The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 6
SECTION VI.
His Answers to our Citations from Jerome and Augustine, examined.
THis learned Author hath singled out the Testimonies brought by Presbyterians out of these two Fathers, and promiseth p. 65, to examine them more narrowly, as being the chief strength of the Presbyterians, that is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients. I shall adventure to examine his Examination. He taxeth Blondel for inscribing his Book, Apologia pro Sententia Hieronimi, as if the Presbyterians Doctrine had been certainly espoused by Jerome; and bringeth this Argument against this Conduct of Blondel. At this rate (saith he) his Contemporaries were very much to be blamed who placed Aerius among the Hereticks, and yet on all occasions make honourable mention of Jerome, if he taught the same Doctrine for which Aerius was condemned for a Heretick. This reasoning is of no weight: for it is well known on how small grounds some in the fourth or fifth Centuries were listed among the Hereticks. 2. It is no rare thing in the World, to heighten the same Action, or Opinion in one person, which they excuse or extenuate in another: We know how the Pope condemneth the same Principles as Heresie in Calvine, which he passeth no such Censure on when they are taught by the Jansenists: and how Alvarez chargeth Calvine with Heresie, for the same things that he himself holdeth: and is at much pains to shew the difference, where indeed there is none. Jerome was a man of great esteem, so as it seems Aerius was not. 3. It is thought by many, that Aerius managed his Principle more unpeaceably than Jerome did: that he opposed himself more fiercely to the growing Usurpations of that time; and made a Schism about the Matter. And it is evident that many of them who are by Epiphanius called Hereticks, were at most, but Schismaticks. Neither do I by this yield, that Presbyterians now may be called Schismaticks; for I know not that Aerius was justly so branded, on account of that Opinion. Nor do I think that Episcopacy was come to that intollerable height when Aerius opposed it, that it is come to in our days, and came to… soon after his time. 4. Magdeburg. cent. 4. c. 5. p. 399, 4…0. edit. Ba… 1560. sheweth that Epiphanius maketh him an Arian. So August: a… Basil… say he was the Author of the Heresie of the Syllabici; which w… indeed Arianism: from which Magdeb concludes, that we have litt… certainty about him. 5. Some men of great worth excuse Aerius: … Whitaker, Reinolds: and affirm, that he was innocent of these Heresies they charge him with, only he had angered some great men of t… Age; by questioning some of their Usurpations; and also by zealou… opposing some of the Superstitions that were then creeping into t… Church; and had too much Countenance from some eminent Men: such as Praying, and offering for the dead, and Praying to Saints. … Aerius was not esteemed a Heretick by all the Fathers of that, or t… following Age: none call him so but Epiphanius; and Augustine, w… implicitely took it from Epiphanius. Neither Theodoret, nor Socrat… nor Sozomen, nor Euagrius, have any thing of the Aerian Heresie.
§ 2. He maketh a Collection of the Citations we bring out of Jerome, and then giveth us his Remarks on them. I must also transcrib… them, that the Reader may have them before him, while he is upo… this Debate about them. The first is out of Hieron: on Tit. 1. Diligenter (saith Jerome) Apostoli verba attendamus, dicentis, ut constituas per Civitates Presbyteros, sicut ego disposui; qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, … sequentibus disserens, hoc ait, si quis est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir, &c. Postea intulit, oportet enim Episcopum sine crimine esse tanquam Dei dispens… tor: idem est ergo Presbyter qui & Episcopus; & antequam Diaboli instinct… studia in religione fierent; & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae; communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecelesia gubernabatur. Postquam vero unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse, non Christi: in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur. Of what followeth in Jerome the Enquirer giveth but a lame account; telling us that Jerome proveth the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Acts 20. 1 Pet. and Epistle to the Hebrews. But I shall give a more full account of his words; He addeth to what goeth before, putet aliquis non scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam, Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse, & aliud a…atis, aliud esse nomen Officii; relegat Apostoli verba ad Philipp: dicentis, Paulus omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis & Diaconis: Phili…pi (these are Jerome's words) una est urbs Macedoniae, & certe in una civitate plures (ut nuncupantur) Episcopi esse non poterant; sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore, quos & Presbyteros appellabant, propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc alicui hoc videretur ambiguum, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur, in Actis Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum, miserit Ephesum, & vocaverit Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem; quibus postea inter catera sic locutus, attendite vobis & omni Gregi in quo Spiritus Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos, &c. Et hic diligentius observate, quomodo unius civitatis, Ephesi, Presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit. Si quis vult recipere eam Epistolam quae sub nomine Pauli ad Haebreos scripta est, (for that Epistle in Jerome's days was controverted, whether it were canonical Scripture or not) & ibi, aequaliter, inter plures, Ecclesia cura dividitur, siquidem ad plebem scribit, parote principibus vstris (behold, Jerome calleth the Presbyters, principes, from their ruling power; from which Title given to Bishops, our Brethren often argue for their sole Jurisdiction) & subjecti estote, &c. Et Petrus, qui ex fidei firmitate nomen accepit, in Epistola sua loquitur, dicens, Presbyteros ergo in vobis obsecro, compresbyter, &c. pascite gregem Domini, &c. Haec propterea ut ostenderemus (this our Author citeth) apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros, quos & Episcopos; paulatim vero (ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur) ad unum sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus est esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispensationis Divinae veritatis Presbyteris esse majores; & in commune debere Ecclesiam regere: imitantes Mosen; qui cum haberet solus praeesse populo Israel, 70 elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret: videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit.
§ 3. He bringeth also Jeromes Epistle to Oceanus, where I confess I find nothing for our purpose, but what is more fully and clearly said by Jerome in the place cited; and which followeth. Next he bringeth Jerome's Epistle to Euagrius, (which is next to that to Oceanus) in which he citeth the same Scriptures; but to them he prefixeth (which this Author passeth over) audio quendam in tantam erupisse verecundiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris i. e. Episcopis, praeferret: nam cum Apostolus perspicuè doceat, eosdem esse Episcopos quos Presbyteros, quis patitur ut mensarum & viduarum Minister supra eos se tumidus eff…rat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque consicitur. Quaeris autoritatem, audi testimonium; and so he citeth Phil. 1. and Acts 20. And then, ac ne quis contentiose in una Ecclesia plures Episcopos fuisse contendat; Audi & aliud testimonium, in quo manifestissime declaratur, vel comprobatur, eundom esse Episcopum aut Presbyterum: and so he citeth Tit. 1. and also 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is said to be ordained by laying on of the Hands of the Presbyterie: and 1 Pet. 5. and taketh notice of the Emphasis of the Charge given to Presbyters in the Word foreign, unde, (saith he) & nomen Episcopi est tractum: and then he citeth Joh. Ep. 2. and 3, where that Apostle calleth himself Presbyter, or Elder. After all this, the words that the Enquirer citeth, do follow. Quod autem postea unus electus est qui cateris praeponeretur, in Schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque Eeclesiam ad se trahens, Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heracleam, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collatum, Episcopum nominabant. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint, & Archi-Diaconum vocent. Quid eum facit Episcopus, excepta ordinatione, quod Presbyter non facit: nec alt…ra Romanae urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis aestimanda est; & Gallia, & Britannia, & Oriens, & Persis, & Judaea, omnes barbarae nationes, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis: Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti est, ejusdemque Sacerdotii: potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas, vel superiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caterum omnes Apostoli successores sunt. After this he proposeth an Objection against himself, from the practice that then was at Rome, that a Presbyter ordinabatur ad testimonium Diaconi: which seemeth to make for the preference of a Deacon before a Presbyter: which is that he opposeth through that whole Epistle; and having answered that Objection, and condemned that Practice, he proceedeth thus, sciant quare constituti Diaconi; legant acta Apostolorum: recordentur conditionis suae Presbyter & Episcopus: aliud aetatis, aliud dignitati… nomen est: unde ad Tit. & ad Tim: de ordinatione Episcopi & Diaconi dicitur, de Presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in Episcopo & Presbyter continetur. Qui promovetur de minori, ad majorem prove…itur. Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus, ut (not aut as our Author saith) Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur, in quem crescat ex parvo: aut si ex Diacono ordinetur Presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem sacerdotio esse majorem. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento; quod Aaron & filii ejus, & Levitae fuerant in Templo, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. There is yet another place of Jerome which this Author hath not mentioned (I shall not say he hath not read Jerome, though he cite him; which he imputeth to these on our side, on less occasion given) it is Ep: ad Heliodor: Tract: 3. tertiae partis, fol. (mihi) 284, 285. This person being Jerome's intimate Friend, it seems was averse from an Eremetical Life, and desired rather to be in the Ministry. Jerome taketh much pains in this Epistle, to perswade him to go to the Desert, and there serve Christ; and having occasion to speak of the Clergy, he saith of them, without Distinction; absit autem ut quicquam de his sinistrum loquar; qui Apostolico gradui succedentes; Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt: per quos & nos Christiani sumus: qui claves regni coelorum habentes, quodammod… judicii diem indicant. Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant. And a little after, mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet (it seems neither he, nor Heliodorus were then ordained, though they both were afterward) Ill…, si peccavero, licet tradere me Satanae, in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus … in die Domini Jesu.
§ 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome. To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false, sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted; and consequently whether Jerome be on our side, or on the opposite side. I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there wa… a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consili… But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this, and in that Period (which he taketh to be in the Apostles time, before Bishops were setled in the Churches) the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted, by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed, that when the Apostles, by their preaching, had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies, and had no Officers to teach and govern them, they managed the Affairs of these people, by their own Authority; and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes. 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches, who might teach them, but not rule them; and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them: this is a groundless Fancie, nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it: if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this, we shall consider it. We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies, both for teaching them, and ruling them; and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction, by the infallible Spirit, both what they should teach, and how they should govern: the latter needeth no proof: the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders foreign, and foreign; and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12, 14. by which it is made appear, that these Elders ruled the Church, as well as instructed her, as at Corinth, and at Thessalonica, and else where. Another mistake is, that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled, and had Presbyters among them. The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches: and from this, that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance. Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him, whether they had Officers or none: but it doth not thence follow, that he ruled them all, or any of them, personally: his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled, by them who were appointed to that Work; over all whom he, and every one of the Apostles, had a Superintendency. A third mistake is, that the Apostles in their time, made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church; by setting up Bishops, where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters, and had ruled the Churches themselves: and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there, as this Author hinteth, p. 69. Can he, or any man else, give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination? Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles, we should have had some hint of it in their Writings, or in the History of their Acts.
§ 5. This Author hath an other observe, in the same page, as wilde, and wide from the Truth: that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters, was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth; so he thought that this Remedy of Schism, was appointed by the Apostles themselves; and that it was not the Invention of after Ages: but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie; and therefore appointed, that unus praeponeretur caeteris. This is strange Confidence, and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel, and other Presbyterians. Can he produce any Word, or Passage in Jerome, from which this may be inferred? Yes, he pretendeth to prove it: after he hath stated this as the present Debate, whether it was Jerome's Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism; or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles; and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy, because Parity was apt to breed Schism. The former he maintaineth, we hold the latter. That Blondel saw, that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy, is a strange Assertion, when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary. And the proof of it is yet stranger; Blondel entereth a Caveat, that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome. Is it not a good Consequence? This is an absurd Thought, saith Blondel, ergo, I believe it was Jerome's Opinion. Blondel maintaineth, and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie; but that Jerome was not of that Opinion.
§ 6. His first proof, that such was Jerome's Opinion, is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiasti…. Government, were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth; and therefore … change made must needs be Apostolical: they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick, and they were zealous to prevent Confusions. No other Decree could be meant by Jerome's toto Orbe decretum est, for no other De… could oblige all, nor would have been so universally received: neither was th… any Council that had so decreed. This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth … his Commentaries on Titus, consuetudo Ecclesiae; which he distinguishe… from dispositio Divinae veritatis, meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest abo… many, was introduced rather by Apostolical practice, than the personal mand… of our Blessed Saviour. Such Discourse from a Presbyterian, would be exposed by this Author, with great scorn: but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason. 1. That Jerome did not say, nor mean, that the Apostles made this change in Church Government, is manifest. For … He saith it was done paulatim; whereas apud veteres, …idem fuer… Presbyteri qui & Episcopi: so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres canno… be the Apostles; but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called; but whatever he in that; an Apostolick Decree for Bishops, and bringing them in, paulatim, do not well agree. It is henc… plain, that Jerome thought, in the first Ages after the Apostles, the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio: but Schism arising in process of time, like that in Corinth, while the Apostles lived; tha… Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches, after in others, turned into a Prelacy. Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time, had made a Decree for Prelacy, all the Churches would presently have set up tha… way, in its due Height, and not brought it in paulatim. 2. The very design of Jerome, in the places cited, which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove, by Testimonies of the Apostles, that Bishop and Presbyter are one: how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary? this were to make the learned Jerome to speak, yea to think, the most palpable contradictions. 3. Is it imaginable, if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie, and then by degrees (or otherwise) changed it into Prelacy, that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former, as in all the places he citeth: and yet not point to one place in all their Writings, where this Decree for a Change should be found? He may believe what he will, who can be perswaded of this? If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth; and that it was done on occasion of these Debates, and as a Remedie of them, he had been very absurd, and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy: for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms, and labouring to cure them, and prevent the like among Christians, he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them: but on the contrary, reproveth the Presbyters of that Church, for being defective in the exercise of their Church power, cap. 5. of that same Epistle; and cap: 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church, and no mention of Bishops among them.
§ 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd; that he calleth this Apostolical Decree, consuetudo Ecclesiae: a Decree and a Custome are two different things: nor was it ever heard of (till this new Master of words arose) that a Decree was so called: Custome may follow on a Decree; and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome; but to say a thing (ex: gra: the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism) had its Original from Custome, and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree, is to speak non sense: which no wise man will impute to that learned Father. Wherefore it is evident that Jerome, by consuetudo Ecclesiae, meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles (for to say it was the practice in their time, is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion, that the Church was then governed by Presbyters) which came in by degrees, paulatim. 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie, to make an Apostolical Decree, or Practice, so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis, as are Parity and Prelacy. Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ? Is it then imaginable, that He appointed Parity, or did not appoint Prelacy; and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient, would appoint Prelacy. Neither could Jerome mean, that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth; but by the Apostles after his Ascension: for that had been impertinent, and nothing to his purpose. For what different influence could that have on Bishops, to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters (which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words) whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ; or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit; for the Sense would be, Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment; but they are above them by the Apostles appointment: which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other, or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd. 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick, and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time, is true but it doth not hence follow, that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est, is meant of such an Apostolick Decree. It is rather meant of a Resolution (decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed) through the several Churches, in most parts of the World (so toto orbe may we… be restricted) to set up a constant Praeses, whom they particularly called the Bishop. The Phrase toto orbe decretum est, cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place (as that of the Apostles must be) though for the whole World; but of what was done in the several places of the World.
§ 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth, and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made, I further prove. 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of, … introducing the Change, were made by the Presbyters; who had baptized the people, and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized: his words are plain; postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse, non Christi, toto orbe decretum est, &c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people, not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, fell out about dividing the people among them, as their Followers disagreed. Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism, though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order, and so quickly change it into another, as they must have done, if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth, which fell out soon after the setling of that Church; and while other Churches were not yet setled. They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be, and did, at the first setlement of Churches, provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease. Especially, is it imaginable, that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth, they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation, which must quickly be razed, and a new one laid. The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth, wherein he reproveth their Schism, from Ephesus, in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought: and about that time (for he stayed at Ephesus two years) he was setling that Church in Paritie (for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City; as Jerome observeth: calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle, Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem) now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus, and not presently setled a Bishop in it, if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of the Tumuits at Corinth; and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them.
§ 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome, is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days, from his words, Epistola ad Luagrium; Nam in Alexandria, à Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heracleam, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri unum ex se electum, &c. Here he saith, Salmasius leaveth Jerome, and doubteth of the Truth of this History: which he need not think strange; seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake, p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote. But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth; it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator, or primus Presbyter, began at Alexandria, as the Name of Christian did at Anti…h. And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words. What…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark, who founded the Church of Alexandria, and it is like, by his extraordinary power, ruled it at first by himself; and that but for a small time; for he left Alexandria, and preached and planted Churches in Lybia, Marmorica, and many parts of Egypt, as Beronius sheweth. That Jerome did not include Mark (as Dounam absurdly saith) among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria, is evident: for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head, who had an extraordinary Commission, and had been the Instrument of converting them, and who by his extraordinary power, had setled them in a Presbyterie, for the rest, if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose, he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said, and laboriously proved, concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters: wherefore, they who came after Mark, and were chosen by the Presbyterie, were only set in excelsiori gradu, they had the foreign, were Moderators, and had the Name of Bishops given them usually, whereas the rest were called Presbyters: but that they had, so early as Marci tempore, Jurisdiction over their Brethren, the Presbyters who chused them, Jerome doth not say, nor can it be gathered from any of his words. And I do not question, but that in other Churches, as well as Alexandria, the Presbyters chose a Moderator, and, may be, he continued during Life; only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere; or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses. If this Sense, that our Author dreameth of, were put on Jerome's words, they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle, which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one, till Ministers contended among themselves, and a Superiority came in paulatim, upon that; or it maketh Jerome to say, that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose; but at Alexandria was Prelacy: which we cannot impute to Jerome, without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity; which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter; and not such Discord. It is further evident, that Jerome did not mean, that there was a Prelate, with sole, or superior Jurisdiction, set up at Alexandria; in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves; and ordained also by them: he had no Prelation above them, but what they gave him: whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops: again, this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do, as being of Divine Institution; but what themselves chused.
§ 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority, p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament. Where saith he, two things are asserted. 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition. This is an absurd Inference. Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first, was founded on Apostolical Tradition, contained in the Scripture: but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy (in the Prelatical Sense) that he opposeth that, and pleadeth for Parity. The second thing he observeth is, that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view, when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church; the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple: and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship. Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church. Here are diverse things to be examined, 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model, when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church, I shall not now determine. I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House, to build a new one: he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions, the Form, nor number of Stories, or Rooms: yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new, he will readily observe. We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform, or patch, the old Jewish Church Fabrick. Such methods in Building, use to impare the Beauty, as well as usefulness, of the Fabrick. It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation; (I mean, as to what was instituted, and not of the Law of Nature) as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood, and also of the Law. And it is certain that the use of Priests, and of Levites to (whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices) ceased, as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all. Wherefore, as there was a new Priesthood (to speak in his Dialect) to be set up; which had another sort of Work to do; to offer up spiritual Sacrifices: So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful, and convenient for that design; and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church. Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament, that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament, he gaineth this Argument: but this, I hope, he will not attempt. The High Priest was a Type of Christ, as He is the Head of the Church, and as He offered up that one Sacrifice, which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority, were especially employed in. Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church, to represent a Saviour for every Diocess, under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices? 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest, is not only said without all Scripture Warrant; but is most absurd: for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God; but the Bishops are many in the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church, or it is wholly insignificant. 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary for the Evangelical AEconomie, is first said without Book he used his Libertie, nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern. Next, the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest: because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church, as he could do of the Jewish Church. 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters, from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple: his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons, the Servants of the Church, were inferior to Presbyters, the Rulers of it; and this he setteth forth by the Similitude (not binding Pattern) of the Levites being inferior to the Priests, whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices: wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was; and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were, and the Deacons what the Levites were; but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side, and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters (whom he had been proving to be the same) and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons. 5. If he can shew us that any … the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish, to a Christian Hierarchie, … to infer that they should be alike, or that they infer any more from … than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers, we shall consider what they say.
§ 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome: he taketh notice p: 74, 75. That, Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius; in which the Divine Original, and Institution, of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters, is frequently and plainly expressed And after, when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr, it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval, after the Apostles, in which the Church was governed by … Parity of Presbyters. This is a strange way of reasoning: Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles, Ergo, though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain, yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them: neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man, and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things, and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine. All that Jerome saith is, that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians, another to the Magnesians, &c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy, nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote, and that Jerome mentioneth; or that they are not vitiated. … will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles, whether they be spurious or legitimate; whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr, or by an other of that Name, long after: but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth, that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters, is, in them, frequently and plainly expressed. When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done, we shall consider them. He bringeth another Evidence, as he thinketh, of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter, p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat: 23. Quod fecerunt & Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos & Presbyteros ordinantes. I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works, and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse, of what he designed by that Expression: but the words contain no Argument; for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct; especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same. Jerome might well say, in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers, whom we now distinguish by these Names. What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason; that this Constitution (setting Bishops over Presbyters) followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church; because Jerome in Epistola …d Titum, saith, priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos puta…it esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus, &c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed: if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony; he must assert that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs, not Christs; and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth. which I hope he will not say: It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men: and after that Schism Bishops were set up; which no man will say was in the Apostles time. He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy: p. 78, 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places, by the Apostles themselves. The Answer is plain and easie: the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches; that …s Ministers, who were to teach and rule them: but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters) had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters, …s the question, and is not determined by this Argument.
§ 12. He next citeth Jerome, Epistola ad Nepotium. Esto subjectus pontifici …o, & quasi animae parentem suscipe: quod Aaron & silios ejus, hoc Episcopum & Presbyteros esse neverimus. This Citation is lame: between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth, there is, besides other things, this Passage; sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse, non Dominos: honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos: Ut & ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis hon… deferatur: scitum est illud oratoris Domitii, cur ego (inquit) te habe… ut Principem, cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem. Then followeth, qu… Aaron, &c. And he addeth, unus Deus, unum Templum, unum etiam … Ministerium: and he citeth to this purpose, 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3. and addeth, pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui; quasi aut invideant, aut non dignentur audire. It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time, and not of what was the Apostles practice, or what was Divine Institution: and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose: for our present Debate is, whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution. Next, it is also manifest, that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were the… aspiring to; not approving the way of that time. We deny not the in that Age, the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached upon; in some places more, and in some less; though we see no cause to think, that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for. 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith, that no further Prelation is here hinted at, than that of any Minister of the Gospel, or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio: for every Minister may be called Pontifex, and Parens anime, (as the Dialect then was) and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons, importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority, as all the Priests had: it is a Similitude, and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos & Clericos, ca… be drawn to no more but this; that in his time, there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity; it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction; though I deny not but that some were then aiming at i… His Citation out of Ep. 54, Hieron. I find not, he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written. It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his. That he saith there, Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum; cannot prove his point: for the same may be said of all Presbyters; and Jerome saith so expresly of them, Ep. ad Ocean: as I cited § 3: they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them: and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had: but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward. That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince, or Governour, is also inconcludent: for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters. He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum, Episcopi (saith he) & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur & meritum. All that he can draw from this is, that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time; which is not denyed: but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other. He had been telling Paulinus, how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way; and instanceth the Roman Captains, Philosophers, Poets, Orators; and this he applieth to Church men; that they also should follow the best Examples: it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense, that Bishops should imitate the Apostles, and Presbyters the Apostolick men: especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops. His exors & ab omnibus eminens potestas, he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation, that I know not where to find it; and therefore shall say nothing of it. To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79, 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth; which duely considered, let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with.
§ 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80, & seq: to vindicate Augustine, that he was no Presbyterian. And, pray, who ever said he was one? That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time: only we bring his Authority to prove, that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right; or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression (as himself calleth it) containing insolent Contempt of, and Reproach against the Presbyterians; calling all that have written, beside Blondel and Salmasius, the little Bouffoons of the Party: he must here understand the London Ministers. the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus, Rutherford, Didoclavius, Gersom Bucer, and many others. If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons, this Book, and many others like it, might furnish them plentiful Matter. He chargeth them with Impiety, p: 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men: their Opinions, Dreams: saith, they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge, and other Passions: imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them, on account of this their Opinion. And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us, how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity: If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records, there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine, Apostolical, received without Interruption, and that by the Universal Church. That Scepticism will (by natural Consequence) pull down things more sacred, than the outward Hedge of Government: If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words, there can be no standing before him. He had been wiser if he had asserted less, and proved more: and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind, it may be his success had been no less. I will not contest with him in Railling, nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie: but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly. The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is, Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum: quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopus Presbytero major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. I freely yield to my Antagonist, that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation: and I add that this was needful, considering the higher Character (in the common estimation of that Age) that Augustine sustained, above Jerome, a Presbyter; and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him; nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level, in respect of Dignity, as then it was esteemed: but I place the force of our Argument on these two; the one is, Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome, even according to the Sentiment of that Age, but what was secundum honorum vocabula: he had a higher Title, he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction, that he, a Bishop, had above Jerome, a Presbyter: which had been much more pertinent, and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth. The other is, that even that superior Honour, he doth not derive from Divine Institution, or Apostolical Tradition, or constant Practice from the beginning; but from the Custome of the Church that then (that is in that Age) prevailed.
§ 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine, he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries (so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians) mistake his meaning, and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church. He endeavoureth then to prove, that by usus Ecclesiae, Augustine meant no other thing, than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning: and that this Notion is very familiar to him, that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority. Before I consider what he saith on this Head, I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design: viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae: but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity, not Jurisdiction; partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit, sed which jam obtinuit. He speaketh not of universal Practice, nor of perpetual Practice; but for a Practice that in his time had become common. I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning: he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie, of which they knew the Original; but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally, in all Churches, from the very first preaching of the Gospel, these he always considered as Sacred, and inviolable, and of Apostolick Authority: and of this sort, he saith, Austine thought Episcopacy to be: and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus: that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church, could have no beginning latter than the Apostles: his words are, quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum, non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus. He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer, as much as repeating it can do; that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language, signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church, which obtained in all Ages, and in all places, and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority. And hence he pleadeth, that unless we can shew what Council, Provincial or AEcumenick, introduced Episcopacy, it must be purely Divine. To all this I oppose a few Considerations. First, that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial, are not only to be distinguished, but differently regarded, I think it is very reasonable: and this learned Father did wisely observe it; but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction, that every thing is to be accounted Divine, the first Rise of which we cannot account for, I cannot assent to that; nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion. There were Customes, even in the Apostolick Church, which he will not say were of Divine Institution, and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began: such as the Love-Feasts; to which I may add the osculum pacis, which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle, that it should be done holily, without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness; yet I think few will say, the thing was enjoyned; for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it. And if there were such Customes that then crept in, why might it not be so afterward?
§ 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse, that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical, of which the Original, or time of beginning, could not be shewed: because that were to make Custome, and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice: and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church, not only in her Decrees, but in her Customes: which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves. If this Doctrine be true, no Custome of the Church can be contrary to, yea, nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition: it is not to be thought that Austine thought so, who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God, where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice. The words cited cannot be so far stretched; but are to be understood, in Subordination to the Scripture; where a Custome hath always, and universally obtained; and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule; that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original, if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in. If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes, as a Rule of Faith and Practice; yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age, together with that of after times: for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine, is a bold Assertion. If while the Apostles watched over the Church, some Weeds might grow; much more after their decease, while men slept, it might be so: 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general, were never so unexceptionable; how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome, or that Augustine lookt on it as such? Herein lyeth our present Debate; and he fancieth Austine is on his side, because he extolleth Custome; if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit, that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters, we shall part with this Argument, and lean no more to Austines Authority. This he hath not attempted, and we are sure he can never perform it. 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy. But we can prove, first; that it might come in an other way, as the Tares grew when Men slept; he might with as good Reason, when we see Tares growing among Wheat, prove that these Tares are good Wheat, because we cannot tell when, or by what particular Hand, they were sowen. Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church, by this Parable of the Tares? Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church. 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice, and to Scripture rule, it must needs be evil; though it have come in by no Council: if we find a Thief in the House, or a Disease in the Body, we may look on them as such, though we cannot tell how the one got into the House, nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other: now as to what we contest about, if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth, or that the Apostles allowed, we must yield the Cause. Before I proceed to what he further offereth, I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother, and yet it looketh like an Argument, p. 86. about the middle he saith, Austine intended no more, but that now under the Gospel, by the constant and early practice of the Church, from the days of the Apostles, the Character and Dignity of a Bishop, was above that of a Presbyter. He putteth, now, in a different Character, and expoundeth it by, the days of the Gospel. This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text; for if now be so understood, he must tell us when the time was, that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula, Episcopatus & Presbyterium, were not in use. Were they one and the same under the Law? Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years, or there about, speak so of that Distinction, if it were no newer? He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome, nor the Churches of Christ: doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion, that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose: the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule, as having the Head bare, or covered, wearing long or short Hair: it doth not thence follow (if the Apostle did there make it the Rule) that it must also be the Rule in other things, p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further, that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church, from the Custome of particular places, and he maketh the one mutable, the other not so. He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction. I know no body that doubteth of it, nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal, unless they clash with Scripture. But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us, that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church, or that Austine meant such a Usage, by his usus Ecclesiae.
§ 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh, for vindicating Austine, is, to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome, did begin at Peter; and thence argueth against the Donatists; that their Error was a Noveltie, because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist: if (saith my Antagonist) there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles; in which the Church was governed without Bishops, by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers, the Donatists might evite that Argument, by denying such a Succession. This is one of the silliest of all Arguments: it is captio ab homonymia: there was a Succession of faithful Men, who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time, among whom was no Donatist: it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie; but doth it follow that in all that Interval, that Church was governed by Prelates, with Jurisdiction over Presbyters? unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself, without the joint Authority of the Presbyters, he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand. He cannot be ignorant, that the word Bishop, signified in the Scripture Dialect, and in the Age that followed, any Church Ruler: and therefore that these men are called Bishops, cannot prove their sole, nor superior Jurisdiction. Austines Argument from this Succession, is equally strong against the Donatists, whether these called Bishops, were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters, or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome; or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there. If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time, it would have seemed to have more of sense. But even so, it would not be so concludent; for naming of one who might be the oldest, the most eminent, or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting, doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest. From this our Author inferreth, p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae, in Austines sense, is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter. I think none else can see this Consequence; for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters; in the other place (and they are different Books) he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction: nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other. He further argueth, that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick, on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter. This I have taken notice of above, § 1. It is no way to our present purpose, Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius, as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed, Ecclesiae usu: doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini? Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil, be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper, and Veracity, or of his Skill in close reasoning, I leave it to the Reader to judge. His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops, p. 91. doth not make it stronger. When he can say no more that looketh like Argument, he (according to his laudable Custome) concludeth this part of the Debate, with Railling and abusive Reflections; and confidently asserting his Conclusion, ad nauseam usque. Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients: they consult Blondel and Salmasius, and go no further than Smectymnus: he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness: they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences, torn from their neighbour places, when they have neither the Patience, nor good nature, to consider what the same Author saith else where: he calleth them, bauling People, and their way Confusion, and aequality. It is not only new but absurd; supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences: their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind, as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity. Thus he bantereth his Adversaries, when he cannot beat them out of their Principles, by the force of Argument, in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word: which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men, or Women, who fight with this Weapon.