The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 1 · Section 3 – Section 5
Section III.
Their Argument taken from Order, weighed.
ANother Achillean Argument they bring from the Nature of Order, which, they say, is wholly inconsistent with Parity. Hence one of their Coryphaei brandishing it, to the end he might compleat the Demonstration, cited Aristotle himself for the Definition of Order, which (saith he) is secundum quem aliquid altero prius aut posterius dicitur. For that unhappy word simul would have spoil'd the whole Business, and therefore must be left out. And certain it is that none of them can improve this Argument any more than he has done, seeing, according to the express Definition of Order, a Parity is no less consistent therewith than Superioty and Inferiority.
§. 2. Moreover if this Topick do them any service, it shal, at length, establish a Pope over them all; seeing a Parity of superior Officers, as Bishops or Arch-bishops, is no less Cyclopick and Monstrous (for with these names they calumniat Presbytry) than a Parity of Pastors. Yea by this their Argument it is manifest how they reproach most of the reformed Churches, as if there were nothing there but a Babylonish Confusion; and the Apostles themselves, none of whom, I think, took the Oath of Canonical Obedience to another. Moreover, whosoever denies a Parity in a plurality of Governours (tho' the chiefest in a Society) as if 'twere unwarranted by Example, and tending to Confusion, discovers either his Ignorance, or what is worse; seeing it is well known that at the same time there was a plurality of Kings in Sparta, of foreign or Princes in Athens, and of Consuls in Rome; during which Governments there was, I am sure, as little Disorder as when they were in the Hands of one single Man. So much is really affirmed by their own learned Sutlivius aDe pontif. Rom, lib. 1. cap. 8. Praeterea exercitus non semper unum habet ducem, &c.who brings store of such Examples, and irrefragably evinces our Purpose: so true it is that none can smartly oppose the Pope's Crown, but must eâdem operâ (were he, as indeed Sutlivius is, the greatest Friend to Prelats) ruffle also their Mytres.
Section IV.
The Plea for Prelacy, drawn from Unity, discuss'd.
NO less fiercely do they argue that Episcopacy is altogether necessary on the account of Vnity; Without which (say they) there can be nothing but Schism and Dtvision; and therefore the Ancient Church sustain'd it. But altho' this might have deceiv'd some of the Ancients, whose ends were good (though this mean fell out ineffectual, yea unhappy whereby to obtain them) yet it is strange that any now, if at all they reflect on past times, can place any confidence in such Church-policy, in order to procure Peace and Unity: seeing it is of all things most undeniable, that, notwithstanding hereof, the primitive Church was opprest and rent with innumerable Schisms, hatch'd and sustain'd by Bishops, in opposition to Bishops; no less, at least, than by Presbyters, in opposition to Presbyters. Yea it is certain that these, whom they contend to be Diocesans, were either the Inventers, or, at least, the main Propagators and Abettors thereof. Were not Victor of Rome, and Polycrates of Ephesus, the Authors of that great Schism and Controversie anent the Celebration of Easter? Were not Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage Authors of another Schism about Rebaptizing of the lapsed? Was not Paulus Bishop of Samosata, Author of that non-such Schism and Heresie of the Samosatenians? Did not the mighty Schism of the Donatists fall out because Sicilianus Competitor with Donatus was preferr'd? And, when the Heresie of the Bishop of Samosata was varnish'd by a Presbyter Arrius, how was it hugg'd and propagated by the bulk of the Oriental Bishops? Was not Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, the Author of that most damnable Heresie known by his Name? Again Nestorius, Bishop of that same City, gave both Being and Name to another Schism no less dangerous than the former. Time would fail me to reckon up Berillus, Bostrensis, Nepos an Egytian Bishop, Fidus in Africk, Photinus of Syrmium, with many others. And in short, few Heresies or Schisms sprang up in these Times, but they had either Bishops for their Authors, or else for their great Abettors; without whose influence, they were likely shortly to have starved: or else they were raised through the Pride and Competition of men aspiring to the Episcopal Dignity▪ which, to name no others, is clear in the Instance of Donatus. Yea that all the blackest Schisms and most pestilent Heresies had Bishops for their Authors, Sutlivius aDe pontif. Rom. Lib. 2. Cap. 10. Nulla enim in Ecclesia Dei graviora excitata sunt Schismata, nec Hereses exorta sunt ab ullo tetriores quam ab Episcopis.expresly affirms.
But take one Instance further, in respect of which the rest are but Grasshopers, in the Person of the Romish Bishop, or Bishops; who have been the great Authors and Fomenters of the most damnable Heresies, and mighty Schisms, that the Christian World hath hitherto seen. Certainly, had the Church contented Herself with the Apostolick Parity we plead for, the Man of Sin could not have mounted the Throne of Iniquity; on which, for many Ages, he hath continued to the most pestiferous Infection and distracting Division of the Church, that ever Satan did excogitat, or Man behold.
§. 2. Moreover, suppose they could with the greatest plausibility conclude the inconsistancy of Unity and Parity, they were yet to be neglected; it being certain that, in the choisest Assembly the World ever saw, both of 'em were harmoniously lodged; and that there are Christian Churches enjoying no less Harmony without Diocesans, than those who have 'em.
Section V.
The Argument Prelatists bring from Antiquity, canvass'd.
THeir next Plea is from Antiquity: but for us it may be enough to say from the Beginning it was not so. Thus Christ answer'd the Pharisees: thus the Christians answer'd the Heathens alledging the Antiquity of Gentilism. They can give few or no Proofs for their Proposition from the first, and best part of the second Century: They pretend indeed to the Epistles of Ignatius, which, to say the best, are in divers places spurious, carrying Self-contradictions, vain Boastings and Flattery all along; but of this more afterward.
Other Catalogues and Memorials of the Bishops of the ancientest Times, were written long after, when Prelacy had got a higher ascendant, and the Mystery of Iniquity was more palpably working: therefore these Authors spoke according to, and in the Style of their own times, and not in the Style of the times wherein these Pastors lived. And here I say nothing, but what is vouch'd by Dr. Stilling fleet aIren. Part 2. Chap. 6.. And, amongst many others, these his w…ords are most observable: for having taken notice that Eusebius makes it a most hard Matter to know who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches they planted, adds, say you so? is it so hard a Matter to find, out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them, unless it be mention'd the Writings of Paul? What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches, and the large Diagrams made of the Apostolick Churches with every one's Name set down in his Order, as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves? Is it come to this at last that we having nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures? And must then the Tradition of the Church be our Rule to interpret Scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless, to bend the Rule to the croocked stick, &c. Again it's certain that, for divers Centuries, Bishops were nothing like what they are now, either in exercising Civil Power, or Jurisdiction over other Pastors, or yet in the largeness of Dioceses; so that the Term Bishop in respect of the two is little better than an equivocal. It's certain also that the ancient Church wanted not her own Blemishes: which was well perceived by her Doctors, who still look'd on the Word of God only as the Rule of Faith and Manners, on which they never founded the Episcopal Superiority. Hence this their Argument carries nothing of Cogency.