A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (2 of 3)

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (2 of 3)

p. 268First▪ For the manner of conferring it; that under the§. 12. Synagogue was done by laying on of hands: Which was taken up among the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them, and thereby qualifying them either p. 269to be members of their Sanhedrins, or Teachers of the Law. A… twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite, beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid. The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon, for the right, use, and peculiar service of God, And that I suppose was the reason of layingLevit. 16. 21.Lev 16:21 hands upon the Beast under the Law, which was to be sacrificed, thereby noting their own parting with any right in it, and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him. Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion, which they call translatio de manu in manum. The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon, and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid. For the hands with us being the instruments of action, they did by stretching out their hands upon the person, represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of theEp ad Gallos▪ ep. 154. &. 166. Ioh. Cord. & V. in Mat. 9. 19:Matt 9:19 per…on thus designed. Tunc enim …rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum, sicut manus efficaciae symbolum, ei imponebatur as Grotius observes. Thence in all solemn Prayers, wherein any person was particularly designed, they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands: from which Custome, Augustine speaks, Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio Gen. 48. 14▪Gen 48:14super hominem? Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children, he laid his hands upon them; so when Moses Numb. 27. 23.Num 27:23prayed over Ioshua. The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children, healing the Sick, and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost; and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church▪ who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons, As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church, in Confirmation, and in Matrimony; which (as Grotius observes) is to this day used in the Abissine Churches. But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them: Not as though the bare Imposition of hands, did conferre any power upon the Person, (no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it, p. 270without express transferring Dominion with it) but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them: Which were to this purpose foreign Ecce sis tu Ordinatus, or foreign ego ordino te, or foreign sis ordinatus, to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to, some thing peculiarly expressing it, whether it was for causes finable, or pecuniary, or binding and loosing, or ruling in the Synagogue. Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination, without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination. This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches, we find them accordingly making use of this, according to the former practice, either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons, or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function: For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them, or Ordination of them: But the thing its self being enjoyned them, viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted, they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions. And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons, answering to the foreign in the Synagogue, whoseActs 6. 6.Acts 6:6 Office was to collect the moneys for the poor, and to distribute it among them. Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue, which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost; but although the occasion wasActs …: 17. extraordinary, yet supposing the occasion, the use of that rite in it, was very suitable, in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the foreign and the foreign which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands. The next time we meet with this rite, was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons alreadyActs 13. 3.Acts 13:3 appointed by God for the work of the Ministry, which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at p. 271Antioch▪ whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches▪ Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church▪ Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards,… 14. Lay hands suddenly on no man. For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite, must… 5▪ … ▪ first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome, which doth not yet appear. But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches, did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands, but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice, viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people. Which place is Acts 14▪ 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas foreign: We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church. But others from the signification of the word foreign would have it rendered▪ When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people. But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words, will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things. First, that though foreign did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks, yet before the time of Lukes writing this, the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony. So Hesychius interprets it by foreign, the word usedTitus 1. 5. V. Demost. Phil. 1. & advers. Simon. & Ulpian in Schol.Titus 1:5Phil 1 of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City; and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for foreign, and foreign, to decree and appoint; and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself, Acts 10. 41. foreign, Witnesses foreappointed of God. Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers, before, and about the time when Luke Writ, from Philo Iudaeus, Iosephus, Appian, Lucian and others. But Secondly▪ V. Selden. de Syned. l. 1. cap. 14▪ Grot. de Imp. Sum. Potest. c. 10. s. 5.granting it used in the primary signification of the word, yet it cannot be applied to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas; for it is not said that the people did foreign, but that Paul and Barnabas did foreign: now where ever that word is used in its first signification, it is implyed to be the p. 272action of the persons themselves giving suffrages, and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others. Thirdly, foreign may import no more then foreign, in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out: Which is onelyonly a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent, or one part for the whole action; and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers, see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose. Fourthly, It seems strangely improbable thatPerpet. Govern. of Christs Church. c. 7. the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people, when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for; but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on, by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them, whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work. The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequen… to their ordination. So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue.

The second thing we consider, is, The persons authorized to do it: whom we consider under a double respect, before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves; and after. First, Before they had restrained themselves of their ownTract. San. cap. 4. s. 5. Ad tit. Sanhed c. 1. De Syned. l. 2. c. 7. s. …. liberty, then the general rule for Ordinations among them was foreign every one regularly ordained, himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples, as Maimonides affirms. To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden foreign Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said, that in times of old, every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples: to which purpose many instances are there brought. But it is generally agreed among them, that in the time of Hillel this course was altered, and they were restrained from their former liberty; in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations; or, as they say, out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel, they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the foreign the Prince of the Sanhedrin, or a license obtained from him for that end; and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin p. 273should be looked upon as null and void; which is attested by the former Authors. The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church; for we may consider them in their first state and period, as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common, as Hierom tells us, communi Presbyterorum conci…io Ecclesi… Hierony n. in 1. Tit.gubernabantur: before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent, in this instant doubtlesse, the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did, of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination. To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists, who are the h…ghest among the Papists, for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy. Yet Gratian himself confesseth, Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Dist. 60. c. Mull. ex urb. Pay.& Presbyteratum; hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur. And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law; Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum & Sacerdotum, & nomina erant communia.—Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt Dist. 95. Gloss.distingui & nomina & officia. Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom, and the matter we are now upon; in the first Primitive Church, the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church, and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves; because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them, and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries. And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order, and not mee…ly from the power of jurisdiction. It beingV. Francis Masons defence of Ordination of Presbyters. likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen, that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters, as to the power of order. But the clearest evidence of this, is in the Church of Alexandria, of which Hierom speaks; Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ us que ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu coll…catum, Episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem Ep. 85. ad Evagrium.faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint, & Archidiaconum vocent. That learned Doctor who would p. 274perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person, but the ordination was performed by other Bishops, would do well first to tell us, who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were, who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop ofV. Selden. ad E…tych. n. 22. p. 143. Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters; especially, while Aegypt remained but one Province, under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis. Secondly, how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria, for that which was common to all other Churches besides? For theDist. 6…. sect. h…r. old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was, Electio clericorum est, consensus principis, petitio plebis. Thirdly, this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted. For first, the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice, as appearsAdvers. Lucil. by his words. Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas, as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters, not to any Apostolical institution, but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves: which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of, viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves. Secondly, it appears that by election, he means conferring authority, by the instances he brings to that purpose; As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours, who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword; and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon, who had no other power but what was meerly con…erred by the choice of the Co…ledge of Deacons. To which we may add what Eutychius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, saith in his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by ourOrigin. p. 29, 30. mo… learned Selden, who expresly affirms, that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See, did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him Patriarch. Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case, coming so near to Hierom p. 275as he doth, who doubtless, had he told us that Mark and Anianus, &c. did all there without any Presbyters, might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius (who there unhappilyB…blioth. Cod. 254. follows the story of the seven sleepers) or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum; so much doth mens interest…tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living. By these we see, that where no positive restraints from consent and choice, for the unity and peace of the Church, have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction, every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church. Governour, hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for1 Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14 it. To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, is no wayes impertinently alledged, although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action, (as it is most probable he did) because, if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination, to what purpose were their hands laid upon him? Was it only to be witnesses of the fact, or to signifie their consent? both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony; which will scarce be instanced in, to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony. We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church, when the former liberty was restrained, by some act of the Church it self▪ for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations, So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this;Rosellis de po…. Imper. & Papae. p. 4. c. 18 Quilibet Presbyter & Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè, & schismata oriebantur. Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently, and thence arose schisms: thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries, as the foreign or Prince of the Sanhedrin, without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular. The main controversie is, when this restraint began, and by whose act; p. 276whether by any act of the Apostles, or only by the prudence of the Church its self, as it was with the Sanhedrin. But in order to our peace, I see no such necessity of deciding it, both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters: and the exercise of that power may be restrained still, granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them. So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church. For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church, acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters, which may be exercised in case of necessity, do thereby make it evident, that none who grant that, do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination; for then it must be wholly unlawful, and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid. Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England, as shall be largely made appear afterwards. On the other side, those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful, do not therefore hold them necessary, but it being a matter of liberty, and not of necessity (Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain) this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace; and matters of liberty being restrained, ought to be submitted to, in order to the Churches Peace. And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius. For as to the matter it self, I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina'sMich Medinas de s… …. hom. … …rig. & contin. l. 1. cap. 5. judgement will prove true, that Hierom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodores, Theophylact, were all of Aerius his judgement, as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church: but here lay the difference▪ Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches, because they were Bishops. And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned, was for unnecessary separationPraes. p. 58. from the Church of Sebastia, and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things, as Eustathius the Bishop did: Whereas, had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned, there can be no reason p. 277assigned, why this heresie, if it were then thought so, was not mentioned either by Socrates, Theodoret; Sozomen, or Evagrius, before whose time he lived; when yet they mention the Eustathiani, who were co-temporaries with him. But for Epiphanius and Augustine, who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks, it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him, or they took the name Heretick (as it is evident they often did) for one, who, upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church, did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church; which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius. For otherwise it is likely that Ierome, who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius, and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie, should himself run into the same Heresie, and endeavour not only to assert it, but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church? Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius, because, though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters, yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius, that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from; nay, he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church, by separating from Bishops, that his opinion is clear, that the first institution of them, was for preventing schisms, and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God. And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ou… of Ierome for the superiority of Bishop… above Presbyters, I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right, but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God: Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose; Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exsors quaedam Dial. ad Lucifer.& ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes. Where nothing can be more evident than that he would have some supereminent power attributed to the Bishop for preventing schisms in the Church. But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in p. 278his other writings, I would fain know whether a mans judgment must be taken, from occasional and incidental passages, or from designed and set discourses; which is as much as to ask, whether the lively representation of a man by picture, may be best taken, when in haste of other business he passeth by us, giving only a glance of his Countenance, or when he purposely and designedly sits, in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented? Besides, it is well known that Hierom in his Commentaries on Scripture, (where he doth not expresly declare his own opinion) doth often transcribe what he finds in others, without setting down the name of any Authour he had it from. For which we have his ingenuous confession in his Epistle to Augustine, Ep. August. ep. 11Itaque ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia (speaking of former Commentaries) & in mente mea plurima conservans; accito notario, vel mea vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum interdum, nec sensuum memor. A strange way of writing Commentaries on Scripture, wherein a man having jumbled other mens notions together in his brain, by a kind of lottery draws out what next comes to hand, without any choice: yet this we see was his practice, and therefore he puts Austin to this hard task of examining what all other men had writ before him, and whether he had not transcribed out of them, before he would have him charge him with any thing which he finds in his Commentaries. How angry then would that hasty Adversary have been, if men had told him he had contradicted himself in what he writes on the forty fifth Psalm about Bishops, if it be compared with his Commentaries on Titus, where he professeth to declare his opinion, or his Epistles to Evagrius and Oceanus! But yet some thing is pleaded even from those places in Hierom, wherein he declares his opinion more fully, as though his opinion was only, that Christ himself did not appoint Episcopacy, which (they say) he means by Dominica dispositio, but that the Apostles did it, which, in opposition to the former, he calls Ecclesiae consuetudo, but elsewhere explains it by traditio Apostolica; and this they prove by two things; First, The occasion of the institution of Episcopacy, which is thus set down by him, antequam Diaboli instinctu, studia in religione p. 279fierent, & diceretur in populis; Ego sum▪ Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae guber▪ nabantur. Thence it is argued, that the time of this Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; which was certainly in Apostol cal times. But to this it is answered; First, That it is impossible Hieroms meaning should be restrained to that individual time, because the arguments which Hierom brings that the name and office of Bishops and Presbyters were the same, were from things done after this time. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians, wherein he reproves their schisms, was written according to Ludovicus Cappellus in the twe…fth year ofHist. Apostolica. p. 7… Claudius, of Christ fifty one, after which Paul writ his Epistle to Titus, from whose words Hierom grounds his discourse▪ but most certainly Pauls Epistle to the Philippians was not written, till Paul was prisoner at Rome; the time of the writing of it is placed by Cappellus in the third of Nero; of Christ 56. by Blondell 57. by our Lightfoot 59. by all, long after the former to the Corinthians; yet from the first verse of this Epistle, Hierom fetcheth one of his arguments. So Pauls charge to the Elders at Miletus, Peters Epistle to the dispersed Jews, were after that time too, yet from these are fetched two more of Hieroms arguments. Had he then so little common sense, as to say, that Episcopacy was instituted upon the schism at Corinth, and yet bring all his arguments for parity, after the time that he s…s for the Institution of Episcopacy? But secondly, Hierom doth not say, cum diceretur apud Corinthios, Ego sum Pauli, &c. but cum diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, &c: so that he speaks not of that particular schism, but of a general and universal schism abroad among most people, which was the occasion of appointing Bishops; and so speaks of others imitating the schism and language of the Corinthians. Thirdly, had Episcopacy been instituted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth, certainly of all places, we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it; and yet almost of all places, those Heralds that derive the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times, are the most plunged, whom to fix on at Corinth. And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth p. 280at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them (about another schism as great as the former, which certainly had not been according to their opinion, if a Bishop had been there before) must have better eyes and judgement, than the deservedly admired Grotius, who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as one argument of the undoubted antiquity of thatEp. ad Gal. ep. 162. Epistle: Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum auctoritatis, quae Ecclesiae consuetudine, post Marci mortem Alexandriae, at que eo exemplo alibi, introduci coepit; sed planè, ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit, Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum, qui iidem omnes & Episcopi ipsi Paulo que dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas. What could be said with greater freedom, that there was no such Episcopacy then at Corinth? Fourthly, They who use this argument, are greater strangers to St. Ierom's language than they would seem to be: whose custome it is upon incidental occasions to accommodate the phrase and language of Scripture to them: as when he speaks of Chrysostom's fall, Cecidit Babylon, cecidit; of the Bishops of Palestine, Multi utroque claudicant pede; of the Roman Clergy, Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus; but which is most clear to our purpose, he applyes this very speech to the men of his own time; Quando non id ipsum omnes loquimur, & alius dicit, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephae, dividimus spiritûs unitatem, & eam in partes & membra discerpimus. All which instances are produced by Blondell, but have the good fortuneApol. p. 4. to be past over without being taken notice of. But supposing, say they, that it was not till after the schism at Corinth, yet it must needs be done by the Apostles; else how could it be said to be toto orbe decretum, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris? Quomodo enim (saith a learned man) fieri po…uit, ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur, nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congrega…o, si non ab Apostolis ipsis, fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss, & cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit? So that he conceives, so general an order could not be made, unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it.

But First, Ieroms In toto orbe dicret…m est, relates not to an antecedent order, which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy, but to the universal establishment of that order p. 281which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms; it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy, which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ, when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace; therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est, but in toto orbe; noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death. Which that it was Ieroms meaning, appears by what he saith after, Paulatim verò (ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur) ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam: Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it: which I suppose was thus, according to his opinion; first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles, there being a necessity of order, there was a President among them who had foreign ▪ as the President of the Senate, i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly, by proposing matters to it, gathering voices, being the first in all matters of concernment, but he had not foreign, as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them, i. e. had no powerExercit. ad Annal. Eccles. 15. s. 12.Sir 15 over his fellow-Presbyters, but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them. After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way, who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries, or delegated some to do it (who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles, and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord, and sometimes Evangelists, and by Theodoret Apostles, but of a second order) after I say, these were deceased, and the main power left in the Presbyteries, the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves, especially being many in one City, thereby great occasion was given to many schisms, partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another, partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest, partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters, by which they were more able to increase their own party, by ordaining those who would joyn with them, and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church; upon this, when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination; p. 282and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles, and their Deputies, and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves, they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number, who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him▪ yet so as that he …ct nothing of importance, without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters, who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop. This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome: Which model of Government thus contrived and framed, sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation, which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians; and which, when men have searched and studyed all other wayes, (the abuses incident to this Government, through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched) will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form, both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries, and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy, and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity, Concord, and Peace. Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party, why they may not with chearfulness embrace it.

Secondly, another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves, is by the words which follow the matter of the decree, viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, one chosen not only out of, but by the Presbyters, should be set above the rest; for so Ierome must be understood; for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest; and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters, and not by the Apostles. Besides, did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles, he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it: which we see not in him the least ground for. And as for that pretence, that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio, I have p. 283already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome, is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae, which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself. Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo, & praecepta Hieron. ep. 20. ad Lucinum.majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Let every Province abound in its own sense, and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws. Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions, viz the practice of the Church in former ages, though not coming from the Apostles themselves. Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together; I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church, were of his temper for the practice of their own; and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right, yet (being duly moderated, and joyned with Presbyteries) they may embrace it, as not only a lawful, but very useful constitution in the Church of God. By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out, most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations, and Church power, viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie. For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church, as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie. So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination, which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue, and the customes observed in it, transplanted into the Church.

There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination,§. 14. wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue, which will admit of a quick dispatch, as the number of the persons, which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three. This being a fundamental constitution among theMisna & Gemar. tit. Sanhedr. c. …. Tic. Sanhed. cap. 4. s 3. Arcan. Cath. Viritat. l. 4. cap. 6. Jews, as appears by their writings, foreign Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done. by three at the least. To the same purpose Maimonides foreign They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three. Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained p. 284themselves; but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if thereDe Concord. orbis p. 377 were but one of that number so ordained, who was to be as principal in the action; whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides, who adds to the words last cited out of him; Of which Three, one at the least must be ordained himself. Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God. The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel, which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow, is that we read of, Acts 13. 1, 2, 3. Which was performed by three; for we read in the first verse, that there were in the Church at Antioch, five Prophets and Teachers, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul; of these five, the Holy-Ghost said, that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them, which were, Barnabas and Saul; there remain onelyonly the other three, Simeon, Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them, and ordain them to their work. AccordinglyEuseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem, do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him. But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council, wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops, without which it was not accounted Canonical. The words are these, foreign,Can. 4. foreign i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should; if possible, be performed by all the Bishops of the Province, which if it cannot easily be done, either through some urgent necessity, or the tediousness of the way, three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it, which may be sufficient for the Ordination, if those that are absent do express their consent, and by Letters approve Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 23.of the doing of it. To the same purpose Theodoret, foreign.V. Iustell. not. in Canon. Universae Eccles. p. 140. The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one: and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it. Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church, as to the number of the persons concurring to a p. 285regular Ordination. The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue, is the effect of this Ordination upon the person: It was the Custom of the Jews, to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them, foreign and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them, which sometimes they called foreign the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world, and Dedication of them unto God. Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be, when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel, he doth it in that Form of words, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, andJoh. 20. 21▪John 20:21 then gives them the power of binding and loosing, usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations. Whose sins ye remit, they v. 29.are remitted; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. So that as under the Law, they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to; so under the Gospel, all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules, have a right, authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments. Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character, as the Papists groundlesly conceive, but a moral legal Right, according to the Lawes of Christ, because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural, but a moral Capacity, and so the effect must be moral and not physical, which they must suppose it to be, who make it a Character, and that indelible. Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue.

The other thing remaining to be spoken to, as to the correspondence§. 15. of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is, what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them. Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design, we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel, which there was under the Synagogue, viz. that of Presbyters. The name Presbyter, as the Hebr. foreign though it Originally import Age, yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power. Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years; therefore persons of age p. 286and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust, and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it. Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together. ThenceExod 3. 16. 18. 4. 29. 12. 21. 17. 5. …8 12. &c.Exod 3:16Exod 3:18Exod 3:4Exod 3:29Exod 3:12Exod 3:21Exod 3:17Exod 3:5Exod 3:8 Eliezer is called foreign Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders foreign the Seignior Domo, the chief Officer in his house; and so we read Gen. 50. 6. foreign the Elders of the Land of Egypt. So the Elders of M…dian, the Elders of Israel, the Elders of the Cities; so among the Greeks foreign for their Council of State; and among the Latines Senatus, and our Saxon Aldermen, in all importing both age and honour and power together. But among the Jewes, in the times of the Apostles, it is most evident that the name foreign ▪ imported not only dignity but power; the Presbyters among the Jewes, having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination. Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination, but not conferring that judiciary power by it, which was in use among the Jewes, to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel, it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church, which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State; Which was the Original of giving the name foreign to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel: A name importing Duty more then Honour, and not a title above Presbyter, but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter. Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church, the Office conveyed by that name is called foreign, and Presbyters are said foreign, 1 Pet. 5▪ 2. where it is opposed to that foreign, Lording it over the people, as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews. So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them, the power of Ordination was proper to the name foreign and not foreign, because the former name did then import that power, and not the latter. We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them; and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches. But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party (viz. those who conceive p. 287the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity; or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church,) but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both, in Order to accommodation▪ I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then. All that … have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches, (under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised, as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches) lies in these three Propositions, which I now shall endeavour to clear, viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right; nor Secondly, Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches; nor thirdly, if they did, doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same. If these three considerations be fully cleared, we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture, which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about. I therefore begin with the first of these, That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it. This I shall make out from these following arguments. First, from the equivalency of the names, and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined. That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, is hotly pleaded on both sides. But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture, we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names. Now there is a fourfold equivalency p. 288of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. ThatDissert. de jure Epis. 3. o 6. Vind cat. cap. …. s. 1. both should signifie the same thing, viz. a Presbyter, in the modern Notion, i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church. And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret, foreign. The Apostle Theodoret. in 1 Tim. 3. 1.1 Tim 3:1Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters; otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City. 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop, and sometimes a Presbyter: so Chrysostome, and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. foreign ▪ and in Acts 20. 28. foreign. Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture; so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter, and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop. 3. That the name Bishop, alwayes imports a singular Bishop; but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter. 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter, doe import onelyonly one thing in Scripture, viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Church…; which Sense, though a stranger to antiquity, is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man, who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense; but with what success it is not here a place to examine. By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand; unless some evident arguments be withall brought, that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense, then that which they contend for. Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in, because they are Equivocal, and so admit of different Senses. And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onelyonly p. 289of one sense, when the word is common to many, unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity, will be so far from perswading others to the same belief, that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason. When Augustus would be called only Princeps Tacitus hist. lib. 1.Senatus, could any one inferr from thence, that certainly he was onelyonly the foreign in the Senate, or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate, when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses? All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words, is, that they may be understood only in this sense; but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense, before any one particular form of Government as necess…ry can be inferred from the use of them. If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter, either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop; or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter, or be sometimes used for one, sometimes for the other; what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words, which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses? So likewise, it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches; If the name Angel imports no incongruity, though taken only for the foreign in the Jewish Synagogue, the publick Minister of the Synagogue, called the Angel of the Congregation, what power can be inferred from thence, any more then such an Officer was invested with? Again, if the foreign or President of the assembly of Presbyters, might be so called: what superiority can be deduced thence, any more then such a one enjoys? Nay, if in the Prophetical style, an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude: what evidence can be brought from the name, that by it some one particular person must be understood? And by this meansRev. 2. 4.Rev 2:4 Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love, which he must of necessity be, by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles. Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given, that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church, and so there is no necessity, the Angel should be personally guilty of it. For first, it seems strange that the p. 290whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel, and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it. As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion, and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty, but the Maior was innocent himself. Secondly, If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body; and then, why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self, either of the whole Church, or which is far more probable, of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church? We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are, which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used, which may be interpreted to different senses. What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times, when onelyonly those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms? And without such a certainty, with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form? Secondly, The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued, from the places most in controversie about the form of Government; because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms. Which I shall make out by going through the several places. The Controversie then on foot is this, (as it is of late stated), Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons, or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power? The places insisted on, on both sides are these, Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie, is, Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power, are understood in these places? I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name foreign occurrs, as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church, Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters, understand by these Elders, those of the Church of Ierusalem, who did govern the affairs of p. 291that Church: those that are for a solitary Episcopacy, by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem, but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea. Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood. There is nothing at all mentioned in the place, but only that upon the occasion of the Famine, they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul; Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem, to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea, or else to the several Pastors of those Churches, either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution, or distributively as they were in their several Churches. The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea, and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad, or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea. But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this, As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem, but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church, or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there. So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames, it is said, That All the Elders were present. No more certainty here neither; for, either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church, meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming; or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together, not to take account of Pauls Ministry (as some improbably conjecture,) but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost, at which Paul came to Ierusalem, which is more probable upon the account of what we read, v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem, who were zealous of the Law: who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea, who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem, and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them, and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him. No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed; whether by p. 292Apostles themselves, or other unfixed Elders, or onelyonly by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there, and thence afterward… called the Bishop of Ierusalem. We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches; and the next place is, Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church. Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church; but it is most evident, that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church. For foreign here, and foreign Titus 1. 5. (for both places will admit of the same answer) doth signifie no more then oppidatim, or Ecclesiatim, as foreign gradatim, foreign, viritim, foreign particulatim, foreign vicatim. No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained, City by City, or Church by Church, as we would render i…, and thereby nothing is expressed, but that no Church wanted an Elder, but not that every Church had more Elders then one. But the place most controverted is, Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church. Those that say, these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus, seem to be most favoured by the article foreign, as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus, and by the Syriack version which renders it, Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi; to the same purpose likewise Hierome understands it. On the contrary those that say, that these Elders were those of the several Churches of Asia, are favoured by v. 18. that from the first day he came into Asia, he had been with them at all seasons. Now Paul did not remain all the time at Ephesus, as appears by Acts 19▪ 10, 22, 26. where he is said to preach the Word abroad in Asia, and so in probability Churches were planted, and Rulers setled in them; and that these were at this time called to Miletus by Paul, is the expresse affirmation of Irenaeus; Advers. …aeres. l. 1. c, 14.In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis & Presbyteris qui era…t ab Epheso & à reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecostem agere. Here is nothing then either in the Text or Antiquity, that doth absolutely determine whence these Elders came; but there may be a probability on either side; and so no certainty or necessity of understanding it either way. And p. 293so for the other places in Timothy and Titus, it is certain the care of those persons did extend to many places, and therefore the Elders or Bishops made by them, are not necessarily to be understood of a Plurality of Elders in one place. Thus we see, that there is no incongruity in applying either of these two forms to the sense of the places in Question. I dispute not which is the true, or at least more probable sense, but that we can find nothing in the several places which doth necessarily determine, how they are to be understood as to one particular form of Government, which is the thing I now ayme at the proving of. And if neither form be repugnant to the sense of these places, how can any one be necessarily inferred from them? As if the several motions and phaenomena of the Heavens may be with equal probability explained according to the Ptolemaick or Copernican Hypothesis, viz. about the rest or motion of the earth; then it necessarily follows, that from those Phaenomena no argument can be drawn evincing the necessity of the one Hypothesis, and overturning the probability of the other. If that great wonder of Nature the flux and reflux of the Sea, might with equal congruity be solved according to the different opinions, of its being caused by Subterraneous fires, or from the motion of the Moon, or the depression of the Lunar vortex, or (which to me is far the most probable) by a motion of consent of the Sea with all the other great bodies of the World; we should find no necessity at all of entertaining one opinion above another, but to look upon all as probable, and none as certain. So likewise for the composition and motion of all Natural Bodyes, the several Hypotheses of the old and new Philosophy, implying no apparent incongruity to Nature, do make it appear that all or any of them, may be embraced as Ingenious Romances in Philosophy (as they are no more) but that none of them are the certain truth; or can be made appear so to be to the minds of men. So it is in Controversies in Theology, If the matter propounded to be believed, may as to the truth and substance of it be equally believed under different wayes of explication, then there is no necessity as to the believing the truth of the thing, to believe it under such an explication p. 294of it, more then under another. As for instance, in the case of Christs Descent foreign foreign, if I may truly believe that Christ did Descend foreign, whether by that we understand the state of the Dead, or a local Descent to Hell, then there is no necessity in order to the belief of the substance of that article of the ancient Creed (called, The Apostles) under that restriction of a local Descent. By this time I suppose it is clear, that if these places of Scripture may be understood in these two different senses of the word Elders, viz. either taken collectively in one City, or distributively in many, then there is no certainty which of these two senses must be embraced, and so the form of Church-government, which must be thence derived, is left still at as great uncertainty as ever, notwithstanding these places of Scripture brought to demonstrate it; foreign.

Thirdly, The uncertainty of the Primitive Form of Government§. 16. will be made appear from the Defectivenesse, Ambiguity, Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages which should inform us what Apostolical practice was. When men are by the force of the former arguments driven off from Scripture, then they presently run to take Sanctuary in the Records of succeeding ages to the Apostles. Thus Estius, no mean School-man, handling this very Question of the difference of Bishops and Presbyters, very fairly quits the Scriptures, and betakes himself to other Weapons. Quod autem jure divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores, et si non ita clarum est è sacris Literis, aliunde tamen In Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 4. sect. 25.satis efficaciter probari potest. Ingenuously said, however; but all the difficulty is, how a Ius divinum should be proved when men leave the Scriptures, which makes others so loth to leave this hold; although they do it in effect, when they call in the help of succeeding Ages to make the Scripture speak plain for them. We follow therefore the scent of the Game into this wood of Antiquity, wherein it will be easier to lose our selves, then to find that which we are upon the pursuit of, a Ius Divinum of any one particular form of Government. I handle now only the Testimony of Antiquity (for the practice of it will call for a particular Discourse afterwards) p. 295and herein I shall endeavour to shew the incompetency of this Testimony, as to the shewing what certain form of Church-government was practised by the Apostles; for that, I shall make use of this four fold Argument; From the defectivenesse of this Testimony, from the Ambiguity of it, from the Partiality of it, and from the Repugnancy of it to its self. First, then, for the defectivenesse of the Testimony of antiquity, in reference to the shewing what certain form the Apostles observed in setling the Government of Churches; A threefold defectivenesse I observe in it, as to places, as to times, as to persons. First, defectivenesse as to places; for him that would be satisfied, what course the Apostles took for governing Churches, it would be very requisite to observe the uniformity of the Apostles practice in all Churches of their plantation. And if but one place varied, it were enough to overthrow the necessity of any one form of Government, because thereby it would be evident, that they observed no certain or constant course, nor did they look upon themselves as obliged so to do. Now the ground of the necessity of such an universal Testimony as to places, is this; We have already made it appear, that there is no Law of Christ absolutely commanding one form, and forbidding all other. We have no way then left to know, whether the Apostles did look upon themselves as bound to settle one form, but by their practice; this practice must be certain and uniform in them; this uniformity must be made known to us by some unquestionable way: the Scriptures they are very silent in it, mentioning very little more then Pauls practice, nor that fully and clearly; therefore we must gather it from Antiquity, and the Records of following ages; if these now fall short of our expectation, and cannot give us an account of what was done by the Apostles in their several Churches planted by them, how is it possible we should attain any certainty of what the Apostles practice was? Now that antiquity is so defective as to Places, will appear from the general silence as to the Churches planted by many of the Apostles. Granting the truth of what Eusebius tells us, That Thomas went into p. 296Parthia, Andrew into Scythia, Iohn into the lesser Asia, Peter to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Hist. Eccles. tib. 3. c. 1.Asia; besides what we read in Scripture of Paul, what a pittiful short account have we here given in, of all the Apostles Travels, and their several fellow-labourers! And for all these, little or nothing spoke of the way they took in setling the Churches by them planted, Who is it will undertake to tell us what course Andrew took in Scythiae, in governing Churches? If we believe the Records of after-ages, there was but one Bishop, viz. of Tomis for the whole Countrey; how different is this from the pretended course of Paul, setting up a single Bishop in every City? Where do we read of the Presbyteries setled by Thomas in Parthia or the Indies? what course Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon Zelotes, Matthias took. Might not they for any thing we know, settle another kind of Government from what we read Paul, Peter, or Iohn did, unlesse we had some evidence that they were all bound to observe the same? Nay, what evidence have we what course Peter took in the Churches of the Circumcision? Whether he left them to their Synagogue▪way, or altered it, and how or wherein? These things should be made appear, to give men a certainty of the way and course the Apostles did observe in the setling Churches by them planted. But instead of this, we have a general silence in antiquity, and nothing but the forgeries of latter ages to supply the vacuity: whereby they filled up empty places as Plutarch Plut. in Theseo.expresseth it, as Geographers do Maps with some fabulous creatures of their own invention. Here is work now for a Nicephorus Callisthus, a Simeon Metaphrastes, the very Iacobus de Voragine of the Greek Church (as one well calls him) those Historical Tinkers, that think to mend a hole where they find it, and make three instead of it. This is the first defect in Antiquity as to places. The second is as observable as to times; and what is most considerable: Antiquity is most defective where it is most useful, viz. in the time immediately after the Apostles, which must have been most helpfull to us in this inquiry. For, who dare with confidence believe the conjectures of Eusebius at three hundred p. 297years distance from Apostolical times, when he hath no other Testimony to vouch, but the Hypotyposes of an uncertain Clement (certainly not he of Alexandria, if Ios. Scaliger may be credited) and the Commentaries of Hegesippus, whose Relations and Authority are as questionable as many of the reports of Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder times: For which I need no other Testimony but Eusebius in a place enough of its self to blast the whole credit of antiquity, as to the matter now in debate. For speaking of Paul and Peter, and the Churches by them planted, and coming to enquire after their Successours, he makes this very ingenuous Confession. foreign.Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4.Sir 50:3 Say you so? Is it so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them, unless it be those mentioned in the writings of Paul? What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches, and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones name set down in his Order, as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves? Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain, but what we have in Scriptures? And must then the Tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless, to bend the Rule to the crooked Stick, to make the Judge stand to the Opinion of his Lacquey, what sentence he shall pass upon the Cause in question; to make Scripture stand cap in hand to Tradition, to know whether it may have leave to speak or no! Are all the great outcries of Apostolical Tradition, of personal Succession, of unquestionable Records resolved at last into the Scripture its self by him from whom all these long pedegrees are fetched? then let Succession know its place, and learn to vaile Bonnet to the Scriptures? And withall let men take heed of over-…eaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them, when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them. Well might Scaliger then complain that the Intervall from the last Chapter of the Acts to the middle p. 298of Trajan, in which time Quadratus and Ignatius began toProleg in Chron. Eusebii. flourish, was tempus foreign, as Varro speaks, a meer Chaos of time filled up with the rude concept ons of Papias, Hermes, and others, who like Hann ibal, when they could not find a way through, would make one either by force or fraud. But yet Thirdly, here is another defect consequent to that of Time, which is that of Persons; arising not onelyonly from a defect of Records, the Diptychs of the Church being lost, which would have acquainted us with the times of suffering of the severall Martyrs (by them called their Natalitia) at which times their several names were inrolled in these Martyrologies, which some, as Iunius observes, have ignorantly mistaken for the time of their being made Bishops of the places wherein theirCont. 3. l. 2. c. 5. not. 18. names were entered, as Anacletus, Clytus and Clemens at Rome; I say the defect as to Persons, not only ariseth hence, but because the Christians were so much harassed with persecutions, that they could not have that leisure then to write those things, which the leisure and peace of our ages have made us so eagerly inquisitive after. Hence even the Martyrologies are so full stuffed with Fables, witness one for all, the famous Legend of Catharina who suffered, say they, in Diocletian's V. Chamier. Tom. 1. l. 2. cap. 16.time. And truly the story of Ignatius (as much as it is defended with his Epistles) doth not seem to be any of the most probable. For, wherefore should Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer, when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own Tribunals, without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there? And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions, as he did by the story, if the Souldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him, as he complains they were? Now all those uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then, arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times, make it more evident how incompetent a Judge antiquity is as to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times. If we should onelyonly speak of the Fabulous Legends of the first Planters of Churches in these Western parts, we need no further evidence of the great defect of antiquity as to persons. Not to goe out of our own Nation; p. 299Whence come the stories of Peter, Iames, Paul, Simon, Aristobulus, besides Ioseph of Arimathea, and his company; all being Preachers of the Gospel, and planters of Churches here, but onelyonly from the great defect in Antiquity, as to the Records of persons imployed in the several places for preaching the Gospell? Thus much to shew the defectiveness as to the Records of antiquity, and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the Apostles took in Setling and Governing Churches by them Planted.

The next thing shewing the incompetency of the Records§. 17. of the Church for deciding the certain Form of Church-Government in the Apostles times, is, the ambiguity of the Testimony given by those Records. A Testimony sufficient todecide a Controversie, must be plain and evident, and must speak full and home to the Case under debate. Now if I make it appear that antiquity doth not so; nothing then can be evident from thence, but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before. The matter in Controversie is, whether any in a Superiour Order to Presbyters were instituted by the Apostles themselves for the Regulating of the Churches by them planted? For the proving of which, three things are the most insisted on: First, the Personal succession of some persons to the Apostles in Churches by them planted: Secondly, the appropriating the name foreign to Bishops in a Superiour Order to Presbyters, after the Apostles decease: Thirdly, the Churches owning the Order of Episcopacy, as of Divine Institution. If now we can make these three things evident: First, That personall Succession might be without such superiority of Order: Secondly, That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the Distinction between them was introduced: and Thirdly, That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution, but Ecclesiasticall; and those who seem to speak most of it, do mean no more: I shall suppose enough done to invalidate the Testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand. First, Then for the matter of Succession in Apostolical Churches▪ I shall lay down these four things, to evince that the argument drawn from thence, cannot fully clear the certain course which the Apostles p. 300took in setling the Government of Churches. First, That the Succession might be onelyonly as to different Degree, and not as to a different Order; where the Succession is clear, nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this. For bare Succession implies no more then that there was one in those Churches succeeding the Apostles, from whom afterwards the succession was derived. Now then supposing onelyonly at present, that it was the Custome, in all the Churches at that time to be ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of Power, and among these, one to sit as the Nasi in the Sanhedrin, having a priority of Order above the rest in place, without any superiory of Power over his Colleagues; will not the matter of Succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this? Succession of Persons was the thing inquired for, and not a Succession of Power; if therefore those that would prove a Succession of Apostolical Power, can onelyonly produce a List and Catalogue▪ of names in Apostolical Churches, without any evidence of what power they had, they apparently fail of proving the thing in question, which is not, whether there might not be found out a List of persons in many Churches derived from the Apostles times; but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves, that power which the Apostles had over many Churches while they lived? Now this, the meer Succession will never prove which will best appear by some Parallel instances. At Athens, after they grew weary of their ten yeares foreign; the people chose nine every year to Govern the affairs of the Common-wealth: These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves, and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of State which was called foreign, as **Demosth. in Midiam. Plut. in Peril. & vit. Niciae▪ V. Meursi…m de A…chont. Athen. l. 1. c. 9. Ennium de Ep. Ath.Demosthenes, Plutarch, and others tell us: Now although they enjoyed this equality of power, yet One of them had greater Dignity then the rest, and therefore was called foreign by way of excellency, and his name was onelyonly set in the publike Records of that year, and therefore was called foreign and the year was reckoned from him, as **Paus. in Lacon▪ Pollux. Onom. lib. 8. c. 9.Pausanias, and Iulius Pollux inform us. Here we see now the Sccession clear in one single person p. 301and yet no superiority of power in him over his Colleagues The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaej at Sparta; the number of the Ephori was alwayes five from their first institution by Lycurgus, and not nine (as the Greek Etymologist imagines): these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them; but among these to give name to the year, they made choice of one who was called foreign here too, …s the foreign at Athens, and him they called foreign, as Plutarch tells us. Where we have the very name foreign attributedPans. Lacon V. Nic. …ragium de Rep. L…ced. lib. 2. c. 4. to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power, which is used by Iustin Martyr of the President of assemblies among the Christians.

Now from hence we may evidently see that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest, in the successions in Apostolicall Churches, cannot inforce any superiority of power in the persons so named, above others supposed to be as joynt▪Governours of the Churches with them. I dispute not whether it were so or no; whether according to Blondel the Succession was from the foreign, or whether by choice, as at Alexandria; but I onelyonly now shew that this argument from Succession is weak, and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed. Secondly▪ This Succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be, to demonstrate the thing intended. It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, (although none of these be unquestionable) but it should be produced at Philippi, Corinth, Caesarea, and in all the seven Churches of Asia (and not onelyonly at Ephesus) and so likewise in Creet, some succeeding Titus; and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him. But, as I said before, in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary. For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are; so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church. And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus, when the Walls p. 302were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius) till the time of Adrian; for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued. For Antioch, it is far from being agreed, whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter, or Paul; or the one Peter, and the other Paul; much less at Rome, whether Cletus, Anacletus, or Clemens are to be reckoned first; (but of these afterwards). At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest, the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters, and to no Divine Institution. But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence; and the Testimony broughtConc▪ Chalce…o…ens. Part. 2. Act. 11. apud …in. Concil. Gr. La To 3. p. 410.Acts 11 for it, is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon, whose words are these, foreign From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops, all of them ordained in Ephesus. I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature, at the distance of four hundred Years, in which time Records being lost, and Bishops being after settled there, no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy, because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout. And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church, they never met with any of the Apostles, or Evangelists in any place, but they presently made them Bishops of that place. So, Philip is made Bishop of Trallis, Ananias Bishop of Damascus, Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria, Barnabas Bishop of Milan, Silas Bishop of Corinth, Sylvanus of Thessalonica, Crescens of Chalcedon, Andreas of Byzantium▪ and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome. No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and derive the succession down from him. But again, this was not an act of the Council its self, but onelyonly of one single person delivering his private opinion in it; and that which is most observable, is, that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius, he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council, by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople. For the case of B…ssianus and Stephen, about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus, being discussed before the Council; A question was propounded p. 303by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained, according to the Canons. Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith, that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy, and all of them ordained in the place. His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops, but speaking according to vulgar tradition, he insists that all had been ordained there. Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his foreign, no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his foreign i. e. if he were out in his allegation, no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition. Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus, Philip, a Presbyter of Constantinople, convicts him of falsehood in that; for, saith he, Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia, deposed fifteen Bishops there, and ordained others in their room. And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus, Heraclides, Basilius Bishop of Ephesus, all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople. If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius, let them thank the Council of Chalcedon, who have sufficiently blasted it, by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him. So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man. Thirdly, the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church, was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power, but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine; Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose. The first is that of Irenaeus. Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali Advers. haeres. l. 3. cap. 3.volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae & antiquissimae, & omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo, Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem, & annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum perveni…n…es usque ad nos. indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, &c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of, but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands: (which Doctrine is here called Tradition, not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct p. 304from the Scriptures, but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self.) Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter. Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic …re omnibus qui vera v…lint audire; & habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, & successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt n…que cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. His plain meaning is, that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches, being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine, have conveyed it down to us by their successours, and we cannot learn any such thing of them, as Valentinus and his followers broached. We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of, and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches. To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his; Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primu… De praescript. advers. haere…. cap. 32.ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem. Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt; sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Johanne conlocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit; Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian, and this succession of persons, and those persons Bishops too▪ but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles, but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi; nor what power they had over Presbyters: only that there were such persons, was sufficient to his purpose, which was to prescribe against heretickes, i. e. to Non-suit them, or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them. For praescribere in the civil Law (whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church) is, cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ, ita ut de summa rei neget agendum, eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandā: p. 305three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions;De Virgin. veland. c. 1. Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time, because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles, and conveyed down by their successors, which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good. Which he thus further explains; Age jam qui voles curiositatem Dap. 37. de pr…scrip….melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae; percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas▪ ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur, sonantes vocem & praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proximè est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es à Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. S… autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est. What he spoke before of the persons, he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles, which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them, did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks. We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession, and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine; either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men, or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power, because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages. WhichAug. Ep. 42. is Austins meaning in that speech of his, Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum & successiones Episcoporum, certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur▪ The root of Christian society, (i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel) is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees, and the continued successions of Bishops therein. And yet if we mayAug… Ep. 29. believe the same Austin, Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est. The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church, attributing a name of greater honour p. 306to those it had set above others. And as for Tertullian, I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power: For he saith expresly, Differenti…m Exhort. …asil. c. 7.inter ordinem & plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas; all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority; unless he mean something more by the following words, & honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo, viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers, is sanctified by God, i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing. For otherwise I know not how to understand him. But however, we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis, which I know not otherwise to render, than by a Bench of Presbyters▪ because only they were said in ordinem cooptari, who were made Presbyters, and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church. By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church, not as the Papists, and others following them, as though it noted any thing inherent by way of (I know not what) character in the person; but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers. So there was Ordo Senatorum, V. Selden in Eutych. p. 28, &c.Ordo Equestris, Ordo Decurionum, and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans, as in this Inscription.

ORDO SACERDOT. DEI HERCULIS INVICTI.

From hence the use of the word came into the Church; and thence Ordination, ex vi vocis, imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters; and therefore it is observable, that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law, but only admitted them into publike Office. So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis, which hath thus f…r drawn us▪ out of our way, but we now return. And therefore Fourthly, This personal suceession so much spoken of, … sometimes attributed to Presbyters, even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them. And that even by thoseAdver. haeres. l. 3. c. 2. Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops, as Irenaeus. Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, qu… est p. 307ab Apostolis, qu… per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni; dicent, se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, &c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters, which before he had done to Bishops. And more fully afterwards, Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire Lib. 4. cap. 43.oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum Episcopatus successione, charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles, but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters. What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind, that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles, by the Testimony of Irenaeus, when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters, and the Episcopacy too, which he speaks of? And in the next chapter adds, Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, Cap. 44.de quibus & Propheta ait, & dabo principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in justitiâ. Did Irenaeus think that Bishops in a superiour order to Presbyters were derived by an immediate succession from the Apostles, and yet call the Presbyters by the name of Bishops? It is said, indeed that in the Apostles times the names, Bishop and Presbyter were comman, although the Office was distinct, but that was only during the Apostles life, say some, when after the name Bishop was appropriated to that order that was in the Apostles (so called before); but, say others, it was only till subject Presbyters was constituted, and then grew the difference between the names. But neither of these foreign can draw forth the difficulty in these places of Irenaeus; for now both the Apostles were dead, and subject Presbyters certainly in some of these Apostolical Churches were then constituted, whence comes then the community of names still, that those who are said to succeed the Apostles, are called Bishops in one place, but Presbyters in another, and the very succession of Episcopacy attributed to Presbyters? Can we then possibly conceive that these testimonies of Irenaeus can determine the point of succession, so as to make clear p. 308to us what that power was which those persons enjoyed, whom he sometimes calls Bishops, and sometimes Presbyters. But it is not Irenaeus alone; who tells us that Presbyters succeed the Apostles; even Cyprian who pleads so much for obedience to the Bishops as they were then constituted in the Church, yet speaks often of his compresbyteri▪ and in his Epistles to Florentius E… 69. ed. Pamel s. 4.Pupianus, who had reproached him, speaking of those words of Christ, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. Qui dicit ad Apostoles, a… per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt▪ where he attr…butes Apostolical succession to all that were praepositi, which name implies not the relation to Presbyters as over them, but to the people, and is therefore common both to Bishops and Presbyters; **V. Cyprian. ep. 3. à Cler▪ Rom. ep. 62. & 65. in Mich. 2. epist. 1. Ep▪ ad M…g. p. 33. …d. …s. Vossi p. 31. Vedel▪ p. 50.Mic 2for so afterwards he speaks, nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec pl…bs Praepositum, &c. Ierome saith, that Presbyters are loco Apostolorum, and that they do Apostolico gradui succeders; and the so much magnified Ignatius, foreign, that the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of Apostles; and elsewhere of Sotion the Deacon foreign, as it is read in the Florentine copy set out by Vossius; but in the former Editions, both by Vedelius and the most learned Primate of Armagh it is read foreign but thatUsser. p. 49. of Vossius seems to be the true reading, to which the old Latin version in Bishop Usher fully agrees; Quoniam subjectus est Episcopo ut grati… Dei, & Presbyterio ut legi Jesu Christi. It might be no improbable conjecture to guess from hence at Ignatius his opinion concerning the original both of Episcopacy and Presbyterie. The former he looks on as an excellent gift of God to the Church; so a learned DoctorEp. 69. paraphraseth Grati… Dei, i. e. Dono à Deo Ecclesiae …ndulto; so Cyprian often Divina dignatione, speaking of Bishops; i. e. that they looked on it as an act of Gods special favour to the Church to find out that means for unity in the Church, to pitch upon one among the Presbyters who should have the chief Rule in every particular Church▪ but then for Presbyterie, he looks on that as foreign, an institution and Law of Iesus Christ, which must on that account alwayes p. 309continue in the Church. And …o Sotion did commendably in submitting to the Bishop as a Favour of God to the Church for preventing schism… ▪ on which account it is, and not upon the account of divine institution, that Ignatius is so earnest in requiring obedience to the Bishop, because, as Cyprian faith, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo coad…nata, & grex Pastori adhaerens▪ and the Bishops then being Orthodox, he layes such a charge upon the people to adher… to them, (for it is to the people, and not to the Presbyters he speaks most) which was as much as to bid them hold to the unity of the faith, and avoid those pernicious heresies which were then abroad; and so Ignatius and Ierome may easily be reconciled to one another; both owning the Council of Presbyters as of divine institution, and both requiring obedience to Bishops as a singular priviledge granted to the Church, for preventing schisms, and preserving unity in the Faith. And in all those thirty five Testimonies produced out of Ignatius his Epistles for Episcopacy, I can meet but with one which is brought to prove the least femblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy▪ and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too. the place is Ep. ad Ephesios; He is exhorting the Ephesians foreign ▪ which I suppose may be rendredP. 19. Voss…. to fulfill the will of God; so foreign signifies Apocalyps. 17. 17. and adds foreign. He begins to exhort them to concur with the will of God, and concludes his Exhortation to concur with the will or counsel of the Bishop; and in the middle he shews the ground of the connexion of these two together; for Christ, saith he, who is our inseparable life is the counsel of the Father: and the Bishops who are scattered abroad to the ends of the earth, are the counsel of Iesus Christ, i. e. do concur with the will of Christ; therefore follow the counsel of your Bishop, which also you do. Every thing is plain and obvious in the sense here, and very coherent to the expressions both before and after; only the foreign must be left out as plainly redundant, and foreign must not be rendred determinati, p. 310but rather disterminati, because it refers to a place here, and so it notes their being dispersed into several places, and separated from one another, thereby implying the unity of their faith, and the coagulum fidei, notwithstanding their distance from one another as to place in the World, which in Cyprians words is, Ecclesiae universae per totum mundum unitatis vinculo copulatae. And certainly a stronger argument then this could not have been given for the Ephesians chearfull obedience to their Bishop (which is the thing beaims at) then the universal consent of all the Bishops in the Christian World in the unity of the faith of Christ; so that as Christ is the will and counsel of the Father, because of that Harmony and consent which is between their wills; so the Bishops are the will and counsel of Christ, as chearfully uniting in the profession of his Faith. So that we see Ignatius himself cannot give a doubting mind satisfaction of the Divine institution of Bishops, when in the only place brought to that purpose, his sense is quite different from what it is brought for. So that the Records of the Church are far from deciding this controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ, because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles▪ in that this succession might be only of a different degree, in that it is not clear and convincing in all places: in that where it is clearest, it is meant of a succession of Doctrine, and not of persons; in that if it were of persons, yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops, by the same persons who speak of these. By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded, to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity, which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters, after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church. For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used, when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops, is at other times given to Presbyters. Other instances might be brought of that nature▪ as, first, that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epist…e, which like the River Alp…eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years▪ but hath now in these p. 311last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World, to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee, foreign,Ep. gr. lat. p. 57. that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy▪ and so there are still and that from his Epistle too. For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons, foreign Page 54.of those that should believe: afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places, foreign,Page 57. &c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth, he saith, it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians, foreign. To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth, for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters▪ and afterwards, foreign;Pag. 69. & p. 73. p. 2, 3. Only l…t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it. But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then (although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops foreign of those that should believe, and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them) yet to take away all scruple, we shall go farther; when subject Presbyters, as they are called, are acknowledged to be, and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too▪ For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, who call Irenaeus foreign, when as Blondell observes he had been nine yearsApol▪ p. 3…. Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus; neither doth Blondels argument lye here, that because they call him the PresbyterEuseb. l. 5. cap. 3. of the Church, therefore he was no Bishop, as his Antagonist supposeth; but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick; but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters, yet they called him by the name of Presbyter, it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the p. 312Bishop of another Church, they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters, which instead of commending, were a great debasing of him, if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters, as of divine institution, and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters, as we are made to believe there was. Which is, as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other, and should in his Commendatory letters to them, be styled a Senior Fellow of that House▪ Would not any one that read this, imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master, but only a primacy of order, that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest? This was the case of Irenaeus: he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons; he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome; when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church, (when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops,) what could any one imagine by the reading of it, but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter, or one that had a primacy of order among, but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters? More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author, which the Reader may compare with the answers, and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side. But that which seems yet more material, is, that which we observed in the third place, that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, do impute it to an act of the Church, and not ascribe it to any divine institution. The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known, and hath been produced already; that of the counterfeit Ambiose, but true Hilary, is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie; Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi In Eph. 4.Eph 4appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequensti succederet; sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos, immutata est ratio, prospiciente Co…cilio, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, p. 313ne indignus temer… Usurparet & esset multis scandalum▪ Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcop…cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome, and these Commentaries cited by Austin, with applause of the person, without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius, if it had been the opinion of the Church, that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right. Nothing more clear, then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop, and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts, when before they succeeded in order of place; It is a mistake of Blundels, to attribute this to the Nicene Council; doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum, or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum. The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned. Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est. Thereby implying it was not so alwayes: else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit, and that the original of the difference was from the Church? But more express and full is Isidore himself theDe Eccles. Officiis l. 7. cap. 7. Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters. His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est; praesunt eni… Ecclesiis Christi, & in confectione corporis & sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt; similiter & in doctrina populi & in Officio praedicandi, sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est, ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae, concordiam solueret, scandala generaret. What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is? he asserts the identity of power as well as name, in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church, in celebrating the Eucharist, in the Office of preaching to the people, onelyonly for the greater Honour of the Bishop, and for preventing Schisms in the Church, the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop; by those words propter Auctoritatem, he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command, for that his following words contradict, that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals, and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose. Agreeable to this, is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil p. 314in Spain, upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of someConc. Hispal. secundum decret. 7. apud Bin. T. 4. p. 560. Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba. Their words are these: Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio, quaedam novellis & Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint, sicut Presbyterororum & Diaconorum & Virginum consecratio▪ &c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris, quia Pontificatus apicem non habent, quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur: ut per hoc & discretio graduum, & dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur. How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council, that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted? All the right they plead for, is from the novellae & Ecclesiasticae regula, which import quite another thing from Divine institution; and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church, and that of the Scriptures, will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us: and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy, but especially of the chief among them, viz. the Bishop, than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ; and upon the account of Divine institution. That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies, as far as I can learn, is onelyonly this, that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome, and so all make up but one single Testimony. But might it not as well be said, that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius, and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side? Ye… I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity, which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy, as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles, to be of an unalterable Divine right. Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high; but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church, and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical, not in regard of its institution, but of its end, in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church, as the Apostles Power did over the p. 315Churches while they were living. If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher, let them remember to distinguish between the power it self, and the restrained Exercise of that power; the former was from the Apostles, but common to all Dispensers of the Word; the latter was appropriated to some, but by an Act of the Church, whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one, for the safety of the whole. And withall let them consider, that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument: and how common it was to call things Divine, which were conceived to be of excellent use, or did come from persons in authority in the Church. One would think that should meet with foreign in theConc. Chal. Part. 2. Act. 11.Acts 11 Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures: whereas they mean no more by it, but onelyonly the Emperours Letters to the Council. It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition. And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came, they usually called it foreign, as though it came immediately from Heaven; So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors, they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles. And thus we see, many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another, were looked on as Apostolical, onelyonly from the prevalency of this perswasion, that whatever they derived from their Fathers, was of that nature. But then for that answer to the Council, and Isidore, and Ierome, that they make but one testimony: I say, that although the words be of the same Sense, yet they have the nature of a different testimony, upon these accounts. First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church; some think they are even with Ierome, when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem; and, that he might have the better advantage of his adversary, when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy, he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery; but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers, p. 316whom they profess themselves admirers of; so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore, or the Council: For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God; and the Council was composed of such; it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion: and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church, as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave. Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop, much more of a whole Council of them, against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church, is of more validity then ten for it; in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in, or what may tend in the least to diminish it, but such as make more Conscience of the Truth, then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World. Secondly, in that it was done in different ages of the Church: Ierome flourished about 380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill, 600. The Council sat, 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore, and owns his Doctrine, 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same, yet the Testimony is of greater force, as it was owned in several Ages of the Church, by whole Councils, without any the least controul that we read of. And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time, I know not how we can come to understand it: if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church, and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages, or condemning it by Councils, may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time. So that laying all these things together, we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least, and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches.