Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 12

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 1 · Chapter 12

p. 187CHAP. XII.

The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy. That antiquity is at most, testis facti, but not judex veri, may witness matter of fact, but is no judge of what is right therein, proved from the Testimony of Scripture, and the fathers. The Informer's reasoning on this head, reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed. That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes, proved by Testimonys of the fathers, particularly of Ierome. His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer.

OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy, and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them. Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies p. 188been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster, The Diocesian Prelat! Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes (and not altogother amisse) that this Leviathan can swim much better. And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet, with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops. But in this his argueing from antiquity, he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes. For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine, and dare not state the Question, as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould, like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies, I will yeeld the Cause to him. So that we are not concened in his Testimonies, They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate. Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head, and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinne…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers, and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity.

… I Suppose this man (if he will not renounce his protestant profession) cannot but grant, that it is not Antiquity as he call it, or human Testimonies, but the Scriptures of truth, which most judge in this debate. So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onelyonly to his Scripture arguments, and that the Scripture is not for him, but against him, I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above; we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith. Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity, deserves not the name. Id adulterum quod posterius, id verum quod pri nium, said Tertullian. That is adulterat which is Last, and trere which is first. I am the way, the truth and p. 189the Life, said Christ, but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us, that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris; Antiquity without truth, is but a mouldy error. Our Lord himself rejected this argument [it was said of old] and apposes unto it [but I say] Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's [it was said of old] and by our Lords warrand, reject his pretences from Antiquity, to warrand any thing which the word condemnes: and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self: for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith. Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus (there being in them all things to be believed and practised) utrique servimus, ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram, is great Augustins advice. The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent, which we both beleive, To which we both submit, There let us seek the Church, There let us discusse our Cause. Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet, eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. That which derives not its authority from Scripture, the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered, and (on the 1.) Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate & Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out & forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures, the sword of God strikes throw the same. Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate: Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto, but de jure, not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact, introduced into the Church of old, or of late, but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places? We alledge and prove p. 190that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ, the great lawgiver, his rules in point of Church Government, set down in his Testament. Now, to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies, as to Custom or practise of the Church, (even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact, viz, That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops) what is it but to oppose, humane corruption to Gods ordinance, The practise of men to Gods rule, and mens Testimonies who are liars, to the divine Oracles of the God of truth.

This man thinkes it a Herculean argument, when he drawes his human Testimonies, as to prelacy neer the Apostles time (as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars) and wonders how we can suppose, that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions. But I pray, how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven, by his own terrible voice, that the wholl Church of Israel, together with Aaron himself, set up and worshiped the golden Calf, contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command? Now, suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity, or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel, (after frequently imitated, and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to worship God, for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova, and to have a visible signe of his presence) Wil the Informer say, that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command, though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self. So the case is here, Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies, nay more, even Scripture Testimonies, as to the factum, that the diocesian; yea, and Erastian Prelat, had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time; yet if we can from our Lord, and his Apostles doctrine, and p. 191practise, prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation, and contrary to the divine institutiones, He must needs grant (that though esteemed golden) it ought to be Nehushtan, rejected and pluckt up by the roots. The Papists, who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule, made up by traditions, yet will not dare to own (professedly at least) any principle, or practise, condemned in the Word. suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers, touching his Prelat he pleads for; they are but h…man Testimonies, and therefore cannot beget a divine faith, which is founded upon the word only. Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare, quam c…nsuetudo non nooit▪ nam si nosset non-esset, saith Tertullian. Arise o! truth it self, and expone they Scriptures, which custome hath not known, for had it known them, it had not been. The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church; but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold, be of God, yea or not; this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall; and Gods Oracles must determine therein, before the Conscience can be satisfied, as to the owning of such a Church officer: And if God dissowne him, I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem, in withstanding him, It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most, but not judices veri & recti, Attesters of matters of fact, but not judges of what is right and equal therein.

Thus we have seen, that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity, were granted, his cause, profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust. wheras he alleadges [Testimonies as to the existence of Prelats in the Christian Church, neer the Apostles times, or contemporary with them, & that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats, down from Apostles and Evangilists, have been keept in Churches, which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy p. 192of Timothie, and Titus &c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity, yet when tryed, it will be found many wayes defective, and unsound. For clearing whereof I shall offer some things, both to the Major, and assumtion of this argument, which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way. For thus the argument must run.

If Diocesian Bishops, by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers, did exist in the primitive times, and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients, from Apostles, and Euangilists, then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution: but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers: Ergo, I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institution.

Now this being the argument in its genuine strength, this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition, whose connexion he cannot but know, the we all deny. All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption, which is also denved, & will be found very maimed. I. To the Major, I say, that it is of very dangerous consequence, to make that which men call antiquity, or [ancient custome,] the infallible rule, and commentary, as to the nature and office, of Church officers, mentioned in Scriptur. Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case, so as we must not contradict or counteract it, then why may not also human practise, and profession of succeding ages, determine as to every Scripture truth, and duty therein held out? 2. This were to set up a higher rule, and tribunal, then the Scriptures, and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome, not in Gods, and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation, as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man. For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating p. 193to the offices of Timothy, and Titus, then according to the practise of supposed Bishops, their successores, and that they held no other offices, but such as these supposed successores are said to have had, then the Custome and practise of fallible men, becomes to me, the foreign, the ratio a priori, and the chief ground, why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other; and so I give men a dominion over my faith, and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise, and Testimony of fallible men, which is a principle no protestant will allow.

Next, as to the asumption of the argument, I would demand of this informer, how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church, and of this true succession; and how he will instruct the universal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point, (viz.) [That such prelates as we have now, were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government, from the Apostles and Evangelists, as their only immediat & ordinary successors.] The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact. But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work. Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing; many of their writings are lost; many writings going under their name are counterfit, & most especially to this debate. It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited; to be meer countersites. How shall I know, that the Testimonies of those who have written, are not contradicted in this point, by such men of their times, who either have not written, or whose writings are perished? 2. There are many things, which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles, and have had ane universal consent (as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us) which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God p. 194and the Apostolick doctrine; as, the error anent the vision of God, [that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day.] the error of [free will,] which until Augustin opposed it was universally receaved▪ the [Millenary error,] anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thousand years; called by Lactantius, [the doctrine of the holy prophets, and christian wisdome, which christians follow.] Iustin Martyr, holds them to be no christians that dissown this▪ and this is owned as ane Apostolick tradition. So [childrens partaking of the Lords supper;] and [the necessity of baptisme] was by Augustin and others owned as such a tradition (lib: 1. de pecc: mer.) Basil names four Apostolick traditions, signeing with the cross; praying to the east; anointeing with oyle; praying in the standing postur from Easter to whitsuntyd. See the Appendix to jus divinum minise. Evan (prop. 2.) The informer and his fellowes, make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius, for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one. But Beza could have informed him, de grad: (346.) that Epiphanius (Haeres: 75) imputs to him, as great heresies, these Tenets, 1. That he held it unlawfull to offer and pray for the dead. 2. That he held that Saincts departed were not to be invocat. 3. That there were not fixed fast dayes to be keept. 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed, because ourpassover is already offered. Now, if our Informer condemne him for these also, we weed care the lesse for his condemning him in the point of prelacy. 3. It is certain, that the account of the first times immediatly after the Apostles, is, as to mater of fact, very dark & uncertain, & consequently a very slippery rule. Hegesi pus (apud Euseb: lib: 3. Cap: 28.) tells us, [that immediatly after the Apostolick age was gone, tunc impii erroris conspiratio, per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad▪ ant, initium caepit—Then the conspiracy of wicked error, but the seducings of p. 195those who delivered another doctrine, took its begining. Eusebius himself the prime writer, (from whom in a manner is the wholl of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops, and who presents these fragmens of writers out of which our episcopal men ga…her up their proofes) in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that worke entered into a dark desert, therein he hath no footsteps of any goeing before him, but only foreign Some litle occasions, or some pitty narations, which every one in their own time hath left and delivered. let any read haumer (ane Inglish Bishop), his translation of Eusebius, wherein this will be found very clear. Scalliger (prolegom in Chron. Euseb.) Saith, Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum &c. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles, until the midst of the reigne of Trajan, in which tract, Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished (let our informer observe this as to Ignatius) may be truly called with varr… foreign or obscur, wherin nothinthat is certan, hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians, except some very few things, which the enemies of godlines carches up by the way, such as Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Plenius Cecilianus, which gap that Eusebius might fill up, he drew some things without discretion and choise out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement (for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromata… …nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus a writer no better. Tilen himself (a great pleader for the Episcopal cause) yet tells us (Contr: 3: l. 2: c. 2: Not. 39. and c. 3. Note. 6) That, the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes, which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp, filled up with petty fables drawen from their own braine.—That from the end of the acts of the Apostles, until Traian's times, p. 196thereis almost nothing extant which is certain: hence (he saith) occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to faine anything, whom even the Apostles times wanted not. Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius, which may invalidat the credit of his history, and his many gross errors therein, and in other poynts, observed by Scalliger and others. How fabulous is that history of Christes Epistle to Agbarus, rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Councel of Seventy Bishops at room. That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans, a Sect among the jewes, Eusebius affirms that he wrot it of Christian mmks, which Scalliger shewes to be false out of Philo himself (in elencho tribaeresii.) He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proofe:—In the computation of times, Scalliger observes his gross errors. Nay, which is more considerable, he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture, in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul, was not the Apostle peter, but another of the number of the Seventy disciples. Besyds, many things in his personall cariage and qualities, which may weaken the Credit of his History, as his presideing in the councel of Tyre against Athanasius, and standing upon the Arrians side. Scalliger (in his Thesaurus temporum. Animad: p: 268) Setts down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors & Arrianisme, wherein some affirme that he died. When he wrote the history he was ane Arian. Moreover, Admitt his Testimony were abeve all exception, yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor, is demonstrated from this by Didocl: (cap. 4. p. 119) [that he maks mention of Sozomen, who was born ane hundred years therafter.]

Lastly, As to the Catalogues of Bishopes, which our Informer, and his masters befor him, exhibit to us from the Apostolick times, he might have found them p. 197aboundantly invalidat by many of the learned, whose judgement and Testimonys are collected by Didocl: (cap: 4 p. 121: 122, 123, 124, &c.) Which we may well challeng this man to answer. Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes. 1. That Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others, who make use of this Argument of Succession, against hereticks, designe only to shew a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them, and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis, a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine, but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way. Tertullian saith, [Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures &c.] Iren…us in his time, speaking of this Succession from the Apostles, & pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered, makes mention of Presbyters [opportet adhaerere iis &c: We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine, and with the order of [presbitery] mentain the word. And again, therefore we must obey these [presbiters] who are in the Church, who have their Succession from the Apostles, as we have showen. Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione, charisma veritatis certum, Secundum placitum patris acceperunt. That is, who with the Succession of Episcopacy, have receaved from the father the sure gift of truth.] thus he, (l. 4. c. 44.) And because this Informer singes their old song who before him, will still Shuffle in Bishops, when the Ancients speak of Presbyters. Let him remarke what he sayes (lib: 3. cap. 2.) Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth [quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos &c:— But when wee apeall them again to that tradition, which from the Apostles, is preserved by Succession of Presbyters in the Churches—They will alledge that they are more wise then the p. 198Apostles themselves or these Presbyters] dare this man say, that Irenaeus meaned that it was only a Succession of Bishops in these Churches who keep that Apostolick truth.

That Presbyters are successoures of Apostles properly and immediatly in the power of the keyes, is evident by a full Testimony of ancient fathers. …gnatius (about whom our Informer makes a great bustle in several places of his Pamplet) in the Epistle ad Trallianos, calles the caetum Presbyterorum, the Assembly of Presbyters, Con…unctionem Apostolerum Christi, a meeting of Apostles of Christ. …rinaus, (lib: 4. Cap. 43) holds Presbyteros in Ecclesia ab Apostolis successionem habere, that Presbyters in the Church have there succession from the Apostles. Cyprian (lib. 4. epistol. 9.) asserts, omnes praepositos vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere, that all overseers (so he calls Presbyters) succeeds the Apostles by a vicarious ordination. Ierome, on 2. Chap. of mica, (cited by Cratian in decretis distinct 5. cap) speaking of himself a Presbyter, saith si in Apostolorum loco simus, non solum sermonem eorum imitemur &c.If we be in the Apostles place, let us not onelyonly imitat there doctrine, but also their conversation. Augustin (serm: 36. to the fratres in Eremo) and these too Pre…byters, call them sal terrae, Apostolorum successores, the salt of the earth and the Apostles successours.

2. As it is certan, that these Catalogue-drawers, did not understand veri nominis ep…copos, or diocesian Bishops properly suoh, thogh speaking after the manner of their times they gave them all one name: So it is equally certain, that the Testimoyns out of which these Catalogues are patch…d up, are most inconsistent and contradictory to one another (as the divines at the ile of Wight, and many learned men have made appear) and still the nearer the Apostles times, the Catalogues are the more darke and various. They make Peter Bishops of Rome (a fable contradicted by many of the learned & proved to be such) but whither Clemens was first or Third, and who or in that order next after Succeed them, whither Linus, or Anacletus is never yet cleared, Some make Titus Bishop of Crete, some Archbishop. Some Bishop of Dalmatia. Timothy and John are made by many Bishops at the same time. Some say Policarp was first Bishop of Smyrna. Some make him succeed one Bucolus. some make Aristo first. Some give Alexandria one Bishop, some tuo at once. See appendix to jus. divin. min. Evangel.

And wheras our Informer replyes [that notwithstanding of this, yet all agree that a Succession of Bishops was, and that these different relations cannot impeach the certainty of the Succession it self, no more then difference about the Succession of princes will invalidat the certainty of the History] I answer, if he could prove that they understood Bishops properly so called, or his diocesians in all these Catalogues of Succession, this evasion might have some Shew of truth, but it is certain that they did not. Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant &c. the Fathers, saith Whittak. (de pontif. quest: 2. c. 15 se: 2. When they call James Bishop or Peter, take not the name of Bishop properly, but they call them Bishops of these Churches, wherein they stayed for some time—and againe—[if spoken of a Bishop properly, its absurd to say the Apostles were Bishopes, fore he that is properly a Bishop cannot be ane Apostle, Because the Bishop is set only over one Church, but the Apostles were founders and overseers of many Churches]. After he tells us, that non procul distat ab insania &c. it differs little from madnes to say that Peter or any other Apostles were Bishopes. And to this purpose he speaks afterwards at large (Q: p. 2003. c: 3. Sect: 9. [proveing this from the unfixed extraordinary nature of their message or mission, who were to follow the Spirits conduct towards all places whither they were called. Which argument reaches evangelists upon the same ground. So that Whitaker will send our Informer to Bedlam, if he mend not this information, and revocke not this principle anent the Episcopacy of Apostles and Evangelists, and the Succession of Bishops from them. The learned Iunius also (Contr: 3. lib: 1. cap. 23. not. 3.) mantaines ane aequivocall acceptation of the word [Bishop] in this matter, so that his paralleel holds not, as to a difference about the Succession of Kings, when a Monarchy all a…e Supposed such, but here the difference and equivocation is, as to the authority of these Succeeding Bishops. When he shall read Scallig. (Animadvers: 277.) The Informer may possibly suspect Hegesippus his naration anent James; yet jerom and Eusebius depend upon him. Scalliger holds Clemens Romanus to be no better. likwayes jerom (: Catol: Scrip:) is a Counterfit, not the true jerom, since he mentions pope hilary, who lived long after jerom was in his grave.

