Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 3
SECT. III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful.
THE Second Plea for Separation, that the Learned Dr. considereth, is, the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy; which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be, 1. Primitive; 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ; 3. That its Discipline, as exercised in England, doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches. All this he manageth, Sect. 8, &c. I might shun this whole Debate, having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation, except in so far as we are required to own it. But because we look on this Episcopacy, as unlawful to be used or owned, I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it: This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of, No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops, &c. and the defence of that Piece, under the Title of, Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times; which might supersede all that I have to say, and shall make me say the less, referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books; yet, lest there should be an hiatus in this Dis…ourse, I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Docto….
S…ct. 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government, (which the Dr. disproveth, p. 242, 243.) being singular, himself can best defend it; wherefore I leave it, and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned, first asserting a few things that may clear our way. 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel, it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church, as distinguished from her Servants, the Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work, 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues; those are the Magistrates Gifts, and do not cross Christ's Institution, whatever inconvenience may be in them. 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them. Nature maketh it necessary, that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion; and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency, whether for one meeting, for a Month, or Year, or during his life, and therefore the Church may determine in that: Yet we must add, That the perpetuating of a foreign, or making a moderator constant, having been, of old and late, the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy, and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way; so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation, we think it highly inconvenient. 4. Neither do we deny, that among Ministers, the wiser, graver, and men of more Holiness and Experience, should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified: It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren; yea, we deny not, but some of Opinion for parity of Power, have overborn their Brethren, through their loftiness of Spirit; an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian; it is not mens Corruptions, but their Principles that our debate is about. 5. We deny not, but the Name, Bishop, that in the Apostles times was common to all Elde…s of the Church, began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator, who also was called Primus Presbyter▪ and that this priority, for as small as it was, was too much affected and taken notice of, even in the Apostles times. Diotrephes (who is said, foreign, Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter) had a great mind to that dignity; but this was, when …ew of the Apostles were now alive. It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about, but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority. 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places, and was s…atched at in other places; while yet the ancient Order of Parity, among the Pastors of the Church, was in most places retained. 7. Though we deny, that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church, for the first Three Hundred Years, or that it was general in the fourth Century, and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government; yet it is not mens Authority, but divine Institution, that we are determiend by, and lay the stress of our Cause upon; and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie, but the Scripture.
Sect. 3. It might have been expected, that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame, as he doth, in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates, should have proved the Divine Institution, or at least, the lawfulness of that Office, and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it. This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences; but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier, though not so perswasive a way, to wit; to refute Mr. B's. Assertions about Episcopacy, and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question; as I hope shall appear in our Progress. And I have often observed, that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments.
Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear, and sure procedure in this Controversie, if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert; and the Foundation on which they build it, as to the thing; some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops, denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them, that they make it little or no more, but a Presidency: So the learned and Pious Vsher, who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party. Grotius also goeth this way, de Imper. sum. potest. circa sacra, p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church, and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren; yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves, but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church, who are to be their Counsel. Our Author, Iren. p. 309. saith, that both Jerom, and Ignatius agree, that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution. Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses; neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters; nor being liable to their censures: So the generality of our High Church-men. Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess; and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates; others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute, or delegate to none but Christ; some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel, and administer Sacraments in his own Person, and that this, he should be constantly exercised in: Others, that his Work is to rule, and that he need not trouble himself with other Work, unless he please. Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority; not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only, but of Government and Discipline, to others; yea, to Lay-men; that by them he may Excommunicate, and judge Ministers and People: Others think that he hath no power to do so; so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government, others allow it. Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church, and that really, and not seemingly only, as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter (who yet are not the Church) of whom they must proceed to a Mock election; others think those that come in this way, to be none of Christs Bishops. Some own Diocesan Bishops, who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy, as it is stated among us, in Metropolitans, Primates, Arch-bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, Chancellors, &c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter; others deny this; many School men are on both sides; it was debated at the Council of Trent. In all these things, I observe very much Confusion, and want of a distinct Idea of that Office, that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren.
Sect. 5. There is as little agreement, or distinctness among them about the Foundation, on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth: Some of them are for i…s divine Right, as being instituted by Christ: But this Plea they find so hard to be managed, and to have so ill success, and to be so little the way to preferment, (as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate) that most have laid it aside; others, that it is of Apostolick institution; being not commanded by Christ, but prudently setled by the Apostles. Others, that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church, af…er the decease of all the Apostles. Others, that it is wholly indifferent, and may be received, or not, as is thought most expedient in several times and places; and some of these say, this is to be determined by the Church: Others, by the Magistrate. This Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum asserteth; but is very uncertain, whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter. One of the most Learned of our Adversaries, Dr. Hammond, holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy, but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion; to wit, that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church, appointed by Christ, or ordained by the Apostles, were Diocesan Bishops, and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament, and their Office but a device of Men, or a constitution of the Church. This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham, on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion, from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity.
Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren, being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England, the owning of which is required of us; that we may judge aright of it, we must have a true Idea of it, and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, practised in the primitive Church with general approbation; or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon. The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it; First, The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to, and distinct Office from, other Presbyters, as appeareth not only from the power he hath, and they have not, and acts of Church-power reserved only to him; but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter. And yet further, because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates, or Curates, and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters, People and Flocks in the Diocess. Secondly, The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters. Thirdly, He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters. Fourthly, He may delegate this Power to whom he will, whether Men Ordained to the Ministry, or any of the people; so that by this Delegation, a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People. Fifthly, This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate; the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly, They are not chosen to this Office by the Church, but by the Magistrate; and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops. Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a B…shop as this in Scripture, or Antiquity, all that they say from either for an Episcopacy, is short of the thing in question, and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy, unless they prove this Episcopacy.
Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered, and I think never shall; and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others; yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground, I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it. The first shall be, ad hominem, against our learned Author: By this Author's Doctrine, there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters, was Instituted, Allowed, or Exercised in the Church; Ergo, according to him, it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it. The Antithesis I prove, If such a ground there be, it must lie in one of these three (if any asserters of it can add a fourth, we shall quit this Argument) either Christs appointing it in Scripture, or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office, or the practice of the Church, shewing us what was Christs allowance. But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy, all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter. For the first, he denyeth such an Institution, asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel; this is the basis of his Irenicum. The second, he never had the confidence to assert, neither is the least hint in all the Scripture, that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them, and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power. For the third, he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain, from the Defectiveness, Ambiguity, Partiality, and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times, Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ, practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times, or any way allowed.
Sect. 8. Our second Argument is, There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church, that are mentioned in the Bible, neither in their Name, nor Office, nor Power, nor Work, nor Qualifications, nor Respect or Obedience due to them, nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered; whence I thus Argue: If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church, he would have hinted some thing about this distinction; but this he hath not done, Ergo, &c. The first proposition I prove, first, Because this was needful for these distinct Officers, that each might know his work: And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments: And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations, that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter,—and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop; that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation, nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them, nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters, all these belonging to the Bishop. 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture, among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church, in their Names, Qualifications, Work, and Office, as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2, 9. Also between Preaching Elders, and those that are only Ruling Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, let them do it: I hope none of them will say, that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop, least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he, either by affording him more respect or maintenance: I suppose our Bishops will rather part with the Patrimony of this Text, then with their Titles, Grandeur, and Revenues.
Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before, for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture, and we can shew an identity in them; And first, for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus, Bishops. It is a groundless fancy of some, that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia; for this is said without any shew of proof, to serve a turn. Besides that, they are called the Elders of the Church, not Churches, as (even in the prelatical Stile) Diocesan districts should be called. And it is called the Flock, not Flocks, and the Church of God, not the Churches of God, that they were to take heed to; and the haste that the Apostle then was in, considering the short time, and long journey that he had before him, was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts. This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned, as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters. Also it is most clear, Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified, a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications, for a B…shop must be Blameless; if they were not one, this reason should have neither force nor sence, which were Blasphemy to averr, it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning.
Sect. 10. In the next place, Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them (how consistently with their other principles I enquire not) and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture. Thirdly, for their power, if Bishops ordained, so did Presbyters, 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops, they must prove it: If Bishops had rule over the people, were over them, so were Presbyters, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people, admonish them, and watch for their Souls; (I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in) and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers, and are over them. Fourthly, Their Work is the same, as is clear both from the places last cited, and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. Where taking heed to, feeding, and over-seeing, in the Greek, acting the part of Bishops, foreign, are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church. 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons, they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church, are set down by themselves, 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly, for Obedience, Reverence, Maintenance, or any thing else, that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter, there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered; a Man must then put force upon his reason▪ or be strangely swa…ed by prejudice, who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament, that is above the Presbyters of the Church, or hath jurisdiction over them.
Sect. 11. Argument third. The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church, without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop, or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced; Ergo, no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church. The consequence I prove, first, Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ, and not tell us of them all: Let our brethren, if they can, give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this. Secondly, The consequence can yet less be questioned, if we consid…r that not only an Officer is left out, and the Church left without a hint concerning him; but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church, that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World, and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend: He who can believe this, his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass, that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow; the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop; some say, they are reducible to Apostles. With what face can wise men alledge this? Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary, and temporary, appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel, and planting Churches; and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer: Diocesans have their limitted charges: Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles, not as being absolutely such, but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had. But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office, or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostl…s, but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church. Secondly, They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles, did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office, as should be afterward thought convenient. What may not men devise in the Church, that take on them thus to add to, or diminish from Christs Institutions, and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests?
Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers, Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops, and this with as little ground as the former, though some learned Men have so dreamed, as Estius, and Doctor Hammon. Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant, but the absurdity of this fancy will appear, First, If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters, which is an indecency un…uitable to the Apostles Exactness, if my Lord Bishop we…e here meant. I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles, and are extraordinary Officers, because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles, which Argument will as well hold here. Secondly, The work of the Bishop that we speak of, which discriminateth him from the Presbyter, is not to Teach but to Rule: Therefore others, as Calvin, by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers, and instructeth them and others in the truth, and defendeth it against Heresies; such as are Divinity Professors in Universities; others understand Catechists: But it is evident that it cannot, with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop, who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work; some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps, 1 Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond; both of them also make him to be meant by Government; and the same two Authors, in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer. They would be sure to find him somewhere, but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found. Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words, would use such repetition? When so Learned Men are put to such shifts, it is a sign the cause is so weak, that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by. That they are not meant by Teachers, I have already shewed; neither are they meant by Helps. foreign saith Grotius, significat, curam rei alicujus gerere: This is said without Book (be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick.) I find Authors cited for its signifying, to take hold, undertake, uphold, help, correct; but none for its signifying, to take charge of a thing. The place he referreth to, Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping; and among all Criticks and other Interpreters, he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word, either here or in that place: but Men will say any thing to serve a turn. Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government, not only because they are among the last, and so the most inferior of Church-Officers; but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule, and not Teach (though it is too much their practice, yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution) as this Officer must do, he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher. I conclude, If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church, we might have expected he should have, if not clearly, yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind, set him down in some of these Cat…logues, which is not done.
Sect. 13. Argument fourth. The power that we read of in the New Testament, was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone, but by the Church-Guides in Common; Ergo, there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament, and if we have no warrant there, our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable. That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances, leaving to our Brethren, if they can, to bring Instances to the contrary. First, Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common, 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place, that Presbytery is meant of the Office, for both it is a harsh phrase, the hands of the Office; and further the word foreign is often used in the New Testament, yet is never used for the Office, but for the College of Presbyters; the Office is called foreign saith Camerarius; others say, That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles, who are called Presbyters: This cannot be, for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles, equal in Authority with himself, had concurred, but might well do it, when, he as chief, and the ordinary Pastors as sub…rdinate, did join in this Action, for (it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text) the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often, but when the Church was constitut…d, acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors; and there was good reason for this, to wit, both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them, and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations, which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone.
Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication, which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eld…rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man; he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop, but to a Company of Men, 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan, vers. 4, 5. That they should purge out that old leaven, vers. 7. That it was their part (not a single persons part) to Judge the Members of the Church, vers. 12. That they should put away the wicked person, vers. 13. and sp…aking of this Sentence, 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many, and ascribeth the power of forgiving (i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication) to them, not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan, or about the Apostles Interest in this Action, it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging (which implyeth Authority) exercised by a Community. A Third, Instance of this is, 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle. This is not to be understood as some take it, of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle, that they should write to Paul; For First, The emphatick particle foreign put before foreign denoteth that Epistle, to wit, that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write. Secondly, The Greek word will not bear that signification foreign here used, is Note, or set a mark on him; to Signifie, or give Notice, is foreign which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient. Thirdly, He telleth them what should follow on this Note▪ set on the Man, and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted; to wit, that they should have no company with him; this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle, while no Sentence was as yet passed against him, but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him. If then Church-Discipline, in the Apostolick and best times of the Church, and especially while the Apostles being yet alive, might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates, the Evangelists, was yet exercised usually in Common, and not by a single Bishop; we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church.
Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought, but I shall not now insist on them, having maintained some of them against this learned Author, in my Animadversions on his Irenicum. Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument, as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church, that succeeded to the Apostles. This may the more heighten our scruple, that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church; if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop, but much to the contrary, they ought not to blame us if we cannot with them own such an Office in the Church. The first Testimony that I bring, is that of Jerome, who giveth his Judgment of this matter, not Obi…er, but of set purpose, as that which was his setled Opinion, and that oftner than …nce. In his Epistle to Euagrius, where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent, that preferred Deacons to Presbyters, i. e. saith he, to Bish…ps, but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same, for which he citeth, Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5, 6, 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth; clanget tuba Evang…l…j, filius toni…ru, &c. and so citeth, 2 Joh. ver. 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest, he telleth, that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty, Greatness or Meanness; the difference of Cities where they are, sive Romae, sive E…g…bij, sive Constantinopoli, &c. they are ejusdem meriti & Sacerdotii; and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus, about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons, saith nothing of Presbyters; because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop; that is, they are the same. What may seem to make against our cause, in this Epistle, is, that he saith, quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum, which he saith was, ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens, Christi ecclesiam rumperet; which was done, saith he, in Alexandria, a Marci Temporibus. This may well be unde…stood of a Moderator of their Meetings, who had power of Convening the Presbyters, least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure; and so breed confusion; and it must be so understood; not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction; unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle. Another passage is, quid enim facit Episcopus prae…er, Ordinationem, quod non facit Presbyter: Which cannot be understood of Ordination, or s…le Ordination of Presbyters; for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter; which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse; but Ordination here, must be, ordering of their Meetings; which is the part of the foreign or Moderat…r. One might also alledge, that in the Writings of this learned Father, a passage, Obiter set down, is not to be taken notice of, in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of h…s Discourse, tho' they be …n…nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings, and cited also by Dr. Stillingfl…et, Ireniou…, p. 278. Itaq…e ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia, & in me…e mea plurima conservans, accito notario, vel mea, vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum, interdum nec sensuum meinor.
Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom, c…mment. in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject, and asserte…h the same opinion as before, Idem ergo (saith he) Presbyter qui Episcopus, & antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Appollo, ego Cephae (alluding to the Schism mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular, as some fansy) Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur; postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, toto orbe decretum est, Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, ut Schismatum semina tolerentur; and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he citeth many Scriptures, as above; and sheweth, that Bishop denoteth the Office, Presbyter the Age. He citeth also, Heb. 13. 17. Ibi (saith he) equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur. And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter, to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate. And in conclusion of that discourse, making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth; saith, videamus igitur qualis Presbyter, sive Episcopus, ordinandus sit. What Jerom saith, toto orbe decretum est, is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council, for no such Decree can be produced; but that this Remedy of Schism in many places, began then to be thought on; and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in; it being then about the end of the Fourth Century, when Jerom wrote. And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's, but of Mans inventing; and accordingly it succeeded; for it proved worse than the Disease, bringing in Tyranny, and overturning Christ's Institution; and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it, as Jerom saith; Man gave a Being to it, and Satan improved it to carry on his designs. The omnis eccle…iae cura, that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa, which, he saith, was the way of the Gospel; and therefore either we must make Jerom say, That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution, and contrary to Apostolick practice, which will make the way of the Primitive Church, and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times; and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy; or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church, not of the solitude of it in one Man, excluding the rest of the Presbyters, that he had a special inspection, though he might not exercise Discipline by himself.
Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom, is Ep. ad Heliodorum, Fol. (mihi) 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter, and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist; they have claves Regni Coelorum & quodammodo diem judicij indicant, and then addeth, Illi (Presbytero) si peccavero, licet tradere me Satanae. Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop. And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time; which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae. There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose, Ep. ad Demet. Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit; quos interdum abjicit; in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum & Clericorum censura desaevit; which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days, into the Hands of Presbyters, and not into the Hands of Bishops only, whatever Priority they had above the other. It is worth our Observation, that several Popish Writers (as zealous for Prelacy as ours are) confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose, that they find no way to Answer, but to Condemn him of Error in this matter. And Bellarm. de clericis, lib. 1. c. 15. confesseth that Sedulius & Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam, In Comment. in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom, because he was a Presbyter, and no Bishop, I hope they will allow us the like liberty, to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them, who themselves were Bishops; and then let them reckon their Gain, when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll.
Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly. Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications, and other Censures, saith, they are done in the Assemblies, and that praesident probati quique seniores. Clem. Alexandr. Stromat. lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores: Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century. Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common, and every Assembly had its president, with power of Discipline. Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century, when no little Deviation had been made from the right way; yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction; for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked, quia sine alicujus fratris consilio. But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause, was approved, quia cum fratribus, & consacerdotibus participatum processit, Ambros. Ep. ad Syagrium: And even Cyprian, as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy, as that age could bear, Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance. I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine, as a Witness of this Truth, Ep. 19. ad Hieron. Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus, Presbytero major sit: He maketh the Bishop Major, not Lord over the Presbyter; and even that Majority, was but by the Custom of the Church, not divine Ordinance, and a custom that had now obtained, was not always. Also, lib. quaest. com. he proveth from, 1 Tim. 3. B…shop and Presbyter to be one; and saith, qu…d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter, and this O…eness he further sheweth, because Bishops (such as then were; to wit, in the beginning of the Fifth Century, when the Order of the Church was much changed) called the Presbyters, Compresbyteri, but never called the Deacons, Condiaconi, Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office, but Deacons being distinct from them both. The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom, in 1 Tim. 3. homil. 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil; quippe & Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est; & quae de Episcopis dicuntur, eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt; sola quippe ordinatione superiores ill… sunt. Bellarm. saith that Primasius, Theophilactus, and Oecumenius on that Text, teach the same things, and almost in the same words: And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century; the last in the Tenth or Eleventh. The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this, is not worth taking notice of; to wit, Chrysost. meaneth, that Presbyters have jurisdiction, as Bishops have, but only by Commission from the Bishop: This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse, which is to shew an Identity of them, as they are in themselves. What he alledgeth out of this Citation; that a Bishop may ordain, not a Presbyter, the learned Father's expression will not bear; for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have, whereby they are put in their Office, to be different; which he doth not alledge; or that the difference between them was only in order, or precedency, not in Power or any Authority; or that it was by the Ordination, or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution; but it can never signifie the power of ordaining; for then Christ (who was sufficiently a Master of words) would have said, potestate ordinandi, not Ordinatione.
Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations; which tho they be not …oncludent in themselves, being but humane Testimonies; yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops, to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church. The, 1 is, That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters, lib. 4. dist. 24. liter. I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons; because the primitive Church had only these; and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment; the rest were after appointed by the Church. And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop, Arch-Bishop, &c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins, Horum autem disoretio (saith he) a gentilibus introducta videtur. Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited, deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy. The 2 Consideration, is, That the Waldenses, Albigenses, Wickliff and his Followers, and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrin…s that the Protestants now profess, were of a Parity among Presbyters, and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops. This is confessed by Medina, and is not denyed by Bellarm. and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this; it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis, that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders, Priests and Deacons, and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest, Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent. 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State; for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops, where their Religion was suppressed. The third thing that I offer to be considered, is, The observation of Spanhemius, a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church, in his Epitom. Isag…g. ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt, whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches; whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii, as Tertul. de pudicitia, c. 25. or only a reverence to their age, and their conversing with the Apostles, and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition.