Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism, Part 1 · Chapter 2

Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism · Part 1 · Chapter 2

p. 16CHAP. II.

Of Obedience to our Governours, Spiritual and Civil. That the Juriſdiction of our Engliſh Biſhops is not Jure Divino; but Presbyters have as much Power by the Law of God as they. An Anſwer to the Gentleman's Allegations out of Antiquity The Judgment of the Fathers, and Councils, and School-men, and our firſt Reformers, and the Divines of the Tranſmarine Churches.

I Hope we have ſafely paſſed the Ordeal of Catholick Unity; we now proceed to defend our ſelves, from the dreadful Accuſation of Diſobedience to Superiors; for though our Non-Conformity ſhould not utterly exclude us from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church, yet if it involve us in the guilt of Sedition, contempt of our Lawful Governours, and diſobedience to their juſt Commands, our Cauſe would be bad enough, and we could by no means juſtifie it before God or the World.

The Indictment charges upon us a twofold Diſobedience; Firſt, Diſobedience to our Spiritual Governours the Biſhops; And ſecondly, To the Civil Magiſtrate likewiſe; but we do verily believe our ſelves to be innocent, and p. 17deſire an impartial hearing of our juſt Defence, which will proceed in this Method.

1. We plead that Biſhops have no Power by the Law of God, but what Presbyters have as well as they.

2. That the whole Juriſdiction of our Engliſh Biſhops, and Power of their Canons, is derived from the Civil Magiſtrate, and Laws of the Land.

3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the caſe of Conformity, and therefore we are guilty of no Diſobedience to them.

The firſt Poſition, concerning the Identity of Power in Biſhops and Preſbyters, has been often and warmly debated, and we can ſcarce touch it ſo gently, but it will be reſented as an high affront; it is accounted a Plea to their Juriſdiction, which in all Courts has an ungrateful ſound, and muſt expect to be over-ruled, if powerful Intereſt, and loud Menaces can do it; and yet it ſeems ſo clear in it ſelf, both from Scripture, Fathers, and Proteſtant Divines, our own Reformers not excepted, that were it not for the ſake of the Silver Shrines, we cannot ſuppoſe it would have been a Controverſie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches.

For Scripture Proof, the Point being Negative, the Evidence that is but Negative, muſt be allowed ſufficient. The Word of God no where aſſerts, that Biſhops are a Superior Order to Presbyters, therefore they are not ſo by that Law: Thoſe that ſay they are, muſt produce that Rule which makes them ſo: If no ſuch Rule appears, the matter is fully concluded againſt them.

This being a Queſtion concerning a very great Power, extending to a great number of Perſons, and producing great Effects, a matter of great diſtinction and dependencies, ought to have clear and poſitive Warrant and Commiſſion, from the Word of God. Meer Names and Titles, Suppoſitions, and fine Probabilities, will not all make a Foundation ſtrong enough, to bear the weight of a Structure, ſo high and towering, as our Engliſh Prelacy.

It is far ſhort of Demonſtration to ſay, the Biſhops are the Apoſtles Succeſſors, and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters: For if they mean that they have the ſame Power that the Apoſtles had, and in the ſame degree, it will diſtort their own Scheme of Government, and will not only give them power over Presbyters, but over Biſhops too, for ſuch power the Apoſtles had, and it will give every Biſhop an Univerſal Power over all the Churches in the World; If it be ſaid they are only the Apoſtles Succeſſors in ſome part of their power, the anſwer is obvious, ſo are Presbyters too: and we muſt enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they ſucceed them? And why do not Presbyters ſucceed them in the ſame powers? And where ſhall we find any chapter or verſe in our Bibles, that thus divide the power, and give ſome men the power of Doctrine, and others that of Diſpline and Orders; where is the diſcrimination? We find it very plain in Dr. Coſins's Table, …ot ſo in thoſe of the Apoſtles.

p. 18Nor is it any more to our ſatisfaction, to ſay that Timothy and Titus were Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete, for the Queſtion is not whether there were Biſhops in Scripture times, but whether thoſe Biſhops had any power that the Presbyters had not, and if they had, whether it belongs to them as Biſhops, or on ſome other account, St. Peter was a Presbyter, and had Authority over Biſhops, muſt we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Biſhops: Timothy had Authority to command Biſhops too, and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epiſtle to the Biſhops and Deacons of Philippi? will it therefore follow that one Biſhop has Authority over another?

And what did Timothy and Titus, that Presbyters might not do, if they had the ſame qualifications? They ordained Elders, and how does it appear that they did not do it, as being Elders themſelves? and that they had not the aſſiſtance of others? And may not Presbyters do ſo too? Perhaps it will be ſaid, no, for they have not the Epiſcopal Power; but that is the very thing in queſtion, and muſt be proved, and not taken for granted; if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it; 'Tis an odd way of reaſoning, Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete, therefore he was a Biſhop, for none but Biſhops can Ordain, how do you prove that? Why becauſe Titus was a Biſhop and he alone did Ordain; if this be not a Circular, Precarious and Trifling way of arguing, nothing in the World deſerves that name.

But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made, is argument enough that they were not the fixed Paſtors of particular Churches; no queſtion wherever they came, they were employed in the ſame work, which they did at Epheſus: and why Titus by being ſent into Dalmatia, did not become the Biſhop of the Churches there, as well as by being leſt in Creet, the Biſhop of the Cretians, I ſee no reaſon; he was ſent to the one, he was left in the other; and doubtleſs in both, his work was to ſet in order the things that were wanting, and this was his buſineſs every where, and would as well entitle him the Biſhop of any other place, as of Creet.

The argument from the Angels of the Churches, is as dark and inconcluſive as the former: thoſe meſſages ſent to the Churches were delivered by Viſion, and in the ſtyle and phraſe of Viſion, a ſingular term is often to be underſtood collectively: as by the falſe Prophet, A. B. Uſher underſtands the Roman Clergy; and there are many words in thoſe Epiſtles that favour this Interpretation, foreign, &c. and there is not one word in all that Book, intimating that thoſe Angels were ſingle perſons, much leſs ſuch as had any power above Presbyters. And thoſe that grant them to be ſingle perſons will tell us; the moſt that can be inferr'd, is a Preſident or Moderator of a Presbytery, which is allowed by thoſe that are wholly diſſatisfied with Dioceſan Prelacy.

The Gentleman pas;ſes very lightly over all theſe difficulties, and in a ſtrain of careleſsneſs and confidence natural to him, tells us. It is evident that the Government of the Church by Epiſcopacy, was of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, p. 19for that Timothy was made Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus of Creet, as is plain by St. Pauls Epiſtles to them both; that the ſeven Churches of Aſia which received the Chriſtian Faith had each a Biſhop is evident, by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them. This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our Engliſh Prelacy, this is that mighty evidence and demonſtration, he ſo often refers to in his Pamphlet, ſaying, I have proved, I have ſhewed, &c.