And wheras the Informer maks a great outcry of jerom [that jerom begins at the Evangelist Mark, in the Alexandrian Catalogue, which our w…itters leave out in their citations] its easily answered that it needs not be putt in, since the Author, sayes [A marko, from, or after him, the Presbyters choosed▪ out one whom they made president] wherein its evident, that he speaks of this custom, after Mark and excluding him, who was ane Evangelist before, and needed not be set up by the Presbiters. And surely if the first Bishop was ane Evangelist, the rest were very heterogenious to their first pattern. Besides, in that jerom sayes Presbitiri a marco unum [ex se] electum, &c. Hee clerly insinuats that it was the Presbyters thereafter, no Mark that p. 201it, for if by Marks Apointment these Bishops wereset up, he could not attribute it to the Presbyters etion▪ Should one say, in Scotia, a regimine presbit: Anno. 62. Episcopi introducti, Ergo, ab isto regimine introducti, were …t not a bad consequence. Here I will offer to him the remarke of a learned author (Repl: to Dun: 143.) anent the Circle, which he and his fellowes doe ryde in this argument. Timothy and Titus &c. had ane Episcopal authority, why? because their authority was not Evangelistick. Why so? because it was not to die with them, why that? Because it was ordinary and perpetually necessary. And how is that proved? Because, if the Apostles being alive, they behooved to instruct Timothy and Titus with Episcopal authority, much more being dead, this was necessary to the Churches. But when it is inquired, how this Episcopal authority is proved, it is fairely assumed againe, as if it were granted, [that the Apostles made them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete.] So the last medium is still that which is in Question. Let him ponder also what Didocl: (p. 125. and 139▪) hath produced, anent the confusion and contradictions in this Alexandrian Succession. Tilen himself (de pontif: l. 1. c: 24. not: 1.) acknowledges that [De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs, nihil ex Scriptura, im…ne ex patribus quidem, qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt, quicquam certi demonstrari potest, That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexandria from Scriptur, no not from the Fathers who florished before the council of Nice. Baronius (Anno. 44. 11: 42.) saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia, &c. —Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name, & since what is related by true writers, remaines not incorrupt, it may make one dispair to reach that is true and p. 202cer…in. So much is the great popish historian forced to confess.

The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter, Joseph Scalliger, his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem. (Related by Didocl. Cap: 4: p. 123.) Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem, and to Josephus his History. To this I add, that he will find many learned men doe hold, that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues, were meer Presbyters, [who according as they were more eminent in the Churches, and consequently their memories referved therein, whose Natales (as Iunius speaks) that is their dayes of banishment, martyrdome, or death were keept in the Churches records; accordingly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues, though they were contemporary, & those they named [Bishops], in conformity to their own times. For this I recomend Franciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3: l. 2: c. 5. not. 18▪ —[errori causam prebuit, &c, the cause of the error (he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops) was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches &c.] Its then evident (which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised) 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories, delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture, nor with themselves.

2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops, and conforme the first ages to their own, they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal, piety &c and p. 203put them into their Catalogués. 3. Whom they thus put in, they called them [Bishopes] in conformity to their own times, though they were [meer Presbyters.] For (as we saw upon Phil. 1.) himself acknowledges, that the Fathers used the names indifferently. So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident, that ou… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost.

There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age, the Church was governed by Presbyters. without Bishopsblondel (Apol: Sect: 3: p: 3: 14. 3: 5—p. 308: 378.) Shewes the consent of the learned heerin. For this Church of Scotland, we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major (de Cest. Scot: l. 2.) of Fordon (Scoto-chronicon, lib. 3. Shap. 8.) likwise of Blond. (Sect. 3.) All shewing, that this nation (haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79.) till the year 430. (When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop,) was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes; so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy. Clemens, of the first century, in his Epistle to the Philippians, maks but two orders of Ministery, Bishops and deacons, these only he sayes the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers. And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy. (page. 57. &c.) The same we heard of policarp (in his Epistle to the Philippianes) we heard of Augustins Testimony (Epist. 19. to Jerom.) Dr. Reynolds (in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls) cites Chrysostom, Ierom, Ambrose, Augustin, Theodoret, and many others ancient and modern, to prove, that in Scripture, Bishop and Presbyter are all one. Jeroms Testimony upon Titus, is famous for this point, who assertes, and proves at large; from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13: 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment, and in p. 204first Apostolick times & afterward, the government was by Presbyters, communi concilio Presbyterorum, [by the common councel of Presbyters.] that by divine appointment, Bishops & Presbyters are one, that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom. That divisions by Satans instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter. That their equality was not his privat Judgement, but a Scripture truth. The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius.

But now let us hear what ou… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters, Saravia, Dounam, Tilen, &c. To infringe this Testimony. 1. He …ayes [That Ierom speaks onelyonly of the first gospel times, when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter, when the Apostles did by their own presence & industry Supply the rowme of Bishops, but as they began to fail by death, or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement, & the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality, Bishops were set up over Presbyters. This he proves, because, jerom sayes, that from Mark the Evangelist. The Presbyters choosed out one, and called him Bishop, even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius, but Mark died before Peter and Paul. Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation—And of Mr. Durham (on the Revel. pa… 225. and thatMr. Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop, viz, As the army doth choose the Emperor] Thus far we have our Informers first great defence, Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus. Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb. 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae, ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit p. 205quod ab Apostolis jure divino, est factitatum, aliquantum certe deflexit—neque in hoc aut excusari potest, aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus, neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem, admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum: &c Some would (he saith) draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will, but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastick Custome, and the Churches human deccree, what was done by divine right, he went out of the way, and in this he cannot be excused, nor can his words admitt of any other sense, or meaneing. So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer. But to the point, I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song, which hath been answered by many. Iunius [decler: c. 15. Not. 16.] tells him [That tria distinguit tempora Hieronimus. Primum, quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur. Secundum, quo studia in religione facta sunt, ac dictum est in populis, ac non corinthisolum &c: nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur, adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur, ut patet ex icor. 5. & 2. cor. 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus. Atque haec singula tempora suam, ut cum vulgo loquar, latitudinem habuerunt. Ierom distinguishes, Three periods of time. 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters. The 2d. Wherin there were divisions in religion, and it was said among the people, not at Corinth onelyonly; I am of Paul &c: for when these things were said at Corinth, the Church (saith he) was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters, as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last, wherin 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 hade their own latitud. here in this one judicious account of this learned author, our Informer p. 206might have seen his error, and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture, from Phil. 1. Act 20. &c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church, never to see their faces more. Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles, for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill. And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus, that their was one afterward chosen to preside, for the remedie of Schism &c, and to be Episcopus preses, this period he fixes after Iohns time, and so after all the Apostles.

