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
have Christ's Testament And having elegantly compar'd the Scripture to Man's Testament which is able to determine every Controversie that may arise among his Children adds He who leâ—t us this Testament is in Heaven let his Will therefore be sought for in the Gospel as in a Testament for the things which you now do Christ forsaw before they came to pass The same Justice and no more do we require in the present Case we require with Cyprian that Custom or Tradition which is without Scripture tho' otherways never so Old be thrown away as mouldy Errors Let not the Hope of Emoluments secular Grandeur or Power make Men rack their Wits to Dâ—prave and Detire the Truth and despise the Apostolick Humility and Parity Then saith Chrysostome speaking of these Apostolick Times and that by way of Opposition to his own Age Church-Government was not Honour or Grandeur but Watching and Care of the Flock Seeing it's evident saith Isidorus Pelusiota how vast a difference there is between the Ancient humble Ministry and the present Tyranny Why don't ye Crown with Garlands and Celebrate the Lovers of Parity or Equality Let not the gay Pageantry of foppish Ceremonies steal away our Hearts from the simplicity of the Gospel Is such trash worth the patronizing Nay rather Let the Sword of God Theâ—'re Jerome's words cut off every thing that men without the Authority and Testimony of the Scriptures have devised and pretend as if they had it by Apostolick Tradition Let all such things be broken in Pieces called Nehustan and finally sacrific'd to Truth and Peace Whatsoever thing God commands us let 's observe to do 't and neither add thereto nor diminish from 't This I'm sure is the old Path and the good Way wherein if we Walk we shall find rest to our Souls our Peace shall be as a River and our Righteousness as the Waves of the Sea we shall Dwell together in that Brotherly Vnity which is a true Antecedent of Life for evermore And thus I can freely say is the ultimat Design of Composing and Emitting the ensuing Treatise and is and still shall be the fervent Prayer of Will. Jameson Nazianzeni THE CONTENTS PART I. SECT I. The Scope of the ensuing Treatise The ancient Church for no Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy pag. 1. The ablest of its late Patrons of no other mind where Dr. Sandersone is noted 2 An examen of the Conveniencies and Inconveniencies of Prelacy undertaken 5 SECT II. The Aphorism No Bishop no King discuss'd Prelacy contributes not a little to introduce Tyranny ibid. Prelats severall ways most hurtfull to Princes 6 Presbytry well agrees with Monarchy where their Charge of Sedition and Disloyalty is largely vouch'd to be most unjust from the most applauded Writers of our Adversaries themselves 8 SECT III. Their Argument taken from Order weigh'd Their strange Improvement thereof 17 It equally serves Prelatists and Papists Ibid. SECT IV. The Plea for Prelacy drawn from Unity discuss'd Dissentions most frequent where Bishops bore sway 18 Unity and Parity harmoniously lodged in one and the same Assembly 19 SECT V. The Argument Prelatists bring from antiquity canvass'd Ibid. SECT VI. The Instance of Aërius condemn'd by Epiphanius prov'd to be unserviceable to our Antagonists They joyn with the most disingenous of Papists in using this Argument 21 The choicest of the Fathers for the Scriptural and Apostolick Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter 22 Epiphanius giveth little Patrociny to our Adversaries 23 His Injustice to Aerius in this matter ibid. If Aerius was Arrian largely disputed the affirmative whereof is rendred improbable by the profound Silence of those who were concern'd to have mention'd it 24 The Tractate ascribed to â—â—siliu◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is judgâ—d supposititious wherein there 's nothing to be found concerning Aerius This report of Aërius his Arrianism leans on Epiphanius's testimony alone whose great Levity and Credulity is universally noted 25 It is instanc'd in his dealing with the Donatists whom on no good ground he accuses of the same crime of Arrianism 26 They 're absolv'd by Augustine and Optatus Ibid. It 's objected that Aerius his commerce with Eustathius of Schastia may give countenance to the report of Epiphanius Ibid. Eustathius tho' a Heretick yet was not Arrian but a Macedonian who seems rather to have been dangerously shaken then intirely wedded to Macedonianism Ibid. But on supposition of the worst several reasons are brought making probable that nothing can be inferrâ—d from his commerce to prove Aërius Heretick 27. The loss of the Writings of the Ancient and traduced witnesses of truâ—h is lamentable Ibid. The Judgement of Philastrius concerning Aërius related against whom the Aërians are vindicated from the Crime of Encratitism 28 They were fiercely persecuted and why 29 Between Philastrius and Epiphanius no good agreement The negative testimony of both Philastrius and Rabanus Maurus against what is delivered by Epiphanius 30 SECT VII No Diocesan Bishops in several ancient Churches This Instanc'd in the Churches of Ireland of Africk and of Scotland 30 The ablest of our Adversaries brought to a sore pinch hereby 34 Sir George M ckenzie 's Epistolary Defence of Prelacy canvassed where Bede is vindicated against the Bishop of St. Asaph and Buchanan and Hector Boethius vindicated against Spotswood to whom the Advocat referred Ibid. That we had a constitute Church before the coming of Palladius evinced against both Bishop and Advocat 38 Our Primitive Doctors why called Monks The cavills of Spotswood and the Bishop of St. Asaph removed 39 Smal power of Prelats for a long time after Palladius 40 The most memorable result of the Combat between the Advocat and the Bishop of St. Asaph Ibid. D. M.'s exceptions removed His negative argument no argument 42 â—â—â—ndel vindicated 44 D. M's perversion of Baron's clear testimony detected Ibid. He in vain attempts to deprave and then to exauctorate Prosper himself 46 Other specimens of D. M's unhandsome dealing 47 SECT VIII Prelacy opposite to the Principles of our Reformers The Hierarchy is condemn'd by our Confession 49 Knox and his fellows are proved to have been most opposite to the Hierarchick Domination 50 The Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry adventures not on our special Arguments Ibid. Against whom Knox's great aversness from Prelacy is evinced by vindicating of his Letter to the Assembly 51 And by vindicating of Knox's words and actions at the Installment of John Douglas 52 And from clear and unsuspected records where 't is also evinc'd that the bulk of both Ministers and People were then opposite to Prelacy 54 This Authors cavills from the meeting at Leith 7½ and from some expressions of the Assemblies canvass'd and annihilated 56 Knox's antiprelatical judgement demonstrated from Beza's Letter which is vindicated from this Authors exceptions 60 Who pretending to make Knox a Prelatist only labours to prove him and our other Reformers self-repugnant Bablers 61 His ridiculous Sophisms examin'd and expos'd
Office not upon Jus Dominicum the Law of God in the Scriptures but Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem the practice of the Church Add hereto that both Fathers and Councils equally in Opinion and Practice stuck no less to the lawfulness of Patriarchat than that of simple Episcopacy and yet I believe few among real Protestants will either assert the Divine Right of this Office of Patriarchat i. e. that it had any Warrant for it in the Word of God or yet that those Fathers and Councils so believed Which present Consideration furnisheth us with another Argument sufficient to evince that the ancient Châ—rch founded this Office only upon Custom and as they thought Christian Prudence and not at all upon the Books of the Old and New Testament § 2. Neither do the most Learned of the Modern Episcopals in the least swerve from this Opinion amongst whom I reckon D. Forbes who having for a while with the greatest tenderness and fear handled this Matter propones at length the Question If Episcopacy be of Divine Right And yet declares himself highly difficultated what to Answer for absolutly deny it he will not and positively assert it he dares not he therefore confounds it with a Synodical Moderatourship and then fairly tells us that it is of Divine Right because of the general Scripture-Precepts of Church-Order and Decency And indeed he carries himself all along in this Matter with so much nice Caution Ambiguity and Fear that he evinces the desperation of the Episcopal Cause to which so learned a Man could afford no better Defence than really to destroy what he pretends to vindicat Neither is the most Learned Bishop Vsser of another mind who has reduced it to a meer shadow and nonentity And Willet though he says that a difference is needfull for Church-Policy yet affirms that this cannot be proved by the Word of God and that in the Apostles times a Bishop and Presbyter were neither in Name nor Office distinguished And he at large answers all Bellarmine's Arguments to the Contrary See the Appendix to the second part of the forecited Question Of this same Judgement is their applauded Hooker viz. that there is no ground for their Hierarchy in the word of God while he declares himself against all particular Forms of Church-government and acknowledges that nothing for Diocesan Prelacy can be brought therefrom The necessity of Policy saith he and regimen in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain Form to be necessary in them all And the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one but sundry Forms of Discipline may be equally consonant unto the general Axioms of Scripture It hath been told them that Matters of Faith and in general Matters necessarie unto Salvation are of a different Nature from Ceremonies Order and the kind of Church-Government that the one are necessar to be expresly contained in the Word of God or else manifestly collected out of the same the other not so that it is necessarie not to receive the one unless there be something in Scripture for them the other free if nothing be alledged against them And the Learned D. Stilling fleet is at no smal pains to cashier and expunge among the rest of peculiar Forms of Government This Diocesan Prelacy out of Scriptural-Articles and not only acknowledges but also musters not a few Arguments whereby to Prove that it hath no Ground in Holy Scripture And Dr. Morton Though a zealous Defender of Episcopacy Asserts that Hierome made not the Difference between Bishop and Presbiter of Divine Institution he assâ—nts to Medina the Jesuite and asserts that there was no Difference in the matter of Episcopacy betwixt Hierome and Aerius He averres further that not only the Protestants but also all the primitive Doctors were of Hierome ' s mind And finally he concludes that according to the Harmonious Consent of all Men in the Apostolick Age there was no Difference between Bishop and Pesbyter but was afterward introduced for the removal of Schism And Jewel Bishop of Sarisburie a Man for Piety and Ability Second I am sure to few that ever filled an Episcopal Chair most expresly asserts the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter Here saith he Mr. Harding findeth great fault for that I have translated these words ejusdem Sacerdotii of the same Bishoprick and not as he would have it of one Priesthood God wott a very simple Quarrel Let him take whether he listeth best if either-other of these words shall serve his turn Erasmus saith id temporis idem erat Episcopus Sacerdos Presbyter these three Names viz. Bishop Priest and Presbyter at that time were all one And but what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests or Presbyters and Bishops Thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition Or is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far and unto whom he reacheth the Name of an Heretick Verily Chrysostom saith Inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest ferme nihil between a Bishop and a Priest which is all one with Presbyter in a manner there is no difference St. Hierome saith somewhat in a rougher sort Audio Quendam c. I hear say there is one become so Peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops be all one Thus far Jewel The Bishops and Priests saith the famous Bishop Cranmer were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion And In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for Election or Appointing thereto sufficient In the same MS. saith Dr. Stillingfleet it appears that the Bishop of St. Asaph Therleby Redman and Cox were all of the same Opinion with the Arch-Bishop that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same and the two latter expresly cite the Opinion of Jerome with Approbation Thus we see by the Testimony chiefly of him who was Instrumental in Our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytry but only as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrat for the better governing in the Church And having proved that Whitgift and with him the whole Body of the English Episcopal Divines were of the same Judgement thus concludes By which Principles the Divine Right of Episcopacy as founded upon Apostolical Practice is quite subverted and destroyed Now judge if Dr. Sandersone spoke not without the allowance ye acontrary to the express Mind of his Brethren when he says that the Difference among the Advocats for Episcopacy is only Verbal and that all of them even those who yeeld that it is not of Divine Right no less
acting most rationally and only recovering her own Right when at any time she expell'd Prelacy together with all its Innovations § 9. There is yet another Advocat of the Party whose look is more stout than his Fellows We shall try if his reason be answerable to his confidence I mean A M. D. D. I shall design him D. M. The Author of a late Book call'd An Enquiry into the New Opinions chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland Who in opposition to the Defender of the Vindication of the Church Scotland handles the same Argument at large and supposes as a main Ground of his Discourse that his Antagonist denies that there is any force in Argumento negativo To require saith D. M. that a matter of Fact be attested by competent Witnesses is in the language of our Author to raze the Foundation of all History He spends therefore about 14 pages to prove that a negative Argument in some Cases may have place But vainly seeing the Author of the Vindication does not once insinuat that a negative Argument can in no Cases be us'd or that to require competent Witnesses in a matter of Fact is to raze the Foundation of all History Yea he believ'd that there were Witnesses so competent for his Assertion that no Argument whither negative or of whatsoever kind else shall ever be able to darken their Testimony and that we have as good ground for our ancient Church her being without Bishops as for any other part of our Nations Antiquities And indeed the Argument the Apologist whom D. M. would vindicat us'd levels at all parts of our ancient History no less then at the thing under debate The Argument was There were none that lived near that age that wrote the History of it and the Monks who wrote any thing were extreamly ignorant Now this if it do any thing to the Author's purpose equally shakes and overthrows all parts of our ancient History seeing with the like force and success it may be brought against any of ' em Justly therefore repones the Defender of the Vindication that this is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation and that of most others and to make them all to be Fools who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation and others such as Fordon Major Beda Usher c. whereto all D. M. rejoins is that many collateral proofs may be brought from the Roman Historians that the Scots inhabited that part of Britain long before the imaginary period of his Presbyterian Church And the manner of reckoning the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages their Births and other remarkable Solemnities was an infallible conveyance of true constant and perpetual Traditions Their Bards whose Science it was to repeat those Genealogies upon solemn Occasions to celebrat their greatest Atchievements in verse could not add one to the number of their Kings but upon the Death of his Predecessor But in all his Discourse there is wrapt up a concession of all the Defender of the Vindication charg'd on the Apologist seeing he evidently intimats that unless it be assertin'd some other way nothing in any of our Countries Historians merits any credit And to confirm this I except saith he against all the three viz. Fordon Major and Boethius that none of 'em could be a competent Witness in Affairs of that nature at so great a distance from their own time unless they had named the Authors and Records upon whose Testimony their Relation was founded As to his mentioning of collateral Proofs c. it is a meer Sham seeing if once we yeeld with him that no credit is due to any of our Monuments now extant except what is confirm'd by some exotick Records how sorry an account have we of any of our Antiquities of whatsoever kind which forraign Testimonies notwithstanding may if compar'd with our Writers give light to our Histories I 'm sure moreover notwithstanding of whatsoever old Traditions or Bard's verses are mention'd all or surely most of these now being lost or tho' extant mostly unintelligible our Royal Line could never be asserted without ascribing to our Writers both the reach and integrity of able and faithfull Historians And yet D. M. is not afraid to compare his Apologist negative Argument to another of Eusebius lib. 3. Where saith D. M. by this very Argument he overthrows the authority of several Books that some would impose upon the Church meerly because they were not duely attested and none ef the Ancients brought any Testimonies from them But Eusebius saw and perus'd these Ancients who either directly or occasionally mention'd all the Canonical Books and so justly their silence overthrew the Authority of the Spurious and baffl'd the credit of their Imposers but has D. M. or his Apologist seen or perus'd all the Monuments from which our Historians took their materials and which were lost long before either of them were born Can they from these Records tho' they would fain do 't rub shame upon all the Historians of our Countrey as a creu of lying Forgers seeing then that this is impoâ—â—ible to be done and that as the Advocat has solidly made out they were men of sufficient Candor and Reputation seeing they us'd many ancient Reeords now lost and were of sufficient Discretion and Knowledge to distinguish genuine from fictitious seeing they relate what we plead for with no less unanimity and concord than they do any thing else and either profess or sufficiently enough intimat that they brought all their Composours from ancient Records seeing that their Judgement is confirm'd by unsuspected Forerunners both ancient and modern yea and suffrages of all mankind who had ever any occasion to speak of this matter seeing what they relate is so far from being fabulous that our ancient Church-government they mention is sufficiently attested and acknowledg'd by the fiercest of our Adversaries to be truly Apostolick and seeing lastly as we have heard Prelacy for a long time after Palladius was of far less bulk and power in Scotland than in other Churches the Apologists negative Argument has just as much consanguinity with that of Eusebius as is between a down-right Paralogism and a solid Deduction yea I averr moreover that considering Prelacy was then at its Ela in Scotland and none of our Historians at least before Buchanan were Presbyterian nor could reap any Advantage by disobliging the Prelats any one of their Testimonies alone might give sufficient ground to believe that what they said was well founded on good and ancient Records § 10. But after a long and as himself truly says needless digression he comes to examine our Testimonies and will have Boethius to contradict the rest alledging that his meaning is not that Palladius was the first Bishop but only the first sent from Rome but of Boethius already Here D. M. falls foul on Blondel as a corrupter of Boethius because he said as out of him that the
chiefly the Jesuites And lastly in the rear comes D. M. concluding that the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolick Tradition and that the Apostles had the Modell of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-form But Junius Answers that their Conclusion is a non sequitur For saith he this comparison is not particular between each of these particular Officers under the Old Testament and these under the New but in common shewing that as they are all obliged to serve the Church of the Jews so all the Church-Officers under the New Testament ought to serve the Christian Church Moreover continues Junius tho' we should give that the Comparison were particular yet their Conclusion would not follow seeing Hierome speaks only of the Church Polity of his own time and the Question now is about Hierome's Sentiments of the Church Government and Polity in the Apostolick Age and first primitive Church And that this in Hierome's Mind was not Hierarchick but a meer Parity of Pastors Junius already evinced and Dr. Stillingfleet at more length overthrows this their Jesuitical Doctrine and Demonstrats that by Apostolical Tradition in Hierome only Ecclesiastick Custome of some Antiquity is mean'd asserts that it 's not imaginable that Jerome who had been proving all along the Superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Apostles times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles Institution and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before The plain meaning continues Dr. Stillingfleet then of Jerome is no more but this that as Aaron and his Sons in the Order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law So the Bishops and Presbyters in the Order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel For the Comparison runs not between Aaron and his Sons under the Law and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel but between Aaron and his Sons as one part of the Comparison under the Law and the Levites under them as the other so under the Gospel Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the Comparison answering to Aaron and his Sons in that wherein they all agree viz. the Order of Priesthood and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law The Opposition is not then in the Power of Jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests but between the same Power of Order which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters according to the acknowledgement of all to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them Hereby we see how unhappyly those Arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priesthood to endeavour the setting up of a Jus Divinum of a paralell Superiority under the Gospel All which Arguments are taken off by this one thing we 're now upon viz that the Orders and Degrees under the Gospel were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple Other passages of Jerome they also study to abuse but these now handl'd are the most specious But of such Allegatâ—ons out of Jerome hear the same Dr. And among all these fifteen Testimonies produced by a learned Writer out of Jerome for the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an Order for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other Writings I would fain know whether a Man's Judgement must be taken from occasional and accidental Passages or from designed and set Discourses which is as much as to ask whether the lively Representation of a man by picture may be best taken when in hast of other business he passeth by us giving only a glance of his countenance or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented He adds that Jerome in his Commentaries where he expresly declares not his own mind transcribes often out of others without setting down their names c. § 9. Most dishonest therefore is the conduct of the Loyolites and of others of the Prelatists their Associats in this Matter but above all men that of D. M. who beside all this his foul dealling following Bayly the Iesuite has scarce adventur'd to lay before his Reader in â—nglish so much as one scrape or particle of what the Reform'd bring from Jerome against the Romanists and such Hierarchick Advocats which in D. M. is the most certain product of both extream Disingenuity Diffidence But so great is the power of prejudice that they stick not to sacrifice both their Credit and whatsoever else they should reckon most estimable to such Dreams as even most of the Church of England yea and of the Romanists either acted by the love of the Truth or compell'd by its Power had condemn'd We have heard how Bishop Jewel Dr. Morton the Bishop of Spalato and Dr. Stillingfleet renounce and explode so palpable an untruth And Dr. Forbes is of the same Mind yeelding that Hierome is all one with Aërius in this that Bishops by Divine Right are not at all Superior to Presbyters And that these two are intirely of one and the same Mind we have heard also granted by the most learn'd of the Romanists as Alphonsus de Castro and Medina some whereof acknowledge that none could be of another Opinion concerning them And Benedictus Justinianus and other Romanists are of the same Mind How then were all these Doctors sitting in Council to determine of this very Matter should they chastise and brand these most partial and disingenuous Dealers we have now to do with Other Hierarchicks who would not confess so much in plain Terms yet sometimes discover both their disingenuity and true Sentiments so palpably as if they had expresly made the same Confession Dr. Pearson tho' he says nothing in his own Name yet acknowledges that Hierome hath said so much for the Authority of Presbytry and endeavoured so much to establish it that he is judged to make it well nigh equal to the Episcopal Order And Bellarmine tells us that Hierome was self repugnant and knew not what he said And Petavius tho' the most pertinacious wrangler of all the Society grants that Hierome makes Presbyters well nigh all one with Bishops but not the very same saith the Jesuite or intirely their Equalls being Inferior in so much as they want the Power of Ordination And that according to Hierome's Mind meer Custome and not the Lord 's Appointment gave to the Bishops above Presbyters any Power they have either in Ruling the Church or external Government And were things brought to this pass I 'm sure they should make but small account of the sory remainder Petavius makes