The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 9
Section IX.
The Testimonies of Ignatius's contemporaries disproving what our Adversaries would force him to speak, and confirming what we have prov'd to be his mind, viz. that he cashiers a Diocesan Prelacy.
HAving viewed the Apostolick Writings and dived into their most ancient Commentators and primitive Doctors, and having found that in the time of the Apostles the immediat Ancestors of Ignatius there was in the Church no such thing as a Diocesan Prelate. Let us next look unto what remains of his Contemporaries or these who lived near Ignatius's time, and we shall have ground to deduce the same Inference. And first it's observable that these Writers, such as Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians (for the rest that bear his Name are undoubtedly spurious) Polycarp to the Philippians, Hermas or Pastor, Justine Martyr, tho' they, as occasion offers, frequently mention Pastors, Doctors, Bishops, Presbyters, indifferently taking all of 'em for on and the same Office, yet of a Diocesan Prelat, or one set over other Pastors, or over these that had Power of Dispensing the Word and Sacraments, in all their Writings have not a syllable. Which Argument against a Diocesan Prelat, tho' negative, is not to be slighted if we consider these Authors their closs Vicinity to the Apostles the occasion they had to have mention'd him had he been then existent, their more than a Pythagorick silence concerning him. Yea the same kind of negative Argumentation Eusebius uses, while he disproves and explodes some Writings forg'd in the Name of John, Andrew, and other Apostles aHist. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 25.because (saith he) no ancient Ecclesiastick Writers mention these Books. We shall find moreover that they positively disclaim Diocesan Prelacy. I begin with Clemens Romanus, who, writing to the Corinthians, commends their former carriage in these words, Ye walked in the commands of God, and being obedient to these that had the rule over you, and giving your Elders due honour, ye were wont to admonish the younger with Moderation, to seek after things that are honestbpag. 4.. And againcpag. 98. Wherefore the Apostles, preaching the Word thro' the severall regions, and proving by the Spirit the first fruits thereof, ordain'd Bishops and Deacons for these who should believe: neither was this a new Ordinance, for many ages before, it was written concerning Bishops; for so in a certain place saith the Scripture, I will appoint their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faith. Anddpag. 102. Our Apostles by Jesus Christ our Lord knew that there would arise Contention concerning the Name of a Bishop, and therefore, being endew'd with a perfect Fore-knowledge, they ordain'd the fore-said Officers, and left unto us describ'd the particular services of both Ministers and Offices, to the end that approv'd Men might succeed in the place of the defunct, and execute their Office. These therefore who are ordain'd by them or by other famous men with the Consent of the whole Church, who blamelesly serv'd the Sheepfold of Christ with humility and quietness, & without baseness, and who for a long time had a good Testimony from all: These, I say, cann't be justly thrust out of their Office: for we commit no light sin if we cast out these from the Bishops Office who holyly and blamelesly perform'd it. Blessed are these Presbyters or Pastors who have perfited their journey and are dead, and who have obtain'd a profitable departure: for they are not afrai'd least any thrust them out of their places into others: For we see that you have cast some from their Charge which they perform'd with honour.epag… 119, 120. It's base Beloved, yea very base and unworthy of a Conversation that is in Christ Jesus, to hear that the most stable and ancient Church of Corinth, for the sake of one or two should raise sedition against the Presbyters. Andfpag. 124. If I be the Cause of Contention, schism and sedition, I'le depart and be gone whithersoever ye will, and do what the People shall command, providing only that the sheepfold of Christ, with the Presbyters appointed over it, may have peace. Andgpag. 132. And you therefore, who were the Authors of this Division subject your selves to your Presbyters. Hence Observe First, that he never names, or so much as insinuats that in Corinth there was any Bishop Superintendent over the rest of the Pastors. But as the Apostle to the Hebrews had done before him, honours equally all their Pastors with the Title of foreign these that bear Rule over them.
Secondly, That, in imitation of the same Apostle Paul, he names only Bishops and Deacons as the only Orders of Divine Institution, by whom the whole Gospel-Service was to be perform'd. Therefore afterward when he names Presbyters in distinction from the Flock and as Rulers over it, he cann't be understood (as Petavius and Pearson would force him) to speak of Presbyters with Relation and Respect only of their Age, but to give them this Demonstration as a peculiar Designation of a Church-Office; and so the word Presbyter most of necessity with Clement coincide in its meaning with the word Bishop, and both of 'em become Synonymous Terms to hold forth but one and the same thing.
