Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Introduction – Chapter 1
The INTRODUCTION.
Of the occaſion of this Worke, The ſtate of the Controverſie, The Heads of the Prelatiſts Plea, from Scripture and Antiquity, with ſome Obſervations aſsiſtant to them. The conſiderable concernements of the queſtion.
BEing advertiſed from many hands, that the Booke called Jus Divinum Miniſterii Evangelici, which is lately publiſhed by ſome, who intitle themſelves the Provinciall Aſſembly of London, hath undertaken to conſider and confute many paſſages of the Diſſertations, three years ſince publiſhed in Latine, in defence of Epiſcopacy, againſt D. Blondell and others, I have thought my ſelfe obliged to examine whether there be any thing objected by them in relation to thoſe Diſſertations, which may reaſonably move me to retract what was there either with diffidence propoſed, or more confidently aſſerted by me.
2. And having diligently ſurveyed the whole Booke, that I might omit no paſſage, wherein my intereſts might be in the leaſt concern'd & being truly able to affirme from that view, that it hath yielded me no one ſyllable of uſefull Exhortation, no motive to retract any period, or alter any expreſſion in thoſe Diſſertations (but as farre, as I doe perſwade my ſelfe that this Provinciall Synod containes in it Men of judgement and abilities to maintaine the truth and convince gaine-ſayers, ſo farre I am forced to aſſume, that what I have written is teſtified to be Truth, and by that priviledge competently ſecured againſt all oppoſers) I might herein reaſonably acquieſce, without farther importuning the Reader or my ſelfe with impertinent vindications, onelyonly truſting and adventuring the whole matter to the judgement of each intelligent Reader, who is obliged by all Rules of Juſtice to compare either by his Memory, or by his Eye thoſe paſſages in this Booke, and the Chapters in the Diſſertations to which they are confronted.
3. But I am againe told that many, who have read and are moved by the Arguments and Anſwers of this Booke, and the Authority of a Provinciall Synod, are yet diſabled to be ſo juſt as to examine them by comparing them with the latine Diſſertations, and that we are fallen upon thoſe times wherein whatſoever is not anſwered, is cried up as unanſwerable (an humour, of which, if I might be permitted to receive the fruits. I ſhould have no temptation to complaine, there being ſo much a greater part of thoſe Diſſertations, which was never attempted to be anſwered.) I continue ſtill under ſome ſeeming obligation to give an exact account of the whole matter as it lies in conteſt betweene this Provinciall Synod and thoſe Diſſertations, and I ſhall haſten to doe it, when I have firſt by way of▪ neceſſary Introduction premiſed theſe two things.
4. Firſt, the ſtate of the Controverſy, as it generally lies between us, which is this; whether the Apoſtles of Christ, when they planted Churches in each City, left them in the hands of many to be governed by the Common Councell of thoſe many, erecting an equality or parity of ſeverall Rulers in every City, to whom all others were ſubjected, and they to none: or whether they placed the Superiour power and Authority in ſome one, and ſubjected all others to him. Other conſequent differences there are ariſing from hence, (and thoſe of ſuch weight and concernment to thoſe with whom I now diſpute, in caſe the Truth be not on their ſides, as will make this returne to their Objections, no leſſe than a duty of Charity, as to Brethren, if by the Grace of God they ſhall judge it reaſonable to make that uſe of it) but this is the one Baſis of all, whether the Apoſtles planted parity or imparity in the Church, many equall Governours in one City, or but one in each; The former is the Presbyterians intereſt to defend, the latter the Prelatiſts; And ſo the controverſy ſtands between them to be debated and evinced by ſuch evidences as a matter of Fact is capable of, (the Right being by both ſides acknowledged to follow that Fact) i. e. by the Teſtimonies of thoſe who are fit to be credited in this matter.
Secondly, the briefe heads of the Plea, by which I have undertaken to maintaine the Prelatiſts aſſertion, 1. By Scripture, 2. By the Records of the firſt times, the Writings of thoſe who were neereſt the Apoſtles, and either affirme what was done by the Apoſtles, or how it ſtood practiced in the Churches, all the World over, which were planted by them. As for the third way of arguing from the univerſall conſent and practice of all Churches for about 1400. yeares together, i. e. from about the yeare 140. till the Reformation, this I doe not inſiſt on, as I might with all evidence, becauſe it is knowne and confeſt by the Adverſaries, and all that is by them pretended, is, that parity and equality being preſcribed and practiced by the Apoſtles ſoone after their death, and quite contrary to their plat-forme, Prelacy was introduced into all Churches; It being their deſire and demand now (a little different from what M. Calvin at firſt propoſed to the Churches of Helvetia) that all may be reformed and reduced to the ſtate wherein the Apoſtles left it.
6. In the managing the proofes propoſed by mee, I have uſed this method, which ſeemed to mee moſt convincing. 1. To inſiſt on ſome few Teſtimonies under each head, which are ſufficient to conclude the matter on the Prelatiſts ſide; and then to propoſe ſome obſervations, which may accord all other places both of Scripture and antient writers, with thoſe Teſtimonies and that concluſion.
7. The ſpeciall proofes of Scripture are taken, Firſt, from the power derived (as from God the Father, to Chriſt, ſo) from Chriſt to the Apoſtles; not as to a Common councell of ſociall Rulers, but as ſo many ſeverall planters and Governours of the Church, each having all power committed to him, and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apoſtles for the exerciſe of it; And this is largely and clearly deduced Diſſert. 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. And this power being by them derived to Biſhops in each City, in the ſame manner as they uſed it themſelves (which is alſo farther evidenced and vindicated, c. 5. &c.) this was deemed a firſt competent proofe of this matter, and as a confirmation of it, it was obſervable, that the firſt Biſhops made by them, were in the very Scripture called Apoſtles, James the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, &c. Diſſ. 4. c. 3.
8. A ſecond principall proofe of Scripture is taken from the ſeverall mentions of the ſo many Churches of Aſia, and the ſo many Angels aſſigned to them, one to each, as a ſingular Governour or Biſhop in the Revelation. And in diſcourſe of theſe wee have found great evidence of the fact to authorize us to improve the concluſion a little higher, than was neceſſary to the defence of the maine cauſe; viz. to affirme of theſe Angels, that each of them was an Archbiſhop or Metropolitan, and having done ſo to diſcerne upon undeniable grounds that there were many other ſuch, mentioned in the Scripture (though not under that title) as James the brother of the Lord, Metropolitan of all Judea, Titus of all Crete, with an hundred Cities in it, &c.
9. And the wayes of according all other Scriptures with theſe have been briefly theſe. 1. By obſerving this difference betwixt Cities and Metropoles, as the true cauſe and occaſion of the mentions of many Biſhops in (not of) one City, meaning thereby the Biſhops of all the Cities under that Metropolis as Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. Secondly, by examining the Nature of all the words, which I conceived to be uſed in Scripture for Biſhops, as (beſide Apoſtle and Angel forementioned) foreign, Biſhop, foreign, Ruler, foreign, Doctor, foreign, Paſtor, foreign, Preſident, foreign, Elder (and in the Fathers, foreign, Chiefe Prieſt, and Sacerdos, Prieſt… ) each denoting Dignity and Authority, and all cleared to be in their own nature applicable, and by the circumſtances of the Context to be actually applied to the ſingular Governours in each City; moſt of them conſtantly ſo, and that one of foreign, if not conſtantly ſo, yet very rarely otherwiſe. And this is done Diſſert. 4. c. 7. and ſo to the end of that Diſſ. Thirdly, by obſerving the paucity of believers in many Cities in the firſt Plantations, which made it unneceſſary that there ſhould by the Apoſtles be ordeined any more than a Biſhop and Deacon (one or more) in each City, and that this was accordingly done by them at the firſt, is approved by the moſt undeniable antient Records. Such as thoſe foreign, the profoundeſt Hiſtories, out of which*L. 1 l. 3. Epiphanius makes this Obſervation; foreign, Where there wanted Biſhops, and there were found perſons worthy of the Office, Biſhops were conſtituted; but where there was no multitude, there none were found among them to be conſtituted Presbyters, and they ſatisfied themſelves with a Biſhop alone in a place; OnelyOnly the Biſhop could not poſſibly be without a Deacon, and accordingly the Apoſtle tooke care that the Biſhop ſhould have his Deacons to miniſter to him. That which is thus cited by Epiphanius out of thoſe Antient Records, is found clearly affirmed by*Ep ad Cor. Clemens Romanus, an Apoſtolicall perſon, and witneſſe of the Apoſtles practice; that they being ſent out by Chriſt; as hee by his Father, went out Preaching the Gospell, and proclaiming it through Regions and Cities, foreign, they conſtituted their firſt fruits into Biſhops and Deacons, of thoſe which ſhould afterward believe. To both which wee ſhall againe adde what Ephiphanius prefaceth in that place; foreign, that when the preaching was new, the Apoſtle St. Paul wrote agreeably to the preſent ſtate of affaires. We have here ſo cleare an account of the reaſon of the Apoſtles immediate ſubjoyning of Deacons to Biſhops, Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. (viz. becauſe thoſe were the onelyonly two Orders then conſtituted in every Church) that theſe two places (which are made uſe of by the adverſaries againſt us) are moſt punctuall evidences of the Truth of ours, and of the unſeaſonableneſſe of their pretentions.
10. As for the Teſtimonies out of the firſt Antiquity; The ground-worke I have choſen to lay in Ignatius his Epiſtles, becauſe the Teſtimonies thence are ſo many and ſo evident, and the Writer ſo neere the Apoſtles time (that holy men being Martyr'd in the 10. of Trajan, to whoſe Reigne S. John lived) and moſt of his Epiſtles written to the very Churches of Aſia planted by St. John, and the Biſhops of many of them named by him, and of one Biſhop the Presbyters under him, that if that one Authors Teſtimonies be attended to, there is an abſolute deciſion of the whole matter on the Prelatiſts ſide; To which purpoſe I have alſo vindicated theſe Epiſtles from all that hath been objected to them in theſe late yeares, and aſſerted their Authority by as antient and authentick evidences, as can be vouched for any antient piece, next the Holy Scriptures themſelves, and contented my ſelfe with the moſt pure and uncorrupted Copies and Editions of it.
11. In accord with theſe Teſtimonies I have alſo produced many others out of Clemens Romanus, Hegeſippus, Polycarpe, Papias, Polycrates, Iuſtin, Jrenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, T…rtullian, and as many of the firſt times as have ſaid any thing to this matter, and found a full conſent in all, and in moſt irrefragable ſuffrages, which conclude this whole controverſie on the Prelatiſts ſide. To which I have alſo added ſome few obſervations of unqueſtionable truth, as 1. That of the continuance of the uſe of foreign, Elder, to ſignifie Biſhop (in our Modern ſenſe) among ſome of theſe moſt antient Church writers (whereas the word foreign is never uſed by any, but for a ſingular Governour.) Secondly, that of the diſtinct Congregations of Iewiſh and Gentile Christians in the ſame City (the grounds of which are evident in Scripture) and conſequently of the ſeverall Governours or Biſhops over them (which was uſefull for the removing ſome ſeeming difficulties in the Catalogues of the firſt Biſhops of Rome, Anti…ch, &c.) and ſome other the like, not for the ſerving the Neceſſities of our Cauſe, but as ſupernumerary, and ex abundanti. And upon theſe and ſuch like heads of probation we have built our plea, deſcending alſo to a particular ſurvey of Saint Hierom's teſtimonies, which are by the adverſaries principally made uſe of againſt us.
And if what is thus copiouſly deduced in the Diſſertations, together with Anſwers, and refutations of the principall Objections of Doctor Blondel, and Walo Meſſalinus, doe really ſtand in force, and appeare not to be refuted now in whole, or in part, by theſe men, who have often attempted to refute them, I ſhall then leave them ſeriouſly, and Chriſtianly to conſider but this one thing, and to returne their anger not to me, but to themſelves, what ſecurity of grounds they can build upon in their preſent practices, particularly in their aſſuming to themſelves that power or authority which doth not belong to them; For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were (as by Christ to the Apoſtles, ſo) by the Apoſtles given to the ſingular Governour or Biſhop (by them foreign, conſtituted over all) and from that time to this, regularly continued in a ſucceſſion of Biſhops in every Church; and ſecondly, if thoſe which are now called Presbyters, were by thoſe, who firſt inſtituted them, placed in a ſecond rank as of dignity, ſo of power, and never had all that power committed to them, which to the Biſhop was committed, particularly not that of Ordeining the meaneſt Deacon, much leſſe Presbyters with power of Ordeining other Presbyters; and thirdly if they, on whoſe authority they moſt depend (S.*Exceptâ Ordinatione, Hier. ep. 85. ad Evagr. foreign. Chryſoſt. Hom. in 1 Tom. Hierome the Presbyter, &c.) doe expreſly aſſure them, that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination, but acknowledge the Biſhop ſuperior to the Presbyter in that (and it is not imaginable how that power ſhould be conveyed to any Presbyter now, which was not veſted in any at that time, nor pretended to be ſo in above a thouſand yeares after them.) And laſtly, if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven (or give that which he hath not) which the Scripture yeilds to, as a rule by which both John Baptiſt, John 3. 27. and Chriſt himſelfe, Luk, 12. 14. was to be judged, and the Apoſtle, Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that generall rule to this particularity, of Prieſthood in the Church, viz. that no man may foreign aſſume an honour to himſelfe, but who is foreign, called by God, In Ep. ad Heb. p 913.(foreign, advanced by God, ſaith Theophylact) either immediately or mediately, either by the Apoſtles, or by thoſe which received it ſucceſſively from them (all others being truly affirmed by the*Theophylact Ibid. Antients foreign, to leap into the honour, foreign (and to corrupt the rule or law by which they ſhould be guided) then I ſay, upon what ſolid grounds can they ſatisfie Conſcience, who without all pretence of neceſſity (which by ſome is here made uſe of as an excuſe) the regular way being open and plaine before them, have run before they were ſent, aſſumed that power to themſelves, which belongs not to them, nor was ever by any, which had it, beſtowed upon them?
I doe not foreſee any more here neceſſary to be premiſed to our future debates, and ſhall therefore haſten to them, as to an unpleaſant progreſſe, that I would willingly be at the end of, and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him, whom we all profeſſe to ſerve and obey in this, as in all other things.