But if it was ſo plain from St. Pauls Epiſtles that Timothy and Titus were Biſhops, why did he not tell us what words thoſe are which make it ſo very plain? Indeed the Poſtſcripts to thoſe Epiſtles, expreſly call them Biſhops of Epheſus and Creet, but does he need to be told, that the Poſtſcripts are no part of Canonical Scripture, nor joined with the Epiſtles for ſeveral hundred years after Chriſt; Theodoret being the firſt that mentions them, only as part of his own Commentary, and yet he has not the word Biſhop in them; Nor any body elſe till Oecumenius who wrote above a thouſand years after Chriſt: nay the very Poſtſcripts themſelves prove that they are of much later date than the Epiſtles, for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana, which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Chriſt, when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General, and after him called Pacatiana; and in the Poſtſcript to Titus, it is ſaid the Epiſtle was writ from Nicopolis, which it could not be, ſince in the Epiſtle it ſelf, Paul ſpeaks of Nicopolis a place whither he deſigned to go and Winter, and would have Titus come to him there; come to me to Nicopolis, for there (not here) I deſign to Winter; theſe Poſtſcripts therefore betray themſelves by their own language.

And he ſhould have told us, what there is in the word Angel that will demonſtrate a Dioceſan Biſhop, but inſtead thereof tells us a long ſtory out of Dr. Hammond, which is worſe than impertinent, for it affirms that thoſe Angels were not Dioceſan Biſhops, but Metropolitanes, or Arch-Biſhops, that had Biſhops under them; Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71.now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes, are not of Divine, but of Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution, and have no proper Juriſdiction over Biſhops, and they generally deſert Doctor Hammond in this Notion, but this Gentleman had not conſidered ſo far, but found a large Paragraph, that would prove the largeneſs of thoſe Churches, and thought he had got a prize; in ſhort let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Biſhops, as Dr. Hammond ſays they all were in Scripture Times, Dr. Morrice of Dioceſan Ep. ſcop. p. 27.and let the Biſhops be Metropolitans, holding only by Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution, without any proper Authority over the Presbyters, and we ſhall not much differ from them.

Let us now ſee what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the ſame Order with Biſhops, and have the ſame power as they. And

1ſt. It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Biſhops in Scripture, that the names are uſed promiſcuouſly the greateſt Patrons p. 20of the Prelacy acknowledge; the Elders of the Church of Epheſus are ſo called Acts 20.28. The Miniſters of the Church of Philippi are called Biſhops; and it is obſervable that the Syriack Verſion, which is very antient, has but one word for Presbyter and Biſhop; now if there be ſo material a diſſerence betwixt a Biſhop and a Presbyter, as ſome men would make, it is ſtrange there ſhould not be a diſtinct word to expreſs it by: if only ſuch as are now owned to be Biſhops were called Presbyters, the argument would not be ſo ſtrong, for they might think to evade it by ſaying, the leſſer is included in the greater, and they are Presbyters before they are Biſhops, but when even thoſe who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters, are called Biſhops, it is very conſiderable, for the leſſer cannot include the greater; it would ſound very ſtrange in England for a Presbyter to write himſelf Biſhop: and if the Apoſtles had known any thing of this mighty diſtinction, upon which the Fate of ſo many Churches, and Salvation of ſo many Souls is made to depend, we cannot ſuppoſe they would have laid ſuch a temptation before us, to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order, by the indifferent and promiſcuous uſe of the Titles.

Dr. Morrice in his defence of Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, makes very little account of the Title of Biſhops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi, Pag. 29, 30.and is pleaſed to ſay, This debate about the Biſhops of Philippi had ſoon been at an end, if our Author had thought fit to explain himſelf, and told us what he meant by Biſhops, for were the Paſtors of ſingle Congregations reſpectively in Covenant? Then there muſt have been ſeveral Congregations or Churches in the ſame City, which Mr. Clarkſon will not allow: Or were thoſe Biſhope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority? Then our Authour muſt give up the queſtion, and inſtead of making many Biſhops, muſt own that there was none at all there but onelyonly Presbyters, will he contend that there were no other Biſhops than Presbyters? That will be to abuſe his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word, which he takes in one ſence, and the Church in another, that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied, but that many Biſhops in the Allow'd and Eccleſiaſtical ſence of the Word, had the overſight of one City, ſeems ſtrange and incredible to the Antient Chriſtians. Chryſoſtom obſerving this expreſſion of the Biſhops of Philippi, ſeems to be ſtartled with it; What many Biſhops in one City? By no means, it cannot be, what then? They were not Biſhops properly ſo called, but Presbyters.

I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph, Works of the Learned Auguſtin, p. 25.becauſe La Croſe magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma, though he has lamentably ſpoiled it in the Abridgment; but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us, I ſee not how it can much weaken our Cauſe or fortifie his own: We do really maintain that theſe Biſhops were Presbyters, ruling the Church of Philippi with common conſent, and whether this be the Eccleſiaſtical ſence of the word or no, we are not much concerned to enquire; it is ſufficient to our purpoſe that it is the true p. 21Scriptural ſence, and the only one too, Communi Presbyterorum conſilio Eccleſ…e gubernabuntur, Hieron 1. Tit.for we never find the word in all the New Teſtament, ſignifying an Eccleſiaſtical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters; we deny not, but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City, who yet never pretended to be a diſtinct Order from the reſt of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards. But as the word thus uſed, is taken in an Eccleſiaſtical, not Scriptural ſence, ſo the Dignity thereby expreſſed, is of meer Eccleſiaſtical, not Divine Inſtitution.

And whereas Chryſoſtom ſays, They were not Biſhops properly ſo called; he can mean no more by it, but that they were not ſuch Biſhops as that word was made to ſignifie by common uſage in his time; and we grant they were not, for the Diſtinction of Office and Degree, not being known in Scripture, the word could not be uſed in that diſtinguiſhing ſence there. Thus a Learned Canoniſt gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors: Lancel Inſtit. Lag. Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32.That Biſhop and Presbyter were formerly the ſame, and that Presbyter was the Name of the Perſons Age, Biſhop of his Office, but there being many of theſe in every Church, they determined amongſt themſelves for the preventing of Schiſm, that one ſhould be Elected by themſelves to be ſet over the reſt, and the Perſon ſo elected, retained the Name of Biſhop for Diſtinction ſake; the reſt were only called Presbyters, and in proceſs of time, their Reverence for theſe Biſhops ſo encreaſed, that they began to obey them as Children do a Father, &c.

2dly, Not only the ſame Title, but the ſame Powers are aſcribed to Biſhops and Presbyters in Scripture; both that of Juriſdiction and that of Orders, as they are uſually diſtinguiſhed. As to the former, we read of ruling Presbyters, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour; If this Rule be not the ſame with their Juriſdiction, where lies the difference? and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Juriſdiction of Prelates, as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters? and that Admonition of the Apoſtle Peter is worthy our obſervation, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, The Presbyters which are amongſt you I exhort, who am alſo a Presbyter, and a witneſs of the Sufferings of Chriſt— Feed the Flock of God which is amongſt you, taking the Overſight thereof, &c. The Spiritual Juriſdiction of Presbyters, is here expreſs'd by two words, [foreign] which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend, does not ſignifie barely to Feed, but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family, and is often uſed for Government, and ſometimes that of Princes; but however it certainly ſignifies the office of a Paſtor, and is a good Argument that the Paſtoral Power is veſted in Presbyters; The other word is [foreign] taking the overſight, or the Epiſcopal Office, doing the work of a Biſhop; if this will not prove that the Epiſcopal Juriſdiction belongs to Presbyters, I deſpair of ever underſtanding the meaning of words.

The Power of Orders is with the ſame clearneſs attributed to Presbyters; Timothy himſelf, who they ſay was a Biſhop, receives his Office or Gift by p. 22the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. To this the Gent. replies, Dr. Hammond ſays that thoſe Presbyters were Apoſtles; but that is only the Doctors conjecture, and yet if the Apoſtles were concerned in it, it is plain they acted as Presbyters, whether they were Apoſtles, or Biſhops, or Evangeliſts, they acted as a Presbytery. I doubt not but if it had been ſaid, The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Epiſcopacy; theſe Gentlemen would have preſently concluded that Ordination belongs to Biſhops as ſuch, and would have given us very hard words, if we ſhould have dared to diſpute it.

Barnabas and Paul themſelves, who are called Apoſtles, received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. and it is obſervable before this, neither of them were called Apoſtles; but preſently after they were, Chap. 14. Verſ. 14.

Theſe things have ſo gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Dioceſan Prelacy, that they have not agreed amongſt themſelves how to find out a tolerable Evaſion; Diſſert. 4. Cap 19, 20. Vind of Diſſert. p. 26.but their moſt famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths. Dr. Hammond ſaw there was no way to come off, but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture, were Biſhops; and that there was no inferior Order inſtituted by the Apoſtles, but that preſently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them. Now this is as much as we deſire, for it fully proves that by Divine Right Biſhops and Presbyters are the ſame, and that the diſtinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule, but only an ancient Conſtitution: I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all theſe inſtances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture, by ſaying, Thoſe were not meer Presbyters; and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters, they anſwer, ſuch as were not alſo Biſhops, and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the ſignification of it, nor were there any ſuch meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of.

Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand ſays, Ʋnreaſon. of Separ. p. 269.That the Apoſtles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themſelves, and therefore there was then no Biſhop, but they were all one with Presbyters; but that as the Apoſtles went off, Biſhops came to be ſettled in the ſeveral Churches. Now though it is moſt certain the Apoſtles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themſelves, but put it into the hands of the Presbyters, they themſelves ſtill holding an Univerſal Superintendency; yet we gladly accept the Conceſſion of this learned Prelate; 'tis indeed à regione adverſe to Dr. Hammond, but will equally ſerve our purpoſe; the one ſays, there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Biſhops; the other, there were no Biſhops ſuperior to Presbyters: Our concluſion flows alike naturally and freely from both, that in Scripture times Biſhops and Presbyters were of the ſame Order.

3dly, We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Biſhops but what are the ſame with Presbyters; in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Biſhops and Deacons deſcribed, and no mention made p. 23of Presbyters, becauſe they were the ſame with the Biſhops; and unleſs we acknowledge that, we ſhall be utterly at a loſs for a Reaſon of that Omiſſion, and there are few Commentators but underſtand it ſo: The learned Grotius upon this place ſays, the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Biſhops or Inſpectors, but that afterward that Name was given foreign, to one of them that was the foreign, Preſident.

Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders, has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of thoſe Elders, Ch. 1. v. 5,6. and as a reaſon it is added, For a Biſhop muſt be blameleſs; this would have been no reaſon, had not the Elder and Biſhop been the ſame. A late Author thought this ſo conſiderable, that he puts a new ſence upon the words foreign, ordain Elders in every City, as if the meaning were, advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Biſhops; but this is a ſtretch upon the word which it cannot bear, [foreign] plainly ſignifies to conſtitute and ordain, and when the Perſons are mentioned, it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced, as Ariſtot. in Polit, foreign, the inſtauration of Princes, and Plutarch, foreign, the Accuſative Caſe if alone always repreſenting the State unto which the foreign, had raiſed them; nor do I believe any one inſtance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer.

Now if this diſtinction of Order had been known in Apoſtolical times, it is very ſtrange we ſhould not have a diſtinct Rule for the Ordination of the one, and the Conſecration of the other; eſpecially ſince by the acknowledgment of all, it is not having many Congregations, or Presbyters under him that makes a Biſhop, but only a peculiar, and higher Ordination: And yet we find no footſteps of it, but on the contrary, in the very Directory for Ordination of Presbyters, they are called Biſhops: Surely theſe things are as clear proof that Biſhops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of, and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the diſtinction Semper praeſumitur pro negante, we muſt have concluded in the Negative, though we had not had theſe proofs.

But what is wanting in Scripture, they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils, in behalf of Dioceſan Prelacy; it is certain they think their greateſt ſtrength lies there: And we deny not that many of the Fathers ſeem to make a great difference betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters; but this does not overthrow our Hypotheſis; for if they are the ſame in Scripture, the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwiſe, and yet few or none of the Ancients ſay that they are diſtinct Orders, much leſs that they are ſo by divine right; but ſome of them acknowledge the contrary, as we ſhall preſently ſhew.

It is not therefore their uſing the Name of Biſhop in a ſence diſtinct from that of Presbyter, or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Biſhop, that will prove a ſuperiority of order jure divino; for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to chooſe one of the Graveſt and Wiſeſt p. 24of the Presbyters, and conſtitute him Preſident over the reſt; and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church, commonly the Eldeſt or worthieſt was as Paſtor, and the other his Aſſiſtants, but ſtill we know the Parſon and the Curates are of the ſame order; and every Biſhop in England is equal in order to the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him; the ſame we ſay of the diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter in Primitive Times.

This would be a ſufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged, but leſt he ſhould think he has done a mighty feat in tranſcribing theſe Paſſages, I ſhall animadvert more particularly upon them.

He begins with the Canons of the Apoſtles, but why they ſhould take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, I cannot tell, unleſs he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name, or was cheated by it himſelf. Dr. Cave reckons them among the Suppoſititious Works of the Firſt Age; and Dr. Beveridge, who has laboured ſo hard to defend them againſt Daille, only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus, near the latter End of the Second Century. But what ſay theſe Canons? why they ſay, Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the conſent of the Biſhop, for he hath the People of the Lord entruſted to him, and there ſhall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls. Here (ſays the Gentleman) the Biſhop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons; Concil. Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit. Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55.it is well argued however; the Kings of England can make no Laws without the conſent of the Lords and Commons, have they therefore the power of governing him? Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters; nay, he determined to do nothing without the conſent of his People; by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Biſhop.

And is there one word here to prove that the Biſhop was of a Superior Order? The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and conſent of the Parſon, and yet the Order is the ſame; And it deſerves to be conſidered whether 'tis likely this Biſhop the Canon ſpeaks of, was any more than the Paſtor of a particular Church, ſince he muſt be ſuppoſed capable of giving the Neceſſary Orders for management of all Affairs, and nothing muſt be done without his conſent; it would be a Rule hard to be obſerved, as our preſent Dioceſes are Modell'd; and if Presbyters muſt do nothing without the Biſhops conſent, they muſt do nothing at all, the whole time being too little for Travel and Conſultation, there would be none left for Action; unleſs by conſent, we muſt underſtand a general Permiſſion to do what they pleaſe, without conſulting him at all in particular Matters, which would be a very odd Comment upon ſuch a Text, and not very well agreeing with the Reaſon that is added for this conſent, viz. That the Biſhop has the People of the Lord committed to him, and ſhall give an account of their Souls. Surtly this requires a more careful and near inſpection, than to commit the care of all by an Act of general conſent to others, without ever intending a p. 25perſonal Acquaintance with one of a Thouſand, Preſ. Treat. of Repentance.ſo ſolemnly committed to him. Dr. Taylor ſays he is ſure we cannot give an Account of thoſe Souls of whom we have no notice.

The next paſſage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for; that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpoſe, he gives us thus; The Apoſtles foreſeeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Biſhop or Epiſcopacy, they ſet down a Liſt or Continuation of Succeſſors, that when any died, ſuch a certain perſon ſhould ſucceed him.

But this place in Clement is very falſly recited, and whoever furniſhed him with it abuſed him, and impoſed upon his Ignorance. This Tranſlator whoever he be, would have us to think that the Apoſtles ſet down a Liſt of the Names of thoſe that were to Succeed in the Epiſcopal See; this we cannot admit, until he tell us where this Liſt is to be found? how far it went? It ſeems it was a Continuation of Succeſſors, but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Perſons ſo ready, that were yet unborn, and unconverted; we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them, but ſurely then we ſhould have had it in the Canon of Scripture; ſuch a thing would have been of ſingular Uſe, not only for prevention of Diſputes about the choice of Biſhops, but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Chriſtianity, when they were able to produce a Prophetical Liſt, with the Names of Perſons then unborn, and yet all in due time appearing, and aſcending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll: for theſe Reaſons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any ſuch Liſt of Names, which when one died, declared that ſuch a certain Perſon ſhould ſucceed him.

And I am ſure the words of Clement ſay no ſuch thing; foreign, &c. Edit. Colomes. 103.the true Engliſh of them is this: And our Apoſtles underſtood by our Lord Jeſus that contention would ariſe about the Name of Epiſcopacy, and for this Cauſe being furniſhed with perfect foreknowledge, ordained thoſe before-mentioned, and moreover gave [foreign] order, that whenſoever they ſhould die, other approved Men ſhould ſucceed and perform their Functions.

I know there have been great Diſputes about this odd word foreign, Biſhop Uſher renders it [Ordinem] thoſe that tranſlate it [a Liſt] would have it foreign, But let them contend about words as long as they pleaſe, the true import of the place, is plain enough to thoſe that conſider it with the foregoing Paragraph; foreign, &c. p. 100.for there we find the Jewiſh Conteſts about the Prieſthood, and thoſe of the Chriſtians about the Epiſcopacy are compared together; the caſe may be thus contracted, Moſes knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Prieſthood, ordered them to bring their Rods, each inſcribed with the Name of its Tribe, and he laid them up in the Tabernacle, telling them, That the Tribe whoſe Rod ſhould bloſſom God had approved and choſen for the Prieſthood; Even ſo the Apoſtles, &c. That is, as the Sacerdotal Tribe was choſen and approved of God, ſo none muſt take upon them the office of Epiſcopacy, but Men well p. 26approved; this ſeems to me the true ſence of the place, and the only one that it is capable of.

And what is here to prove that Biſhops are a diſtinct Order from Presbyters, not one word, but rather to the contrary; for here it is ſaid the Apoſtles conſtituted foreign, P. 98.the aforeſaid, go a few lines backward and you have the word again, and there you will find it refers to Biſhops and Deacons, which the Apoſtles ordained for thoſe that ſhould believe: Now, if they only appointed theſe two ſorts of Officers, what is become of ſubordinate Presbyters? the Apoſtles we ſee appointed none ſuch, the diſtinction betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters according to Clemens, is not by Divine or Apoſtolical inſtitution; and it is obſervable, that in this very Paragraph he makes them the ſame, foreign, &c. It will be no ſmall Sin in us to reject thoſe that have diſcharged the Duties of their Epiſcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner, happy are thoſe Presbyters who have finiſhed their courſe—They fear not being turned out of their preſent Settlement.

It is ſtrange theſe Gentlemen ſhould threaten us with Clement, who as he writ next to the Apoſtles, ſo he is next to them moſt friendly to our Cauſe, and this was ſo evident to the learned Grotius, That he gives it as a reaſon why he thinks this Epiſtle to be Genuine, Quod nuſquam meminit exortis, Epiſt. 182. ad Bignon.&c. becauſe he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Biſhops which by the Cuſtom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria, but plainly ſhews as the Apoſtle does, that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were alſo Biſhops.

His next Author is Ignatius, and it muſt be confeſs'd, he puts a diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter, and bids them all be obſervant of the Biſhop, and do nothing without the conſent of the Biſhop; but ſtill here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right; we grant that in his time the Name of Biſhop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter, who was as Paſtor, and the reſt his Curats or Aſſiſtants, but this will make little for the Dioceſan Prelate; That Ignatius's Biſhop was no more than the Paſtor of a particular Church, his own words abundantly manifeſt; foreign. Ep. ad Philad.There is to every Church one Altar, and one Biſhop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants; here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches, not that all the Members of the Church, muſt be no more than can always meet together in one place, there be many things that may make that difficult, but they muſt all have One Altar, that is, One Communion-Table; Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this inſtance; ſome ſay by One Table, is meant ſpecifically One; but ſo, are all in the World. Others, One Supream Altar, to which the reſt were Subordinate; but why then may we not ſay, by One Biſhop, is meant One Supream Prelate, with other Biſhops under him? There is no reaſon aſſignable, why the foreign, ſhould be taken Numerically, and p. 27the foreign, otherwiſe. That by One Altar, is meant One Conſiſtory, as Dr. Morrice would ſuggeſt, is very improbable, when in the ſame Sentence we read of One Biſhop with his Presbytery, which ſure muſt ſignifie the Conſiſtory, if any thing that Sentence does, and is much more likely to do ſo, than One Altar.

This is ſo apparent, that Mr. Mede confeſſes, Proof of Churches in the ſecond Cent. p. 29.It ſhould ſeem that in thoſe firſt times before Dioceſan were divided into leſſer and ſubordinate Churches, we now call Pariſhes, and Presbyters aſſigned to them, they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful, united under one Biſhop, and that was in the City and place where the Biſhop had his Reſidence. Dr. Morrice would diſable this Evidence, becauſe Mr. Mede expreſſes it with Caution and Modeſty, it ſhould ſeem. But ſuch modeſty makes it more valuable, being the humor and way of that learned man; he had made as ſtrict reſearches into theſe things, as he could, and upon the whole it ſeemed thus to him, but if there was a more than ordinary Caution, obſerved in the Words, ſome will be apt to think, it was not for want of evidence, that the caſe was really ſo, but rather becauſe he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member.

The Author of a late Treatiſe, called a Defence of Pluralities, ſuppoſed to be Mr. Wharton, notwithſtanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy, which appear ſufficiently throughout the Book, yet ingenuouſly acknowledges, That at the beginning, Page 59.the Biſhop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place, and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and depoſited upon the Altar or Communion Table, when the number of Chriſtians encreaſed they began to build more Churches than one in a City, theſe new Churches were but as Chappels of Eaſe, annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church, where the Holy Euchariſt was Conſecrated.

This may ſuffice to ſhew what kind of Dioceſs, Ignatius's Biſhop had, and what he means by one Altar; Enquiry into the Conſtitut. Diſcip. Ʋnity, &c. Of the Primitive Churches. Chap. 2.and a late Author has ſaid a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himſelf, that the ſeveral Biſhopricks of Smyrna, Epheſus, Magneſia, Philadelphia and Trallium, were but ſo many ſingle Congregations, governed by a Biſhop as Paſtor and his Presbyters as Aſſiſtants, and this he makes the true diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter in thoſe times: But whether that be ſo or no is not ſo material, as that our Cauſe cannot ſtand without it; for as the firſt variation from Apoſtolical Practice, was the ſetting up of one above the reſt of the Presbyters, in a particular Church, and calling him Biſhop, ſo the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the firſt Church; and though I will not ſay ſuch dependances are in all Caſes unlawful, yet they are ordinarily dangerous, and can never be proved neceſſary; God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation, from endeavouring to have a Biſhop and Altar of their p. 28own; and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Conſent of that Elder Church and Biſhop, who had been inſtrumental in the Converſion of this new Colony, they may, no doubt, do it without them, if general Edification require it.

Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities, what Advantage he or his Cauſe has received by them, he has now leiſure to conſider; Let us ſee whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him. And I would lay down this, as a juſt remark upon theſe proofs out of Antiquity, That, one Paſſage which expreſly tells us, what kind of Superiority, Biſhops had in Primitive times over Presbyters, and how they came by it, is of more value in this Controverſie, than a ſcore, that barely mention that Superiority; the one ſpeaks directly to the Queſtion, the other not; we acknowledge thoſe whom the Fathers call Biſhops, had ſome kind of Superiority, over thoſe called Presbyters, and it is a vain thing for Perſons to ſweat and toil, in proving that which we never deny, but will grant them at the firſt demand, but the Controverſie turning upon this very hinge, whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Inſtitution, thoſe Ancients that ſpeak purpoſely to this Point, are the moſt proper Evidences in this cauſe.

St. Hierom ſpeaks as directly to the Queſtion, as 'tis poſſible for one to do; he poſitively aſſerts, and largely proves, that Biſhops and Presbyters are the ſame, Ad Evagrium.Manifeſtiſſime comprobatur eundem eſſe Epiſcopum & Presbyterum; and citeth for that purpoſe, Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 6, 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture, and in his Commentary on Iſt of Titus affirms, Idem ergo Presbyter qui Epiſcopus, &c. and tells us, that at firſt the Churches were governed by the common conſent of the Preſbyters, and that the Diſtinction betwixt Presbyter and Biſhop was, Magis conſuetudine quàm diſpoſitionis Dominicae veritate, rather by Cuſtom than Divine Appointment — in another place he aſcribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys; Ep. ad Heliodorum. p. 283.and is ſo full and expreſs, that ſome of the Papiſts accuſe him of Error herein; others labour hard, but in vain, to invalidate his evidence by pretending, that this Praelation of Biſhops, above Presbyters, was a thing done by Apoſtolical Appointment, becauſe Jerom ſays, it was found out as a remedy againſt Schiſm, when men began to ſay I am of Paul and I of Apollo, which was in the Apoſtles times; but to this it has been often replyed, St. Jerom does not ſpeak of that particular Schiſm of the Corinthians, but of others which aroſe about Conteſts of the like Nature; and that he does not intend that individual Caſe of the Church of Corinth, is moſt certain. For,

1. The Schiſms he ſpeaks of, were occaſioned by their differences about thoſe Presbyters, that had governed them by common Conſent; but that of the Corinthians was about the Apoſtles, it cannot be ſuppoſed, that by the common Council of Presbyters; Jerom ſhould mean, Paul, Apollo, and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth.

2. This Schiſm Jerom ſpeaks of, was too much promoted, by the Preſbyters p. 29themſelves, Poſtquam vero unuſquiſque eos quos baptizaverat ſuos eſſe putabat, non Chriſti, &c. He does not date this Diſtinction of Order, from the time that the People only contended about their Miniſters, but when the Miniſters alſo, influenced thoſe Contentions, and made themſelves the Heads of Parties, accounting thoſe their own who had been baptized by them; now this was not the Corinthian caſe, for there the Apoſtle was ſo far from encouraging thoſe ſidings, that he expreſly condemns them.

3. The Schiſm he ſpeaks of, was remedied by chooſing one of thoſe Preſbyters they contended about; and ſetting him over the reſt, and committing the whole care of the Church to him, but I hope none will ſay, that Paul was ſet above Cephas, or he above Paul, or Apollo above them both, to heal the Corinthians Schiſm; and therefore the riſe of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schiſm; but from others, that afterwards happened in the Churches.

And it has been obſerved by a very learned Doctor, That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity, Dr. Stilling. Irenic. p. 279.are grounded upon thoſe parts of Scripture, which were writ after this Corinthian Schiſm, and ſays he, can we think Jerom had ſo little ſence, as to ſay that Epiſcopacy was inſtituted upon that Schiſm, and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he ſets for the Inſtitution of Epiſcopacy?

St. Ambroſe or rather Hilary, Non per omnia conviniunt ſcripta Apoſtoli ordinat. in Epheſ. 4. Proſpiciente Concilio ut non ordo, ſed meritum crearet Epiſcopum multerum ſacerd. judicio conſtiti. Ibid.Eph 4affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day, did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apoſtles, and afterward ſhews, how the difference betwixt a Biſhop and Presbyter aroſe, by a meer Act of the Church chooſing One that was moſt worthy, and ſetting him over the Reſt, but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches conſtituted, and therefore all things were managed, by the Convention of Presbyters, Comment in 1 Cor. 11. Theſe Commentaries are cited by St. Auguſtine and greatly commended.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. l. 7. tells us, that the Diſcipline of the Church, is Penes Presbyteros, in the Power of the Presbyters.

St. Auguſtine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters, Secundum honorum Vocabula, quae jam Eccleſiae uſus obtinuit, Epiſcopatus Presbyterio major eſt; he does not pretend that it was by Divine right, but by the Cuſtom of the Church, nor in any real act of Power, but only in an honourary Title that Epiſcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery.Medinas de ſacr. Hom. Orig. l. 1. c. 5. Conſult. Art. 14. p. 952. Chryſ. Hom. 11.

And this matter is ſo evident, that the moſt learned Papiſts acknowledge it was the opinion of moſt of the Fathers, Caſſander is poſitive in it, Convenit inter omnes olim Apoſtolorum aetate nullum diſcrimen, &c.

To this, ſome Object, that both Jerom and Chryſoſtome, notwithſtanding all they ſay for the Identity of theſe Offices, do ſtill except Ordination, as that which is peculiar to the Biſhop, but the illuſtrious Chamier has ſufficiently taken off this Objection, Agere de ſui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Eccleſiae initiis, and more particularly to that of Jerom, Chamier de Occum. Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180.manifeſtum eſt de ſuo loqui tempore, &c. It is manifeſt, when St. Jerom ſays, a Preſbyter p. 30does every thing that a Biſhop does, except in Ordination, he ſpeaks of the time in which he lived, and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove, that formerly Biſhop and Presbyter were the ſame, becauſe, ſays he even now, though the Names have been for a long time uſed for Diſtinction of Degrees, yet excepting in Ordination, there is nothing that a Biſhop does but a Presbyter may do it alſo; and therefore if after ſo long a Diſcrimination of Title and Degree, Biſhops have only gained this one Point of Power, it is certain at firſt there was no difference at all; this is the reaſoning of that Father, wherein he agrees very well with himſelf, and is guilty of no ſuch inconſiſtency as ſome careleſs or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him.

But that which ſeems moſt directly to confront theſe Witneſſes is, That Aerius is reckon'd amongſt the Hereticks by Epiphanius, for this Opinion, and is repreſented as a Prodigy, and his Opinion madneſs, which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim, as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cauſe.

But a learned Prelate of their own, will give them a ſufficient anſwer to this, Irenic. p. 277.for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order, it is ſtrange that Epiphanius, ſhould be the firſt man, that ſhould charge him with it, and that neither Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret nor Evagrius before whoſe time he lived, ſhould cenſure him for it; and why ſhould not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon, who is as expreſs in this as any man in the World. But ſome tell us, He was an Arian, others ſay, he was put amongſt the Hereticks for making an unneceſſary Separation from the Church of Sebaſtia, and Euſtathius the Biſhop thereof; not that this was indeed Hereſie, but it was the cuſtom of angry Biſhops in thoſe Ages to call all men Hereticks that ſtood in their way, as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Hereſies, that Philaſtrius a Biſhop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World.

It is too evident to be concealed, that Epiphanius, though otherwiſe a Worthy and Good Man, was of a hot and eager Temper, raſh in his Cenſures, and ſometimes tranſported into great irregularities of Practice, as appears by the diſturbance he made at Conſtantinople, Socrates, c. 11, 12.and the rude Language he gave to Chryſoſtom, becauſe he did not at his command, baniſh Dioſcorus and condemn the Books of Origen.

The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controverſies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, gives us an inſtance of the raſh and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius, in condemning Aerius for Hereſie in another point, which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Hereſies; Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63, 64.take it in the Words of our Author. At the Celebration of the Euchariſt, the Biſhop or Prieſt made mention of the Names of Martyrs, and Confeſſors, and thoſe who had deſerved well of the Church, and particular Chriſtians in their Private Devotions, remembred their own Relations and Friends, and thus it became a Cuſtom without p. 31enquiring into the Reaſons of it, till by this Cuſtom, People began to conclude, that ſuch Prayers were profitable for the dead, and that thoſe who had not lived ſo well as they ſhould do, might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Interceſſions of the Living; which I confeſs, was a very natural Thought, and ſhews us the eaſie progreſs of Superſtition, that Cuſtoms taken up without any good Reaſon, will find ſome reaſon, though a very bad one when they grow Popular; upon this Aerius condemns the Practice, and he is reckoned amongſt Hereticks for ſo doing; He deſired to know for what Reaſon, the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Euchariſt, and Prayers made for them, whether by this means thoſe who died in Sin might obtain Pardon, which he thought if it were true would make it unneceſſary to live vertuouſly, if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them, when they were dead; Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius, but gives ſuch Reaſons, as are no anſwer at all to his Queſtions. He ſays it ſignifies our Belief, that thoſe who are dead to this World do ſtill live in another ſtate, are alive to God; That it ſignifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of thoſe who are gone hence; That it is done to make a Diſtinction between Chriſt, and all other good Men, for we pray for all but him, who intercedes for us all. Very worthy Reaſons of praying for the Dead, &c.

Thus you ſee what a Monſtrous Heretick Aerius was, and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius; The Truth is, theſe two Hereſies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and the unlawfulneſs of praying for the dead, are much of the ſame Nature; and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both, equally Learned and Satisfactory; for it is very obſervable that in the ſame place where he condemns that monſtrous prodigious Hereſie of the Identity of Order, he fairly confeſſes, That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons, Epiph. conr. Acrium haereſ. 75. p. 905.all Eccleſiaſtical Offices might be performed, foreign, foreign.

After the Fathers, we have ſuffrage of the Canoniſts, Gratian, cap. 24. Legimus, diſt. 39. cap. 5. Olim, diſt. 95. cap. 4. Nullus, diſt. 60. cap. 16. Ecce, diſt. 95. Lancel. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Gloſſae in cap. diſt. Concil. Baſil, Duaren de ſacr. Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7.And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law, was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others, as Lombard, lib. 4. Sentent. diſt. 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church ſaw it neceſſary for the better ſettling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Epiſcopacy above Presbytery, and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed, Seſs. 23. cap. 4. Can. 6, 7. this Superiority, and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inſerted this Note. Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus, diſt. 43.That Biſhops have differed from Presbyters always, as they do now in Government, Prelacy, Offices and Sacraments, but not in the Name and Title of Biſhop, which was formerly common to both. And thoſe Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council, Chemnitius and Gentilletus, Exam. part 2. Lib. 4.the one a Divine, the other a Lawyer, condemn this Decree, the one by Scripture and Fathers, the other by the Canon Law.

p. 32The Judgment of the Reformed Churches, is ſo well known by the Harmony of Confeſſions, that I ſhall not particularly enlarge upon it, we have it there laid down, as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary and the Low Countries, that Biſhops, and Presbyters, are by Divine Inſtitution the ſame; and though ſome of thoſe Churches, admit a kind of Epiſcopacy, yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it, but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Conſtitution; but I know the Humor of ſome Men, has led them to deſpiſe the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too, I ſhall therefore more diſtinctly ſhew, what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Queſtion.

Caelius Sedulius Scotus, who flouriſhed about the year of our Lord, 390, falls in with the opinion, and the very words of Jerom, Expoſ. Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17. bids us obſerve, how the Apoſtle calling the Elders of but one City Epheſus, Fuiſſe Presbyt. quos Epiſc.doth afterwards ſtile them Biſhops, which thing ſays he, I have alledged to ſhew that among the Antients, Presbyters were the ſame with Biſhops.

Venerable Bede ſpeaking of theſe things, Alcuine de div. Offic. cap. 35.ſays, Conjunctus eſt gradus & in Multis pene Similis, in Acta Apoſt. cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anſelme Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury above 600 years ago, a man ſo Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia, he was dignified to ſit at the Popes right Foot, is wholly with us in this Point, Conſtat ergo Apoſtolica inſtitutione omnes Presbyteros eſſe Epiſcopos, Enarr. in Ep. ad Philip.and ſpeaks in the Words of Jerom, Sciant Epiſcopi ſe magis conſuetudine, &c.

And before him the Canons of Aelfrick, Anno 990. ſpeaking of Biſhops and Presbyters ſay, Spelman Concil. Tom. 1. p. 570.Unum tenent eundem que Ordinem.

Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate, de Queſtionibus Armenorum, cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch, Arch-Biſhop and Biſhop were invented by the Devotion of Men, not inſtituted by Chriſt, and that no Prelate how great ſoever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a ſimple Presbyter, and in the 4th. Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14. 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Impoſition of Hands belongs to the Juriſdiction of the Presbyter; and declares that Presbyters ſucceed the Apoſtles, and makes all the diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter to be this, he that hath a Cure is a Biſhop, he that hath not is a Presbyter, which agrees with Dr. Of the Church, l. 15. c. 27.Fields Notion of Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, and alſo with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church, before mentioned.

Come we now to our Reformers, John Wickliffe, called by Mr. Fox the Engliſh Apoſtle, ſpeaks thus, Some multiply the Characters in Orders, but one thing I confidently averr, that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time, two Orders ſufficed, the Presbyter and the Deacon, then was not invented the diſtinction of Pope and Cardinals, Patriarchs and Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Arch-Deacons, Officials and Deans, with other Officers of which p. 33there is neither Number nor Order, that every one of theſe is an Order, and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted, as ours Babble, it ſeems good to me to be ſilent, becauſe they prove not what they affirm, it is ſufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons, keeping the State and Office that Chriſt hath impoſed upon them; Quia certum videtur quod ſuperbia Ceſarea hos gradus & ordines adinvenit; becauſe it ſeems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented theſe other Orders and Degrees.

In the Year, 1537. The Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury and York, and the reſt of the Biſhops and Clergy in Convocation, whoſe Names are all ſubſcribed to their Book intituled, The Inſtitution of a Chriſtian Man, Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen, 8. thus determine; The Truth is that in the New Teſtament, there is no mention made of any degrees or diſtinctions in Orders, but only of Deacons or Miniſters, and of Prieſts or Biſhops, and of theſe two Orders, that is to ſay, Prieſts and Deacons, Scripture maketh expreſs mention, &c.

The Judgment of Arch-Biſhop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipſo Autographo, was, that Biſhops and Prieſts were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office, in the beginning of Chriſts Religion, Irenic. p. 392.

That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford, in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield, averrs, Acts and Monuments, Vol. 3. p. 293.that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Biſhops and Miniſters, that is, Prieſts, and when Harpsfield asked him, Were not the Apoſtle, Biſhops, anſwered no, unleſs you'll give a new Definition of a Biſhop, that is, give him no certain place.

Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury, and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign, in his Catechiſm Printed at London, and Dedicated to both Arch-Biſhops, puts the Queſtion, What difference is there between a Biſhop and a Presbyter? And Anſwers, None at all, their Office is the ſame, their Authority and Power is One, therefore St. Paul calls Miniſters ſometimes Biſhops, ſometimes Presbyters, ſometimes Paſtors, ſometimes Doctors.

Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury, afterward Biſhop of Oxford, P. 359, 360.in his Book called The Supremacy of Chriſtian Princes, endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Hereſie in this matter, and thus replies upon Stapleton. Jerome who lived in the ſame Age with Epiphanius, will tell you, or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you, Idem eſt ergo Presbyter qui Epiſcopus, & antequam Diaboli Studia, &c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers, and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore, and then cites Lombard and Durandus, and thus ſumms up the whole: That in Subſtance, Order, or Character as they call it, there is no difference between a Prieſt and a Biſhop; That the difference is but of accidents and circumſtances, That in the Primitive times this difference was not known, &c.

p. 34Dr. Jewel, Defence of the Apology, Part. 2. C. 9. Diviſ. I.That moſt excellent Biſhop of Salisbury, brings in Mr. Harding, alledging that they which denied the diſtinction of a Biſhop and Prieſt were condemned of Hereſie, as we find in Sr. Auſtixe, and Epiphanius, and the Council of Conſtance; to which he anſwers in the Margent: Untruth, for hereby both St. Paul, and St. Jerome, and other good men are condemned of Hereſie; and afterwards ſays farther, Is it ſo horrible an Hereſie as he maketh it, to ſay that by the Scriptures, a Biſhop and Prieſt are all one? Or knoweth he how far, or to whom, he reacheth the name of a Heretick? Verily Chryſoſtome ſaith, between a Biſhop and a Prieſt in a manner there is no difference, St. Jerome ſaith ſomewhat in rougher ſort, I hear ſay there is one become ſo peeviſh, that he ſetteth Deacons before Prieſts, that is before Biſhops, whereas the Apoſtle plainly teacheth us that the Prieſts and Biſhops be all one. St. Auſtin ſaith, what is the Biſhop but the firſt Prieſt? So ſaith St. Ambroſe there is but one Conſecration of a Prieſt and Biſhop, for both of them are Prieſts, but the Biſhop is the firſt. Thus he.

The next I ſhall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Profeſſor of Divinity in the Univerſity of Cambridge: Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim. qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccleſ. quaeſt. 5.He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus, and to Evagrius, that Biſhops and Presbyters were the ſame, that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common conſent of the Presbyters, that this cuſtom was not changed by the Apoſtles, but afterwards by the Church, and thus argues. If the Apoſtles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth, what had it advantaged him to have ſo diligently collected Teſtimonies, out of the Apoſtles to prove that they were ſometimes the ſame? He might eaſily have remembred, that the Order was changed by the Apoſtles themſelves, after the Church was diſtracted with contentions, if any ſuch thing had been done, (and he enquires) Wherefore then ſaith Jerome, Before it was ſaid, I am of Paul, &c. He anſwers, This might deceive Sanders, but it is certain Jerome onelyonly alludeth to that place of the Apoſtle to ſhew that Schiſms were the Cauſe of changing the Order, but this Remedy was almoſt worſe than the Diſeaſe, for as at firſt one Presbyter was ſet above the reſt, and made a Biſhop, afterwards one Biſhop was preferred before the Reſt, and this cuſtom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy; Reſp. ad decion. rationem Campiani. p. 51.and elſewhere he thus ſpeaks of Aerius his Hereſie; And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead, and to make Biſhop and Presbyter equal be Heretical, Nihil Catholicum eſſe poteſt, nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick.

That paſſage in Mr. Tract of Schiſm, p. 13.Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author. They do but abuſe themſelves and others, that would perſuade us, that Biſhops by Chriſts inſtitution, have any ſuperiority over men further than Reverence, or that any is ſuperior to another further than poſitive order agreed upon among Chriſtians hath preſcribed; Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum, ſub & ſupra, all this comes from compoſition and agreement of Men among p. 35themſelves, wherefore this abuſe of Chriſtianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition, is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy, and an ordinary one I will not give it, leſt you ſhould take ſo tranſcendent a Vice to be but trivial.

The moſt Excellent Arch-biſhop Uſher both in his Writing and Diſcourſe, acknowledged theſe Orders to be the ſame, that the difference was only in degree, that Biſhops ordained as Presbyters, but regulated the Ordination as Biſhops, and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned; In his Reduction of Epiſcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard, he proves both by the words of Paul, of Tertullian, P. 2, 3.and the Order of the Church of England, that Spiritual Juriſdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters, in which the Biſhop is no more than Preſident, and page 6. has theſe words. True it is that in our Church this kind of Preſbyterial Government hath been long diſuſed, yet ſeeing it ſtill profeſſeth that every Paſtor hath a right to rule the Church, from whence the name of Rector was alſo firſt given to him, and to adminiſter the Diſcipline of Chriſt as well as to diſpenſe the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the reſtraint of the exerciſe of that Right, proceedeth only from the Cuſtom now received in the Realm, no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed.

And to ſay the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation, and very few even of the Biſhops themſelves oppoſed it, Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France, became the great occaſion of corrupting the Court and Church, and letting in a ſort of Men, who in purſuance of ſecret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome, Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter againſt a Revolt to a Forreign Juriſd. p. 25. & alibi. See alſo the late Biſhop of Hereford's Naked Truth.and therefore muſt ſettle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy, as the Council of Trent had done before them, by taking the power of oppoſition and diſſent, out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy, who generally abhorred the deſign; from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation, and with a great deal of noiſe and confidence has been aſſerted by the main bulk of the Eccleſiaſticks, and yet ſome few of the moſt learned of them have declared againſt it, I ſhall onelyonly mention two, both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day, I mean the Biſhops of Worceſter and Salisbury.

For the Biſhop of Worceſter, I have cited his Irenicum ſo often already, that it would be in vain, to add any thing more, the main deſign of that learned Tract eſpecially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law ſettled any form of Church Government: and he has for ever ruined the pretenſions of Epiſcopacy to a Jus Divinum; they ſay indeed he has retracted that Book, but as long as he has not deſtroyed the reaſon of it, we are well enough, for it is upon the reaſon of the thing, not the authority of his perſon (how great ſoever) that we depend; and till that Book be undone as well as unſaid, it will remain in full force and virtue, for reaſon is always the ſame, though Men and their Intereſts may vary.

p. 36The Biſhop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accompliſhments of Gentleman, Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306.States-Man and Divine, ſpoke his thoughts freely, at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith, thus At firſt every Biſhop had but one Pariſh, but afterwards when the numbers encreaſed that they could not conveniently meet in one place, and when through the violence of perſecution, they durſt not aſſemble in great multitudes, the Biſhops divided their charges into leſſer Pariſhes, and gave aſſignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks, which was done firſt in Rome in the beginning of the ſecond Century, &c.

And P. 310. I do not alledge a Biſhop to be a diſtinct office from a Presbyter, but a different degree of the ſame office, &c. P. 331. I acknowledge Biſhop and Presbyter to be one and the ſame office, and ſo plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church, the firſt branch of their power, is their authority to publiſh the Goſpel, to manage the worſhip and diſpenſe the Sacraments, and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Miniſtry, in which Biſhops and Presbyters are equally ſharers, but beſides this the Church claimeth a power of juriſdiction, of making Rules for Diſcipline, and applying and executing the ſame, all which indeed is ſuitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture, but hath no poſitive warrant from any Scripture Precept— Therefore as to the management of this Juriſdiction, it is in the Churches power to caſt it into what mould ſhe will, &c.

I believe I ſhall rather be cenſured for having ſaid too much, than not enough upon this Subject, yet I will venture ſo much farther upon the Readers Patience, (who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of tranſcribing) as to conclude this Chapter with the ſuffrages, of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day.

Let the learned le Blanc, Theſ. Sedan. de Grad. & diſtinc. Miniſt. p. 501.be firſt heard, thus, Quod ſpectat vero Diſcrimen Presbyteri & Epiſcopi, &c. But as to the difference betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter, for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Biſhops, it is the more general opinion of the Engliſh, that Epiſcopacy and Presbytery are diſtinct offices, inſtituted by Chriſt with diſtinct powers; but the reſt of the Reformed, as alſo they of the Auguſtane Confeſſion, do unanimouſly believe that there is no ſuch diſtinction by Divine Right, but that as the names in Scripture are ſynonymous, and put for each other indifferently, ſo the thing is wholly the ſame; and that the ſuperiority of Biſhops above Presbyters, which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church, is onelyonly of Poſitive and Eccleſiaſtical Right, and has been introduced thereinto by degrees. That even in the Apoſtles days, a certain precedency of honour and place, was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues, either in Age or in the time of his Ordination, ſo that he was as Preſident or Moderator of the Presbytery, and yet look'd upon as altogether of the ſame office, and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues, and this Perſon did always perform thoſe things, p. 37which the Preſidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform.

But in the following Age it ſo fell out, that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Perſons Age or time of entrance, but a cuſtom was introduced, that one of the Presbyters ſhould be choſen by the Votes of the whole Colledge, who ſhould continually preſide after the ſame manner over the Presbytery, and theſe after a while aſſumed to themſelves the name of Biſhops, and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives, and brought their Colleagues into ſubjection to them, till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny, which now obtains in the Church of Rome.

Moreover though all reformed Divines, (excepting thoſe of the Church of England) condemn that ſupream power, which among the Papiſts, Biſhops uſurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical, and think that by the Law of God there is no diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter, yet is there ſome diſpute amongſt them, whether it be not expedient by Poſitive and Eccleſiaſtick ri… to appoint ſome degrees amongſt the Miniſters of the Goſpel, by which ſome may be ſet above others, provided ſuch moderation be obſerved as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny, the French and Dutch Churches, and not a few in England it ſelf, think it dangerous, and not ſufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Chriſt, to admit any ſuch thing, but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwiſe, they have certain Biſhops which they call Superintendents, that preſide in ſuch certain diſtricts, over the reſt of the Paſtors, with ſome Authority and Power, but much ſhort of that which the Popiſh Biſhops claim.

The ſecond I ſhall mention is Monſieur Jurieu, Paſtoral Letters, let. 14.who having ſpoken concerning the Monaſtick Life, and Oecumenick Councils, as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects, he adds, Behold a third of them, 'tis the Original of the Hierarchy, which hath given birth to the Antichriſtian Tyranny, hereby is underſtood that ſubordination of Paſtors which hath been ſeen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years, in this ſubordination are ſeen the loweſt Orders in the loweſt ſeats, above theſe are ſeen the Prieſts, above the Prieſts are the grand Vicars, above the Grand Vicars are the Biſhops, above the Biſhops are the Archbiſhops or Metropolitans, above the Arch-biſhops are the Primates, above the Primates are the Exarchs, above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs, above all theſe appears a head which was inſenſibly framed and placed there, this is that which is called the Pope; All this is a new invention with reſpect to the Apoſtles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Biſhops to Preach the Word and Adminiſter the Sacraments: But the Biſhop and Presbyter were not diſtinguiſhed, thoſe which St. Paul calls Biſhops he calls Presbyters in the the ſame place, this is matter of fact which our Adverſaries cannot deny: Then he proceeds to tell us how this diſtinction was made, and the account p. 38thereof, agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc, I ſhall not tranſcribe it.

The laſt I ſhall take notice of, is the Renowned Monſieur Claude, whoſe Name will be great in all the Churches, as long as Piety and Learning have any eſteem among Men; his words are theſe,

As for thoſe who are ordained by meer Presbyters, can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant, Hiſtorical Defence of the Reform. Part. 4. p. 95.that the diſtinction of Biſhop and Prieſt as if they were two different offices, is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture, but that which even contradicts the expreſs words of Scripture, where Biſhop and Presbyter, are names of one and the ſame office, from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their firſt Inſtitution a a rite to confer Ordination, that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules; can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant, that St. Jerome, Hilary, and after them Hincmar, wrote formerly concerning the Unity, or, as they ſpeak, the Identity, of a Prieſt and Biſhop in the beginning of the Church, and about the firſt riſe of that diſtinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices, can he be ignorant that St. Auſtin himſelf writing to Jerome refers that diſtinction not to the firſt inſtitution of the Miniſtry, P. 97.but meerly to an Eccleſiaſtical uſe? And elſewhere, And to ſpeak my thoughts freely, it ſeems to me, that this confident opinion, of the abſolute neceſſity of Epiſcopacy, that goes ſo high as to own no Church, or Call, or Miniſtry, or Sacraments, or Salvation in the World, where there are no Epiſcopal Ordinations, although there ſhould be the true Doctrine, the true Faith and Piety there, and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality, and on ſuch a formality as we have ſhewn to be of no other than Humane Inſtitution, that opinion I ſay, cannot be lookt on otherwiſe than as the very worſt character, and mark of the higheſt hypocriſie, a piece of Phariſaiſme all over, that ſtrains at a Gnat when it ſwallows a Camel, and I cannot avoid having at leaſt a contempt of thoſe kind of thoughts, and a compaſſion for thoſe who fill their Heads with them.