Thirdly, That the Apostles did not, as we find afterward Decreed by the Synod of Sardica, and admonish'd by Pope Leo, chuse out only the greater Cities, and neglect and forbear to place Bishops in lesser Villages, that the name of Bishop hereby might not fall into Contempt, but indifferently and without distinction of places every where settled them according as there was a probability they might serve the great end of their calling therein.
Fourthly, That to found the Distinction and number of these Orders, if we believe Clement, the Apostles had no eye unto the Jewish Church-Polity, so as to make it a Pattern for that of the Christian, but only to what was prophecied and foretold by the Prophets concerning a new frame of the New Testament Church, and thus Clement really contradicts all the Patrons of the Hierarchy, who would still found their triple Orders on that of the High-Priest, Priests and Levites of the Temple.
Fifthly, That in Corinth it was attempted to throw out a plurality of real Bishops and cast them from their Charge, and that the Sedition was not moved against one only but divers Bishops in that Church. Many other things might be observed; but these serve sufficiently to prove that there was a plurality of true Bishops of Corinth, who were in nothing distinguished from Pastors of particular Flocks, or preaching Presbyters.
§. 2. Petavius hAppendice ad Hier. Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 12.notwithstanding cann't abide any such Inference from the words of Clement. Wherefore he scrapes together several things whereby to ward off the force of these Passages: and alledges that Clemens his silence of the Bishop of Corinth makes nothing for us. For Pope Siricius (saith he) in his Epistle to the Church of Millain maketh no mention of their Bishop, altho' in that mean time Ambrose occupied the Chair. But the vast Difference between the Cases and the Circumstances of the Churches of Corinth and Millain quite nullifies the Jesuites Instance. The People of Millain jointly both Clergy and Laity had thrust out Jovinian, few or none of them (for ought we hear) being prosylited to his Doctrine: wherefore Siricius had nothing to do but shew them in General that he had excommunicated Jovinian with two or three others who had fled to Rome for Sanctuary. So there was no special Ground or Cause why particular mention should be made of Ambrose the Bishop, or any other, whether of the Clergy or Laity, the whole Body thereof, for ought now known, being without any Schism earnest enough for the expulsion of Jovinian, and only expecting what the Bishop of Rome which they acknowledged as the first See, and whether Jovinian had fled, would do in this Matter. Whereas, one the other hand, Clemens writes to a Church cut in pieces with a Schism in their own Bowels, infected with Sedition of no small part of the People against their Pastors, broken with (as appears plain) a division of the very Pastors themselves; and this grown to such a hight, that some of the Pastors were thrust from their places, and driv'n out: now in this Case the Bishop had either the best of it; and so the seditious part merited a severe, and special reprimand on the account of their Opposition to, and Separation from their Bishop, and thus he should certainly have been mentioned: or else he was the Cause of the Division; or, at least, joined with the injurious, and therefore should have been particularly reproved or admonished. Clement, it's true, names none: but the influence which the good or evil Carriage the Bishop had, and could not but have in such a Matter, had certainly obliged Clement either to mention his name of give some signification of him, if there had been any Diocesan Bishop existent in Corinth. Clemens speaks of several Pastors of Flocks, which I think none will deny, intimats the diversity of their Carriage in that Business, and gives Directions accordingly. How can it be apprehended that he should pass over the chief Pastor, and go to the rest without so much as the least Direction unto him, the least mention of him, yea or the least insinuation that there was, in Corinth, any such thing. Petavius's next Attempt is on these words of Clement, iPage 98.where he tells that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons. And the Jesuite contends, that two distinct Orders are not here mean'd, but that the word Deacon is only explicative of the former word Bishop, and cites several places where the word Deacon is taken in a signification of Honour, and applied to the Apostles and Civil Magistrates: And afterward terms Salmasius ridiculous, for saying that Clemens nam'd only Bishops and Deacons without mention of Presbyters. For (saith the Jesuite) Presbyters are more frequently mention'd by Clement than either Bishops or Deacons. But certainly these Orders are again and again mention'd by Clement without adding any thereto ordetracting therefrom; when he appears to reckon up all the Church-Officers that are of Divine Institution. And altho' the word Deacon be sometimes taken for the Designation of a higher Office. Yet, as Petavius himselfkAppendice ad Hierar. Eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. Siquidem Diaconus aliàs, idque passim, non propriè, sed appellativè sumitur: & tunc ferè aliud nomen in gignendi casu huic adjungitur &c. else where observes, It is with the addition of such a word or phrase as guides our Judgement, and gives us to learn that by it is not understood this lower Order of Church-Officers as Rom. 13. the Magistrate is called foreign the Minister of God. But there is no such explicative word or particle in Clement to alter the common Signification thereof, on which account we're not lightly to resile therefrom. But that which utterly overthrows the Jesuite's Cause, is Clement's closs Conformity to the Apostle in his account of Church-Orders, who 1 Tim. 1. 3. beyond all Scruple of any Party, takes these words in the sense we plead for to Clement, and makes not at all the word Deacon exegetick and explicative of the word Bishop: but by it designs a distinct Order of Church-Officers from what is signifi'd by the other. For doubtless Clement Paul's Fellow-Labourer took the words in the same signification and meaning, wherein the Apostle had understood them. And accordingly Clement, for Confirmation hereof, adduces the words of Isaiah 60. 17. which place, as he then certainly found it in the Septuagint, contains the words Bishops & Deacons exactly as Paul expresseth & distinguisheth Church-Officers: and on this Ground Clement goes when he intimats that the Apostles in their Institution of Church-Officers had an eye to these words of the Prophet. In vain therefore labours Petavius to disprove the Copy of Isaiah used by Clement, and brings the Hebrew, Hierome and others taking the word in a different signification: for thus he hath not Salmasius or any other modern Defender of Presbytry but Clement himself, whom he pretends to vindicate, for his Adversary: seeing we Dispute not concerning the Greek Copy Clement used, but of the thing he inferr'd from these words of Isaiah according to the Copy he then cited. Neither is it more to the Jesuite's advantage that the word Presbyter is several times found in Clement. For seeing, as is plain, yea and the Jesuite himself not only grants but proves, that it frequently there denotes, not a degree of Age but a Church-Officer, it must of necessity be a Term altogether Synonymous with the word Bishop. For they themselves plead not for the Equipolency thereof with the word Deacon, wherein Petavius himself shall afford us no small assistance, who having, but to no purpose (seeing never Man denied it) shewed that with Clement the word Presbyter is sometimes taken appellatively, to denote old Age but no Church-Officer, subjoins these remarkable words; At other times Clement so uses the word Presbyter as thereby to signifie a certain Function and publick Office in the Ministry, and a certain Dignity in the Church, which he calls an Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop. From this plain Testimony of a Man in learning, and love to Prelacy, second to none that ever undertook its Defence, it's clear, as the Light it self, that with Clement the word Bishop and the word Presbyter when he takes it for a Church-Function, are Terms altogether Synonymous. For if foreign Episcopacy or the Office of a Bishop be competent to Clement's Presbyter, and things as they ought, receive Denominations from Forms wherewith they're cloathed, then this Presbyter in the Judgement of Clement is really a Bishop, and indeed this is superlatively clear to any, who, but with an open and unprepossess'd Mind reads the places of Clement we have already produced. Howbeit the Testimony of such an Adversary gives no small additional Confirmation to the Truth thereof. Yea the same Adversary in the same place acknowledges, that even then the Title of Bishop was also common, and in after times only appropriated to one. And again, It's clear (saith Petavius) from this place, that there was a Council or Ecclesiastick Senate ordain'd by the Apostles at Corinth; whose Dignity and Office Clemens calls Episcopacy, and the chiefest of the Clergy he names Presbyters, as also from this which Clement afterward writes. It's base Beloved, yea most base &c. And he names the same Presbyters Pastors and Church-Governours of the Christian Sheepsold. And now judge how the Jesuite after these Concessions could yet say, that it follows not from hence that in Corinth or at other Cities there was no peculiar Bishop.
§. 3. And here again we find D. M. lPage 44. Et seq.at his old filching Trade transcribing Petavius his Perversions of Clement, or bringing what is no more serviceable to either Cause or Credit: as that Clement comprehends all the Jewish Clergy under the name of Priests and Levites: Therefore (Inferrs D. M.) It follows not from Clement his naming only Bishops and Deacons, that Bishops and Presbyters are not in Clement distinct Offices. But D. M. should remember that Clement not only Dichotomizes but Trichotomizes the Jewish Clergy into three Parts. But does he any where so divide the Christian Clergy? He not only names the two Kinds of Offices, but so names them as to identifie and take for one and the same Bishop and Presbyter: which Petavius and D. M. and their Brethren by all means labour to make him distinguish. But St. Clement (saith D. M.) exhorting the Corinthians to order sets before them the subordination under the Temple-Service, how the High-Priest, Priests, and Levites were distinguish'd by their proper Service, and immediatly recommends to them, that every one of them should continue in his proper Order. Now (continues D. M.) when we consider the primitive Method of reasoning from Jewish precedents, St. Clement had never talked at this rate, if the Jurisdiction of one over many Priests had been abolished under the New Testament. But, why does he mutter, for it if he can bring ought for his purpose he must also Inferr from this passage of Clement mPages 94, and 96. foreign &c.that as there was a High-Priest over all the Jewish Church, so there must be another High-Priest over all Christians. And that all Christians must bring Oblations and Sacrifices to the Temple at Hierusalem: for from these Topick does Clement exhort the Corinthians to Harmony. Whether then D. M. be a Romanist or a Jew may be a Question; for unquestionably his way of reasoning symbolizes with both of them. The Truth is, nothing can be inferr'd from this place of Clement, but that as under the Old Testament every one, whether Church-man or Laick, was to abide in his own Order without raising Schism or Confusion, so it ought to be under the New Testament. St. Clement himself (continues D. M.) distinguishes the foreign from the foreign An express untruth, and I challenge D. M. and his Complices to prove it. Nor can it be (adds D. M.) an Objection of any weight, that the first who were their Spiritual Governours are mention'd in the plural number, since this was an Encyclical Epistle addressed to Corinth as the principal City, and from thence transmitted to its dependencies &c. By which words, if he speaks sense, he intimats that there were in the Apostolick age Metropolitan Cities in an Ecclesiastick sense, whose Bishops according to the Civil Dignity of these Cities were Metropolitan, and had their numbers of inferiour and dependent Bishops. A most nauseous and hatefull Hypothesis of some giddy Papaturiants which, as we have heard, even the more candide of the Episcopalls, disclaim and explode.
I shall shut up all concerning Clement with the Suffrages of two illustrious Names, neither whereof, I'm sure, did ever favour Presbytry: I mean Grotius and Stillingfleet. Had Episcopacy (saith the Doctor nIren. page 279.) been instituted on the occasion of the Schism at Corinth, certainly of all places, we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it; and yet almost of all places, these Heralds that derive the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles times, are the most plunged whom to six on at Corinth. And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them (about another Schism as great as the former, which certainly had not been according to their Opinion, if a Bishop had been there before) must have better Eyes and Judgement, than the deservedly admired Grotius, who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as an Argument of the undoubted Antiquity of that Epistle, quod nusquam meminit exsortis &c. that Clement no where mentions, that singular Authority of Bishops which by Church custome after the Death of Mark at Alexandria, and by its Example in other places began to be introduced, but Clemens clearly shews as did the Apostle Paul, that then by the common Council of the Presbyters who both by Paul, and Clement are called Bishops, the Churches were governed.
§. 4. I proceed next to the Vindication of Polycarp. Subject your selves (saith heoEpist. ad Philipp.) to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ, and, as Virgins, walk with a pure Conscience, let the Presbyters be simple or innocent, mercifull in all things, turning all Men from their Errors, visiting all who are weak, not neglecting Widows, Orphans, and those that are Poor, but alwayes providing such things as are good in the sight of God and Men. Here we learn that the highest Office then in the Church of Philippi was that of a Presbyter, and that there was a Plurality to whom the Philippians were to be subjected without the least mention of a particular Bishop governing those Presbyters. And, which deserves no overly Consideration, we here see that as, when Clement gives an account of Church Orders, he named two only, so we have the same number expressed by Polycarp, but they altered their Denomination of the former Order, and they whom Clement calls sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, Polycarp calls still Presbyters. It's most observable also, how both Paul and Polycarp subject the Church of one single City Philippi to a Plurality or Multitude of Pastors, whom Paul calls Bishops, and Polycarp Presbyters. From all which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter most inevitably results.
§. 5. And indeed this Passage of Polycarp so much gravells the Hierarchicks, that Dr. Pearson is driven to his last Leggs, and compelled to present us with a shift unworthy of its Author. Who can prove (saith hepVind. Ignat. Part. 2. Page 168. Sed quis dabit Episcopum Philippensium tunc in vivis fuisse? Quis praestabit Philippenses &c.) that the Bishop of Philippi was then alive, who can shew us, that the Philippians asked not Counsel at Polycarp, for this cause, that they then enjoyed not a Bishop, for thus Polycarp bespeaks them. These things Brethren, I write not of my self to you concerning righteousness, but you have moved me thereunto. Thus Pearson, and indeed it's enough here to return the Question inverted, who is able to prove, if there had been a Bishop in Philippi, that he was not alive? For seeing he affirms it, he or his Advocats are obliged to instruct what they say. That which he pretends to from these words of the Epistle wherein Polycarp saith he was moved thereto by the Philippians themselves, affords him not the least support; there not being therein one syllable concerning the vacancy of the Bishops Seat or the Church Government during this Defect; or how to fill the Chair. Of all or any of these nec vol… nec vestigium, but only (as is evident from Polycarp) they seem to have desir'd of him some Direction concerning the blameless walk of any Christian. And indeed, the Bishop within a very few lines fairly yeelds the Cause, really acknowledging that he had said nothing to the purpose. But seeing (saith he) these things are uncertain, we have no certainty from the Discourse of Polycarp. Well then, it must follow, for ought he knew, that Polycarp knew no Diocesan Bishop in Philippi, that he had never heard of his Death, seeing nothing hereof can be gathered from him. And that he had never heard of his Life or Being, we may well conclude from this, that he devolves the whole Church-Affairs upon a Plurality of Presbyters. But once again; Is it at all credible, but that if Polycarp had written to the Philippians after the death of their Bishop and during the vacancy of the Chair, he had comforted them after this so considerable a Loss, and giv'n them Directions for chusing of a worthy Successor, especially if [as Pearson would have] they had ask'd his counsell concerning this very Matter? Had ever a Pastor like Polycarp neglected so seasonable an Office? His profound silence therefore of the Death of any such Bishop in Philippi sufficiently demonstrats that this Dr. Pearson's Invention was only the product of a desperate Cause, and that there was left here no doore of Escape.
And here let me observe that Philippi is no less fatal to the Episcopals, than its neighbouring plains were to the Pompeians: for they are stung and confounded with the very first words of Paul to that Church, and, as we have heard, amongst their other wild shifts, they answer that the Bishop was often absent. But there was a good number of years between the writing of Paul and that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and yet we see the Bishop is never come home; Why taryeth the wheel of his Lordship's Chariot? Hath he not sped at Court? And having supplanted some of the Nobility, made a prey of the Office of Chancellour or Treasourer, that after so long absence there is no news of his return? Nor are we ever like to hear any more of him, for now [say they] he's dead: I had perhaps believ'd them, were't not impossible for one to die who was never alive. But enough of this; for such Answers would really tempt one to think that their Authors studi'd nothing more than to ridicule their oun Cause and afford Game to their Reader.
§. 6. And here I cann't but nottice the ill-grounded vapouring of D. M. whoqpag. 49. & seq. from the inscription of the Epistle (Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him) concludes that he was vested with Episcopal jurisdiction and eminency amongst these Presbyters. And so much he pretends to bring out of Blondel as as his forc'd Confession, which is so far from being true, that it's brought in by Blondel as an Objection and silly Conjecture of the Episcopals, which herApolog. prosent. Hieron. pag. 14. & seq. diverse ways overthrows. And indeed never was there a more wretch'd deduction fram'd, seeing, as Blondel at large shews, the phrase natively yealds only this sense viz. Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that Colleage. And thus D. M. may as well inferr Peter's Superiority and Power over the rest of the Apostles from Acts 2. 37. To Peter and to the rest of the Apostles. Moreover Blondel demonstrats how, on diverse accounts, Polycarp without any Eminency and Power over the rest may be particularly nominated rather than others; as, because he was first in Order and Years. But I insist not herein, but referr to Blondel who hath nervously baffl'd this their pitifull Coujecture. D. M. adventures to ingage with nothing of what he saith, and yet is not asham'd to bring to the Field so blunted a weapon. I pass also D. M.'s two Arguments for Polycarp's Diocesan Episcopacy, drawn from the pretended Succession of Diocesan Bishops in Smyrna, and the Epistles of Ignatius mention'd by Polycarp, having overthrown both of 'em already, and proceed to the Testimony of Hermas whosLib. 1. Vis. 2. thus speaks: Thou shalt write two Books, thou shalt send one to Clement and one to Graptes, and Clement shall send it to foraign Cities; for to him this is permitted: and Graptes shall admonish the Widows and Orphans, but thou shalt read it with, or relate it unto the Presbyters in this City who govern the Church. Where we see that not any one Bishop, but a Colledge of Presbyters (call'd, doubtless, afterward by the same Author, Bishops) govern'd the Church of one City. Yet D. M. pretends to find here a palpable Evidence of Episcopacy; For (saith hetpag. 53. & seq.) the sending of the Encyclical Epistle to foraign Cities is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of Clement then Bishop of Rome. But if he conclude from this place of Hermas that Clement had any Power over these to whom he was to send that Book or Epistle (as for Clement's being Bishop of Rome it's so far from being insinuated here, that the quite contary is from this very place most evident) he may as well inferr from Col. 4. 16. that they had Power over the Laodiceans whither they were to send, and cause to be read the Apostle's Letter.
Secondly, D. M. ascribing to the Bishop of Rome Power over foraign Cities, erects a Pope rather than a Bishop. But I'll assure him he came not in so early: for seeing there was undoubtedly one Bishop (at least) in every particular City so soon as there were any in the World, this place of Hermas (if it bear D. M's Inference and give a Power to Clement over foraign Cities) insinuats nothing of a Bishop's Dignity above Presbyters, but of the power of one Bishop over another or rather of a Pope over other Churches. A falshood most unanimously exploded by Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and the rest of the Ancients D. M. seeks also for his Prelacy in these words of Hermas viz. uLib. 2. Mand. 12.The Earthly Spirit exalts it self and seeks the first seat.xLib. 3. Simil. 8. Some contend for Principality and Dignity. But what if Hermas had said that some contended to get an Empire and Popedome over the whole Church; would D. M. hence conclude that it was lawfull or then practised in the Church, or when the Apostles contended who should be the greatest? Had Christ before that time assured them of the lawfulness of such an Office, and told them, that they were to have one to be a Prince over the rest? By no Logick therefore can it be inferred for Hermas his words that a chief Seat or Principality (for both are one and the same with Hermas) was then either exercised or held lawfull. Again, tho' both had been then in Custome, no Power of one over the rest can be hence concluded; seeing the chief Seats are given to the Moderators of Synods and other Presidents of Assemblies, who have no primacy of Power but only of Order. And againyLib. 1. Vis. 3., The polished and white Stones (saith Hermas) are the Apostles, and Bishops, and Doctors, and Deacons, who walked in the Clemency of God, a…d exercised the Office of a Bishop, and taught and served. And,zLib. 3. Simil. 9. Such are some Bishops, that is Governours of the Churches, and these who have the Char…e of the Services.
§. 7. In both places (saith Blondel) he makes only two Degrees that of the Bishops who governed the Churches, and that of the Deacons who had the charge of the Services, for it's acknowledged by all that the Doctors are all one with the Bishops, when they are said to have performed the Office of a Bishop, and that the Apostles as they are opposed to Bishops, were placed above the whole Clergy. This (repons D. M.) is Tergiversation with a Witness, and a fraudulent Trick in Blondel, since Presbyters in the primitive Church are frequently distinguished by the Name of Doctors: and Blondel's Commentary is a manifest violence offered to the Text, for Doctors are not said to have performed the Office of a Bishop but to have taught: and this is very agreeable to their Character, being so much imploy'd by their respective Bishops in teaching the Catechumeni; and the natural position of these words will allow of no other meaning. Which Answer D. M. hath learned from the Practice of our late Bishops, during whose Epocha the Buffund might have hid himself well nigh the whole year from the Bishop's fury in the Bishop's pulpit, seeing he scarce ever came thither to play the Doctor or ought else. As for the Ancient and true primitive Bishops, they perpetually preach'd or taught (saith Le Moyn aVaria sacra. Page 34.Moreover the Fathers generally take Pastor, Bishop, and Doctor for one and the same as Chrysostome, Theophylact, Theodoret, Sedulius; and after them, Aquinas, Haymo, Benedictus Justinianus with others on Ephes. 4. 11. Of the same mind are Hierome, Augustine and Anselm bApud Corn. a Lapide in Eph. 4. 11., and the pretended Clemens Romanus cited by Gratian and Benedictus Justinianus, and the Fathers of the Council of Carthage. Of the same Mind are the ablest of our Episcopals, as Field, Hammond and Heylen cHistory of Episcopacy. Part 2. Page 39.So truly did Blondel say that Bishop and Doctor is universally taken for one and the same. Neither was ever the Presbyter either in Cyprian or any other Ancient, called Doctor in opposition to the Bishop but to other Ecclesiastick Presbyters, who taught not, of whose existence, as was before touched, we have most sufficient assurance. But D. M. in contradiction to the Apostle would have a Bishop who is no Teacher or Preacher, like the Droll who said, he mett with Priests who were no Clerks. And seeing with Hermas there are but two Orders of Church-men, and Bishops, and praesides Ecclesiarum Church Governours are reciprocal Terms taken for one and the same: and seeing that his Presbyters are expresly term'd Church-Governours; it's most evident that he takes Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same, and that the word Doctor is purely exegetick or explicative of the word Bishop, and that both of them, which I'm sure is not unfrequent in all sorts of Authors, evidently signifie one and the same thing.
§. 8. I now proceed to Justine Martyr whodApolog. ad Antonium Pium. foreign &c. thus gives an account of the state of the Churches their particular and weekly Assemblies for receiving the Word and Sacraments. After this, Bread and Wine tempered with Water is brought to the Ruler or Governour of the Brethren, which when he hath received, he gives praise and glory to the Parent of all—The Deacons give to all present Bread and Wine tempered with Water after they are Consecrated by Thanks-giving, and carry them to such as are absent. And on Snnday all who live either in Cities or in the Country come together into one place—And when the Reader has ceas'd, the Governour makes an exhortatory Sermon—The voluntary Contribution is laid up with the Governour who distributes it to the Orphans &c. Where it's not only observable that Justine following not the pretended Ignatius but the Apostle, Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, mentions only two Orders of Church-men, viz. Governours and Deacons, but also that he gives a foreign or Bishop to every Congregation, and that Justine's foreign is all one with the Bishop who was then in being is yealded by the fiercest Hierarchicks, Heylen eHist. of Episcopacy, part 2. pag. 39.who yeelds his whole Plea and says that Justine's President of the Congregation, or Bishop, ordinarily celebrated the Eucharist and Preach'd God's holy Word; and Maurice fDefence of Diocesan Episcopacy pag. 39.. Well then, 'tis all one how this ancient Church-Ruler be named, whither Presbyter, Governour, or Bishop, seeing there was one for every Congregation that mett for receiving the word and Sacraments, the Controversy between us and the Hierarchicks, which is not about Names but Things, is fully ended if they stand to Justine's Decision.
§. 9. Dr. Maurice would have Justine to be understood as speaking only of the Diocesan Bishops Church. For (saith he) to carry the Bread and Wine to all absents in their severall Duellings, was not convenient nor easy in numerous Congregations, and they knew not well who were absent. But this Perversion is too wretch'd & palpable to wheedle any in in his right wit out of Justine's plain Meaning. Dr. Maurice knew well enough that in these times of such Fervor and Love among Christians, and such Veneration for the Lord's Supper, they doubtless most exactly observ'd the Ordinances, and absented not without speciall and weighty Causes. And seeing the Custome of receiving the Elements at home, when they could not come to Church was then in vigour, and believed to be their Duty (if these Elements were given to Absents as their proper Communion, or were only the foreign the last remains of the Custume of the foreign the Love Feasts, I now dispute not) they took special care to signifie their Absence and Causes thereof, by their Relations or Christian Brethren to their Deacons, and such as were concerned to know it. Neither, if we consider the Church-Discipline of these times, is it to be doubted that the Deacons had an exact List of all to whom they were each Lords Day to give the Sacrament, and consequently by no means could be ignorant who were either absent or present. Wherefore, tho' the Deacons had been fewer than they were, they could easily, tho' the whole Congregation had been never so numerous, carry the Elements to these very few whom sickness or other lawfull and weighty Reasons had confined to their Habitations: all which Dr. Maurice well enough perceived; and therefore he's here no less feeble in his Actings than a man breathing his last, and advances only such triffles as may make his Friends ashamed and confirm his Adversaries. Neither do I wonder hereat, seeing he undertook the Defence of a palpable untruth: for not only speaks Justine of the Christian Assemblies in common without the least exception, but clearly tells us that he speaks of the meatings of all the Christians for receiving the Word and Sacraments, not only in Cities, but in the Country a place too base for the Cathedral and Diocesan Bishops Chair, and of all such Congregations, as in the first day of the Week, as the Apostle speaks, made Collections or had Deacons for that end, which belongs to every Congregation where the Word and Sacraments are dispensed. Neither is this ought but what we have discover'd to be the Mind of their Ignatius himself, and seconded with the Suffrages of the greatest Friends to Prelacy.
§. 10. Wherefore most vain is D. M'sgPage 58. Et seq. Labour to prove that it follows not from Justine that there were then only two Orders of Church-men. Seeing Justine giving a Governour or Bishop to every Congregation, quite overturns Diocesan Episcopacy. And more vain yet is this, that as, what he undertakes tho' proved is nothing to his purpose, so the Reasons he brings prove nothing of what he undertakes. For his first duplicate page duplicate page Reason, viz. That Justine intended only to give a true account of what was ordinarly performed in the Christian Meetings in opposition to the abominable Stories propagated against them by their Enemies, so that he had no occasion to reckon up the several Gradations of the Hterarchy, is equally favourable to Prelatists and Papists, who may as well use it for a Sanctuary to their Pope as they to their Prelats. And indeed had there then either been a Pope over all or a Prelate with Princely Power as D. M. pleads for over a multitude of Churches, the Christians seeing they were frequently reproached with an intended Rebellion, had found themselves obliged in a special manner to apologize for their Princes and absolute Lords, who would have been looked on as little less than the Emperour's Rivalls and Arch-Promoters and Heads of the supposed Insurrection. Moreover, which we have already noted, and fully shews the nullity of D. M's Reason, not only Justine but all the genuine Writings of them that went before him, mention only, like Justine, these two Orders of Church-men.
D. M's second Reason, viz. That the Christians were most shy to publish any thing relating either to the Mysteries of their Religion or the Constitution of the Church, more than was absolutely necessary in their own Defence &c. is another lurking place for Romanists when urg'd to shew the Antiquity of their Innovations: and indeed if it do any thing, it tends to prove that no Party can make any Advantage of ought spoken or written by the Fathers; and if so, have att the Foundation of Diocesan Prelacy, its prime Advocats acknowledging that no Argument for it can be draun from Scripture, but only from the writings of the Fathers.
His third Reason is, that as the Offices, so the names of Bishop and Presbyter were not only known to be distinguished in his days among the Christians (but he brings no genuine Writer of that Age to prove this, and that it is most false is already evinced) but even the Heathens knew so much: and cites Adrian's Epistle to Servianus: but it's highly probable that the Emperour if we allow him any knowledge of these Affairs, understands under the name of Presbyters the very same Officers, the very same Men, that he means by the name Bishops, rather than e contra: see Pray the Letter it self apud Flav. Vopis. in Saturnino.
§. 11. 'Twere easie to shew divers succeeding Fathers to have been of Justine's Mind and Strangers to Diocesan Episcopacy, ignoring all Discrimination between Bishop and preaching Presbyter or Pastor. I shall only here with one Chamier hPaustratiae Tom. 2. Lib. 10. Cap. 6. Denique ausim asserere nunquam ab Epis…opis distingui, nedum separari Presbyteros apud Irenaeum.against Bellarmine and the rest of the Jesuites, assert against their Successors and Defenders under whatever Name they be known, that according to Irenaeus the Churches were committed to the Presbyters, no less than to the Bishops, that these who are now reckoned Popes, High-Priests, universal Bishops, are only Presbyters in the Judgement of Irenaeus: and that in him Presbyters are not so much as once distinguished, and far less separated from Bishops. From what is said, appears the vanity of D. M's Popish Query.iPages 158, 159. Whether (all things duly considered) a more evident and universal Tradition for the Superiority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop above a Presbyter, can be reasonably demanded; and whether the Argument from universal Tradition, be not in this Case the most proper and most necessary? And whether the Tradition for the Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter, be not more universal, unanimous and uncontradicted, in the Primitive Ages, than many other Traditions that are unquestionably received? What these his other Traditions are, we are not ignorant. The Doctrine certainly of the morality of the Sabbath, of Baptism, and of the Holy Trinity, and the like; these they*Vide Petavium de Hierarchia Eccl. Lib. 1. and D. Taylor Episcopacy asserted. think lean only on Tradition, and that the Institution of their Diocesan Prelats, Metrapolitans, and Arch-Prelats, and other such Effects and Inventions of a degenerating and apostatizing Church, are better founded than these most Scriptural Catholick and necessary Doctrines.