on whatsoever account The Apostles frequently both to Pastors and Churches inculcat the diligent perusal and understanding of the Holy Scriptures as a special Duty that by them as a sure Rule all Mens Doctrines and Injunctions without any exception may be tryed but in liew hereof this their Ignatius has only Mens Persons in admiration perpetually deafening his Hearers or at least wearying his Readers with Injunctions of absolute and blind Obedience as if all and every one of his Bishops Dictats were to be receiv'd without the least Examination a Priviledge that even Christ and his Apostles tho' they might have done it never assumed to themselues but still remitted their Hearers to the Scriptures for the tryal thereof this cann't but in the estimat of all the judicious be a Fault altogether unworthy of the True Ignatius I hope that all honest Men shall give more Charity to this choice Martyr than to believe that he 's guilty of so gross Idolatry for I can call it no better and fantastick and impious doting on the person of any Man whatsoever in which unworthy Work this Author I will not say Ignatius spends no smal part of these Epistles Therefore altho' the asserting of all therein to be genuine be so far from assisting our Adversaries that their Cause is by the very Passages they alledge for its confirmation mortally wounded I can never perswade my self but they have fall'n into the wicked hands of Forgers who tainted with the common Vice of the Ages subsequent
the perpetual Practice of these times frees us from further debate herein I can never find that the Romans brought Christians from Asia or such remote places to be executed at Rome but still to the nearest seats of Justice as is clear in Polycarp and other most famous Bishops or Pastors And truly saith Dr. Stillingfleet the story of Ignatius as much as it 's defended with his Epistles doth not seem to be any of the most probable For wherefore should Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of Persecution execute their Power in punishing of Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a Journey to Rome to be martyr'd there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange Excursions as he did by the Story if the Souldiers that were his Guard wers so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all these uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge Antiquity is to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times And now from what is said jude if D. M. had any good ground to query whether there 's any good and solid Argument brought by the Presbyterians against the Authority of St. Ignatius his Epistles that is not already sufficiently answered Section III. The second Hypothesis viz. that the Antiquity of the trne Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes in Doctrine or serve to Prove that there was no Declension in his time MY second Assertion is that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes and that in his time some Churches not only might but actually were itching after several Novelties Which Assertion if once demonstrated renders Ignatius of little or no use to our Antagonists their Inference is that if Ignatius spoke positively in favours of Episcopacy and lived in a closs vicinity to the Apostles then there 's no doubt but the Apostles established such a Government which consequence like the Aples of Sodom resolves anon into smoake our Assertion being prov'd which I now come to demonstrate The Apostles of our Lord had not chang'd their earthly Tabernacle for that which is not made with hands when to their inexpressible sorrow they beheld not only particular Persons but even the greater part of some Churches they themselves had either planted or watered in stead of Grapes to bring forth will Grapes and in place of being the Repositories of the precious Truths of the Gospel become nests and cages of the most abominable Errors Other Churches there were that holding fast the Foundation of the Apostolick Doctrine but raising thereupon a structure of the stubble and hay of either Judaism or Paganism in one of which all of them had been educated had well nigh made up an Edifice of most Hetrogeneous Materials Hence it is that the Apostle is at such pains to Correct them in their Abuses of the Sacrament in their Superstition concerning Meat and Drink and their unwarrantable observation of Times that wanted all Divine Sanction § 2. But these infallible Guides being at length possessed of their Master's Joy Affairs grew yet worse for then the grand Enemy of the Church did in greater abundance and with more security sow his tares Hence it was that not only those who are justly branded for Arch-Hereticks and Schismaticks but even those who persisted Orthodox in the main Principles of Christianity were drawn into neither few nor inconsiderable Mistakes § 3. I 'm sure Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was a Man both in respect of his Antiquity and Authority among the primitive Christians little inferiour to Ignatius 't was he notwithstanding who either greedily imbrac'd or first of all hatch'd the gross Fancy of the Saints their corporal Kingdom for a thousand years after the Resurrection Moreover saith Eusebius speaking of Papias the same Writer alledges something as from unwritten Tradition viz. some strange Parables and Doctrines of our Saviour and some other fabulous things and amongst the rest he saith that after the Resurrection there shall be a thousand years wherein Christ shall reign on Earth bodily But to me he seems through misunderstanding of the Apostle's Discourse to have taken what was spoken mysteriously in a quite other sense from its true meaning For he was os a very weak Judgement as his Writings sufficiently declare He was notwithstanding the Author of this Opinion to the most part of the following Ecclesiastical Writers for they look'd only to his Antiquity as Irenaeus and whosoever else favoured his Opinion We see here a Man of no little Antiquity and Repute drawing the greatest Lights of the Church and consequently the rest of the Christians to a Doctrine destitute of all countenance from the Word of God § 4. Another Conceit no less Ancient but more wild was that of the Angels their carnal Knowledge of Women This was hugg'd by Justin Martyr who lived in the same Century with yea and not many years after Ignatius The Angels saith he transgressing their Order by carnal Copulation with Women fell from their primitive State aud begot Children who are now called Devils He was follow'd notwithstanding by Irenaeus Athenagoras the most famous Writers of their Age as also the stream of these that flourished in the succeeding Centuries Irenaeus also with a great many others held that the beatifick Vision is not enjoy'd untill the day of Judgement Now beyond peradventure such Leaders as these had the most part of the Churches at that time for their Fellows and Followers in these Opinions § 5. And seeing both such Pillars and the rest that lean'd on them were ready to swerve in Matters of Speculation or Opinion they were no less capable of straying in things belonging to Practice for there 's no more security promised to the Church from the one than the other Neither did the closs Vicinity to the times of the Apostles preserve the Churches from evident Lapses of this nature Was not the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water a matter of Practice and altogether destitute of warrand from Scripture in which we hear of nothing but the Fruit of the Vine drunken by Communicants And yet Justin Martyr informs us that the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water was the Practice of his time § 6. Another Instance of the most early Declension of the primitive Church in Matters of the same kind viz. the external Rites and Ecclesiastick Ceremonies was their observation of Easter concerning which the Controversies first arose between Polycarp and the Churches of the East on the one hand and Anicetus and the western Churches on the other Polycarp alledg'd John the Evangelist whose Disciple he had been for the Author of his Opinion but Anicetus and the Romans pretended the
Authority of Peter and Paul for the quite contrary Doctrine I have oftentimes much admir'd how either of these Parties if we consider either Sincerity or Vicinity to the Apostles were liable to any Mistake of this kind I believe scarce any Man now living shall be able to give any rational account of the Cause thereof yet that one of them was mistaken and that the Apostles did not keep up a perpetual observation of contrary Practices one to another is to me and to as many as truly acknowledge the Scriptures among the things of highest certainty and if either of them strayed if sufficiently serves our turn and is an ocular Demonstration that not only the clearest Lights and nearest to the Apostles might relinguish some part of the Apostolick Purity and fall into Rites and Customes never countenanced by the Apostles but also be accompanied by no small part of the Church therein § 7. Yea I dare avouch and sustain that both Parties equally swerved from the Truth seeing both of them had equal Means to have inform'd themselves and were alike nigh to the Apostles so that many were certainly alive of both Parties who had been conversant with them hence there 's no reason to believe either of the Parties that ever the Apostle enjoined or allowed the observation of Anniversary weekly or monthly times either in the same time with or so near to the Judaical and then buried Ceremonies excepting the Sabbath only the observation whereof had been expresly enjoin'd in a clear and Moral Precept Neither in this Assertion shall we remain alone but be supported by the suffrages of the choicest of the Ancients No less Irenaeus in Eusebius intimats while he tells us that this Difference did not arise first in his Age but long before in the time of their Fore-fathers who as is probable being negligent in their Government delivered to their Posterity a Custome which had only crept in thro' Simplicity and â—gnorance And Socrates a grave and solid Author averrs that neither more Ancient nor Later who inclined to follow these Jewish Rites had any cause to raise so great Contention And that the keeping of Easter and such Holy Days were altogether Legal the observation whereof is not at all injoin'd in the Gospel for continues Socrates they did not consider that after the Jewish Religion was changed into that of the Chrstians the strick observation of Moses Law and the shaddows of future things were wholly abolished which by a most sure proof may be thus evinced For by no Law of Christ is it granted to Christians to observe Jewish Customes yea the Apostle did expresly forbid it not only rejecting Circumcision but admonishing moreover that about Feast Days there should be no Contention wherefore in writing to the Galatians he thus speaks tell me ye who desire to be under the Law do ye not hear the Law And after he had discoursed a little concerning these Matters he shews the Jews to be under Bondage but that those who had followed Christ Jesus were called unto Liberty he Exhorts furthermore that Days Months or Years in no ways be observed Moreover writing to the Collossians he clearly asserts that such observations are but a meer Shaddow Wherefore saith the Apostle let no Man judge you in Meat or Drink or in respect of an Holy Day of the New Moon or of the Sabbath days which are a shaddow of things to come But in the Epistle to the Hebrews confirming the same matter he thus speaks For the Priesthood being changed there is also a necessity of the change of the Law surely the Apostles and the Evangelists did never impose a Yoak upon these that became obedient to the Doctrine of Faith but Easter and other days were left to the choise and equity of those who in such days had received the Benefits wherefore seeing Men love Holy Days because they bring them some respite of their Labours divers Men in divers places following their particular Inclinations did according to certain Custome celebrate the memory of our Saviour's Passions for neither our Saviour nor his Apostles did by any Law ordain that it should be observed neither did the Gospels nor the Apostles threaten us with a Mulct Punishment or Curse as the Law of Moses was wont to do to the Jews This and much more are we taught by Socrates from all which it's most clear that in this Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter both Parties were equally culpable as building upon a false Supposition viz. that Christ and his Apostles had appointed some of these Days anniversarily to be kept which yet never came into their mind And here 't is most observable how even in these ost early times they heap'd Falshood upon Falshood and supported one Forgery with another the Fable of Peter's being at Rome and conjuring of Simon Magus there was even then beginning to obtain whereof the Romans made their Advantage and began to ascribe to him some Head-ship over the rest and then averred that he had appointed them not only to celebrate Easter but also had determin'd the particular day of its Celebration and injoin'd them to keep it on the fifteenth and not on the fourteenth day of the Moneth as did the Eastern Churches Now that they might be even with the Romans and meet with them after their own Fashion and arts the Asians invented the like Legends of the Apostle John who as they alledged died at Ephesus and enjoyn'd them to keep Easter but by no means on the fifteenth but on the fourteenth day of the Moneth and the better to set off the Fable Polycrates of Ephesus in his Letter to Victor harangues in the Praises of John that thereby he might prefer him to Peter and sticks not to assert that John was a Priest and wore a High-Priests Golden Crown or Breast-plate And yet as is acknowledged John was not at all of the Priestly Race far less was he the High-priest to whom only of all the Priests such a Crown was peculiar Therefore Valesius imagines that the first Christian Priests as he speaks wore such a Crown for a Sign of Honour in imitation of the Jews As if the Christians of these times had ever dream'd of retaining the very marrow of Judaisme which was then abolished by the coming of Christ the substance But this Antichristian dottage being so gross to be dejested by any real Protestant the learned Le Moyn says that Polycrates spoke metaphorically of John ' s supereminent Knowledge and Gifts But if this be true with how great caution are these Ancients to be read without which we shall be led into the belief of the greatest falshhoods In the mean while I see no ground for this gloss in Polycrates his words either as they are related by Eusebius or by Hierome and Rufine And Epiphanius gives another such golden Crown to James which is no less true than that he was Diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem
The same saith a Ms. Author cited by Valesius of Mark the Evangelist viz. that Mark was of the Priestly Race and according to the Custome of the carnal Sacrifice carried publickly a Golden Crown as the Badge of his Priestly Dignity There is indeed nothing more certian than that the primitive Doctors who are ordinarly known by the name of Orthodox Fathers stuck with a due preciseness to the great and capital Doctrines of the Christian Religion without any swerving therefrom but it 's no less demonstrable as we have now made evident that the same Leaders and these next the Apostles of greatest Antiquity in many other things strayed exceedingly from the true Apostolick Simplicity § 8. Nothing was more frequent to them than relying upon their Vicinity to the Apostles to neglect a more accurate search of the Scriptures relate things otherways than they were transacted alledge the Apostles for Practices to which they never gave Patrociny which beside what we have said already may be sufficiently vouch'd from the Relation of Hegesippus in Eusebius The Administration saith he was undertaken by James the Lord's Brother together with the rest of the Apostles who from the time of Christ even unto our Age is sirnamed Just for there were many others of that Name beside but as for him he was sanctifi'd from the Womb neither did he ever drink Wine or strong Drink and did altogether abstain from the Flesh of any living Creature neither ever came there a Razour on his Head nor did he ever use to anoint or wash and he only of all Men had free liberty to enter into the innermost Sanctuary of the Temple for he was not wont to wear a woollen but a linnen Garment he used to enter alone into the Temple and with bended knees to pray for the People And in the sequel of this discourse he tells us that in the Martyrdome of this James he was both thrown from the pinacle of the Temple and also beaten to Death with a Fuller's Club a certain Priest one of the Sons of Rechab mention'd in Jeremiah exhorting the People to milder Counsels and that all this was done in a tumultuous way without the least appearance of any judicial Process against this Martyr But this Relation of Hegesippus is not only contrare the Holy Scripture where we are assured that the High-Priest alone entred into the Holy of Holies and that the Rechabites were not of the Priestly Race and to Josephus who informs us that James being sisted before the High-Priest's Council and by a kind of judicial Process condemn'd was stoned to Death but also a most insulfe Rapsody savouring more of a Legendary than a primitive Doctor Yet the Author thereof lived contemporary with Justin Martyr a few years only below the Apostles § 9. But of this enough and indeed with me it had been highly Sacrilegious to have said so much but buried in a perpetual silence the Escapes of these whose memory is otherways to me more precious than the ashes of Mausolus to his Artemisia and in fragrancy far surpassing the choicest of Oriental Spices did not the injustice and importunity of these who prefer the Escapes yea and Extravagancies of Men and the blemishes of these great Lights yet but terrene Lights to the unspotted Beams of the Father of all Lights compell me hereto And herein I 'm a true Son of the primitive Church whose Doctors have taught me that when the Dictats of God and these of Men whosoever they be interfer and thro' humane Corruption are set in Competition I ought to hold to the first and in comparison herewith despise the latter § 10. Add hereto that seeing Antichristianism the Mystery of Iniquity was working even in the Apostles days seeing this Defection was mysteriously promoted and seeing as experience hath proved it arrived at its hight and Antichrist was brought to his Throne by the exorbitant elevation of Clergy-men it 's much less to be wondred at if the most frequent Escapes and Lapses of the Primitive and otherways Orthodox Fathers chanced to be of this nature and tend to the establishing an unwarrantable Supremacy and Dignity which only these who were of such Repute in the Church were capable to effect And in all this I have said nothing but what has been asserted by the most approved Divines especially in their Writings against the Romanists Yea the most judicious learned Bishop Vsher is of the same mind Altho' saith he it be undeniable that the first Successors of the Apostles excell'd in Piety and Holiness it 's certain notwithstanding that they neither attained to the Vertue nor simplicity of Doctrine that wee in their Ancestors and Teachers as is well observed by Nicephorus And now judge if D. M's Romish Querie whether the Ecclesiastical Government could be changed from Parity to Prelacy as is pretended in those early Ages of the Church especially since some Apostles and several Apostolical Men surviv'd the Period sixt by some Presbyterians but no Presbyterian did ever yeeld that this Change was made during the Life of any of the Apostles for the beginning of this pretended Change and if the Change was in it self impossible then Prelacy must needs be acknowledged Apostolical I therefore turn my Assertion into a Conclusion and from what is said with confidence Inferr that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes and that in his time some Churches not only might but actually were itching after several Novelties Section IV. The third Hypothesis that there is no real Disagreement but a true Concord betwixt the Doctrine of Ignatius and that of the present Presbyterians I Now come to the third Hypothesis and assert that Ignatius is not so clear and positive in the Matter of Episcopacy as to denude Presbyterians of all rational Defence should they acquiesce in his Judgement and therein join with their Antagonists who still appeal to his Determination For all he speaks of Presbyters as distinguished from Bishops may well be mean'd of these who are call'd Ruling Elders and that there was such an Office in the primitive Church is made evident by what is commonly brought from Origen Tertullian Optatus the African Code and Augustine frequently distinguishing them from preaching Presbyters And Purpurius expresly terms them Ecclesiasticos Viros Ecclesiastick Men In vain therefore object Petavius and others that these were only Church-Wardens not properly Ecclesiasticks And indeed the Ancients not only tell us there was such an Office but also plainly assert that through pride and haughtiness of the Church Doctors this Custom was abolished as Ambrose or rather Hilary sufficiently witnesses The Synagogue saith he and afterward the Church had Elders without whose Counsel nothing was to be done in the Church which by what negligence was abolished I know not except perchance it were through the sloth or rather the pride of the Church-Doctors while they desired to carry
and the Chair yet they succeeded him not in his Apostle-ship but the latter Bishops in neither c. And Lightfoot a renown'd Divine of the Church of England proves that the Apostle-ship was an Order for ever unimitable in the Church The Apostles saith the same Author could not ordain as Apostle by Imposition of Hands as they could ordain Elders but they are forced to use a Divine Lot which was as the immediate Hand of Christ imposed on him that was to be ordained that Opinion took little notice of this circumstance that hath placed Bishops in the Place of the Apostles by a common and successive Ordination Dr. Barrow whose Works are publish'd by Bishop Tillotson and therefore are to be lookt on as his is copious on this Subject Apostles also saith he did Govern in an absolute manner according to Discretion as being guided by infallible assistance to the which they might on occasion appeal and affirm it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicat it They did indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each Church they did assume fellow Labourers or Assistents in the Work of Preaching and Governance but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in Authority Priviledges or Gifts for who knoweth not saith St. Austine that Principate of Apostle-ship to be preferr'd before any Episcopacy And the Bishops saith Bellarmine have no part of the true Apostolical Authority And now judge of the Spirit of these Men who are glad most falsly to brand these famous Bishops and others the most eminent Doctors of that Perswasion as being guilty of the most abominable Crime of Socinianism providing they can thereby bespatter and make odious the Presbyterians Judge also of D. M's Query whether the Apostolical Power as to it 's permanent necessary and essential Branches was not in its nature Perpetual and Successive and by them transmitted in solidum as they receiv'd it from our blessed Saviour to single Successors in particular Sees and not to a Colledge of Presbytsrs in the modern Notion As to the last part of his Query and his Presbyters in the modern Notion I know none such if 't be not these of the Hierarchicks their half Ministers for which there is no ground in Scripture And accordingly it's certain that the Apostles left the managing of the Church to neither Bishops nor Presbyters in his sense both of them being Chimera's but to Colledges of Bishops who are also Presbyters both being one in Scripture during the Apostolick age But tho' we should grant them all the Query seeks supposing which all the Ancients affirm the equality of all Bishops who at the beginning were reciprocated with Congregations he 's yet but where he was and has really done nothing for the establishing of his Hierarchy Judge lastly of that doughty Argument of the Papists and our Hierarchicks for Prelacy to wit that Bishops succeed to the Apostles and Presbyters to the 70 Disciples which has been generally reckon'd by Protestants among Rome's dotages and as such refuted in their Popish Controversies and to name no others by Iunius and Willet who answers that not only Bishops but all faithfull Pastors are the Apostles Successors and that even according to the Pope's Decrees not Bishop but Priests succeed the Apostles and Deacons not Presbyters succeed the 70 Disciples And now to go on with D. M. and his Fellows all their cavilling to make Timothy and Titus Hierarchick Bishops is but the product of a late Popish Dream For the Fathers when they so called them or the Apostles mean'd not of Bishops in this sense § 3. Wherefore Willet Answers that it is most like Timothy had the Place and Calling of an Evangelist and that the Calling of Evangelists and Bishops which were Pastors was diverse This Answer which so approv'd a Divine of the Church of England gave the Papists D. M. calls a ridiculous subterfuge For saith he the Work of an Evangelist has nothing in it opposite to or inconsistent with the Dignity of a Bishop c. A most disingenuous tergiversation and sliding from the Office of the opponent or probant to that of the defendent seeing this was one of his special Scripture-Arguments whereby to establish his Hierarchy and it 's sure that if Timothy and Titus might do what they did under another Notion and Capacity than that of a Diocesan Prelate his Argument goes to wrack As does also his perversion of 2 Tim. 4 5. for he insinuats that from Timothy's being injoined to do the Work of an Evangelist it will no more follow that he deserved the Name than Daniel's saying Ch. 8. 27. that he did the King's Work will prove him a King But had he ever considered the rest of the Epistle the context of the place and the Signification and Notation of the Word Evangelist he had clearly seen that the Apostle so adapts this Work of an Evangelist to Timothy that the Name and Character properly belongs unto him He adds That any who now convert Jews or Pagans are as properly Evangelists as any so called in the primitive Church and thus insinuats that Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus were no extraordinary Officers which except a few Novelists wedded to their Fancies is condemned by all Men. § 4. And that there was such a Function by which some in the days of the Apostles were raised far above the rank of ordinar Pastors or Doctors and placed in the very next degree to the Apostles themselves whose Office was mostly ambulatory going from Church to Church in the exercise thereof is in part intimated by Sedulius and Theodoret and others upon Ephes. 4. 11. but more fully by Eusebius who informs us that even after the Death of the Apostles divers remained who were in a far higher rank than the rest of their Successors who being saith he the admirable and divine Disciples of so great Men built up the Churches the Apostles had founded promoving the preaching of the Gospel and sowing Seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and wide thro' the whole World for many of these Disciples that were yet living whose Minds the Divine Word had inflammed with a vehement desire of Wisdom fullfilling our Saviour's Command and dividing their Goods among the Poor and thus leaving their Country exercised the Office of Evangelists among these who had not yet heard the Doctrine of Faith by most diligent preaching of the Gospel and furnishing their Hearers with the Holy Scriptures these so soon as in any remot and barbarous Country they had laid the Foundations of Faith and ordained Pastors and had committed to these Pastors the care of this New Plantation being content therewith and accompanied by the Grace and Power of God hast'ned to other Countries for even to that time the Divine Power of God's Spirit wrought Miracles by these Men so that at the first hearing of the Gospel
and defended it against the Jesuite Petavius whom D. M. would patronize against both Protestants and Fathers The second of the Homilies ascribed to Augustine in Apocalypsin informs us that under the name of Angel not only Bishops but other Church-Rulers are likewise understood And again seeing Angel signifies a Messenger whosoever whether Bishop Presbyter or Laick frequently speaketh of God and declares how we may obtain eternal Life deservedly gets the name of an Angel of God And Aretas saith he calleth the Church it self the Angel And Primasius saith by these Angels of the Church are to be understood the Guides and Rectors of the People who ruling in particular Churches Preach the Word of Life to all Men for the name of Angel signifies a Messenger And again both Church and Angel is comprehended under the Person of the Angel And thus their main Scripture-Argument even the Fathers being Judges goes to ruine § 13. Yea the more sagacious of our Adversaries well perceive that neither this Scripture nor any other supports their Doctrine Wherefore Petavius never attempts to bring his Proofs from Scripture but only from Ecclesiastick Traditions Add hereto the words of Dr. Burnet As for the Notion saith he of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter I confess it is not so clear to me and therefore since I look upon the Sacramental Actions as the highest of sacred Performances I cannot but acknowledge these who are empower'd for them must be of the highest Office in the Church So I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct Office from a Presbyter but a different degree in the same Office to whom for Order and Vnities sake the chief inspection and care of Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be referred and who shall have Authority to curb the Insolencies of some factious and turbulent Spirits His Work should be to feed the Flock by the Word and Sacraments as well as other Presbyters and especially to try and ordain Entrants and to Oversee Direct and Admonish such as bear Office And I more willingly incline to believe Bishops and Presbyters to be the several degrees of the same Office since the names of Bishop and Presbyter are used for the same thing in Scripture and are also used promiscuously by the Writers of the two first Centuries Where he plainly contradicts Dr. Pearson who in favour of his Ignatius largely pleads for the accurat distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the second Century denies Bishop and Presbyter to be distinct Orders and finally acknowledges that in the chiefest parts of the Ministerial Function they are equal and so really denudes the Bishop of all the degree he left him But more clearly elsewhere I acknowledged saith he Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so I plead for no New Office-Bearers in the Church Next in our second Conference the Power giv'n to Church-men was proved to be double The first Branch of it is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispence the Sacraments And this is all that is of Divine-Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers both being vested with this Power But beside this the Church claims a Power of Jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and of appointing and executing the same all which is indeed suitable to the common Laws of Societies and to the general Rules of Scripture but hath no positive Warrant from any Scripture-Precept And all these Constitutions of Churches into Synods and the Canons of Discipline taking their rise from the Divisions of the World into the several Provinces and beginning in the end of the second and beginning of the third Century do clearly shew they can be derived from no Divine Original and so were as to their particular Form but of humane Constitution therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches Power to cast it in what mould she will A Presbyter acknowledges even Cornelius à Lapide is equal to a Bishop in the chiefest Order which is the Order of the Priest-hood § 14. To which add the Judgement of Dr. Hammond a Man so distemper'd with extreme Passion for the Hierarchy that he makes him that sat on the Throne Rev. 4. God the Father and the four and twenty Elders with their Golden Crowns an Image and Representation of the Metropolitan Bishop of Hierusalem and the four and twenty Bishops of Judaea in Council for Golden Crowns or Mitres he makes the Characters of the Episcopal Dignity Yet even he asserts on Acts 11. 30. Philip. 1. 1. that the Title of Presbyter in Scripture times belonged principally if not only to Bishops There being saith he no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted but Bishops only and Deacons This he at large confirms and so really overthrows Prelacy when he would fainest establish it joining with the Presbyterians in their grand Antiprelatick Principle viz. that simple Presbyter as the Hierarchicks phrase it without Power of Ordination or Government or a distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter is a meer stranger without all Foundation in the Holy Scriptures From all which 't is clear that these Bishops or which is all one preaching Presbyters in Scriptures and during the Apostolick age were nothing save Pastors of particular Congregations Section VI. Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the Writings of the Apostles his immediat Ancestors MOreover nothing can be more clear for the Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter than that known Scripture Acts 20. 17 28. They Answer that the Bishops of Asia not the Pastors of Ephesus were by Paul sent for which some would support from the 18 ver From the first day that I came into Asia c. But since as is clear ch 19. verse 10. from his coming into Asia he had been most in Ephesus he might truly say so much tho' the Ephesians only had been present but suppose he spoke to others beside we are at no loss the Question is if he gave not tho' amongst others the Title of Overseers or Bishops to these he sent for verse 17. And if these were not the Elders of Ephesus They yet object the words of Irenaeus viz. That Paul called together to Miletum the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring Towns But as for his seeming here to distinguish Bishops from Presbyters this Scripture where they get both Names and which Iraeneus had then in his view and his frequent promiscuous using of these Names perswade me that he only respected the 17 and 28 verses and so took Bishop and Presbyter Synonimically for one and the same His adding of the neighbour Towns to Ephesus might flow from his inadvertency whereat no attentive Reader of Irenaeus will marvel and yet this is as likely to have crept into the Version for the Original of Iraeneus we have not because these Elders their belonging to
Ephesus alone is not only so clear from the 17 verse that the repeating of the word Ephesus would really prove a redundancy wherefore the Syriack omits it in the former part of the verse and expresses it in the latter and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus but also all the Ancients either affirm as Hierome or suppose that these Elders belonged only to Ephesus which even Dr. Maurice yeelds against Dr. Hammond and says that then properly speaking there might not be a Bishop amongst them all for they are Presbyters belonging not to several Congregations but to one Church and might have a Bishop But not only the promiscuous attributing to them the Names Bishop and Presbyter their being and that without any insinuation of their Subjection to a superiour Bishop enjoin'd by the Apostle to Oversee and feed the Flock and finally the very Repetition of this Fiction of their Hierarchy in the Apostolick Age sufficiently refute it Who continues he the Ancients thought was Timothy And thus all resolves into the fictitious Episcopacy of Timothy already overthrown Now 't is observable how they contradict one another and by halfs acknowledge to be false all they plead for for some as Dr. Maurice perceiving that the Ancients affirm and the Scriptures proclaim all these Elders to belong to the Church or City of Ephesus acknowledge these could be no Diocesan Bishops Others as Dr. Hammond in locum alibi and Petavius seeing that these are not only dignifi'd with the name of Bishop but intrusted with the care of the Flock and that without Paul ' s mentioning of any superiour Bishop when if ever there was ground to have mention'd him yeeld that of necessity these Elders must be Bishops or more than simple Presbyters Whence is all this Contradiction and Confusion of Tongues but from the force of Truth before which Men must either bow or break and be compell'd tho' after never so much interpolation and disguise to express what they would fainest conceal The matter is their Diocesan Bishop their simple Presbyter their distinction between Bishop and Presbyter are meer Antiscriptural Figments in the sustaining of which against this and the like Scriptures they are obliged to confront one another and in the throng of their blunderings intirely yeeld the Controversie § 2. The same line of confusion runs along their Answer to Philip. 1. 1. with the Bishops and Deacons c. whence 't is clear that there were in one City many Bishops who were no other thing than Presbyters and that these were no distinct Orders the Deacons being immediatly subjoin'd these were the Bishops of the several Cities of Macedonia under Philippi the Metropolis saith Dr. Hammond in locum 't is denied by Dr. Maurice I could never find reason saith he to believe them any other thing than Presbyters Philippi was a Metropolis because a Colonie saith Dr. Hammond but that this will not follow is acknowledged by Dr. Maurice Thus they are still by the ears But saith Dr. Hammond the Apostle might retain the Episcopal Power in his own hands and tho' absent might exercise it by Letters but they can give no ground why the like may not be said of the Apostle in reference to the rest of the Churches and so Timothy and Titus shall be dethron'd and our Adversaries endeavouring to Answer one of our Arguments loss two of their own yea all of them for it being no less presumable that John would keep the Episcopal Power over the Churches of Asia in his own hand then that Paul kept that of Philippi there shall be no ground nor colour to Metamorphose the Apocalyptick Angels into Diocesan Bishops Or it 's possible continues Dr. H. that then the Bishop's Chair was vacant But if so and a Diocesan so necessary as they pretend without peradventure the Apostle had not only mention'd it but also spent some part of his Epistle in directing and giving them Rules in order to their choice of a fit Successour Or the Bishop saith he might be absent and Epaphroditus by the Ancients judged Bishop of Philippi appears to have been then with Paul But this Dream of Epaphroditus his being Bishop of Philippi the Doctor in that very place condemns and overthrows and so frees us of further trouble about it § 3. Yea in none of these Answers does Dr. H. rest but as is said in this pretext that Philippi was a Metropolis over many subject Bishops leaning mainly on Acts 16. 12. whose Arguments were examined by Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. Clerkson Dr. Maurice tho' a grand Enemy to Hammond's grand Principle undertakes notwithstanding the defence of some of these Arguments against the latter but medles not with the former and saith that Beza ' s Manuscript hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hath also the Syriack and Arabick But OEcumenius and Theophilact and even Chrysostome yea and the received Greek Copy which Translators generally follow read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But seeing as the learned Stillingfleet demonstrats Philippi was not then a Metropolis in the Civil sence which is the Foundation of all their Structure 't is impossible that it can be call'd by Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first in respect of Dignity but only either must be mean'd as Luke may well be understood that it was the first Colony they mett with coming from Samothrace or in respect of Situation it being scarce within the Bounds of the proper Macedonia but on the Thracian side of the River Strymon the Boundary between Thrace and Macedonia yet it might be nearer to the proper Macedonia than was Neapolis and therefore is rather to be reckon'd a part of that Country than Neapolis could be wherefore on both at least certainly on one of these accounts appears the nullity of Dr. Maurice his Answer while he says that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first in Situation Of the same kidney is his saying that Philippi might be more considerable in Luke ' s time than in the time of P. Aemilius seeing this is a mean begging of the Question for he brings nothing from any Records which a Matter of this kind requires to make in the least probable the growth of Philippi between the time of Aemilius and Luke and Chrysostome speaking of Luke's time tells us that it was no great City Moreover Dr. Stilling fleet ex abundanti clearly shews through the several periods of time that Philippi was of no greater Dignity in the time of Luke than in the time of P. Aemilius Dr. Maurice adds as a proof of Philippi's Metropolitan-ship in Luke's time that the Bishop of Philippi is mention'd as Metropolitan in Liberatus the Council of Ephesus Sedulius and in an old Notitia To which I Answer with Dr. Stillingfleet in the like Case But what validity there is in such Subscriptions or Allegations in the latter end of the
fourth or the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first let any-one judge that doth but consider how common a thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new Disposition of the Roman Impire by Constantine Yea Carolus à sancto Paulo who was most versant in these Matters and with him Dr. Stillingfleet believe that for the first six Centuries Philippi was no Metropolis § 4. But I will not enlarge in overthrowing a Fancy so wild and gross But in the end of the second Century saith Dr. Burnet the Churches were framed in another mould from the Division of the Empire and the Bishops of the Cities did according to the several Divisions of the Empire associat in Synods with the chief Bishop of that Division or Province who was call'd the Metropolitan from the Dignity of the City where he was Bishop And hence sprang Provincial Synods and the Superiorities and Precedencies of Bishopricks You see how the chiefest of Prelatists disown and disclaim this Metropolitan Fiction but none more fully than Dr. Stillingfleet who has nervously baffl'd all their Pretences prevented whatsoever Dr. Maurice advanced for I speak not of Mr. Clerkson who has also sufficiently done it and finally more particularly ruined all their Pretexts for Philippi's Metropolitan-ship either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick sense during the first Century or Apostolick age Judge therefore of Dr. Maurice his Candor which minds me of another piece of his Legerdemain to evite the force of Philippians 1. 1. For if saith he in Mr. Clerkson ' s Opinion the Bishops mention'd Philip. 1. 1. be no other than Presbyters then this place is impertinently alledged since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledg'd to have belong'd to one Church but if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sense and then conclude from this Passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi his Opinion is as singular as that of Dr. Hammond which he endeavours to refute for my part I must profess I am not concern'd in this Dispute and I could never find reason to believe them any other thing than Presbyters Or were these Bishops only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal Authority Then our Author must give up the Question and in stead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but Presbyters only if he thus contend he will abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word which he takes in one sense and the Church in another That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever deni'd that many Bishops in the allowed and Ecclesiastical sense of the word had the oversight of one City sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians Where he sleely supposes as granted that Bishops in Philip. 1. 1. must either be understood of their simple Presbyters or of Diocesan Bishops and then equipps his horn'd Argument no other ways than if he had professedly declined all Dispute till once his Adversary had out of kindness yeelded the Question which is only about the Scriptural and Apostolick sense of the word and notion of the Office of a Bishop if that and the Office of a preaching Presbyter be not in Scripture one and the same and consequently if these at Philippi were not Scriptural Bishops no less than they were Presbyters Now that he concern'd not himself in this Dispute nor was in earnest in it I deny not his slippery dealings make it but too too apparent his simple intimation that these were only their simple Presbyters I pass having already blown off all their noticeable Depravations of Philip. 1. 1. I have yet mett with and observe that he following the Romanists insinuats that we cann't understand the Scripture's meaning untill we have their Churches Commentary His ambiguous and unhandsome conduct is no less apparent in these his Phrases common Ecclesiastical sense which he takes in one sense and the Church in another For either he may mean that the Church when she speaks of Bishops who were in after times understands by this Name only Diocesans and so touches not in the least contrary to what he insinuats the Churches received sense of this Text nor what Notion she had of Scriptural-Bishops Or his sense may be that when she speaks of Apostolick and Scriptural Bishops she then still means Diocesans and Rulers over their simple Presbyters and this he must mean if he speak to the Purpose And then I inquire what Church was of this mind Surely neither Primitive nor reformed Churches I except not that of England whose greatest Lights we have already heard disclaiming all Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy and identifying Bishop and Presbyter Yea many even of the Romanists are forc'd to confess so much There are Catholicks saith the Jesuite Justinianus who have stuck in the mud of Aërianism The Church then he means must be only a few factious Novelists who in despite of both Divine and Humane Records and the common Sentiment of Christians dare to obtrude on the World as a Fundamental of Religion their privat and wild Fancies Neither is it strange that so few imbrace this conceit of denying the Scripture-Identity of Bishop and Presbyter § 5. For beside these Scriptures now adduc'd let them but look unto 1 Tim. 1. 3. where they shall find a transition from Bishop to Deacons without any mention of intermediant Presbyters and consequently the Identity of these Offices Bellarmine Answers that the Apostle gives a general Instruction to the Clergy that under the name of Bishops Presbyters all the superior Clergy is comprehended But seeing they make a Distinction of these Offices so necessary it was requisite they had been handl'd in particular and not hudl'd up in a general seeing no where in Scripture there 's any more particular Distinction of Bishop and preaching Presbyter assigned but Bellarmine's main Answer to this and all such Scriptures is that the Names Bishop and Presbyter were then common to both Orders which Answer all the Hierarchicks and more particularly D. M. borrow from the Jesuite But I answer and argue with Junius against Bellarmine that seeing the Names were then common and a real community of Names imports a community of things which by these names are signifi'd it necessarily then follows that as the Names were then common so were the Offices design'd by these Names But to see the Reform'd conquering and the Jesuites foil'd some are much pain'd and in special D. M. who spends about 17 pages for the support of Bellarmine's Answer the substance whereof and of his first three Queries is that Still in the Pentateuch the High Priest is nam'd by the same Appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the title of a Priest was promiscuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinat
And The Apostles retain'd the Phraseology of the Jews who spoke of Priests and Levites as two distinct Orders without mentioning the High Priest And When the Ancients Dichotomiz'd the Clergy they in other places plainly reckon up three distinct Orders of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon But is there never in all the Scriptures any Title Distinction or Marks of Eminence giv'n to one Priest which were not communicable to all of ' em Got ever all of 'em promiscuously the Title of High Priest or such distinctive Appellations Did the Apostles so retian the Phraseology of the Jews as that they sometimes make a Bipartite and sometimes a Tripartite Division of ordinary Church-Officers and give to any one ordinary Pastor sometimes at least a distinguishing Title and Marks of Eminence which are at no time communicable to all ordinary Pastors promiscuously As to the Ancients their sometimes Dichotomizing sometimes Trichotomizing the Clergy it 's most certain that in their Dichotomies they ey'd the prime primitive Church and in their Trichotomies their own times But Christ saith D. M. is call'd an Apostle a Bishop the Apostles Presbyters and Deacons But was Christ so call'd an Apostle that he had no other peculiar titles or marks of Eminence or that on the other hand the name Christ was giv'n promiscuously to all Apostles or ever giv'n to any of ' em Lastly was the Apellation of Apostle equally communicable to all Presbyters or ordinary Pastors as to the twelve and some few else extraordinary Officers All which he must swallow else he gives no relief to his Friend Bellarmine We Argue that seeing to no ordinary Pastor is giv'n any peculiar Appellation Character or Description but what is equally common to all there must be an Equality and Parity amongst all of 'em and this they can never get over Moreover among the Evangelists yea and among the Apostles Officers superior to ordinary Pastors the reformed Churches being Judges there was a compleat Parity as was also among the Deacons their Inferiours notwithstanding of all which the Hierarchicks must plead for certain Stories of Preheminence among the ordinary Pastors in favours whereof ne gry quidem they can bring from the Word of God the only Rule of Faith and Doctrine § 6. Add hereto Tit. chap. 1. where we not only find the Apostle using indifferently and promiscuously the two words Bishop and Elder but also he alledgeth the necessity of fit Qualifications in the one to prove that the same are required in the other the Presbyters that were to be Ordain'd must be blameless c. because a Bishop must be so wherein either we have an ocular Demonstration of the Identity of these two Officers or else which I abhorr to think the Apostles reasoning is more pitifull than the most equivocant Paralogism their being not so much as a nominal Connexion betwixt the Antecedent and Consequent and no less ridiculous than if one should reason that every Captain of a single Company must be able to guide and manage a whole Army because such Qualifications are required in a General Now seeing these Scriptures already vindicated to name no others evidently declare that there was no such thing as a Diocesan Bishop that there 's a compleat Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter and consequently a Parity of all ordinary Pastors they of necessity condemn the Hierarchick and Diocesan Imparity for I 'm perswaded these who alledge that they find in Scripture a Distinction between these Offices will judge that they may with reason enough conclude the Divine Right of Episcopacy Hence judge of D. M's fifth Query where and in what places of Scripture the superiority and jurisdiction of one Priest above another is forbidden And if it be not plainly forbidden then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Presbytry such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government is groundless and Chimerical From all which I conclude that if the Ignatian Bishop and Presbyter most be understood in the Notion of our Adversaries he then quite crosses the Apostles so his Doctrine is stark nought or which is a far more charitable Sentiment his Epistles have suffer'd no small interpolation Section VII The grand Objection taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients remov'd BUT the Fathers as our Adversaries pretend glossing on these Texts went quite cross to our Doctrine To the Bishops and Deacons saith Chrysostome What means that What was there a Plurality of Bishops in one City Not at all for at that time the Name was yet common so that a Bishop was also nam'd a Deacon that is a Servant And adds that both Timothy and Titus were Bishops Of the same mind say they were Hilary Epiphanius Theodoret OEcumenius and others which harmonius Consent of Ancients cann't but be the true meaning of the places in Controversie But as these and such Fathers confess and their Works proclaim they were like others subject to humane Weakness and Corruption fell into compliance with the growing Errors into immoderat heat prevarication and self-repugnancy and negligence to search for the Scriptures their meaning How loudly sounded the debate concerning rebaptizing between Stephen and Cyprian which â—ore almost the whole body of Christians into a pair of Factions With what heat was it prosecuted And which is most lamentable how pitifully was the truth on both hands deserted For altho' it be commonly believ'd that Stephen only held the truth and Cyprian and his fail'd yet Stephen and the Romans did no less betray it On the other extream while they asserted the sufficiency of Baptism altho' administred by the grossest Hereticks and capital Enemies of the Fundamentals of Christianity How great both before and after that time were the Contests about Easter How scandalous were the Contests between Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theophilus and between Hierome and Ruffine Not to name others in all which it is apparent how little they believed one another and how much many of 'em prevaricated in favours of their particular Fancies § 2. But their Contradictions to one another are less to be admired when we clearly perceive that one and the self same Author either out of negligence or some other weakness hath given us quite contrary Doctrines Justine Martyr which Sculteâ— observes in one place ascribes the whole Work of Regeneration to free Grace and in another destroyes what he had builded and places free Will in the room thereof And Clemens Alexandrinus as the same Scultet observes following Justine Martyr delivers the like inconsistencies about the same Theme he sometimes ascribes our Salvation wholly to Faith and again tells us that we may purchase it with the Treasure of our Works § 3. Of the same kind are their polemick Discourses wherein their study was much more directed to bespatte their Antagonists and alure the vulgar Auditor than solidly to support the Truth I shall never believe that Optatus believed himself when he maintain'd that all
Hierome leave them as being altogether useless for support of the Pomp and Splendor of their Hierarchy To these add the Jesuite Celâ—otius who after a thousand Meanders and serpentine windings to elude and deprave these clear Testimonies of Hierome at length seeing all would not do rejects them all as the Forgeries of unlucky Aërian hands never written by Hierome For which Cellotius is chastised even by Petavius and others of the Loyolites themselves Into such Discord Confusion and Torment do Men usually throw themselves so soon as they obstinatly resolve to wage War with so clear and irradiant Verities And here it 's observable that in all times and in all Churches the Authority of Hierome has been exceeding great and above most of the primitive Writers which came not to pass without a special Divine Providence that he and in him the whole primitive Church whose Judgement in these Matters he most clearly delivers might remain as an unsuspected and an uncontroverted witness against some of latter Ages pretendedly Catholick but really Sectarian Novelists Among the great Services he did to the Church two Pieces are more especially notticeable viz. his most clear asserting and acurat distinguishing the Canonical Books from the Apocryphal above all who handled or wrote of that great and most necessary Article and which is the Matter in hand his Antiprelatick Doctrine of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter these not only Hieronymian but also truly Catholick Doctrines are with equall fierceness impugn'd by the Romanists and I appeal to the impartial Reader if their Exceptions against this latter be a whit more solide than these which are advanced against the former viz. Hierome's Judgement of the Canonical Scriptures which are to be found collected and learn'dly refuted by Dr. Cosin And indeed these Sophisters endeavouring to subvert these Catholick Doctrines of Hierome dash only on an Adamantine Rock for as never any Articles were better founded so notwithstanding of whatsoever practical Aberrations therefrom were fall'n into none were more universally imbrac'd receiv'd and handed down for to speak of the Matter of our present concern this Hieronymian Doctrine all following Church Writers ratifie and approve the bulk of subsequent Commentators Writers of Offices and of other Treatises as Salvianus Isidorus Hispalensis Amalarius Rabanus Maurus yea and intire Councils as that 2 of Sevil which ascribes the whole Difference and Sâ—periority only to Church-Canons and late Constitutions and after them Gratian and Lombard who affirm that in the primitive Church there was only Presbyters and Deacons and his Expositors among whom is Aestius who very fairly quites the Scriptures and tells us that this Superiority is not very clear from Scripture which is nothing but a Confession of the Truth of Hierome's Doctrine forced from this great Prelatist and School-man Yet adds Aestius this may be sufficiently proved another way To which words Dr. Stillingfleet occurrs Ingenuously said saith he however but all the difficulty is how a Jus Divinum should be prov'd when Men leave the Scriptures But in the recounting and transcribing of such Confessions or Testimonies I will not inlarge And now having rescued the principal Scriptures our Antagonists detort in favours of their Distinction between Bishop and Presbyters and vindicated some places commonly adduc'd for the Identity thereof as also evinced that the most celebrated of the Ancients did no otherways understand these Scriptures nor derive the Original of Prelacy from Divine Institution I may with confidence conclude that Ignatius had none before him of the Judgement that he if we believe the Hierarchicks so passionately favour'd Section IX The Testimonies of Ignatius's contemporaries disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak and confirming what we have prov'd to be his mind viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy HAving viewed the Apostolick Writings and dived into their most ancient Commentators and primitive Doctors and having found that in the time of the Apostles the immediat Ancestors of Ignatius there was in the Church no such thing as a Diocesan Prelate Let us next look unto what remains of his Contemporaries or these who lived near Ignatius's time and we shall have ground to deduce the same Inference And first it's observable that these Writers such as Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians for the rest that bear his Name are undoubtedly spurious Polycarp to the Philippians Hermas or Pastor Justine Martyr tho' they as occasion offers frequently mention Pastors Doctors Bishops Presbyters indifferently taking all of 'em for on and the same Office yet of a Diocesan Prelat or one set over other Pastors or over these that had Power of Dispensing the Word and Sacraments in all their Writings have not a syllable Which Argument against a Diocesan Prelat tho' negative is not to be slighted if we consider these Authors their closs Vicinity to the Apostles the occasion they had to have mention'd him had he been then existent their more than a Pythagorick silence concerning him Yea the same kind of negative Argumentation Eusebius uses while he disproves and explodes some Writings forg'd in the Name of John Andrew and other Apostles because saith he no ancient Ecclesiastick Writers mention these Books We shall find moreover that they positively disclaim Diocesan Prelacy I begin with Clemens Romanus who writing to the Corinthians commends their former carriage in these words Ye walked in the commands of God and being obedient to these that had the rule over you and giving your Elders due honour ye were wont to admonish the younger with Moderation to seek after things that are honest And again Wherefore the Apostles preaching the Word thro' the severall regions and proving by the Spirit the first fruits thereof ordain'd Bishops and Deacons for these who should believe neither was this a new Ordinance for many ages before it was written concerning Bishops for so in a certain place saith the Scripture I will appoint their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faith And Our Apostles by Jesus Christ our Lord knew that there would arise Contention concerning the Name of a Bishop and therefore being endew'd with a perfect Fore-knowledge they ordain'd the fore-said Officers and left unto us describ'd the particular services of both Ministers and Offices to the end that approv'd Men might succeed in the place of the defunct and execute their Office These therefore who are ordain'd by them or by other famous men with the Consent of the whole Church who blamelesly serv'd the Sheepfold of Christ with humility and quietness without baseness and who for a long time had a good Testimony from all These I say cann't be justly thrust out of their Office for we commit no light sin if we cast out these from the Bishops Office who holyly and blamelesly perform'd it Blessed are these Presbyters or Pastors who have perfited their journey and are dead and who have obtain'd
observed how Hilary makes the Bishop a sedulous Dispenser of the Words of suture Life And indeed all the Hierarchick Grandeur and Domination whereby a Bishop was intirely Metamorphosed into a quite other thing than what he had once been could never notwithstanding obliterate and blot out of thinking Mens Minds the true Scriptural Notion and Idea thereof The Episcopal Dignity consists in Teaching saith Balsamon And the fourth Council of Carthage decrees that a Bishop shall not be imployed in caring for his houshold Affairs but shall wholly occupy himself in Reading and Praying aud Preaching the Word § 12. 'T were endless to alledge all that may be produc'd to this purpose neither could any Man who ever seriously read the Bible have any other Notion of a true Bishop than what is common to every Pastor of a Congregation seeing the Apostle's Description of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. agrees equally to all of them And here it 's observable that still where Bishops are spoken of in Scripture not only is the Work and Office which is injoin'd them that of Teaching and Feeding but also the Name is correlative to the Flock and not to a Company of Clergy-men as Acts 20. 28. Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed the Church of God 1 Pet. 5. 2. Feed the Flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or Bishoping it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly as we have oftner than once demonstrated over every particular Congregation there was a Bishop This Assertion may be strongly confirmed from the undoubted Practice of the Church in the fourth Century even when she was fall'n into no small Declension from the Primitive Purity For the Council of Sardica Decrees that a Bishop may not be placed in a Village or small Town where one Presbyter may suffice Dr. Maurice says that this Canon is justified by the Arrians their great multiplication of Bishops to strengthen their Party But the Council it self assigns a quite different Ground that moved them to make this Decree viz. that the Name and Authority of a Bishop fall not into Contempt Where we see the Design of abolishing the Primitive and Apostolick Custome of giving a Bishop indifferently to every Congregation whether in City or in Countrey was the Introduction of a secular Pomp and Grandeur into the Church which finally resolv'd into a Papal Slavery However this Sardican Canon had not so good effect but that about twenty years after a new Sanction thereto was found needfull for the Council of Laodicea Decrees that it shall not be lawfull to place Bishops in little Villages or Countrey Places but only Visitors and that the Bishops who were already placed in these little Villages and Countrey Places should for the future do nothing without the knowledge of the Bishop of the City Mark how a pace the mild and fraternal Church Regimen is turn'd into a Worldly Domination and Dignity to pave the way for a papal Tyranny These rural Bishops or Countrey-parish Pastors for they can be call'd nothing else whom Dr. Beverige acknowledges for real and true Bishops were also assaulted and the subjecting and inslaving of them to the Prelates and Clergy in the greater Cities design'd by other Councils as that of Ancyrum and of Neocesaria and of Antioch there they are called Chorepiscopi i. e. Countrey Bishops And it has been disputed if these were real true Bishops But the same Dr. Beverige not only yeelds but at large pleads for the Affirmative He pretends in the mean while that anciently Bishops were ordained in Cities only many whereof had according to the model of the Empire such ample Territories that 't was impossible for the Bishop of the City his alone to visit and sufficiently to guide them and so it seem'd needfull for such Bishops to have according to the amplitude of their Bishopricks one or two Coajutors in some Region without the City who might disburden them of some parts of the Episcopal Function which could not be done but by some consecrated Bishops Hence 't was that some of these great Bishops Ordain'd in some part of their large Provinces these Bishops but with this provision that these without their leave should do nothing of moment seeing these Regions also belonged to the Care of the City Bishop which we learn continues he from the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch where it 's expresly Decreed that no Country Bishop Ordain Presbyter or Deacon without the Bishop of the City to which he and his Region is subject But indeed there 's no such thing to be learn'd from that Canon it only says that the Chorepiscopus and his Region was subject to the City as they really were in a Civil Sense not to the Bishop of the City and tho they had said so it 's no proof of his Conclusion seeing they usually pretended Antiquity for the greatest Innovations How far either in or nigh to the Time of the Apostles the Church was from giving to the Bishop such a Princely Dignity as he pretends or from allowing him to do the Work proper to himself by substitute Vassals none acquainted with what remains of these Ancient times can be ignorant and is already oftner then once evinc'd And now I 'm sorry to find a Protestant of sence and Learning lean on that shamefull and most exploded Falshood viz. that the Apostles took the Government of the Empire for their Pattern of Church-Government and darring to publish such gross Falshoods whereof even the more ingenuous Romanists are ashamed The Ecclesiastical Degrees saith Suave were not Originally Instituted as Dignities Preheminencies Rewards or Honours as now they are and have been many hundred years but with Ministery and Charges otherwise called by St. Paul Works and those that exercise them are called by Christ our Lord in the Gospel Workmen and therefore no Man could then enter into cogitation to absent himself from the Execution thereof in his own Person and if any one which seldom happend retired from the Work 't was not thought reasonable he should have either Title or Profit And tho' the Ministeries were of two sorts some Anciently called as now they are with care of Souls others of temporal things for the sustenance and service of the Poor and Sick as were the Deaconries and other inferiour Works all held themselves equally bound to that Service in Person neither did any think of a substitute but for a short time and for great Impediments much less to take another Charge which might hinder that § 13. Bnd now to go on these Countrey Bishops or Pastors could not yet by all these Councils be Un-bishoped And therefore Pope Damasus must next fall on them and authoratively define that they were stark nought in the Church their Institution wicked and
understood of Rome but of the eastern Babylon where saith the Bishop Peter was settl'd hereditary Patiark Some indeed understand them of a City bearing that name in Egypt and this Spanhemius F. and Dr. Pearson prefer to the Assyrian Babylon the former because the old Chaldean Babylon was then desolate the letter for this that after Anilaeus a chief man among the Jews in these parts had injured the Inhabitans many of them were cut off and the rest driven from Babylon who fled to Ctesiphon the most part whereof notwithstanding in a combination made against them by the Assyrians and Greeks were either cut off or expell'd Therefore he concludes that tho' Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision yet he could expect no harvest of the Jews in these parts Now as to the ground Spanhemius goes on it seems sufficient to prove that it could not be the old Chaldean Babylon For it 's certain from Scripture and Plinius witnesses that 't was then reduced to a solitude It seems therefore to be mean'd of the Principal City of the Parthian Impire which succeded to Babylon in name no less then in honour as is clear from that in Lucan Cumque superba foret Babylon spolianda Trophaeis Ausoniis If this their chief City was Ctesiphon or Seleucia may be a doubt Plinius calls Ctesiphon the Head of the Parthian Kingdom But Strabo seems to be more clear in this matter and to give light to Pliny Tacitus Herodianus Am. Marcellinus or otherwise to lay open the ground of their mistake Seleucia saith he a City by the bank of Tigris as Babylon was of old is now the Metropolis of Assyria near it there is a great Village Ctesiphon wherein the Parthian Kings used to winter sparing Seleucia that it might not be spoiled by the warlike Scythians by whom I understand their Auxiliary or guard Souldiers who were rude and ready to Mutany aud therefore were not brought within their Chief and Treasure City this Village is now arriv'd at even the power and greatness of a City Where as is evident he so much prefers Seleucia to Ctesiphon that he makes the former the chief City of the Impire Moreover Crassus when he design'd the conquest of Parthia and the possession of the Kings treasures being asked by the Messengers of Orodes King of Parthia why he broke the peace made with Pompey and Sylla said he would answer them at Seleucia proudly insinuating that he would subdue and spoile their chief City And this City expresly gets the name Babylon by Stephanus and he confounds it with the old Babylon Hence it appears that Seleucia was the chief City of the Parthian Impire and commonly then got the name of Babylon and that the very place of old Chaldean Babylon was not then known for they were certainly in distant places therefore if Josephus seem to mention another Babylon distant from the chief City of the Parthians this is rather to be understood of the Country Babylonia then of the old Chaldean Babylon which then was ruined now tho' the Jews for a time might be compelled to leave that principal City of Parthia they might notwithstanding soon after be permited to return no less then these who were expelled Rome by Claudius got Liberty shortly to come thither again This Dr. Pearson allows and therefore cannot deny the probability of the other However this be nothing is more certain then that by Babylon which Peter mentions the literal proper and well known Babylon which was then the chief City of Parthia Seleucia must be meaned otherwayes the dispersion to which he writes had neither known where he was nor what Church saluted them which is quite contrary to the Apostles Intention there For at that time the Apocalypse was not written and yet on this most false Supposition viz. that by Babylon Peter understands Rome was his Journey thither founded and so must prove no less false in the matter of fact and with it his Episcopacy and that of the earliest Popes his pretended Successors seeing all lean on his Journey thither And ' its with no less confidence and concord averred and delivered then is either his or his pretended Successors their Episcopacy or ought else Subsequent to this his falsly supposed Voyage And indeed the evidence of this our Assertion is so strong that it compell'd even the learned Romanists themselves to acknowledge the Truth thereof as J. Bapt. Mantuanus Michael Caefenas Marsilius Patavinus Joh. Aventinus Joh. Lelandus Car. Molinaeus who are Cited by Spanhemius F. in his Golden Dissertation on that Subject In the mean while I cannot but wonder how this otherways accurat and learned Antiquary finds an Aegyptian Babylon in that distick of Martial Haec tibi Memphitis Tellus dat munera victa est Pectine Niliaco jam Babylonis acus Th' Aegyptian slay gives Tapistry more fine Than ever Babylon could sue or spin Where the Poet only preferrs the Aegyptain woven Cloath to the finest needle-work of the old Chaldaean Babylon But as it is most apparent no more here either expesses or insinuats that there is a place named Babylon in Aegypt then where he comends a Gown bestow'd on him by Parthenius a gentle-man of Domitius's Chamber in this distick Non ego praetulerim Babylonica picta superbe Texta semiramiâ quae variantur acu It far excells the rich Embroideries Of Babylon built by Semiramis Moreover Clemens Romanus speaking of the Death of Peter and Paul intimates that he knew sufficiently where and by whom Paul was kill'd with other such Circumstances of his Death but insinuats that he had no such knowledge of any such Circumstances of the Death of Peter And it 's colligible from Jerome that both Peter and Paul were not kill'd by the Romans but by the Jews in or not far from Palaestine 'T were easie to discover the Forgerie and Falshood of their other Catalogues of Bishops pretended to have been in the like great Cities as for example that of the Bishops of Jerusalem whereof they fain that the Apostles made James Bishop and that on a ground to base and carnal viz. because he was the Son of Joseph and so related to Christ whom the Apostle Paul knew not according to the flesh 2 Cor. 5. 16. and then make him and his pretended successor Simeon to continue Bishops of that See from a little after the death of our Savior to I know not what year of Trajanus between which time and Adrian Trajanus's immediat successor his rebulding of Jerusalem they give to that Church thirteen Bishops to all of whom little more than twenty years can be assingn'd yea some three or four of these are cramm'd into one year and yet we hear of none of these thirteen who died a violent death but which yet more fully discovers the Forgery all along from the destruction of the City by Titus untill 't was rebuilt by Adrian there was
subordinate Brethren A sturdy argument forsooth as if our most blessed Master to quell his Disciples their ambition of aspiring to a preheminence over one another and to render them more content with a humble and brotherly parity could not adduce and urge his own most holy and meek example of his most wonderful condescending to take upon him the form of a Servant and do the works of a Servant among his Apostles and that so humblie as if he had been only their Companion and nothing above them but he must anone be concluded to degrade and throw down himself into a meer equality with his Disciples Can any in the exercise of his wit make such a Collection Neither can better befall him for as is his constant practice this wretched Paralogism he also borrows from another Jebusite Cornelius a Lapide who at the same rate depraves this Text of Matthew to save from a mortal blow Peter's fictitious Primacy But in the next place which is little better D. M. turns Jew on our hand Let it be further considered saith he that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was established by Divine Authority in the Jewish Church and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Polity and commanded an equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but rather between the Priests of the Mosaic Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament And agian fearing least his Jâ—daism and also his self-repugnancy should not have otherways been apparent enough We do not saith he now plead as some ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because that there was a High-Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the new Well then is there on Earth a visible High-Priest over the whole Church the Levitical Orders Rites Temple-service the very things wherein the Jewish Hierarchy consisted and shadows of Christ to come now allowable But to come to his cavill and quiet this child of Ignorance D. M. should know that beside the Disciples ambition to get up over one another according to the carnal apprehension they then entertained of Christ kingdome wherein our Hierarchick Lord Bishops are the Apostles successors indeed and all Hierarchicks men of Apostolick principles they looked also for a great worldly and civil power and dominion which was not at all comprehended in the Jewish Priesthood nor was then possessed by any of the Priests and so our Lord 's stateing the opposition between his Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles is by far more apt for his purpose than if he had stated it between them and the Priests of the old Oeconomy which had been altogether lame and doon scarce the half of his bussiness In a word the Romishness and Falshood of all these his Cavills is manifest were there no more from this only that if they do any thing they make for the defence of that new Romish Doctrine of Peter's Supremacy which both the Fathers and all sound Protestants not only Presbyterians but also Episcopals yea some that otherwise deserve not the name of Protestants as Dr. Heylen explode prove that there was a compleat Equality Parity amongst the Apostles And they deduce their Conclusion especially from this text of Matthew's Gospel and its parallels And indeed if there be as doubtless there are any places of Scripture fit to prove it these texts deservedly hold the first place The Author of the Opus imperfectum thought by some to be Chrysostome saith on this place of Matthew Quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terrâ inveniet confusionem in coelo Whosoever desires a primacy on Earth shall find Confusion in Heaven Now suppose the truth of these words and compare them with the words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man desires the Office of a Bishop he desires a good work And it 's clear the Office of a Bishop is quite another thing than a Primacy for to desire the former is lawfull and laudable but to desire the latter is dangerous and damnable and so much by the way for I love not to transcribe the labours of others And so angry is D. M. at New Opinions and for their sake at every thing that 's New that he scarce ever advances any Argument Vindication or Defence but what is so frequently and soundly baffl'd so bare and worn as to vy even with the old ancient Garments of the Gibeonites These Texts as I said prohibite also all Pastors of Flocks to exercise Dominion Secular or State Dignities which is irrefragably made out by our Writers against Bellarmine de Pontifice and other Romanists However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either the Possession or Hope of such Emoluments and Dignities as also the glistering gayetie of gorgious and theatrick Ceremonies close mens mouths and keep them from acknowledging the Truth for which even a Pagan may come in to reprove them O curvae interris animae coelestium inanes Quid juvat hoc templis nostros immittere mores Et bona Dijs ex hac scelerata ducere pulpa Dull earthy minds who know no heavenly thing What profites it into the Church to bring Our own Inventions or to dream that we Can with Lust's fewel please the Deity Dicite Pontifices in sancto quid facit aurum Speak out your minds ye Priests and do not lie Can gold your holy places sanctifie It 's an old saying that the Church brought forth Riches but the Daugter devoured the Mother who when she had wooden Cups she had golden Priests but afterward she got golden Cups and wooden Priests Even their Pseudo-Clement is prolix on this subject exhorting the Bishop to be dis-engaged of all worldly cares and affairs and perpetually imploy'd in Preaching and Prayer and the like Ministerial duties And indeed all Pastors of Flocks would carefully abstain from secular and state Offices and every thing else that may abstract them from their Charges and Flocks least their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 procure them Functius's reward But if our Hierarchicks will not hear our blessed Lord and his Apostles if they will not hear the genuine writtings of the Ancients nor yet these spurious pieces whose Authros were otherwayes sufficiently Hierarchick and Ceremonious I think they might listen to the Bishop af Aiace for he was a Member of the Council of Trent John Baptista Bernard saith Suave Bishop of Aiace who thâ— he believed that residencie was de jure Divino yet thought it not fit to speak of that question delivered a singular speech saying that not aiming to establish one Opinion more then another but only so to inforce residency as that it may be really executed he thought it vain to declare from whence the obligation came or whatsoever else and