Section 6

The practice of the Apostles is so far from contradicting their rules, (which your brotherly charity would fasten upon my assertion) as that it is a most clear proof, and illustration of it; Their practice is irrefragable in the charge, which they gave to Timothy, and Titus, as we shall prove in due place: Now if to this we shall add the unquestionable gloss of the more clear practice of their immediate successors, I know not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of this truth. Whereto you boldly answer, If this gloss corrupt not the text, we shall admit it; implying therein, too presumptuously, that the universal practice of the whole Primitive Church succeeding the Apostles, may prove a Bordeaux-gloss to mar the Text.

Brethren, go you your own way, let me err with such guides: But you are disposed to be liberal; somewhat you will grant us, besides that which we grant you. It is agreed, that the name of Bishops and Presbyters were at first promiscuously used; It is yielded by you, That in process of time, some one was honored with the name of Bishop, and the rest were called Presbyters. But what, I beseech you, was this process of time? Here lies your either error, or fraud: We do justly and confidently defend, that this time had no process at all; it was in the [in non-Latin alphabet] of the living Apostles, which we shall plainly make good in the sequel. It is also yielded, that this was not [nomen inane,] but seconded with some kind of disparity. What then is the difference? All the question, you say, is of divine right, and Apostolical institution of this disparity. Let me beseech the Reader to consider seriously of the state of this difference, in the mistaking whereof I have, not a little, unjustly suffered; And to remember how I have expressed it in my Remonstrance, fetching the pedigree of Episcopacy from Apostolical (and therefore, in that right, Divine) institution: And interpreting myself not to understand by [divine right] any express Law of God requiring it, upon the absolute necessity of the being of a Church, but an institution of Apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had. Now whether it may be thus Apostolical, or a merely human and Ecclesiastical invention, is the question in hand.

On your part, you say, stand Jerome, and Ambrose. Two stiff champions indeed. And surely I must needs confess, this is the only countenance of your cause, which yet has been blanked more than once. Jerome tells us, you say, right down in Titus 1: Idem est ergo Presbyter, etc. Out of whose testimony you in sum collect, That A Presbyter and a Bishop were originally one: That the disparity was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custom: That before this priority, the Church was governed by the common Council of Presbyters, and that Bishops ought still so to govern: And lastly, that The occasion of this disparity, was the division, which through the Devil's instinct fell among Christians. You look now that I should tell you that the Book is of uncertain credit, or that Jerome was a Presbyter, and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity he missed; or that wiser men than yourselves have censured him in this point, for Arianism: I plead none of these, but while you expect that I should answer to Jerome, I shall set Jerome to answer for himself. For the first, I cannot but put you in mind, that the same Father citing the words of the Bishop of Jerusalem, That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, passes a Satis imperite upon it: but let it be so.

At first, he says, Bishops and Presbyters had but one title. So say we too; But when began the distinction? You need not learn it of Saravia, he himself tells you, When divisions began: And when that? When they began to say, I am Paul's, I am Apollo's, I am Cephas; which was (I think) well and high in the Apostles' time: But this you would cleverly put off, as spoken by Jerome in the Apostles' phrase, not of the time of the Apostle: This is but a general intimation of contentions arisen (though later) in the Church. Excuse me Brethren, this shift will not serve your turn: Then, in that case, there should have been no distinct Bishops till after-ages, upon this ground, that till then there were no divisions: Or if so, why should the remedy be so late after the disease? Or how comes he elsewhere to name Bishops made by the Apostles, and to confess that before his time there had been many successions? Besides, he instances in the peculiar mis-challenging of Baptism, which only Saint Paul specifies in his own time: And Clement seconds him in his Epistle to the Corinthians, in taxing the continuance of those distractions; so as by Jerome's own confession, Episcopacy was ordained early within the Apostles' times.

But then, say you, It was not of Apostolical intention, but of Diabolical occasion: Weakly and absurdly; As if the occasion might not be devilish, and the institution divine: As if the best Laws did not rise from the worst manners. Were not the quarrels between the Grecians and Hebrews for the maintenance of their widows, an evil occurrence? Yet from the occasion thereof was raised the Ordination of Deacons in the Church.

Indeed but Jerome says, This was rather by the custom of the Church, than by the truth of the Lord's disposition. True, it was by the custom of the Church, but that Church was Apostolical; not by the Lord's disposition immediately: for Christ gave no express rule for it, but mediately it was from Christ, as from his inspired Apostles. Let Jerome himself interpret himself, who tells us expressly in his Epistle to Evagrius, this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, is by Apostolical tradition; which is as much as we affirm. And while he says, (toto orbe decretum est) that in the time of those first divisions, it was decreed all the world over, that Bishops should be set up; I would fain know, by what power (besides Apostolical) such a Decree could be so soon and so universally enacted. But Jerome says, The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Counsel: So they did doubtless altogether, till Episcopacy was settled; who dares deny it? Indeed, but he says, They ought to do still: So say we also, and so in some cases we do: Church-government is Aristocratical. Neither is any Bishop so absolute, as not to be subject to the judgment of a Synod: Indeed in many matters it is determined by our Laws, that he must take the advice and assistance of his Ecclesiastical Presbytery.

So then, Saint Jerome is in his judgment no back friend of ours, but in his history he is our patron. With what forehead can they persuade their reader, the original of Episcopacy was not in Jerome's opinion so early, when they cannot but confess that the same father has, in flat terms, told us, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, that ever since the time of Mark the Evangelist, (who died five or six years before Peter and Paul, and almost forty years before Saint John) at Alexandria, (until the days of Heraclas and Dionysius) the presbyters have always chosen one to be their Bishop.

As for those poor negative arguments which follow, palpably begging the question, they are scarce worthy of a pass; were it not, that by them they go about to confute their own author, affirming, that upon occasion of divisions, Episcopacy was constituted: but he stands so close to his own grounds, as that (contrary to their mis-allegation of Doctor Whitakers) he plainly tells them, Episcopacy is so proper a remedy for this evil, that unless the Bishop have a peerless power, there will be as many schisms as priests; the woeful experience of which we find in the miserable varieties of Separatism, at this day. Go on, brethren, since you are so resolved, to strike that friend, whom you bring in to speak for you; teach your advocate Saint Jerome, how unlikely it is, that the Apostles should give way (as he professes they did) to such a remedy, as might prove both ineffectual, and dangerous; and that their holiness should make a stirrup for Antichrist.

We looked for Ambrose to come in next; and, behold, you bring in a foisted commenter; a man by the convictions of Whitakers, Spalatensis, Cocus, Rivetus, Bellarmine, Possevine, Maldonate, (as has been elsewhere shown) of not a suspected only, but a cracked credit: if it mattered much, what he said, I could out of his testimony pick more advantage than you prejudice to my cause: but, if you will hear the true Ambrose speak; he tells you; there is one thing which God requires of a Bishop, another of a presbyter, another of a Deacon; as for the persons who brought in this imparity, you tell us out of the same authors, the presbyters themselves brought it in? Witness Jerome, To Evagrius. The presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in an higher degree: but, brethren, what means this faithless and halved citation? Had you said all, the place would have answered for itself; the words are, Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista, &c. For at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist, until the times of Heraclas and Dionysius, Bishops, the presbyters have always called one (chosen out of themselves, and placed in an higher degree) Bishop, as if an army should choose their General. Why did you avoid the name of [Mark the Evangelist] but that your hearts told you, that he dying many years within the time of the Apostles, this election, and appellation, and distinction of degrees of Bishops and presbyters, must needs have been in the life time of the Apostles; and not without their knowledge and approbation? The presbyters then chose their Bishops: who doubts it? But upon whose order, and institution save that which Saint Paul to the superintendents met at Miletus, Acts 20, Spiritus sanctus vos constituit Episcopos? I marvel, brethren, with what face you can make Jerome say, that the presbyters themselves were the authors of this imparity, when as himself has plainly ascribed this to God's own work; when reading that, Isaiah 60:17, I will make your officers peace, (according to the Septuagint) [in non-Latin alphabet], &c. I will give your princes in peace, and your Bishops in righteousness, he applies this to the governors of the Evangelical Church: and the blessed martyr and Bishop Saint Cyprian, to the same purpose; the Deacons (says he) must remember that the Lord himself chose Apostles, that is, Bishops, but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselves.

And when you cannot but know, that the Apostles themselves were the immediate actors in this business; if at least you will believe the histories, and fathers of the Church; Irenaeus tells you plainly, that the Apostles Peter and Paul, delivered the Episcopacy of that Church to Linus: and, that Polycarpus was by the Apostles made Bishop, in Asia, of the Church of Smyrna: and Tertullian particularly, that Polycarpus was there placed by Saint John.

And Saint Chrysostom clearly says, that Ignatius was not only trained up with the Apostles, but that he received his bishopric from them; and emphatically, that the hands of the blessed Apostles touched his holy head.

And lastly, the true Ambrose, (to the shaming of that counterfeit, whom you bring forth under that name) tells you, that Paul saw James at Jerusalem, because he was made Bishop of that place, by the Apostles: your slip may talk of a Council, wherein this was done: but this is as false, as himself: it is well known there never was any such Council in the Christian world: since, the first general synod was the Nicene. And Jerome's [toto orbe Decretum] as we have shown, could import no other, than an Apostolic act: as for Saint Augustine, is it not a just wonder, reader, that these men dare cite him for their opinion, (upon occasion of a modest word concerning the honorable title of Episcopacy) when as they cannot but know, and grant, that he has blazoned Aerius for a heretic, merely for holding the same tenet which they defend?

Lastly, if Gregory Nazianzen in a pathetic manner have wished the abolition of Episcopacy, (as he never did) what more dislike had he shown to it, than he did to Synods, when he said (⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩, etc.) that he never knew good come of them? But reader, it will be worth the while, to inquire into the fidelity of these men's allegations; do but consult the place of Nazianzen, and you shall find that he speaks not particularly of Episcopacy, but of all ⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩, or precedence, and of all quarrelsome challenges of place, and all tyrannical carriage of one man towards another, wishing that there were no standing upon points of precedence, but every man might be respected according to his virtue: and adding at last (Nunc autem dextrum hoc, et sinistrum, et medium latus, etc.) But now (says he) the right hand, and the left, and the middle place, and the higher and lower degree, and going before, and going cheek by jowl, what a world of troubles have they brought upon us? Thus he. See then, Reader, what a testimony here is for the utter abolition of Episcopacy, from a man who was so interested in the calling, that he was wont to be styled by his adversaries ⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩, The Bishop of three Sees: by this judge, reader, of the rest. So then, after all the clamors, and colorable pretenses of these men, this imparity and jurisdiction was conveyed from the Apostles' hands, and deduced in an uninterrupted line, through all following ages to this present day.

How can this be (say they) unless our Bishops will draw the line of their pedigree, through the lines of Antichrist, and join issue, and mingle blood with Rome? For shame, brethren, eat this word; what? Are there no Bishops but at Rome? Is the whole Church all the world over Antichristian, even those, which are no less angry at Rome than yourselves? Has not Episcopal imparity continued in them, all this while? Is there no distinction to be had between the calling, and the abuse? If the Antichristian Church have had Bishops; so it has had Churches, Scriptures, Baptism, Learning, Creeds; because we have all these with them, will you say we deduce them from the loins of Antichrist? Away with this impotent spite, and uncharitableness; and learn to be more modest and true in your assertions, and less confident in your appeals.