2. Wheras the Inform…r (following Downam defens. lib. 4. cap: 3. Sect: 10.) alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches [Modo privato], in a privat way & [in foro conscientiae] feeding with the word and Sacrament; the Apostles themselves, by th…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops; and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters. I answer. He will assoone squize water from a flint, as this meaneing out of jeroms words. Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government, yea a divine frame, which postea and Paulatim, afterward and by degrees, came to be altered and changed: but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno, was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed, and by degrees, proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Disp…sitio divina, or a divine appointment. Now I beseech him, did the Apostles first practise a divine f…ame of Government, and then changed it into a human custome? (which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in.) will any of p. 207common sense or discretion, say so? Far less so learned a man as Ierome was.

3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops, before the change which Jerome speaks of, then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change, that, communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur, the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters, but according to this gloss of his words, before the change, the Government was episcopall. But so it is, that jerom sayes, idem episcopus & Presbyter, the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same, by divine right, and that before the change which came in by a human custome (which he distinguishes from that dispositio divin… or divine frame, which first took place) the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel, according to divine appoiniment. 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing, or the increase of Churches, set up Prelats, let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy, of Bishopes and Presbyters, from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches? was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them, when never to see their faces more? how could Ierome plead for the divine right of, Presbyters Episcopal, Scriptural, GospelGovernment, from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell, and committing the whollGovernment to them, if this had been his meaning? Besides, were not the Churches increased a… this time? why then were no… Bishops set up, since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy? Nay, since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right, from the 1 Pet. 5, And from John, could he suppose that this was but the beginning, while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand? Againe, our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt, how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles p. 208according to Gods appointment, a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment? Or how could this answer Jeroms scope, [to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops] to say that the Apostles first governend them, episcopally themselves, and then set up Bishops over them? And how will he make this corres…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione, or factions in Religion? Will the Informer say (which is his own argument afterward) that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government, had influenc upon this Schism? Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth, (from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense) long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John, for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters? And was this the change which Ierom speaks of, as toto orbe decretum, & postea, or a change afterward through the World? Appage inneptias.

3. As for what he adds, That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke, which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of. Ans. Wee have showen already, that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter, and any notice can be taken of it, makes rather against him, then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense, as Ierom calls him, he doeth (as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point) cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called. The Informer must grant this, or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc, in on and the same person; for he said nothing against this consequenc, Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense, ergo He could not be a Bishop. Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist, for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist, the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one to preside. Ergo he speaks exclusively, and cannot put Mark among the series of p. 209them, for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature. Moreover, the Informer tells us, that Mark died before Peter and Paul; hence I infer against him, ergo, Ierom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria: for Ierom drawes his proofes for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common, from Act. 20. phil. 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from Iohn the last of the Apostles, and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time, and tells us that the Bishops who were set up, came in by custome, and afterward, and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum, decreed through the world; to put the power upon one; ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behooved to be sett up long after Mark was in his grave, according to jeroms calculation. And wheras he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause [Where jerom maks use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor—That he may make the Bishops power when brought in, as little as can be.] Its answered, that passage will as little help him as the other, for jeromes scope is, to shew That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters, was by their own free election, not by divine disposition, as the Army chooses the Generall. Now no simile must be strained and hold in every poynt, else it were not a simile. Scripturparables themselves mast not be strained beyond the scop. And besides, jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time, even de sacto, far less jure divino, an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren, and made Bishops over them, unless he would Cross his own doctrine, since he maks this choic and Election of the Episcopus…reses, to be the hum…n Custome, posterior unto, and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity, which first took place. Likewayes jerom sayes in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter. What doth the Bishop except ordination p. 210which the Presbyters doth not. So that they had not then arrived at any imperiall power.

And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage, a Marko Evangilista. I will turn here the weapons point upon him, and demand, Since Ierome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark, to have been sett up by Presbyters free election, how comes the Prelats he pleads for, to be Elected and set up at Court, while the poor Creatures, the Curats, over whom they are set, to play the little emperoures, have no more Interest as to their choice and Election, then the silliest Monck in choosing the pope I add here, that this supposition of his [that Ierom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishops rowme for a time, though no fixed ordinary Bishops, untill the Churches growth, and their necessary absence, did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism,] will Crosse what himself and Downam also doe plead, defens. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. (If at least they will not make Ierome oddly to contradict himself, viz.) that Ierom [in Catal. Scrip. Eccles]. holds that Iames immediatly after the Lords suffering, was Constitut Bishop of Ierusalem. Besids that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom.

But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said, viz. That Ierome proves from Scriptur, Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schismes by Satans instinct, gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters, to another mould of setting up one over the rest, to whom the whole Care should belong &c. To which he answers, that Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had, viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government, but after, omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata, that is, the wholl care was put upon the Bishop. But if we take Ierom to speak of p. 211the first introduction of Bishops, then he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times. Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant, that in Ieroms sense, Bishops who only in ordination, were superior to Presbyters, had a greater power then the Bishops first set up by the Apostles; which will clearly exclud his diocesian Prelats, who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction, as no divine Bishops. And Next, it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco, or after Mark, were meer presidents, or Moderators; since they were less in power then these Bishops, who onelyonly in ordination, differed from Presbyters. So we see the rebound of this answer will strik his cause dead. And he must feel another rebound of his own blow, as to his Complaint of our leaving out what maks against us in Ieroms words. For I ask why he lea…es out here Ieroms scripture proofes, evincing that Bishops & Presbyters are one jure divino? Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures (which runes along the through Apostolick age) viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom, then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters? for although he after bringes in this as ane objection, yet it ought to have been set downe here, as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing: and his testimony is very blunt without it. Again, how comes he thus to disguise what Ierome sayes of Presbyters governeing [Communi Councilio], or by common Councill, as if it Imported no more, then haveing a hand in government, which he maks Compatible with prelacy, wheras Ierom maks it distinct from, and anterior unto, even the first human prostasy. Beside, their governeing, Communi Concilio, Imports particularly, their joynt decisive suffrage in government; which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common. 2. What a rediculous conceit is this That Ierom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time, beyond the p. 212first Bishops Ierom speaking of Presbyters expressly, as contradistinct from Bishops, and of the Presbiters existent in the Apostolick Churches, while the Apostles were alive, as himself just now explained i…, in saying [that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters.] So that he compares not the Bishops in his time, with the first Bishops who came in by Custome, but these human Bishops who thus came in, with the first scripture Bishops. we know not wher to find this versatil proteus in his answers here, and may truely alleadge, that this Testimony pinches him and his fellowes.

Next, will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words, which he here offers, viz, [That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them, and the after Bishops in Ieroms time, governed alone.] Then he must grant, that the first and second Bishops, were of very different cutts; and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues, all in peeces; and must grant that the word episcopus, or Bishop, is variously used by the ancients, And that our present Lord-prelats can receave no Pratrociny from Bishops of the first ages, wherein Presbyters governed by common Council, and had a decisive sufferage in Government, whereas the Prelats now are beyond what their predecessors had come unto, even in Ieroms time: For then except ordination, the Bishop did nothing, beyond what the Presbyter might doe, whereas our present Prelats are sole both in ordination and Jurisdiction, and assume a negative voice in Church Judicatories, Yea a decisive suffrage in Parliament: which he dare not say that any of these Bishops did ever pretend unto.

Well, But if we shall say that Ierom speaks of the first introduction of Bishops into the Church, then (he tells us) Ierom must understand it of the Apostles p. 213times. What means he by the first introduction of Bishops? Can he give the least shaddow of reason for it, that Ierom speakes of any other introduction then that introduction of human custom, which he distinguishes from the divine appointment of Presbyterian paritie? But how proves he [That Ierom maks Bishopes to have been introduced in the times of the Apostles] (yet I must tell him by the way, that introduceing them in the times of the Apostles, is one thing, & by the Apostles, is anotherthing. Diotrephes sought his primacy in Iohns time, but was disowned by him therin. So that if we can prove that what jerom cites for the parity of Bishops & Presbyters jure divino, will conclud the point, these Bishops are in themselves, & in jeroms judgement, condemned by the Apostles.) his 1. Reason is [That jerom makes the thing, which gave occasion to this Introducing of Bishops, to be the peoples saying Iam of Paul and I of Apollo, and this was the Schism spoken of I Cor. I.] But this notion of Saravia, and others, he might have found long since answered. Ieromes scop is evidently, to prove that by Scripture warrand, Bishop and Presbyter are all one, wich he clears by many Scripture Testimonyes, even to Iohns time; and therefore he could not be so brutish, as to make this Schism at Corinth, the occasion of the Change, so long before Johns Testimony, yea before Paules farewell Sermon to the Elders of Ephesus, from which he drawes another of his proofes. But he speakes of a human Custom comeing in Paulatim, postea, peece and peece and by degres, long after these times: and but alludes unto that Division I Cor. I. Expressing it in the Apostles words, not of their times; for the Apostles never appointed this prelatik excrescent power of Bishops over Presbyters as a remedy of Schisme, among all their prescriptions of the Cure of this evill. Rom. 16. 7. I Cor. 3: 3. 11, 18. Moreover famous p. 214whietaker will tell him, that this remedie is worse then the disease. The mistery of iniquity was then working; the Apostles therefore would not lay a step under Anti-Christs foot, to get in to his Chair. Besides; these factions in religion were not at Corinth onlie. Iunius (de cler. Cap. 15. not 16.) will Informe him that [jerom asserts not, that it was said at Corinth, I am of Paul, &c. But among the people, &c. malum non Corinthi solum, &c. It was a Publick evill—Paul himself prescrybed no such remedy (saith he) unto the Corinthians.—and afterward [Not. 17.] Jerom saith, after it was said among the people, he saith not that this human Prostasia, began at that tyme, viz, of the schism, but after that time. Compare it with Wittaker, (de pont. Q. 1. c. 3. Sect▪ 29. [he saith not, it was decreed by the Apostles, that one Presbyter should be set over the rest, this he sayes, was by the Churches Castome; not the Apostles decree—Then he adds (Ierom, viz,) Let the Bishops know, that it is rather by Custome, then the divine appointment, that they are set over Presbyters. Had the Apostles changed the first order, and set Bishops over Presbyters, and forbidden the Churches to be governed by the Cammon▪ Council of Presbyters, truly that had been the Lords appointment, because proceeding from the Apostles of Christ, unless we will ascrib to Custom, not to divine appointment, what they decreed. But the Apostles being alive, there was nothing changed in that order, for this Epistle was written when Paul was in Mac donia, &c.] Let our Informer read this learned author, who at large will cure his error in this poynt, if it be not incurable. Wheras he adds [That Ierom… comment upon Tit. I. Imports only his opinion, anent the Community of names of Bishop and Presbyter not of their office at that time] p. 215I beseech him what will this say to Ieromes scope, which is to prove Presbyters superiority to Deacons? for the deacons name was in a generall sense, attribut both to Apostles, and to the Evangelist Timothey, as himself pleads. Besides, what signifies Ieroms in ferenc from all his Citations, viz, [That Bishops had not their superiority over Presbiters, by divine appointment] If only a communitie of names, was his proofe from these texts.

The Informers 2 Reason, to prove that Ierom makes Bishops, to be introduced in the times of the Apostles, is [That had the decree wich Ierome speaks of, been after the Apostles, it would have been extant in antiquity, where, and in what Council, it took place, but this is not found. Ans Ierome by, toto orbe decretum, or prospiciente concilio, cannot mean any formal Council, either in the Apostles times, or afterward. But the meaning is, that when through the world, it was said among the people, I am of Paul, &c. It was decreed among the people, or in, and among particular Churches, through the whole word, that is, distr…butively, though all places of the world, not representatively, in any aecumenick Council of the whole world. Decreed through the whole word, is all one with, Decreed by the whole world, which is distributily to be taken. Ieroms words convince this, for the Councils decree, representing the world, would be all at once; but Ierom sayes this Chance came not in Simul & Semel, but paulatim ly degrees; And that the Prostasia came in by Custome, which points at a graduall comeing in. Besides, the Apostles changing the first mould of government, to prevent Scism, will say they made themselves wiser then the Lord.

His 3 Reason is [That this will suppose the worlds universal defection, from the Apostolick Government, against which there is, no footstep of a Testimony.] Ans. we p. 216We have seen (as he cannot deny) as great, and more sudden changes of the divine institutions, exemplified in Scripture; and that ane universall defection, hath been through the Christian world, from both the Apostolick Doctrine, and Government, he will not deny: and many Testimonies there might have been against this, though they have not come to our hands. He knowes how our divines answer such a Question of the Papists, as to the beginnings of their Corruptions, and their universall spread. Moreover, this mistery of Iniquity, and affectation of primacy, began in the Apostles owne time, and therefore we need not wonder that it spread shortly thereafter. Ierome tells us that this change was Paulatim, by degrees, and upon specious pretences of order and union, and therefore it is no wonder that this monster in its nature and dreadfull effects, was not seen at first.

His 4t. Reason is [That Ierom makes this change to have been for remedy of Schism, and it is absurd to say, that the Government of the Apostles was lyable to this evil But this inconvenience is salved, if we say, that the Apostles for preventing Schisme which parity breeds, set up Bishops over Presbyters.] Ans. 1. To begin at his last part, he eschews not this inconvenienc himself; for he makes the Apostles to have Governed the first Curches Episcopaly, keeping the Episcopall reyns of Government stil in their owne hand (in Ieroms sense) till their absene and Schism procured that change which Ierom speaks of. So that, with him, the root of Schism was sown in that Church which they Governed Episcopally; the Presbyters with him, ab initio, yea first or last not haveing a power of ordination, and jurisdiction; and he maks jerome to reflect upon the Apostles, as if they p. 217had bettered Christs appointment, as to Government: I pray him, how grew up the Corinth Scism while Paul acted the Bishop over that Church? as he and the rest of hisparty doe plead. The men of his way say that the Apostles keept the reyns of Government in their own hand, until they were about to die, before wich time there were schimes in their Churches. Did not the Apostles foresee this? and if the Apostolick Episcapacy was by lyable to schismes, much more that of their substituts. 2. It is too gross ane Inferenc to say that [Because Ierome holdes that for preventing schismes which were at that time, the Government was changed, therefore Ierome charges it upon the Apostles Government,] he may as well say, that a mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church, will infer his imputing them to the ordinances. Was there nor discord among the disciples, under Christs own immediat Government? but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded? Did not Paul and Barnabas divid & part asunder? but did Luke in relating this, Charge it upon the holy Apostolick Government. 3. The absurd [reflexion upon the Apostles Government] which he speaks of, lyes upon his party, and these who first brought in, and now (after its evil effects are discovered) uphold this hierarchy, which is so crosse to the Apostolick parity. Ierom sayes [they brought in this imparity for remedy of schisme] but leaves the charge of [reflecting upon the Apostolick government] upon the Authores of this innovation, and upon its promoters still it mustly.

His 5t. Reason is That Ierom in his writtings derives Episcopacy as high as from the Apostles, making Iames Bishop of Ierusalem, Titus of Crete, Mark of Alexandria: and Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old Testament. Then he adds, that if we make him p. 218contradict himself, it must be with advantage to Bishops. Ans. Wee have heard already, that it is past doubt with many godly learned, that the Fathers used the terme Bishop, in a various and general sense, and spoke of the Apostles, and of extraordinary officers, after the mode and custome of their own times, wherein these offices and designations were prevalent. It is this Informer, who puts a contradiction upon Ierome, while he maks him assert Episcopacy to be set up by the Apostles, upon occasion of the Corinth Schism, in contradiction to his Scriptur proofes of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostles doctrine, and brings him in here as asserting the Apostles, to have been formaly Bishops from the begining. Wheras our answer hath none of these inconveniences; and tho it were granted, that it is the true Ierome who asserts this of the Apostlés (which we put this Informer to prove) yet we accommodat this with his other doctrine, by what is said of the aequivocall sense of the word. Aaron and the Levits authority might, in Ieroms judgement, be as to Church government in general, derived in the n…w Testament, and also as to a distinction of Church officers therein. But if he should alledge, that Ierom assimilats here, the one government and the other; he will mak him plead for a gospell Aaron and pope. In a word, Ieroms judgement, as to the divine right of Presbyterian parity, being so clear, and by him founded upon the Apostles writings; ought to preponderat any other general, or ambiguous expressions, anent Bishops; and as a rule, to expound the same, in the sense most suitable unto this his judgement: especialy since the Fathers usage of speech, as to Bishops, is thus general and ambiguous as is said.

But the Doubter objects to purpose [That Ierom letts the Bishops know that they have their power, p. 219more by Custom, then by divine right] To this the Informer repones his recocted crambe againe viz, [Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time were invested with, beyond the first Bishops—And that Ierom in that same Epistle expones [Consuetudo, or Custom] by [Apostolical tradition]—That if we understand him of Consuetudo, or custom after the Apostles, this will fastten upon him a contradiction. That he sayes of the first Bishops, who governed by commoune Council with the Presbyters; that they differed onelyonly from them in ordination, but of these in his owne time, ad unum omnis cura delata, the wole charge was put upon one.] Ans. As for this conceit, of Ieromes distinguishing here onelyonly [Bishops of his own time,] from [these of the Apostles time,] we have confuted it already, and shown its absurdity, and that it is most crosse to Ieroms scope and words, who proves a compleat parity among Ministers, and ane identity of Bishop, and Presbyter, in Name and thing, all alongst the Apostles times, and writings, even to Iohn, the surviver of all the Apostles, So that it is most absurd to fancy him to speak of Bishops in the Apostles timet. The Informer offers but a gross distortion of his words, for he sayes of the Bishop who differed only in ordination, from Presbyters: quid facit, what doth the Bishop except ordination &c in the present time, but of these who have all the Care, he sayes Paulatim ad unum cura delata, the wholl care was put upon one, in the preterit time, pointing out these who came in upon that schism, which, with the Informer, was in the Apostles time: The objection tells him, that Ierom applyes the Bishops mould whom this man calls [first Bishops] to [his owne time] when he sayes what doth the Bishop, except ordination &c: And haveing proved Bishopes and Presbyters to be all one, he sayes Sciant, that p. 220is, let the present Bishops know, that they have their power more by Custom, then divine appointment. 2. As for Ieroms expounding Consuetudo or Custome, by Apostolick tradition, it receaves the same answer with what is said, as to his calling Apostles, Bishops. For with Ierome, Apostolick tradition, and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one; as that instance clears anent the observation of lent, which he calls Apostolica traditio, or Apostolick tradition, writing to Marcellus, and yet writing against the Luciferians, he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo, o… a Custom of the Church: therefore by Apostolick tradition, he meaned not Apostolick appointment, for this were ane implicantia in terminus, a flat contradiction, since he denyes this to these Bishops, but only Ecclesiastick Custom, upon which he sayes their office was founded. The Informers 2d. Answer o this exception is (with Davenant) That by [tru…h of divine appointinent] Ierom meaned Christs express command, by [Custom] the Apostles practise, begun by them, and after continued. For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given, anent Ieroms making [Apostolick tradition], and [Ecclesiastick Custome], all one. Hence he thus senses the words, That Bishops were brought into the Church, not by Christs express command, but by a Custom, introduced by the Apostles into the Church, and continued in their Successors. Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles, as if they taught one thing, and practised another; for Ierome proves from their writings, that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one, Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters, what Harmony makes this? 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command, in relation to government, as if it were altered; and opon his government Apostolick, in saying that it was the ground p. 221of schismes. How will this man guard against this, which he imputed to us before? 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse, observed by learned Iunius and others, to clear his words. 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time. 2. Scismes arising. 3. Paulatim and postea, in process of time, and by degrees, a new mould of government projected, and immutata ratio, the order changed, as Ambrose saith to the same purpose. Now this glosse of his words, will make the Apostolick government and practise, not only the rise of scismes, but to be Changed, for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles; and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue, the answer contradicts it self, as well as Ierome. As for the instance adduced, it cannot quadrat here in this place, when Ierom opposes th… consuetudo or Custom, unto disposition of divine truth, for the Apostles practise, seconded by their Doctrin, (as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy) is most formaly a divine appointment, and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission; and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason, be apposed unto a divine appointment, as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo, or Custom. In Fine. How wil Davenant or he, separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites [Act. 20.] for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter, and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government, viz, [That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops, not noticing Timothy in the thing.] How will hee (I say) distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued? So that here was (in Ieroms sense) a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle, a practice founding that Government and to be continued so.

p. 222But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes. The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right, as in many other his writings, in relation to prelacy. Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned (the clearest account of his judgement in this mater, since he is disputing this point ex professo) doe evince the contrary. his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles, yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism. Ans. Ierom onelyonly Narrats rem Gestam, or the mater of fact, viz. The ground that moved to bring them in, but gives not his approbation of it. Besides, the Informer would take home his own argument here, and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government, and contradict himself, in approving of a government as a remedy of schism, which he disputs against from Scripture. His 3d. Note is [That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy; and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union.] Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wi…h the visible Church in his time (tainted with this Corruption, and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us,) is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest (and in so far the most considerable) part …f Minsters and professo…s in this Church, heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding par…y, introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against, and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this, for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme, as we have alteady told him, and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease. Before …e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent, or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius, bear any conclusion against us, he must prove that the prelatick party are the onelyonly visible organick p. 223Church of Scotland, else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him, for breaking down the wall of Gods house, and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church. But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue.