The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 1 · Chapter 3

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 1 · Chapter 3

p. 35CHAP. III. The Dr's Third Argument considered, taken from an alledged punctual conformity of the Primitive Church, to Christs Institution, and the Apostolick Practice, in Point of Episcopacy.

THE Dr's. Third great Proof,P. 404. for the Divine Right of Episcopacy, is…drawn from the punctual and universal Conformity (as he calls it) of the Primitive Church, to this supposed Institution of our Saviour, and the Practice of the Holy Apostles, in this Matter But, if the Dr's Proof of a Conformity, be no better, than his Proof, of this supposed Institution, and Practice of our Saviour, and his Apostles, and amount to no more, than what he has made appear upon these Points, we need not fear his Proof: However, before I engage the Dr. upon this head, and examin his Proofs, there are two things, I would premise, as that which the Dr. is obliged to prove. (1.) That the Office of Apostolat, in its entire Nature, as Institut by our Saviour, and for its proper ends exprest in Scripture, was transmitted, by the Apostles unto the Church, as a standing Office to continue, till the end of Time, And (2) That the Primitive Church, and in an Universal consent and Practice, did homologat this Institution, and Embrace the same. And when the Dr. hath proved both these, erit mihi magnus Apollo; and will far outstrip his Fellows, whoever have pleaded in this Cause. And if he fall short of his proof, of either, or both, he losses his labour.

Before the Dr. come directly to his Proof, he moves an Objection,Ibid. That our Saviour did Institut the Superior Order of Twelve Apostles, to preside over the rest of the Church Officers, yet with an extraordinary Commission, which he did not intend they should derive down to the Church, as a Perpetual Model of Government, but was limited to the persons of the Apostles, and to expire with them. That the formal Office of Apostolat, in its Nature and ends, as delineat in Scripture, did expire with the Apostles themselves, is the consentient judgment of Protestant Divines. The Dr. says, this is an Objection of Adversaries, and indeed, if he account such his Adversaries, as assert this, he has entered the Lists, with a strong party, who probably will p. 34duplicate page p. 35duplicate page p. 36prove too hard for him. Well; What is his Answer to this Objection? He Tells us; That this Office was not Limited to the Persons of Apostles, since he has proved, that they derived, it to others, which had it been appropriat to their Persons, they could not have done, without violating their Trust, and exceeding the bounds of their Commission. How the Dr. hath proved the derivation of the Apostolat, by the Persons of the Apostles to other Succeeding Apostles, we have seen above, and do refer the Reader to the premised discoveries of the utter insufficiency of his Proof, this way: And indeed, the derivation of the Apostolat to Successors, could not have been done without violating their Trust, and exceeding the limits of their Commission; Their Commission being to Disciple and Teach all Nations, to found the Gospel Church, and Plant the Gospel Ordinances therein, and that with an infallible directive Power, as living Oracles, and immediat Ambassadors of the King of Saints; So, that the attempting to Substitut Successors, in this work and Office, had been both an unfaithful over-stretch of their Commission, as contrar to its Nature and end, and an endeavouring of that which was impossible, unless he will say, that the Work of laying the Churches Foundation, and delivering our Lords mind, as to the Doctrin, Worship, Disciplin and Government thereof, is a work, that could be twice done; Which, as it repugns to the common sense of all men, so to the many Precepts delivered to the Churches, anent holding fast the received Ordinances, and contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and building upon that Holy Faith and Foundation laid by the Apostles. Nay further, it doth evidently appear, that the Apostles exercising themselves, and deriving to others such an Episcopal Primacy, as the Dr pleads for, had been a gross impeachment of their Faithfulness, in the Execution of their Trust. (1.) In their exercising and transmitting a Power, in its very Nature, distinct, from what our Lord allowed and enjoyned them, Viz. A Lordly Dominion, not a Ministerial Service and Stewardship only, which, as we have heard, the Apostle Paul disown the one, and assert the other; so we find the express and personal Prescription of our Blessed Lord, in point of this Nature of their Power. The Dr. will not disown that the Prelats he pleads for, and, as he pretends, exemplified in the Apostolick Office, have both the Name and thing of a Lordly Dominion, yea, and that not in Spirituals only, in which respect, they own the Designation and Character of Spiritual Lords, but likewise, a Lordship and Peerage in Civil Government, and such a Dominion, as Princes of the Gentiles exercise; And that our Blessed Lord did expresly Discharg this to his Apostles; As also, that the Apostle Peter in his Masters Name, discharges a Lording over Gods Heritage, or Church, or the Cl…rgey, as the Greek p. 37word, with some will sound, I suppose the Dr. will not deny, or if he do, the Proof is very easie and evident. (2.) Had the Apostles exercised, or derived to Successors, such an Episcopacy, as the Dr. pleads for, they should have unfaithfully in their own persons, straitned the Apostolick inspection, and carryed an Office incompatible with it; unless the Dr. will undertake to reconcile contradictions, he cannot deny this: For, as Apostles, their Ministry was of an unfixed, indefinit, Universal Nature; As Prelats they behoved to be fixed to such and such Posts, so that thus they should have unfaithfully torn out a part of their Commission, in exercising an ordinary Ministry, in particular Diocesses, whereas, their Commission was to exercise an extraordinary unfixed Ministry towards all the Churches, planted and to be planted. Again, in transmitting such a Prelacy to others, their practice should have contradicted their Prescriptions, in Point of Church Government, and the Offices and Officers thereof, wherein there is not the least Intimation of such an Officer, nor any Rules given, for either the Qualifications or Ordination, of any higher Officer, than a mere Pastor or Prerbyter. I shall only add, (3ly,) That it is evident in the Apostles Doctrin and Practice, that they own the Ministers of the Word, as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge, and in the ordinary Power of Government, their equals, as their practice in Ordination and Jurisdiction among Churches Constitut, which is above discribed, doth make evident. And it were strange, that Evangelists should be…instructed with Episcopal Preheminence in such Churches, who were inferior to Apostles; That Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrie, concurring Authoritatively, tho Paul was present, should usurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie, tho inferior to an Apostle, and that whereas Presbyters did concurr, pari passu, with a whole Presbytrie of Apostles, in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree, wherein was put forth, both the Diatactick, Critick, and Dogmatick Power, and Authority in Church Government, yet an Evangelist inferior to any of the Apostles, should take Episcopal Preheminence over a Presbytrie in this Matter.

For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head, that we may understand, how well he has laid his Measures, for reaching his Scope and End, let it be remembered what it is, he undertaks to prove, viz. The Churches universal Reception of the Office of Apostolat in its entire Nature, as a standing necessary Function in the Church, to be transmitted to after Ages, with the same Authority and Commission, as delivered at first to the Twelve: For, this is that which the Dr. directly and designedly pleads for, from that passage of Scripture, where Our Lord said to his Apostles, As my Father hath sent Me, so send I you. And according to this Rule, let us examin his Instances. His first proof (P. 406) is from St. Clement who mentions, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, three Orders of Ecclesiastical p. 38Officers, whom he calls the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levits; which Words saith the Dr. can be no otherwise understood, than of the Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacons. A strange proof, and an odd Explication indeed! How doth the Doctor prove, that Clement, did any otherewise express himself, than with this Allusion to the Old Testament Church Officers, signifying that there are diverse Officers, in the New Testament Ministry, as in the Old? Again, How comes the Dr. to explain him, of Bishop & Presbyter, in the Singular, and Deacons in the Plural? And how does this correspond to Clements expresion of High Priest, in the singular, and Priests in the plural? Will the Dr. owne the Primacy of an High Priest, over the Christian Catholick Church, as of the Church of the Iewes? Or be bold to Averr that Clement Asserted this? Moreover, the Drs. Explication of Clement, viz. That he means by the High Priest, the Bishop, by the Priests, the Presbyter, &c. Baffles his Design, and cuts the Throat of his Cause and pleading: For if Clement lookt upon the Presbyters or Pastors, as holding an Office and Authority, corresponding to that of the Priests, under the Old Testament, then certainly, he did hold them to have a necessary Essential Interest in Government, such as the Priests had: For the Dr. will not be bold to say, that the Sanehedrin, made up of Priests, had not a governing Power, or that it was Monopolized in the person of the High Priest, as he affirms, it is in the person of the Bishop, secluding the Presbyters. And further, to discover, how the Dr. has abused his Reader, and forefeited his Credit in this Citation, let us take Notice, that Clement, to remove the Sedition, raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58. tells them, how God hath alwise appointed several Orders in his Church, which must not be confounded. In the Iewish Church, he appointed an High Priest, Priests and Levits; and then tells them, that for the times of the Gospel, Jesus Christ, sent his Apostles through Countreys and Cities (foreign) in which he Preacht and constitut the first Fruits (approving them by the Spirit) for Bishops and Deacons, to those who should afterward believe. From which Words, the learned Authors of the Append. Minist. Evang. Have long since concluded, against the Dr. and his Fellows. 1. That in the first and purest times, the custom was to chuse Bishops in Villages foreign And how small little Apostles these were, I need not tell the Dr. and such for Authority and extent of Power, as are many Pastors now in Scotland. 2. That Bishops and Deacons, are the only Orders of Ministry, owned by Clement, as planted by the Apostles, the first Primitive Church (foreign) Which shews the Drs. palpable Forgery, in making Clement to assert three Orders, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Clement adds p. 57. That the Apostles, by Jesus Christ, knowing that p. 39contentions would arise about the Name of Bishop, and being endu'd with perfect knowledg, they appointed the foresaid Orders, Viz: Bishops and Deaeons. Upon which, the Learned Authors of the Apendix, do further note. (1.) That by Name, we are not to understand the bare Name, but the Honour and Dignity, as the word is taken, Philip. 2.9. Eph. 1.21. The Controversie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of Episcopacy, and the Deposition of their Godly Presbyters, p. 57.58. (2.) That the only remedy appinted by the Apostles, for the Cure of all Contentions arising about Episcopacy, is, by Committing the Care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons, in Clements Judgement: What ever Remedy of Schism, the Church afterward applyed, in setting up one Bishop over another, Clement tells us, that the Apostles, endued with perfect knowledg of things, Ordained only Bishops and Deacons. Whosoever shall Peruse him p. 57.62.69.72. will find, he clearly asserts the first and purest Primitive Church, to be Governed by Presbyters, without Bishops. Besides, that he uses the Names of Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously, and supposes them to be one and the same, throughout the whole Epistle.

The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field,P. 406.407.408. Whose Six Epistles, written on the way to his Martyrdom, he tells us, are express for the derivation of this Superior Order from the Apostles; So that we have no other evasion, but to alledg, they are Counterfeit, from which imputation, they have been Triumphantly vindicat (so he expresses it) by a Learned Pen; And that therefore, no Man of Learning, without exposing his Reputation, can call them in Question. Who this learned Pen is, who thus vindicats them, the Dr. hath not thought fit to let us know, and if he mean Dr. Pearson, as probably he doth, he should know that his pretended Vindication, was confuted by a learned French Divine, Dally, and his Proofs convicted of Forgery; So that the Dr. exposes his Understanding and Modesty in this Assertion, That the Vindication is Triumphant: And as for the Drs. Re-vindication, this Author should know the learned L'Rooque, a Famous Pastor of the French Church, replyed to Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveredge, in defence of Dally, upon the Point of Ignatius's Epistles, and being again opposed by Dr. Pearson and Dr. Beveridge, prepared and had almost finished his Second Defence; which, by the importunity of the Favourers of Prelacy, was concealed. Of which, see the Learned Mr. Iamison, in his Piece, called Nazianzeni quaerela, &c. Part 2d. Pag. 112: So, that the Dr. hath no reason to speak so bigg, and call this vindication Triumphant. None can deny, several, of these Epistles fathered upon him, to be Spurious, as his Epistle to the Blessed Virgin, and his two, to the Apostle Iohn (not to mention that of the Virgin Mary to him) and for the Six mentioned by p. 40the Dr. he should know, that as Learned Pens as he can mention, have made appear, that they are depraved and Corrupted, if the Dr. will allow Usher, Arch Bishop of Armagh, and the Learned Rivet, Videlius and Cook, in his Censura patrum, to be reckoned among that Number. Yea, Baronius himself, the great Popish Historian, who (as Causabon holds) presents from these Epistles, the Papists refuges, for several of their Errours yet acknowledges that somethings therein are defective, in curia librariorum: The Man was not so happy, as to light upon the more polit Coppies, found out by our Dr. and his Fellows. In the forementioned Appendix, the Dr. might have seen several Reasons, adduced, to prove these Epistles not to be genuine: Such as (1.) That diverse things quoted out of these Epistles by Athanasius, Gelasius and Theodoret, are either not found in them at all, or found altered and Changed. (2ly.) That they Charge the Holy Martyr, with supercilious Pride, in extolling his own knowledg (Epistle to the Trallians) as reaching the Orders of Angels, Arch-Angels, differences of Powers and Dominations, Thrones and Powers, Cherubims and Seraphims, &c. Which none will believe, to have fallen from the Pen of so Humble a Martyr; nor can any but acknowledg, that it is as far from the Simplicity of his times, in an arrogant self-boasting, as East from West. And (3ly,) His strange and anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy, wherein he (these forged Epistles rather) goes beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty. The Learned Authors of the foresaid Appendix, have given several instances hereof, which do palpably evidence, such …n Anti-scriptural Popish Strain, as no Man of Sense, can impute to this holy and early Martyr: Nay, none, who owns the Scriptures of Truth, but must needs accuse of Error. For instance (among many others) in the Epistle to the Trallians, he affirms, The Bishop to be possest of all Principality and Authority, beyond all, &c. And how will the Dt. make this accord with that of the Apostle? 1 Cor. 3.5. Who then is Paul? and who is Apollo? but Ministers, by whom ye believed. In the same Epistle, he enjoins a Reverence to the Bishop, as to Christ, as the Holy Apostles has commanded: But where is this commanded? In the Epistle to the Magnesians, he enjoyns, that nothing seems Right, that seems not so to the Bishop, For what is contrary to his Judgement, is enmity to God. The Apostle Paul, spoke with more caution and Modesty, when he enjoyned thus, Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, he enjoyns the Princes, the Emperour, &c. and all the Clergy, to obey the Bishop; and this at such a time, when there was no Christian Emperour or Prince, nor many Years thereafter. In the Epistle to the Smyrneans, he saith, The Scripture saith, Honour God and the King, but I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things, p. 41and the Bishop, as the Prince of Priests, &c. He affirms, they are guilty of greater punishment, that do any thing against the Bishop, than they that rise up against the King. Thus preferring them above Kings. Yea, he saith, That such as do any thing, without consulting with the Bishop, is a Worshipper of the Devil. And what Censure these sayings put upon the Reformed Churches, Govern'd without Prelats; yea what repugnancy is therein, to the Holy Scriptures, I think may be obvious to the Dr's meanest reflection; So, that he might have been asham'd to bring for his proof, such spurious Epistles … Yet he is bold to cite s…me of these Passages, particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians and Magnesians, altho he is forc't (I suppose for very shame) to smooth the expressions, and curtail them: For instance, in stead of that Expression in the Epistle to the Trallians, wherein he asserts the Bishop to be Possest of all Principalitie and Authority beyond all, as much, as it is possible for Men to be Possest of (as it is truely translated out of the Greek) The Dr. Represents only this.P. 407. what is the Bishop, but he who hath all Authority and Power? Which, altho it be much the same, with what is above rehearsed, yet is far short in extent and Expression. But if the Dr. hath so high a veneration for these spurious Epistles, I would fain know, how he will reconcile this and such like Expressions, with that one Scripture, Rom. 13.1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers, &c.? Unless the Dr. will deny the Bishop to have a Soul, he cannot exeem him from the obligation of this Command. And if he be thus subject, how is he Possest of all Principality and Authority, beyond all, as much, as is possible for Men to be Possest of? Or how will the Dr. make this accord, with that Interest and Authority of the Civil Magistrat, not only in Civils, over all his Subjects, but also in the Church and Kingdom of Christ, which the Dr. in the same Book, owns and asserts? He also Cites the Epistle to the Magnesians, wherein,ibid. Obedience to the Bishop is enjoyned, and contradicting him in any thing discharged: which the Dr. will not deny to be cross to that limited Obedience, which the Scripture enjoins to be given, even to Parents by Children; Who are Commanded to Obey them in the Lord only. Moreover, he Cites the Epistle to the Philadelphians, wherein, it is affirmed, that such as belong to Christ, are united to the Bishop, such as are not, are cursed: And what censure this puts upon the Reformed Churches, and how it Anathematizes, them, as not United to the Bishop, I need not tell the Dr. nor what a black Theta, he marks himself with, in the Judgment of the Reformed Churches, if owning such an absurd assertion. I cannot stand upon many things, that might be further noticed, to evince the impertinency and Fooleries of these Citations: Only, it is very worthy of our observation, that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epistle to p. 42the Magnesians, obliges us, in a piece of Ingenuity, in expressing Ignatius's commending [Obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytrie, &c,] which seems to allow the Presbytrie, a Commanding Authority, together with the Bishop, (as several of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause, smooth the Episcopal Power) but this I am sure, is cross to the Drs. Scope and pleading, who enhances all the Power of Government, in the person of the Bishop, excluding wholly, all Presbyters, from any Interest therein. So, that the Dr. in this unwary Citation, contradicts Ignatius and himself, and makes Ignatius inconsistent with himself. In his next Citation of his Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein, Reverence is enjoined to the Bishop, as the Person appointed by the Lord and Master of the Family,P. 408. to be his Steward: He hath again Wounded himself; For to be a Steward having a subaltern Service and Ministry, under the Authority of the Master, and tyed up to his Orders, is point blanck, contrare unto, and toto coelo different, from that Principality of the highest Degree, before ascribed to the Bishop, and owned by the Dr. as his, and Ignatius's Sense of the Episcopal Office. Sure, to be a Prince, and a Steward in Government, are distinct things, and entirely and wholly opposit, if we will take the Apostle Pauls word for it, who disowns a Dominion, and in stead thereof, and in opposition thereunto, owns a Stewardship in God's Family, and humble Sevice or Ministry. 1 Cor. 4.1. 2 Cor. 1. Ult.

But now, the Dr. plyes us with Inferences from these Citations; Whereof the first is,P. 408.409.410.411. That these Epistles were Written, not above Eight or Nine years, after the Decease of St. Iohn, and yet Bishops are supposed to be in all Churches, appointed by Christ and his Apostles, and they were lookt upon as no Members of the Church, who were not Subject to them; That they were necessary in the very Constitution of Churches, so that they were not within the Altar, but without it, who were not subject to them: And therefore, it may be concluded, there were no Churches without them. I Answer, that Ignatius wrot his Epistles early, no body will doubt, but that such trashie stuff and anti-scriptural Fooleries, as are above rehearsed, was written by Ignatius, and was his Sense of Church Government, no Man of Sense, or who hath any Respect to the Memory of that Martyr, will believe: And we find the contrair is asserted, and made good by several of the Godly Learned. Not to stand upon a more critical Answer, and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Universal Sense and Practice of the Primitive Church at that time, from the Sense and Sentiments of this Author, tho admitted, unless he could prove by some Authentick Acts, the Judgment of the whole Church, to be correspondent thereunto, and that none, who either wrot not, or whose Writings may be lost, were of contrary p. 43Judgment, which he neither attempts to prove, nor will ever be able.

The Drs. next Inference is,P. 409. That since, there were Bishops so early in this Age, presiding over the Churches, they behoved to receive (several of them, at least) their Episcopal Orders from the Apostles, since Ignatius, at the writing of these Epistles, had been Forty Years Bishop of Antioch, an eminent Church, planted immediatly by St. Peter; It being the constant practice of the Apostles, to ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted, &c. Ans. The Dr. hath not made good from these Testimonies, that there were, de facto, and de jure, such Prelats, as he pleads for: Nor can he, from this Ground, perswad any rational Man of this, unless he could evince two Things, which he will do ad Calendas Graecas. 1. Not only, that what is asserted in the Passages above rehearsed, was the genuine Sense and writing of Ignatius, but likewise the Sense and Judgment, as well as the practice of the whole Church at that time. 2. That this supposed Judgment and Practice anent such an Officer, as the Bishop, is correspondent to the Scripture Account, and Sense of the Church Officers, mentioned in the New Testament, and the Apostles Doctrin and Practice in point of Church Government, and the Institution of the Officers thereof, which he will also find another insuperable Difficulty. Again, his Reason here, is very odd, whereby he fortifies this Inference, viz. That the Apostles ordained Elders in all the Churches they planted: For, if the Dr. hold these Elders to be Bishops, (as he needs must, if he speak consequentially) I would fain know, First, What shadow of Proof, he can give for this, and how he can suppose that all the Scripture Elders were such? For, if this be asserted, then it follows, that Bishops were set up, when there were no Elders to presid over, contrary to the Sense and Pleading of his Fellows, except Dr. Hammond. And next, I would know, how the Dr. upon this Supposition, will keep off the Rock of a Contradiction, and that both to himself, and Ignatius? Since he makes Ignatius to distinguish the Bishops and the Elders, and himself holds, that the Elders with St. Iames at Ierusalem, when the Apostle Paul, went in to them, were mere Presbyters or Pastors. Again, if the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders, to their ordaining Ignatius a Bishop, as he thus disowns Dr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion (who takes still the Elders for Prelats) so, he is obliged to prove the super-institution of Bishops over these Elders in every Church, not to suppose it only, else in his principles, these Churches, where, mere Elders, were placed, were manck, and wanted the power of Jurisdiction. And since, he has produced nothing from Scripture, that proves such an institution of Bishops, or such ordinary Officers fixed to certain Diocesses, his Dream of Ignatius, is as easily p. 44rejected by us, as affirmed by him. We read of a Church of Antioch planted by Paul, and of an Eldership and Company of Teaching Prophets there, who imposed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas, when sent out among the Gentiles, and are consequently supposed to be the subject of a Jurisdictional Power and Government: But of the Apostle Peter his planting an Hierarchical Prelat, of the Drs. Mould, in either of the Antiochs, the Scripture is utterly silent: And a Supposition necessarly ensuing hereupon, viz. That the Apostles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government, sufficiently discovers the Absurdity of such an Opinion. As for Chrysostom (Tom. 5. edit. Savil. p. 99.) his admiring of Ignatius Dignity, obtained by the Hands of Apostles,P. 409. laid upon him. It is a very blunt and headless Proof of that Episcopal Dignity, which the Dr. alledges: For, doth not the Dr. think, that the Office of the Scripture Bishop, is a great Dignity? And he should prove, not suppose only, that Ignatius was by the Apostles installed a Bishop of his Mould, or that Chrysostom understood this Dignity in his Sense, which, as he offers not to do; so, if attempting it, he could not chuse, but set Chrysostom by the Ears with himself, who (as is above cleared) asserts the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter. The same I repone, to what the Dr. alledgeth (P. 410) of Polycarp, his supposed Episcopacy in Smyrna; as also, what is made good by many Protestant Divines, viz. That the Fathers and Ancients, used the Name of Bishops, in a general Sense, that the first foreign, or Moderators, had no Authority, over the Presbytrie, tho ordinarly thus termed. And which clears this to Conviction, Polycarp, himself, in his Epistle to the Philippians, makes but two Orders of Ministry, viz. Elders and Deacons, as the Apostle Paul doth, in his Epistle to the same Church, and exhorts them to be subject to the Presbyter, as unto God and unto Christ. And sure the Dr. will not make him cross this in his practice: so that he falls utterly short of proving an Episcopacy of his Mould, much more a derived Apostolat, from these blind Testimonies.

The Dr. adds, That it cannot be imagined, that all Churches would have universally admitted Bishops in Ignatius's time,ibid. the Apostles being alive, had not some of them derived their Authority from the Apostles immediatly. But, 1. The Dr. hath given no shadow of proof, for this universal Reception: For I pray, what proof is this? Such and such Authors say, there were Bishops in such and such Posts, or rather put this general name upon such Persons; Therefore, the Christian Church received the Hierarchical Prelat universally, or the Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, as an Officer of Divine Institution. For besides, that the Dr. will never prove, from the bare Assertion anent Bishops, that they were of his Cutt and Mould (the contrary being apparent, p. 45especially in these early Times) And many Fathers asserting the Identity, of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, he must prove and instruct the universal Judgment and Practice of all the Churches, as to the Reception of the Hierarchical Bishop, of his Mould, before this Assertion can be made good. 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Instances, of the very early Reception of Corruptions in the Church, both under the Law, and Gospel. As, in the times of the Old Testament, he knows the early Reception of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf, by the Church of Israel, together with Aaron himself, but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount Sinai: And besides, many such Instances in the Old Testament, we have Scripture Instances of the Devils sowing his Tares, early in the Church of the New Testament, such as the Error about the Resurrection, the worshipping of Angels, Justification by the works of the Law, the necessity of Circumcision, and other Ceremonies, the Error of the Nicolaitans, &c. And look a little forward, in the early times of the Church, we will find Errors & Traditions pretended to be received from the Apostles, and owned by some of the Fathers themselves, which notwithstanding, the Dr, cannot but acknowledg to be Errors; Such as the Mill…nary Error, the Error of Children's receiving the Lords Supper, &c. whereof afterward. The Dr. thinks it inconsistent with the Churches veneration to the Apostle Iohn, that they should receive a new Order of Men, without his Authority. But this Universal reception of such an Order, as the Dr. supposes, is not yet proved: Besides, that the Dr's. supposition of this impossibility of such a corruption, early creeping in, because of some Apostles (or even of Iohn) yet alive, he will find not to be solid, when he ponders duely, the working of the Mystrie of iniquity, and the Seeds of a Papacy, even in Paul's time, and a Diotrophes seeking Preheminence, even in Iohn's time, yea, and directly contradicting and opposing the Holy Apostle. The Dr. should know, that it is not the slippery Principle of a supposed impossibility of this Nature, while the Apostles were alive, that we must found our Perswasion upon, but the lively Oracles, and living Doctrin of the Apostles, is our Rule; and whatever Doctrin or practice is cross thereunto, tho all the Church should receive it, yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it, we ought to reject it, and might call that Angel accursed.

For what the Dr. adds out of Bishop Taylor, of Episcopacy, Sect. 18. That de facto, the Apostles with their own Hands, Ordained several Bishops over Churches, Viz: Dion. Areop. Bishop of Athens, Caius, of Thessalonica, Archippus of Coloss, Onesimus of Ephesus, Epaphroditus of Phillippi, Titus of Corinth, &c. I Answer, the Dr. does well to add the Caution [if Credit might be given to Ecclesiastick History] And truely this History, must be of mighty force, that must be believed against clear Scripture, and the Credit and belief p. 46founded thereupon, must needs be distinct from that Faith which God allows; Nay, the Drs. Credit of such History, must needs set him at odds with himself: For as to the First, we find the Apostle Paul enjoyning the Church of Thessalonica, Obedience to their Pastors jointly, as their Spiritual Rulers and Governours, without the least hint of any Super-eminent Prelat, and enjoining to these Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock. 1 Thess. 5.12.14. And will this Bishop and our Dr. Charge such a Contradiction, upon the Apostle Paul, as to settle a Presbytrie of Pastors in that Church, with Authority to Rule and Govern, while this Authority and Power is entrusted unto one Bishop, or to take it afterward from them, and put it in the Bishops Hands? How, I pray, shall we believe such History, against such plain Scripture? And whether I pray, deserves most our Credit, the Apostles Divinly inspired Epistle, enjoyning Obedience to the Pastors of that Church of Thessalonica, jointly, as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids, or an after-Apocryphal History, declaring that this Authority was by the Apostles appointment, monopolized in one Bishop, either at that time, or thereafter, set up, and Ordained by Paul? Whether, are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and Government of the Church of Ephesus, as entrusted by Paul, in his last farewel, to the inspection and Government of the Elders jointly, as the Bishops thereof, Authorized by the Holy Ghost, or an Historical account of Onesimus, as their sole Bishop, who had this Power Monopolized in him, in Contradiction to the Apostles last prescriptions unto that Church, either at that time or thereafter: I dare pose this Dr. or any man of Sense and Candor upon it; And whether upon such ground as this, we might not cast off all Divine Institutions, and receive all fopperies and Superstitions, which Mans wicked Heart by Satans influence might suggest? The like might be said of Philippi, the Apostle in the Preface of his Epistle to that Church, saluting the Bishops, as their Pastors in common, calling all the Ministers, Bishops, and thus applying to them that Name and Office, which the Dr. and his Fellows, will needs appropriat to a Prelat: And sure, Paul, writing by instinct of the un-erring Spirit of God, gave not empty complemental Titles to these Pastors or Bishops, but supposes them to have a standing joint Authority over that Church, as the Spiritual Guids and Rulers thereof. And it is a fearful and Gross imputation upon the Wisdom of God, to suppose that either now, or afterwards, such a pretended Prelat, as the Dr. maintains, either had, or was to have by Divine appointment, all this Authority of the Pastors, enhansed and monopolized in him: And if we will admit of after suposed Decrees and Fables of this Nature, opposit to Scripture, we may make them, (as some Papists blaspheme them) a Nose of Wax. Again, If the Dr. adhere to this phantastick p. 47Apocryphal History, he crosses his own Pleading from Scripture, and wounds his Cause to Death with his own hands; For, we have heard the great strength of his Scripture Argument, as touching the Apostles setting up succeedanous Apostles and Bishops, in correspondence to Christs Institution, lyes in the supposed instalment of Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus, Bishop of Crete, and that the instructions addrest to them, in Point of Government,P. 398.399.400 &c. in these Epistles, are a clear indication yea, and Demonstration, (in the Drs▪ Sense and Pleading) of this supposed instalment of the one and the other, by the Apostles, in these their pretended Diocesses of Ephesus and Crete, and we know, how much the Dr. labours to prove the consentient Judgment of the Fathers hereanent. Now, if the Dr. will hold with Bishop Taylor, that the Apostles with their own hands, installed, not Timothy, but Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus, not Bishop of Crete, but of Corinth, what is become of all his pleadings from Scripture, for their installment elsewhere? The Dr. says, The supposed Instalment of Titus and Onesinus, p. 410.at Ephesus and Corinth, and that by the Apostles own Hands, is most certain, if we believe Ecclesiastical History. And if most certain upon this Ground, then most certain it is. 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for Timothy's and Titus's Instalment at Ephesus and Crete, is most false, and all his pretended Scripture Proofs, by his own Confession mere wind and lies. And 2ly. That all the Dr's. Testimonies of Fathers, and pretended Historical accounts hereanent, are Fabulous Dreams. I know no imaginable evasion the Dr. hath, but to alledge their after-instalment in these places, by the Apostles: But the Dr. must give a Scripture-account, as well as Historical, of this matter, ere a door can be opened to him for this Refuge. But to proceed.

The Dr's Third Inference is,P. 410.411. that the Bishops of this Age were lookt on, as a Superior Order to Presbyters, Ignatius commanding Presbyters to obey them, according to Christs Institution. Ans. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of these Epistles, and consequently what a sandy Foundation, the Dr. builds this inference upon. Again, if the Dr. will make Ignatius consistent with himself, he must needs disown this Inference and Opinion of him; For, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he enjoyns them to be Subject to the Presbytrie, as the Apostles of Christ, and calls the Presbytrie foreign A Court and Conjunction of Apostles of Christ; And in the same Epistle, he call the Colledge of Presbyters foreign making the Bishop, thus their Fellows in the Government, and nothing else. p. 48And how far this is from the Dr's. supposition of Ignatius Judgment, about the Hierarchy, and the Practice of the Church, in this Point, let any Judg.

The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs, from the next Age, further, as he tells us,P. 411 from the Scripture Antiquity: And no doubt the more Dark in this Point. He tells us of Iustin Martyr, in his Apology to the Emperour Antonius, who speaks of a foreign or President in the Church, who Consecrat the Bread and Wine, gave to the Deacons to distribut to the present, and to be carryed to the absent: And that this foreign was Bishop, he tells us, appears by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, his Contemporary, who used the Names of foreign and Bishop promiscuously. A sorry Proof, no doubt! The Churches had a President, or these called by Iustin so; Therefore, Bishops with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, and holding the entire Apostolick Office: Again, these Presidents, are called sometimes Bishops, and gets that general Name; Therefore, they were such Bishops, and of such a Mould, as the Dr. pleads for. What Arguing can be more insipid and Vain? But if the Dr. put a due Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets, as Pointing at the Office and Authority of the Persons thereby designed, what thinks he of the Spirit of GOD in Scripture, his Denominating Pasters foreign, &c. as we have above cleared. One would think this as strong a Proof of their Episcopal Authority, as this of the supposed Bishops, drawn from this Epithet of Iustin and Dionisius. I might further Argue, and press the Dr. thus; If these Scripture Denominations do prove and argue, an Essential Interest and Authority in Church Government, competent to Pastors, they do by necessary consequence, overturn the Peculiarity of a foreign or Presidency ascribed to the Bishop, as set over Pastors, and enhancing all this Authority, and do by further consequence inferr, either that Fathers contradicted the Scripture, if attributing this Prostacie to the Bishops, in the Dr's. Sense; or, that, if they speak according to the Scripture Sense and acceptation of the Word, they must needs mean the Pastor only, and not his imaginary Prelat: And so, whatever Sense, the Dr. imbraces of Iustin and Dionisius, his Cause and Pleading here is lost, and falls to the Ground. Moreover, if the Dr. stand to this supposed account of the Bishops Office, offered by Iustin, he will make the Administration of the Lords Supper, peculiar to him, against the Dr's. own Sense and Pleading, who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments, are the proper Duties of the Pastoral Function, whereas, here, it is made peculiar to the Bishop, to Consecrat the Bread and Wine. Besides, that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying of the Sacrament to the absent; a seed of gross Popish Superstitions. But I am weary of this pityful trash.

p. 49As for the Dr's Citation of Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 23. And the Five Books of Hegesippus (the Fragments whereof,P. 412 he says, are in Eusebius's History) anent the Succession of Bishops of Rome; Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, succeeding Sucessively; and of Iames Bishop of Ierusalem, succeeded by Simon Cleophae, Euseb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And thereafter, that Dionisius Bishop of Corinth, in his Epistles, mentions Publius and Quadratus, Successive, Bishops of Athens, and several other Bishops, in their Respective Sees. It is Answered, this is abundantly obviat and removed, by what is premised. First, Anent the suspected Credit and Faith of his vouchers, whom (as we have heard) the learned does Censure and disown; which has no small confirmation from this, that Eusebius himself, in the Proaem of his History, Professes, that he is entred into a dark Desert, having no footsteps of Historians, going before him, but only some petty Narrations, which certain persons, in certain times and places, have left. And for Hegesippus (whose Fragments the Dr. Confesses, is all Eusebius's Foundation in this Point) he is by most Famous Protestant Writers acknowledged fabulous, and unworthy of Credit; besides, that, no parts of him are now Extent. As for the Catalogues of Succession, which the Dr. mentions,Ibid. we have heard how shattered they are, and inconsistent with themselves, and Censured consequently by the Learned, as deserving no Credit. Next, as we have heard out of Iunius, the Ground of this fancied Succession, Viz: That the most Eminent Ministers, for Moral Respects, found in Church Records, were insert to fill up these spurious Catalogues, and termed Bishops, in conformity to the times, wherein this distinguishing Name and Office obtained, tho they were mere Presbyters, and for most part contemporary, one with another, So, we have from the same Iunius, made appear, what the design was of these Catalogue-drawers▪ Viz. To prove against Hereticks, that the Christian Church had retained the Seed of the true Doctrin, and the traduces Apostolici Seminis, as it was called, but not to point out or assert, a Succession of our Dr's supposed Hierarchical Prelats. And therefore, in the Third place, the Dr. says nothing to the purpose, unless he can prove that by Bishops, they meant the Prelats of his cut and Mould, with such an absolute Apostolick Authority, as he suggests, which, untill he make good, he does but …ea… the Air, and …egg the Question▪ For, since the Fathers are found to use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter, indifferently (as the Prelatis… themselves acknowledg) it is palpably absurd and Sophistical Reasoning, to conclud from the bare Name and Title of Bishop, which the Fathers make use of, their assertion of the Prelatical Office, which the Dr. pretends. The Folly of his reasoning then appears by this irrefragable Reason, that we find the Fathers calling such persons Presbyters, whom he imagins p. 50Bishops in his Sense. Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor (Cited by Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23.) calls Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, Xistus, Presbyters of the Church of Rome, Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt, the Presbyters that went before thee. Thus also he expresses himself, Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit, ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat, consuetudinem servandum esse dicebat: Tertullian also, Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Presidents of the Churches Seniores, or Presbyters, when he saith, Praesident probati quique Seniores.

For what the Dr. adds of Irenaeus, his seeing Polycarp, and hearing him discourse of Iohn the Apostle,P. 412.413. who affirms, he could reckon up the Bishops Ordained by the Apostles to his own times, reckoning Eleven from Linus, to whom, he says Peter …and Paul, delivered the Episcopal Power of Governing the Church. It is Answered, That this is abundantly obviat, by what is now said of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter, and the intendment of the Fathers, in such recitations. Yea, and from Irenaeus himself convict of Folly, in that he ascribes the same Authority to Presbyters, lib: 4 Cap. 4.3 qua propter iis, qui in Ecclesia sunt, Presbyteris obedire opportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum patris acceperunt. Reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione, & quocunque loco colliguntur, suspectos habere, vel quasi haereticos & malae sententiae, vel quasi scindentes & elatos, & sibi placentes, &c. Thus also lib. 4. Cap: 44. he expresseth himself, ab omnibus talibus absistere opportet, adhaerere vero his qui & Apostolorum, sicut diximus Doctrinam custodiunt▪ & eum Presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum, & conversationem sine offensa praestant, ad Informationem & correctionem aliorum. From which Passages of Irenaeus, the Authors of the Appendix before mentioned, do infer. 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as Successors of the Apostles: And I may add, that if called so by the Fathers, the terming of Prelats, Successors of the Apostles, is of no weight to prove the Dr's design. 2dly. That they are also called Bishops. 3dly. That the Apostolick Doctrin is Derived from the Apostles by their Succession. 4ly. That there is nothing said of Bishops in the former place of Irenaeus, which is not said of Presbyters; and therefore, such places cannot prove, that the Apostles Constitut in the Churches, Bishops, distinct from Presbyters. The Dr's two Countreymen, Dr. Reynolds against Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaker de Pontificatu quaest. 2. Cap. 15. have long since informed him, of the Fathers improper use of the word Bishop, when applyed to Apostles, and the unsuitable absurd appropriating such an Office unto them. In a word, in the forementioned Appendix, Prop. 7. Pag. 123.124.125.the pretended Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, is fully baffled, from several Grounds. 1. The Homonymie of the Word Bishop, these of the first and later times, being p. 51of a different Mould, as to their Office and Power; the later being Diocesian, the first not so, since the Church was first governed by the common Council of Presbyters, and the Succession being drawn from the foreign, or the First Ordained Minister, as among the Athenians, there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers, equal in Power and Authority, yet the Succession of Governours there, was derived from one who was the Chief foreign, not to diminish the Authority of the rest sed ut minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio (as Iunius expresses it) and for the same end was the Succession in these Catalogues drawn from the first Ordained Minister, or the present Moderator and President. 2ly. That the Catalogues, the nearer they come to the Apostles times, runs in the greater confusion and uncertainty, and contradicts one another; some calling Clement the first Bishop after Peter, some the third, and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and another called Cletus, are inextricable. Some (as we have above made appear) calling Titus Bishop, some Archbishop of Crete, some Bishop of Dalmatia; Timothy and the Apostle Iohn, are by some said to be Bishops of Ephesus, at the same time. Thus also Polycarp, is said by some, to be the First Bishop of Smyrna, by others to Succeed one Bucolus, and another affirms that Aristo was Prior to both. Some say, that Alexandria had but one Bishop, and other Cities Two; others, that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time. What uncertainty and contradiction is here? Iunius resolves the doubt, Controv. lib. 2 Cap. 5, Not. 15. viz. That these, or some of these, were Presbyters, Ruling the Church in common; but the following Ages, fancying to themselves, such Bishops as had then obtained in the Church, fell into the Snares of Tradition,— supposing, according to the custome of their own times, that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at once, which, saith he, is quite cross to the Apostolical times. 3ly. Upon the former grounds, and in correspondence, to this account of Iunius, they do inferr, That these Authors make the Catalogues speak, according to the language of their own times, in which, there was a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyters: And therefore, do call such as were before them, Bishops, whereas they were not so properly — And the after-Bishops succeeded these supposed First, no otherways than Cesar did the Roman Consuls. 4ly, The Catalogues resolving in Apostles or Evangelists, do appear absurd, viz: That of Rome, into Peter, that of Alexandria, into Mark, that of Ephesus, into Timothy, that of Crete, into Titus, since neither Apostles nor Evangelists, were Bishops in a formal Sense, and having an Universal Commission, and extraordinary Office, could be Succeeded in neither the one, nor the other, tho in some part of their work they might, by ordinary Officers, as by Men of another Order, but not as one Brother p. 52Succeeds another in the Inheritance. And this doth fully remove what the Dr alledges out of Clem. Alexand. Strom. P. 413.6. And the Passage Cited by Eusebius out of him, and from his Book foreign touching a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters, and anent Presbyters not having the First Seat or Class in Ecclesiastick orders, and that the Apostle Iohn returning from Patmos to Ephesus, Visited the Province, partly to Ordain Bishops, and partly to set a part such for the Clergy, as were pointed out by the Spirit. For, granting some distinction to to have crept in while these things were Written, and (as Augustin expresses it) secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit; the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter, Episcopus Presbytero Major, yet this will never prove either. 1. That this distinction was from the beginning, which we find Augustin in this way of expressing himself, contradicts. Or, 2ly, That there were Bishops of the Drs. Mould, in a continued Line from the beginning; and far less, that the Apostle Iohn set up such Prelats, since the Ancients: (as we have heard the Learned Iunius observe) spoke of the Apostolick times, in the Mould, and after the manner of their own. And surely, if we acknowledg the late distinction of Clergy and Laity ▪ (as we needs must) to be far remote from Iohn's time, we must consequently acknowledg that this Author spoke his own Sense, and the Language of his time, rather than the Sense or practice of the Apostle Iohn.

The Dr. next Generally Cites Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, for this continuance (as he calls it) of Apostolick Superiority from the Apostles themselves,P. 414. whose words, he tells us, he needs not Recit, since Presbyterians acknowledg Episcopacy received about the year 140. Ans. As for the continuance and derivation of the Apostolick Office, in a Succedaneous Episcopacy, which the Dr. has been fencing for, we deny it, and have found his proofs utterly insufficient, and that nothing he has adduced from the Fathers or Scripture, can give the least shaddow of a sound Proof of this Point. As for our acknowledgment of the Episcopacy introduced, about the middle of the Second Century, the Dr. should know that▪ we acknowledg that Beza's Episcopus humanus, or Episcopus praeces, was about this time set up, and obtained in the Churches, and that (as we have heard) the First ordained Minister, in a sort of Prostasie, or fixed Moderatorship had some deference eo nomine, and the next in order, was set up to moderat in the Meetings, when he was removed by Death, or otherwise, and had the Tittle of Bishop given to him; and this was (as Ambrose Phrases it) multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, or by the Judgment and appointment of the Presbytrie; Presbytri saith he, unum ex se electum in excelsiore gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. So, that in Ambrose's. Sense, he had this fixed Prostasie, or new Name, as their Mouth and p. 53Moderator for Orders sake, and this by the free choice of the Presbytrie; which shews the folly of the Dr's. inference of a supposed existent Hierarchy, of his mould, from the nominal distinction of Bishop and Presbyter, in the Passages of Clemens and Eusebius, and others generally mentioned, or from these foreign, being set in a higher Seat than Presbyter…s For, upon the Constitution above rehearsed, and confirmed by Ambrose, both these might be; Yet without any Impeachment of Pastors or Presbyters, decisive Authority in Judicatories, unless the Dr. will say, that because the Moderator of an Assembly, hath a peculiar Name and seat, and a deference upon that Account, He has therefore an Office and Authority paramount to that of the Assembly, and such as inhances their decisive suffrage. Besides, the Dr. odly inferrs from our acknowledgment of this first human Prostasie, our granting a derivation, or continuance, or even introductiion at that time, of his pretended Office of Apostolat, as he calls it, and in the Nature and extent he pleads for; who sees not, that these are toto Caelo different? Tho in the next Passage, the Dr. seems to retract this,ibid. telling his Reader, That tho we acknowledg an Apostolick Superiority, yet we deny that they left any to Succeed them in that Power. But, since he gives this our acknowledgment of the First Episcopacy, as the reason, why he needs not Cite his Authors Particularly, to prove the derivation and continuance of Apostolick Superiority at that time, he clearly supposes this; and therefore, speaks confusedly and inconsistently, in the premised account of our Judgment and concession.

Well,P. 414.415. what further aocount gives the Dr. of Presbyterians Judgment in this Matter? He adds, We hold that the Church was every where governed by the common Council of Presbyters, but this form of Government, being found inconvenient, as giving too much occasion for Schisms and divisions, it was at last Universally agreed upon, that one Presbyter should be chosen out, to presid over all the rest: and that this was the beginning of Episcopacy, for which, he says, we Cite the famous Testimony of Ierom, antequam Diaboli instinctu, &c. Where I find the Dr. either willfully, or ignorantly misrepresenting our Cause and Principles.

First, in alledging, that we hold, that this Form of Government, by common Council of Pastors or Presbyters, was found inconvenient, or not suited to the ends of Government, because it gave occasion for Schisms and Divisions. A gross and lying imputation: For, all do know, that we hold this Form of Government to be of Divine appointment, and the Government established by the Apostles: And it were a strange inconsistency and contradiction to the Scriptures of Truth, to hold, that this Divine Government, appointed by God, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, p. 54and enjoined unto the Gospel Church, was not suited to all the times thereof, and to the great ends of Government, and could of it self, give a rise to Schisms and divisions: What a gross imputation were this, upon the Divine Institutions, and opening a Door, to lay them all aside, upon pretence of eventual inconveniencies? I dare challeng this Dr. or any of his mind, to instance any Presbyterian Writer, who ever asserted this. For, if he say, we homologat Ierom, and approve his Testimony, who affirms, that upon occason of Divisions, the Government was altered, and immutata ratio, as he speaks, it is a pityful and palpably absurd inference, to argue upon this, that either Ierom, or we, do impute this providential issue, and Mans sinful abuse and miscarriage, to the Divine Institution it self; And if the Dr. own such a consequence, he will justify all such abuses, and Ieroboams Plea, for setting up his Calves at Dan and Bethel, because he judged it could not consist with the safety of the Kingdom, which God had given him over Israel, that the Ten Tribes, should go up to Ierusalem to worship, after the Kingdoms were divided.

Secondly, He says, We hold that upon this occasion, it was universally agreed upon,Ibid. that one Presbyter should preside over all the rest, which was the beginning of Episcopacy. And this appears as dark and confused an Account as the former: For, 1. As to the Office of a President or Moderator, whose Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting, to gather the Votes, and moderat the Procedures, we hold, that the very nature of all Government, essentially requires this, and consequently Church Government, and that this was alwise and necessarly practised, as in all Church Government, so, since the beginning, and is examplified in that first Christian Council Act. 15. wherein we judg it probable, that the Person presiding, was the Apostle Iames: And therefore, its gross Non-sense to say, we hold this Presidency, to have been first introduced upon occasion of Schism. But next, if the Dr. by [by a President over the rest] mean such a foreign as is either advitam, or who has such a Presidency as encroaches upon, or inhances the Decisive Votes of Pastors, this indeed we acknowledg with Ierom, came in Paulatim, and by peice-meal, tho at first, he was but a mere President, advitam, and had some Honour and deference upon this account. And this, we hold was the rise of that Prelacie, which in Process of time swallowed up all the decisive Power of Pastors, and their exercise of Government. But the Dr. badly represents the Matter, (P. 415.) when he calls this [a Chusing of one to preside over the rest] which is applicable to any President of a Judicatory, or mouth of a meeting, or unto a speaker in Parliament.

ibid.Thirdly, The Dr. says we hold [that this remedy was Universally p. 55agreed upon] If he means, that upon occasion of Schisms, we hold that this custom of the fixed President, with Authority and deference, as above exprest, came in by degrees, and became Universal, in Process of time, (as additional corruptions ordinarly do) this is easily accorded. But if he mean, that we hold, there was a Formal General Council decreeing this (as the Dr. with his Fellow-Pleaders, fasten this gloss upon that Passage of Ierom [prospiciente concilio—&—toto orbe decretum] he should know, that we disown such an Opinion, and have sufficiently made it appear, that Ierom intended no such thing, since in collating his two Testimonies, viz: his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus, and his Epistle to Evagrius, the contrary is evident; For, Ierom makes this a Consuetudo, or Custom, and says it came in Paulatim, or by Degrees. And no man of Sense, can but distinguish betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice spreading it self, and growing up to a custom, and a practice taking its rise and Original from a formal joint Decree of a General Council.

The Dr. having set down some part of one of these Testimonies of Ierom, ibid.alledges, that we hold or guess (as he expresses it,) that this Universal Decree, was about the Year 140. We hold indeed with Blondel, that about this time, the forementioned foreign took place, but that we hold or guess, it was by an Universal Decree, is the Drs. groundless imputation, which he can Justify from none of our Writers. Let any Peruse the Learned Iunius his account and explication of this Testimony de Clericis Cap. 15. Not. 16.) together with the Authors of the Ius Divinum Minist. Evang. (Part. 2d. P. 56.57.) and the Appendix thereto (P. 102. 103.) and this will be convincingly apparent.

Well,P. 415.416. what says the Dr. to this Testimony? Having given out our Sense of Ierom's words (wherein he contradicts his former Gloss) his First exception is, That Ierom being Born but about the Year 330, is a Witness far short in Antiquity to these early Witnesses which he has adduced: That he is a Hundred Years after Origen, three Hundred after Cl…ment, and one Witness, must not stand against so many early Harmonious Witnesses. We have made it appear, that none of the Drs. early Witnesses, give a Relevant Testimony to the Point, and These, he undertakes to prove, viz. the derivation of the Apostolick Office, in its proper formal Sense, to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to Pastors, and inhancing their whole Authority in Government: We have made appear, that all that his Testimonies amounts to prove, is only a General designation of Bishops, made use of by the Ancients, and at most a supposal of some deference, and fixed Presidency, which they had in Judicatories: And who sees not, that this is utterly short of proving what he intends? So, that his Witnesses are mute in our Cause, and speaks not to the Question and I…errogatur.

p. 56The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. asserts, and endeavours to prove that the Bishop, hath for his peculiar prerogative, annexed to his person and Office as Bishop. 1. The Legislative Power, which he calls the Essence of Government, in the very same manner, as he supposes, the Apostles possest and exercised it. 2dly. The sole Authority to Consecrat and Ordain. 3ly. The whole Authority of Spirituall Iurisdiction, to Cite, Examin Judg, Censure, and absolve Delinquents. 4ly. To Confirm the Baptized. From all which, he, as intirly excluds all Pastors in Meetings, never so frequent and formal, and allows them no more Interest in any of these, than if they were no Church Officers at all, So, that their medling in the least, with these his supposed sole prerogatives of the Bishop, is in his Judgment as gross Antiscriptural encroachment, and stepping beyond the Duties and limits of their Function and Office, as if they should invade the Kings Authority and prerogative. Now, the Office of the Bishop being of this Nature and extent, in the Dr's Judgment, let any Person of Candor or Conscience, give sentence upon it, what the Witnesses before adduced by him, do say to prove this, and what strength there is in their Testimoneis, to reach this conclusion. Again, 2ly. As the Drs. pretended early Witnesses, are but general and ambiguous in their Testimonies, and consequently can make no Faith in this Matter, so, they are so far from being unanimous, as he calls them, that upon the contrary, several of them (as is above cleared) do give Witness against him: Particularly, Clemens and Ignatius, two of his most Ancient Witnesses; Augustin and Ambrose imputing also (with Jerom) the Episcopal Presidency, which obtained in their time, to the Churches Custom, not to Divine Appointment, do thus cast a contradicting blot upon his supposed Testimonies: Ambrose acknouledging in special, that non per omnia conveniunt Apostolorum scripta ordinationi, quae nunc est in Eeclesia Comment. in Cap. 4. ad Ephes. And tho it be controverted, whether this was the true Ambrose, yet we must tell him, with the learned Professors of Saumur (De Episcop. & Presb. Discrim. P. (mihi) 300. Thes. 19.) that he was Coetaneous with, or rather more Ancient than Ambrose, being Cited by Augustin, who was Ambrose Disciple, as an Holy Man (lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4.) which Epithet, he would not have put upon a person of small account, or one hetrodox. 3ly. The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity of Bishops and Presbyters, as his privat Judgment only, but least he, or any else suppose this, he proves it by Divine Testimonies of the Apostles Writings, yea and gives the same Sense of them, which Presbyterian Writers do: And therefore, the Dr. must acknowledg him in so far, acting a Divine Witness, not giving a human Testimony only, and that he more than …utweighs his Human Testimonies, else he is obliged to examin his Pro…fs and Answer p. 57them, and show if he can, Ierom's Sense of these Scriptures to be disowned by any of his Authors, which he doth not so much as attempt. All who have seen Jerom's Testimony, do know, that he Reasons this Point of the Identity of the Office of Bishop and Presbyter from Scripture, least any should take this to be his private Opinion [Putat aliquis, saith he, non Scripturarum, sed nostram esse sententiam, Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse] the one Name importing the Age, the other the Office of the Pastor. Then he goes through these Scriptures, Philip. 1.1. Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1. Pet. 5.2.3. Drawing out upon the whole this Conclusion, that the Bishops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters, was rather by Custom, than any true dispensation from the Lord. But of this again.

The Drs. Second Exception is,ibid. That Jerom being a Presbyter himself, speaks in his own Cause, and in a warmth of Passion, to curb the insolency of some pragmatick Deacons. Ans. Jerom reasoning, both in this place Cited, and the Epistle to Evagrius, this Point, from Scripture, and exhibiting the Divine Oracles, the Apostles Doctrin and practice, for what he holds, speaks the mind of God, and no Passion, and untill the Dr. Answer his Scripture-reasonings in the Forecited Testimonies, he is lyable to the Charge of imputing to the Scripture and to the Apostles, Passion and Partiality. As for his being a Presbyter himself; what then? can no Presbyter speak truely and impartially upon this head? Besides, he knows that several of his Witnesses for Episcopacy, and whom he most Esteems, are by him supposed Bishops of his high Hierarchical Mould, and how shall we receive their Testimony in their own Cause? And why may not we impute to them partiality and Passion, and reject their Testimony, unless their Episcopal Chair hath, as that of the Pope, a supposed infallibility anne…ed to it? So, that the Dr. is put to this Delemma, either to quite his great Episcopal Testimonies, as insufficient upon his own Ground, or admit this of Jerom. It is the same way from Athens to Thebes, and from Thebes to Athens.

The Dr's Third Exception is,ibid. That Jerom elsewhere owns the Bishop's Superiority, whereof he exhibits, First this Proof, that in his Dialogue Advers. Luciferians, he gives this Reason, why one not Baptized by the Bishop, received not the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles: Which, the Dr. says, makes it plain, that he placed the Bishops in the same rank, with the Apostles. A strange Proof indeed! First, we heard, that Jerom Reasons the Point from Scripture, that the Bishop and Presbyter are all one; and therefore, it is odd from Jerom's Naming a Bishop, to understand him of his Hierarchical Bishop. Again, Jerom says [quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus, &c.] what doth the Bishop, except Ordination, which the Presbyter doth not? (A Clause p. 58and Passage, we find the Dr. much harping upon) but in his gloss upon this Testimony, he doth in contradiction to himself, and Jerom also, appropriat to the Bishop, the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. What if one Reason thus, against the dispisers of this Ordinance? Such a Person is not Sealed by the Spirit, because not Baptized by a Pastor; for the Holy Ghost Descended on the Apostles. Will the Dr. disown this Reasoning? Or, will he own the Inference, that therefore, Pastors, are equal to Apostles? Or, say it were such a Reasoning; such a Person, or Persons, cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit, not having heard the Converting Word Preached by a Pastor, since the Apostles thus Converted, and Ministred the Holy Ghost; Will any (but such as draw Reasons and Illustrations beyond the Moon, as this Dr) inferr that the Pastor is thus equal unto Apostles? Will the Dr. in good earnest affirm, that the Person who performs such Acts of the Power of Order, as the Apostles did perform, and with the saving Blessing of the Spirit, is upon this Ground equalled in Office to the Apostles? If so, he must make all Faithful Pastors thus equal, and overturn all his Reasoning from a supposed Succession of Bishops to the Apostolat.

The Dr's next Proof is drawn from Epist. 1. ad Heliod. where he says,ibid. the Bishops are in place of St. Paul and Peter. And so, say we, are all Faithful Pastors (whom Ierom makes one with Bishops, according to the Scripture acceptation, and at large makes it good) in the place of Apostles, as to the exercise of an ordinary Ministrie, and the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, Essential and necessar to the Church, else, our Lord had not promised His presence with His Apostles to the end of the World, when He sent them out, and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gospel, and Disciple all Nations to Him. Of the same Stamp, is that which he Cits of Ierom on Psal. 45.16.ibid. That in stead of the Apostles (gone from the World) we have their Sons, the Bishops, the Fathers, by whom they are Governed. For, I pray, will this Dr. either assert 1. That Ierom held, that the Power of Government and Authority Ecclesiastick, died with the Apostles, that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, was not to be preserved, continued in the Church, and Exercised by ordinary Church Officers, and in this respect enjoined in the Fifth Com…and, which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours (and so are Ministers called in Scripture) under the Character and Denomination of Fathers. Or 2ly. Can he deny that Ierom holds, that except Ordination, (or rather the Rituals of it) at that time appropriat to the Bishop, the Pastors and Presbyters performed all Acts of the Power of Order and Jurisdiction? And that therefore, in Ierom's Sense, Pastors, are such Sons and Successors of Apostles, and have both Name and thing p. 59of the Scripture Bishop. As for his Epistle ad Nepot. asserting that what Aaron and his Sons were, that are the Bishops and Presbters. Ierom in this allusion, in point of Government, asserts only, that God has under the New Testament, as under the Old, fixed a Church Government and Church Officers: And giving the Dr. the advantage of this Sense, that Ierom, including the degenerat Custom of his time, insinuats the premised difference betwixt the then Bishops and Presbyters; I pray, what says this to the Dr's. scope? viz: To prove from Ierom's allusive Phrase, and expressing himself thus, The many Essential differences, which he places betwixt Bishop and Presbyter: No man of Sense can draw such an inference; For 1. Ierom's Judgment, founded upon so many clear Scripture Grounds, as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, when asserting and Disputing this Point, ex professo, ought in all Reason to preponderat any such General allusive Expressions, and as a Comment. Expound the same, in a Sense most consentient to his Judgment, if we will but allow him the Common priviledg of all Men, to be the best Interpreter of his own Sense. 2ly. The Dr. himself must acknowledg this, else he will make Ierom plead for a Gospel- Aaron, or Universal Patriarch, if the Words were taken in a strict Literal Sense, as tending every way to equiparat the Government of the Church under the Old and New Testament.

The Dr. inferrs from this Passage,P. 417. Therefore, as Aaron by Divine Right, was Superior to his Sons, so is the Bishop, in Ierom's Sense to his Presbyters. But he might as well infer; Therefore, as there was one Aaron, set over his Sons, and all the Priests and Levits of the Church of Israel, so, ought there to be, in Ierom's Sense, one Supreme President over al the Christian Church. Besides, 2ly. The Dr. dare not say, that Aaron's Sons and the Priests had no Essential interest in Government, and that it was inhanced and Monopolized in the person of Aaron, as he holds (and insinuats, that Ierom also holds) that it is [thus Monopolized in the Person of the Bishop. Ierom asserts, that Presbyters and Bishops are all one, Iure Divino, consequently, that they have the same Essential interest in Government. So, that whatever President he may suppose set over them by their Choice, yet it neither doth, nor can enhance, nor seclude this their Power. Thus we see, that the Dr's alledged Contradiction in these Passages, to his premised Testimony, anent the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, is but his own imagnation: Besides, that one of his Degree should know, that no simile, is to be strained beyond the Scope of the Author making use of it, else it were not a simile. The Dr. asks,ibid. whether Ierom, is more to be Credited, when speaking without a Byass, or when speaking partially, and in his own Cause? I Answer by a Counter-query, whether Ierom's full and larg account p. 60of his Judgment, when Disputing a Point, ex professo, and from Scripture, is more to be believed, and laid hold upon, as expressing his Sense, than a general dark allusive expression, when under no such Circumstances, and prosecuting no such scope and design, and which of the two ought to preponderat? And so I dismiss the Dr's Third Answer.

His Fourth exception to the premised Testimonie is, That the translation of the Government from the common Counsel of Presbyters, ibid.to one Bishop, must be in Jerom's Sense, Apostolick, since it was made, when it was said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's; And therefore, this Decree, must needs have been made in Pauls time. Ans. The Dr. might have seen this Phantastick exception long since removed: First, By Junius, in the passage, forecited (scil. de Cler. Cap. 15. Not. 16.) where, he at large expones this Testimony, and removes this gloss [tria distinguit tempora, Hieronymus, saith he, &c.] Ierom distinguisheth Three Periods of time; one, wherein the Church was Governed by common Counsel of Presbyters: The second, wherein there were divisions in Religion, and it was said among the People, not at Corinth. only, I am of Paul, &c. For when these things were said at Corinth, the Church was Governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters; as appears 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 1. The Third and last, wherein one chosen out from among the Presbyters, was set over the rest. And every one of these times, saith he (that I may speak with the Vulgar) had their own latitude. Iunius here, informs the Dr. that this was not said at Corinth. only, but among the People [malum non Corinthi solum]— It was. saith he, a publick evil. He adds that Paul himself prescribed no such remedy to the Corinthians: And and afterward (Not. 17.) he tells us, that Ierom saith, That after it was said among the People, this Change was made, but not, that this human Prostasie began at that time, viz: of the Schism, but after that time. To this Judicious account of the learned Iunius, I shall add another of the famous Whittaker (De Eccl. quest. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 29.) where he thus obviats and removes the Drs. Quible upon Ierom's forementioned Testimony, he saith not, it was Decreed by the Apostles, that one Presbyter should be set over the rest; This he says was by the Churches custom, not the Apostles Decree — Then Jerom adds, let the Bishops know, that it is rather by custom, than Divine appointment, that they are set over Presbyters. Had the Apostles, saith Whittaker, changed the First Order, and set Bishops over Presbyters, and forbidden the Churches to be Governed by their common Counsel, truely, this had been the …ords appointment, because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ, unless we will ascribe to Custom, not to Divine appointment, what they decreed: But the Apostles being alive, there was nothing changed p. 61in that Order; For the Epistle was written when Paul, was in Macedonia, &c. The Dr. may in these accounts, see his Error. Jerom, in the forementioned Testimonies, proving a Scripture parity of Bishop and Presbyter, through all the Apostles times and writings, and even to John's time, the surviver of them all, could not be so bruitishly inconsequent, as to make the Schism at Corinth, the occasion of the Change of Government, so long before his Testimony from John, yea before Paul's farewel Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus, from which, he draws another of his Proofs, but he speaks of an human Custom coming in Paulatim postea, piece and piece, and by degrees, long after these times, and but alluds unto that division. 1 Cor. 1 (where again the Dr. may see the Error of taking strictly his alluding Phrases) expressing it, in the Apostles words, not of their times; For, as we heard Whittaker observe, the Apostles never appointed such accressent Power of Prelats over Presbyters, as a Remedy of Schism, among all their Prescriptions of the Remedies of this evil, Rom. 16. 1 Cor. 3. Whittaker also, will tell the Dr. that this was a Remedy worse than the disease.

The Dr. adds, to confirm his Sense of Jerom's Words, that Jerom (in his Book De Eccles. Script.) shews, that after the Lord's Ascension, James was Ordained by the Apostles, Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy by Paul, Bishop of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, Polycarp of Smyrna, So, that he must either mean an Apostolick Decree, or else, he must contradict himself. Ans. Not to detain the Dr. to prove this Book to be Jerom's, which some hold to be spurious, this is easily removed by what we have above offered, and even from Whittaker, of the Fathers general, improper, ambiguous Speech of Bishops, and their various use of this epithet, terming such Persons, who did for some time Officiat in a place, whether extraordinary Officers or ordinary, the Bishops thereof, after the Denomination and custom, which had then obtained, whereof instances have been above exhibited. Jerom speaking of the Alexandrian Succession, says, the Presbyters chused out one to preside [a Marco Evangelista] and terming Mark thus (not meerly, upon the account of his being a Writer of the Gospel, which is the strictest acceptation, but in the Judgment of those, best acquaint with his Writings, an Evangelist, as a transient, unfixed Preacher of the Gospel) he must needs account Timothy and Titus of the same Office; And therefore, not Bishops in a formal Sense, nor set up in such a manner, and for such an end, which were Cross to their Office, as I have above made good. Besides, that it seems odd and inconsistent with common Sense, that immediatly after the Lords Ascension, such Persons were set up, in the Office and Character specified, and cross to this whole Testimony of Jerom; For thus, there could be no time for Presbyters governing by common counsel, nor the Schism to grow up thereupon, both which, Jerom's Testimonies p. 62does suppose, in distinct Periods of time, as we heard Iunius observe; So, that the Dr. speaks very bluntly and inconsideratly, when he tells us,ibid. That either Ierom must mean a Decree Apostolick, immediatly after our Lord's Ascension, or else expresly contradict himself. This Alternative of the Dr's. I say, is pityful inadvertency; For, should Ierom speak of such an Apostolick Decree, as he imputes to him, he must needs directly contradict himself, in Asserting the Churches Government, to have been for a time [communi consilio Presbyterorum] And a Schism growing thereupon: For, in the Dr's Sense, there was never such a Government, or an occasion of Schism existent. Besides, That this Gloss of the Dr's. makes Ierom say, that the Apostles changed the Divine appointment, to make way for an human form; For, Jerom holds the Government, by common Council of Presbyters, to be founded upon Divine Institution, and that which Succeeded, upon human Custom only. The Dr. therefore, and all else, who would accord Jerom's Testimony, with what he here Cites, must understand his words in the sense, I have offered, which, as is said, is the Sense and Judgment of famous Protestant Divines.

The Dr's Fifth exception is, That had this change of the Government from Presbyterian to Episcopal, P. 417.418.been in very deed; it must either have been made by the Apostles, or thereafter: If we say, by the Apostles, its strange, there is no mention of it in Scripture.But to this, the Answer is easie and ready, that we own no such Sense of Jerom's words, nor can they admit the same, as I have already made good. Well, but the Dr. pushes us with the other horn of his Dilemma, viz. ibid.That if we say, it was made after the Apostles, or about the year 140, how comes it, that such a Decree▪ relative to an Universal Change of the Government from one kind to another, is not mentioned in Ecclesiastick Antiquity? There being no such Decree heard of, and Clemens, Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth, who lived in that Period, are so far from taking notice of this, that they maintain the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops, from the Apostles. I answer, this other push and Horn of the Dr's Dilemma, is as far from harming us, as the other; For it is grounded upon the Dr's own groundless fancie, and distorted Sense of Jerom's words, as if by [toto orbe decretum] he had meant a formal general Decree of a Council: Which phantastick conceit, several Learned Divines have refuted, from the Tenor and Scope of Jerom's words. Jerom says [prospiciente Concilio — & toto orbe decretum] not in any formed Council, either in the Apostles time, or afterward, but he means, when through the World, it was said among the People, I am of Paul, &c. [postquam alii Corinthiorum more Dementati in partes p. 63discerptae sunt] (as Blondel expresses and expounds it) it was Decreed among the People, or in and among particular Churches through the whole World. Decreed through the whole World, is all one with by the whole World, which is distributively to be taken. Jerom's words evince this; For, the Council's Decree representing the whole World, would have been all at once, but Jerom says, this change came not in simul & semel, but paulatim, by degrees, and that the after Prostasie came in Consuetudine, or by custom, which points at a gradual comming in. Thus, we have seen the Dr's fancied absurdity evanish. I might add, that the Churches speedy defection from the Apostolick Purity and Institutions in point of Government, will not appear strange to any, who considers Scripture Instances, of as great and more speedy Defections: Witness, that of Israel's worshiping the Golden Calf, so shortly after the Promulgation of the Law; And the early workings of the Mysterie of iniquity, in the New Testament Church, and affectation of Episcopal Primacy, in the Apostle John's time, &c. Of which already. For what he adds of the Testimonies of Authors, as to the Succession of Bishops, from Apostles, at Rome, Jerusalem, &c. we have already discovered fully, what a mean and chattered proof this is, and that the pretended Succession is lyable to unanswerable exceptions, and terminating in Apostles or Evangelists, whose Office is extraordinary, and expired; the fabulous vanity thereof, is in this convincingly apparent.

The Dr. tells us, That Irenaeus, while at Rome, might as well know Peters Successors there,P. 418, 419. as we may know, who succeeded Bishop Whitgift, in the Chair of Canterbury, he being no further distant from the one, than we from the other. But truly, were there no greater Certainty of the one, than of the other, I should confidently Challenge that Matter of Fact as Fabulous: And had that Chair, had no other Successors of Whitgift, than the first Pastors or Bishops of Rome, it had been an empty Chair. And were there as great Uncertainty of an Arch-Bishop Whitgift at Canterbury, and as many famous Contradictors of this Matter of Fact, and of his Successors, as in this case of Rome, the Succession would merit no Mans Belief. For the Dr's. Assertion of the Clearness of Ierusalem and Romes Successions [which he says is as clear, as any thing in Ecclesiastick History] he therein crosses the Judgment of Learned Protestants, who have made the contrary appear, as is above evinced. The Accounts of this supposed Succession, being Contradictory one to another, and sometimes Persons Contemporary, made Succedaneous therein, yea, and the very Name and Office of Persons designed, being of a various and different Nature and Signification, some of these pretended succeeding Bishops, being mere Presbyters. But says the Doctor,ibid. who will question an ancient Monarchy, because p. 64of some Defect of the Historical Accounts of its Succession. I answer, The Original of the Monarchy, being clear in History, and also the Successors of the first, in Point of an Historical Faith, this will not be questioned: And when the Dr. shal let us see the Bishops of his Mould, set up by the Apostles, and present to us the Scripture Escutchions of their Power, together with clear Historical Accounts of their first Successors accordingly, we shal admit his paralell Argument, else it is a mere non sequitur.

The Dr. in the next place, tells us, That the Story of Jerom's Universal Decree,ibid. being Unattested, and Contradictory to all Antiquity, it must needs be lookt upon, as a mere Figment of his Fancy. But from what is said, its evident, that the Dr. instead of Impugning the Decree, which Jeroms Testimony speaks of, has been, in all that is premised, but Fighting with his own Shadow, and a Figment of his o…n Fancy, and has never touched his Meaning and Scope, nor has shown any, much less all Antiquity, against what Jerom asserts.

ibid.The Dr. demands an Instance of any Church of another Form of Government, than Episcopacy. Which Demand he might have found sufficiently answered by Presbyterian Writers, who have made appear, that the first Apostolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially. The Authors of the Jus Divinum Regim. Eccles. have long since exhibit clear Scripture Proofs of this, which the Dr. should have Answered, before he had made such a Challenge. Besides, the Multitud of Fathers, who maintain the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, will go far in this Proof. And if Blondels Demonstration from Antiquity, (Apol. Sect. 3. P. 308. &c.) that Bishops came not in till the year 140. hold good, surely all the existent Churches in that Period of Time, are so many Instances of such a Government. And for this Church of Scotland, we have its first Presbyterian Government, attested by Iohan. Major. de gest. Scot. Lib: 2: Fordons Scotochron: Lib: 3: cap: 8: Blond. Sect 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Governed by Presbyters without Bishops, and that in that year, the Bishop of Rome sent Palladius, as our first Bishop; So, that we had our Union to the See of Rome, together with Prelacy.

We come now, to the Dr's last Exception to this Testimony of Ierom, ibid.wherein he reposes great Confidence, Ushering it in with an especially Considering: Well, what is that under his Consideration, the Dr. will Amuse us with, and Arrest our Thoughts upon? This Conceit, saith he, reflects odiously upon the Wisdom of our Saviour, and his Apostles, in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters common Counsel, which was the Occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions, p. 65for Removal of which, the Church found it needful to dissolve those Presbytries, and introduce Episcopacy in their Room. But the Doctor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long since removed, and that his supposed Reflection, depends not upon any Words of Ierom. Ierom says, That [Diaboli Instinctu] by the Devils Instinct, there fell Divisions and Factions, one saying, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, and that thereupon, this Remedy of setting up fixed Presidents, was fallen upon. Which the Learned Whittaker has told the Dr, was a Remedy worse than the Disease: And Ierom himself, distinguishes this Humane Custom, from the Divine Institution. Now, where is the Dr's Consequence? Because Jerom says, that for preventing Schisms at that time, the Government was changed, doth he therefore charge this, upon the Apostles Government, or Christs Institution? He may as well say, that a Mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church, will inferr his imputing them to the Ordinances. Was there not Discord among the Apostles, under Christs own immediat Government? But did this Discord, or the Record thereof in Scripture, reflect on His Holy Government? Paul and Barnabas divided and parted asunder, but doth Luke, in Recording this, charge it upon the Apostolick Government?

To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference, yet further to appear, let these three things be considered. 1. He confesses that Jerom asserts, that the Apostolick Government of Presbyterian Parity, was the Occasion only of these Schisms. Therefore, say I, he makes it not the Cause: If the Dr. assert this, he will pitifully expose his Learning, in not distinguishing these things, which are so obviously distinguishable, and reflect upon our Saviour, in saying, he came not to send Peace, but a Sword and Division, to kindle Fire upon the Earth, to set a Man at Variance against his Father, and to make those of a Mans own House, his Enemies; as if His Holy Doctrin, were the Cause of these Evils. Paul tells us, that his Corruption and Sin, took Occasion from the Commandment, and was irritat by the Law; but prevents so gross a Mistake, as to suppose any Imputation upon the Holy Law thereby. Is the Law sin? saith he, God forbid. He abhorrs the Consequence as absurd and blasphemous. 2. The Dr. holds, that Jerom asserts, The Church found it necessary upon this Occasion, to change the first Government,P. 419, 420. by the Common Counsel of Presbyters, and (as he expresses it) to Dissolve Presbytries, and Introduce Episcopacy. Wherein he abuses Ierom, and pitifully Wire-draws his Words, offering a mere Distortion of them: For, [1.] Ierom speaks only, as is above cleared, of an Innovating Custom, growing up by Degrees, not of a Government introduced by the whole Church, upon Ground of Necessity. [2.] He makes Ierom assert, that upon the first p. 66Introduction of this Custom, Presbytries were wholly dissolved, which is most cross to Ieroms Meaning; For, even in his own time, long after the first Origine of this Custom, he says [quid facit, &c.] what doth the Bishop, except Ordination, which the Presbytrie doth not? So, that in the first Introduction of this Episcopus Praeses, Ierom could far less suppose a Dissolution of Presbytries, or total Abolishing of their Authority, as the Dr. foolishly suggests, but only such a fixed President or foreign, who, as in that Capacity, had a Deference, and the Care committed to him, but not so, as wholly to exclud Presbyters Decisive Suffrage. Again, in the 3d. place, what ever may be said of this after-Practice and Frame of Government, Ierom expresly denies a Divine Right, or Ius to it, and distinguishes it, from the Truth of the Divine Appointment, which first took place: So, that, tho we should grant to the Dr, that in Ierom's Sense, the whole Church, by joynt Determination, had simul & semel made this Alteration, it is evident, that he charges the Error upon the Church, as a Recess from the Divine Path, but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it self, which he diligently distinguishes from, and sets in Opposition to this Custom and Practice of the Church. So, that the absurd Reflection upon the Apostles Government, and the Wisdom of our Saviour, the Dr. may see to be lodged nearer home, viz. not only upon these, who first brought in this Human Prostasie, (especially such, as Scrued it up to an Hierarchical Primacy, which is so cross to the Apostolick Parity) but also, and in a singular manner, to be chargeable upon these, who uphold it, after its many Evils are discovered. Ierom asserts only the Matter of Fact, viz. That this Imparity, was brought in for Remedy of Schism, but leaves the charg… of Reflecting upon the Apostolick Government, upon the Authors of this Innovation; And upon the Promotters thereof, it must still ly.

ibid.The Dr. alledges, That Iorom approves of this, as a Wise a…d Prudent Action. An odd Approbation indeed! To approv… a Custom or Action, as Wise and Prudent, which he holds to be opposit to the Divine Appointment. For his proof, viz. That Ierom asserts the Safety of the Church to depend upon the Authority of the High Priest or Bishop, to whom, if Supreme Authority be not given, there would be as many Schisms as Priests. As the Dr. has pointed us to none of Ieroms Writings for Proof of this, so (as we have cleared above) Ierom and the Ancients, in such Allusive Expressions, intend nothing else, but a Distinction of Offices in the Gospel Ministry, and to assert the Authority thereof. Blond. Sect. 3. P. 135. shews out of diverse Councils, their expressing the Gospel Ministry, under the Character of Priests and Levites. And I dare referr it to this Dr, or any Man of Sense, if a grosser Contradiction or Non-sense, could ever fall into any Mans Thought, than to hold p. 67the Necessity of an Hierarchical Bishop, with Supreme Authority, and yet the Necessity of a Divine Appointment to the contrary. That which the Dr. calls the Unavoidable Consequence of Jerom's Hypothesis, viz. That the Church had gone to Ruine,ibid. if a Wiser Form of Government, than that of Apostles, had not been taken up, to supply its Defect. We have made appear, to be a very easily avoided Consequence, and by no Twist of Reason, to be deducible from Ierom's Hypothesis, and that the Dr, in drawing such a Consequence, has, in stead of Ierom, involved himself, in absurd Deductions. He calls this Testimony of Jerom, ibid.the only considerable Objection, against the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Episcopal Government; And therein discovers his small and slender Reading in this Controversie, since he might have seen in Blondel, Salmasius, and many others, many more considerable Objections; And this one, we have found so very considerable, that it hath quit baffled, and born down the Dr's mean and inconsiderable Answers. But to proceed.

In the close of this Section. (P. 421.) the Dr. flies high in these his supposed victorious Answers to Jerom's Testimony, telling us, that the Apostolick Superiority of Bishops, being handed down by Testimonies, from Age to Age, its as unreasonable to reject the same, as the Canon of the Scriptures, thence derived. The Dr. here discovers, what Spirit he is of. I had alwise thought, that the Divine Impression of the Scripture Canon, the intrinsick infallible evidences of a Divine inspiration, had been the great ground of the Churches reception, not its being handed down to us, from former generations, or the First receivers; And that our Divines, had alwise distinguished, the Church and former Generations Testimony and recommendation, from the innate, Essential evidences of its Divine Authority, as to the Ground of our Faith and reception. But however, I shall tell him, that he should have exhibited, as full and Divine proof and unanimous recommendation of all the Churches, for his hierarchical Prelacy, as there is for the Scripture Canon, before he had offered such an high flown notion.

Before I part with the Dr. upon this head, I must needs (tho I have a little before, touched it) take notice of two pieces of signal unsoundnness and unfair dealing in this Matter of Jerom's Testimony. First, That in all his Animadversions, and muster of Episcopal strength against it, he doth not in the least, take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs, of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter: in correspondence to our Sense and Pleading. Upon Philip 1.1. He argues, That many Bishops are saluted by Paul in that Church; and that it could not have many of the Diocesian stamp; That therefore, the Apostle speaks indifferently of Bishops and Presbyters, as one and the same. p. 68That Act. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephesus, Bishops, set up by the Holy Ghost; and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City, as Bishops. That in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the care of the Churches is divided among many — obey them that have the Rule over you, for they watch for your Souls. That Peter, called so from the firmness of his Faith, exhorts thus the Elders — the Elders which are among you, I exhort, who am also an Elder, and Witness, of the sufferings of Christ, Feed the Flock of God, which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, &c. These things I write, saith Ierom, to shew, that among the Ancients, Bishops and Presbyters, were one and the same, and that by little and little, the care was devolved upon one. Now, what says the Dr. to these his Arguings upon the Apostles Doctrin? If they are not found, why doth he not discover his mistake? If they hold good, the Dr's exceptions evanish unto Wind. As for instance, That Ierom is too late a Witness; that he is a Witness in his own Cause; that he talks otherwise, when not byassed with partiality, &c. For, if these Reasonings be sound, his Witness, is both a most early and Divine Witness, and in the cause of God and Truth; And whatever other Testimony he may be supposed to give, this Divine Testimony ought to be preferred, wherein there can be no partiality, unless the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles, and the Decision of the Holy GOD of Truth, in this Point. This also, answers the Drs quible, about a Decree Apostolick, as the Ground of the Change of Government, and that Ierom could mean no such thing, since none can be so brutish, as to impute to the Apostles, a contradictory Decree to their own Doctrin. As also, that other exception of his, evanishes, upon this Ground, Viz. That no such Decree of the Church was Recorded; And that therefore, there was none such: For, say, it was either a Decree, or gradual Custom, if cross to the Apostolick Doctrin, it ought to be rejected. Thus, also appears the Folly of his last exception, That he imputes to the Apostolick Government, that it occasioned Schisms. For, upon supposal of the soundness of Ierom's Scripture proofs, the parity of Bishop and Presbyter, being the mind of Christ and his Apostles, this Government could never give ground to Schisms, nor could the Church warrantably alter it, upon any such pretence; So that, whensoever, and by whomsoever the change was made, it was made contrary to the revealed will of the great Law-giver.

The Second Point of unsoundness, the Dr. is Chargable with, is, that in the beginning of his discourse upon Ierom's Testimony, he professes, that he will not disput with us, the Sense of this Passage, but allow it to bear our Sense; Yet in several of his Answers, he impugns our Sense: Especially his 4.5. & 6. and not only our Sense, but the Sense of sound Protestant Divines, p. 69as is above evident. His Conceit about Ierom's making the Decree or Custom, he speaks of, to be the Schism at Corinth (which is his Fourth exception) and his Supposition, That Jerom by [toto orbe decretum] understands a formal joint Decree of the whole Church, not a gradual Custom, and that Jerom makes the Church to redress upon necessary grounds, the Government appointed by Christ and his Apostles, and thus to impeach his Divine Wisdom (which are his other exceptions) All these, I say, as they are Distortions of Jerom's sense, so directly opposit to the Sense given by us, and by all sound Divines; yea, and such, as have been long since refuted by Protestant Writers, in Answer to Popish glosses and exceptions, with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join Issue: So that, we may judg of the affinity of both their Causes, by the near cognation of their Pleadings.