Apostles Instructions useless and impertinent He had not only Power to correct and punish Miscarriages He was also oblig'd to give suitable encouragement to the industrious Let the Elders that rule well says the Apostle be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 I know that the meaning of these words has been mightily controverted by dissenting Parties and that they have been made a foundation by some for the establishment of such a sort of Officers as before the last Age were never heard of in the Christian World But though they yield no such Consequence as these men would draw from them yet in my opinion they may give some light to the matters before us and afford us a Pattern of what was practis'd in the Primitive times For 1. All Presbyters were not then usually employ'd in labouring in the Word and Doctrine as will be manifest to any that will but consult what Mr. Le Moyne has written on this Subject and the Authorities mention'd by him But there was no reason to fear that the people should want Instruction when the Bishop who preach'd himself had many Presbyters under him and employ'd some in teaching some in administring the Sacraments some in visiting the Sick and comforting the Weak and Afflicted some in enquiring into Scandals and assisting in the Affairs of Government And the Inconveniencies that might arise from Emulation if every one had been Judge in his own Cause were best avoided by the Authority of the Bishop who assign'd Work and Encouragement to them suitable to their several Capacities 2. In the Primitive Times the Bishop was intrusted with the Goods of the Church and out of the Contributions that were made to him he appointed subordinate Officers to supply the Wants of private Christians He was also obliged to make provision out of the same for his Clergy And for this Timothy was a Precedent whose duty it was to take care that the Labourer should have his Reward and that the Elders who rul'd well should receive double honour or a double portion out of the Publick Stock They depended on him therefore for their maintenance as well as in the exercise of their Function But that the force of what I have argued from the Pre-eminence and Power of Timothy may the better appear I am desirous his Case may be compar'd with the following Instance in which we are alike disinteressed Nicocles was advis'd by Isocrates to confer Honors on the most deserving and to commit the management of Affairs to Men of worth as knowing that the Miscarriages of those that were in such a station would be imputed to him He was also advis'd to take cognizance of Complaints and to judge indifferently according to the Merits of the Cause between contending Parties And this was enough to satisfie any one that had never heard the Name of Nicocles and knew nothing of his Character that he had the Administration of Government and that the persons about whom he receiv'd this counsel were his Subjects In like manner when we reflect on the direction that was given to Timothy concerning the Ordination of Ministers and the danger he incurr'd if he did not observe it when we also consider how he was requir'd to proceed if an Action were brought before him against a Presbyter and what Care he was oblig'd to take of the Elders that ruled well we have reason to conclude that they were not his Equals but under his Inspection and Authority That Timothy had Episcopal Authority is manifest I think from what has been said and that he was Bishop of Ephesus appears from hence that there he resided that he might exercise his Apostolical Power in such manner as we have seen and that he might charge some who were persons doubtless that had Right to preach the Gospel to teach no other Doctrine The Apostle intended not as M. Daille observes that he should act feebly with those that were so bold as to corrupt a thing so important He does not say that he should pray or exhort them or that he should remonstrate to them or simply that he should conjure them not to depart from the truth He uses a term that implies more vigour and requires him to denounce to them that they teach no other Doctrine than the Apostles did For to denounce is to act with Authority in the Name and instead of another whose Person one sustains or whose Minister he is and with a Menace of Punishment to the disobedient And from hence says our Author it appears that Timothy was left by S. Paul in the Church of Ephesus with Authority to govern it and to censure and depose even Preachers themselves And if so I think we may safely conclude that they were under his Jurisdiction notwithstanding any thing this Learned Man added for the service of his Hypothesis What I have said of the Office of Timothy fully agrees with the Sentiments of the Ancients For by some of them he is styl'd an Apostle by some a Bishop and both meant the same thing Others speak more plainly and say that he was Bishop of Ephesus and of this Belief generally were the Fathers Nevertheless against that which they so universally receiv'd you produce several Objections and refer me for more to Mr. Prynne whose Treatise intitled The Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus c. came lately to my hands and now I am able to tell you that he is a very promising Author He pretends that he has refuted the Arguments for Episcopacy taken from the examples of Timothy and Titus in an irrefragable manner and that he hath shaken the rotten pillars and undermin'd the sandy foundations of the high towring Hierarchy and left it without any divine prop to support it longer This work he dedicates to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York proposing to them two things one of which he modestly leaves to their choice 1. He challenges them to give him a speedy solid satisfactory answer which must be pretty difficult if as he tells them he had made it manifest that their founding their Prelacy on a Divine Right on which grounds only they were willing to continue in their station was a mere absurd ridiculous fiction 2. In defect of this he requires them to relinquish their places and not any more to advance themselves above their Fellow-Ministers And for this demand there might have been some reason had he demonstrated every thing of which he boasts so confidently with as much certainty as he hath from abundance of Quotations and Examples both foreign and domestick that Bishops may dye of the Plague as well as other Folk notwithstanding their Rochets Miters Crofiers to the confusion of those arrogant Prelates that think otherwise But I was soon convinced that no great matter was to be expected from him for not far from the beginning of his
who was Bishop of Ephesus p. 104 Chap. 8. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus who was Bishop of Crete p. 132 Chap. 9. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches p. 144 Chap. 10. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the first Century consider'd p. 164 Chap. 11. After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops p. 172 Chap. 12. The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles p. 178 Chap. 13. The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors p. 190 Chap. 14. After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy p. 207 Chap. 15. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd p. 215 Chap. 16. Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment p. 236 Chap. 17. Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated p. 250 Chap. 18. The Testimony of the Fathers is necessary for the ascertaining to us the Canon of the Holy Scripture It is as Cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy p. 264 A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Samuel Smith at the Prince's Arms in S. Paul's Church-Yard London 1692. AN Enquiry after Happiness in several Parts by the Author of Practical Christianity Vol. 1. Of the Possibility of Obtaining Happiness The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged in Octavo 1692. Price 3 s. 6. d. Of the True Notion of Humane Life or a Second Part of the Enquiry after Happiness in Octavo 1690. Price 2 s. 6 d. The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation In Two Parts viz. The Heavenly Bodies Elements Meteors Fossils Vegetables Animals Beasts Birds Fishes and Insects more particularly in the Body of the Earth its Figure Motion and Consistency and in the Admirable Structure of the Bodies of Man and other Animals as also in their Generation c. By John Ray Fellow of the Royal Society The Second Edition very much Enlarged Printed in Octavo Price 3 s. Miscellaneous Discourses concerning the Dissolution and Changes of the World wherein the Primitive Chaos and Creation the General Deluge Fountains Formed Stones Sea-Shells found in the Earth Subterraneous Trees Mountains Earthquakes Vulcano's the Universal Conflagration and Future State are largly Discussed and Examined By John Ray Fellow of the Royal Society in Octavo 1692. Price 2 s. 6 d. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Roman Emperour concerning himself Treating of a Natural Man's Happiness Wherein it consisteth and of the Means to attain unto it Translated out of the Original Greek with Notes By Meric Casaubon D. D. The Fifth Edition to which is added The Life of Antoninus with some Select Remarks upon the whole by Monsieur and Madam Dacier never before in English in Octavo 1692. Price 5 s. A TREATISE OF Church-Government Address'd to the AUTHOR of the LETTERS Concerning the same Subject CHAP. I. Jesus Christ the Founder of Church Government The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted To them he gave no Temporal Authority yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual SIR SINCE you have been pleas'd to declare to the World what expectation you had that I would give you a Scheme of my thoughts concerning Church-Government your Readers have occasion enough to enquire how you could meet with disappointment when you had the Papers before you wherein I had largely handled that Subject and whilst you pretend to have drawn the things from thence which you endeavour to confute and not from your own Invention The truth is this Address would have been unnecessary had you fully related my sense of the matters in debate between us as you found it express'd in my private Letters But the representations you have made of it are so very defective that I think my self obliged to communicate to publick view the Principles on which I proceeded with a Vindication of them And I begin with what is evident enough That our Saviour Christ who is Head of the Church was the Founder of Ecclesiastical Government and consequently it proceeded from a Divine Institution The Original of this Government being known we may the more easily gain a true Idea of its Nature for that may best be discern'd when we consider it in the greatest Purity as it came out of the hands of our Lord and was exercis'd by his Apostles who were the first Ministers that he ordain'd And upon enquiry we shall find That to qualifie them for the administration of it he gave them no Temporal Jurisdiction and yet did communicate to them Spiritual Authority That amongst themselves they stood related as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors And on these things all that I have to say of Church-Government will depend An easie Enquiry will inform us that our Saviour gave his Apostles no Temporal Jurisdiction For it is plain that he did not send them to exercise any such Dominion as was possess'd by the Kings of the Earth or the Lords of the Gentiles Nor did he any where disingage them from Subjection to the Civil Magistrate He gave them Commission to combate nothing but Ignorance and Vice and when he call'd them to resist unto blood it was that of themselves and not of other men And according to the Instructions they receiv'd they taught and practis'd Submission to Secular Princes not only for Wrath but Conscience sake and in all their Conduct nothing appear'd that might give any just occasion of Jealousie to the State or create Disturbance to the Empire Our Saviour said indeed that when he was lifted up from the Earth he would draw all men unto him But these words signifying what death he should die are far enough from the sense which Jacobus de Terano puts upon them For that wretched Paraphrast introduces our Lord speaking after this manner I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the World and take them from Cesar and from Kings and Princes by my Souldiers the Apostles With such prodigious flattery says Marquardus Freherus from whom I borrow'd that Observation the Books of Augustinus de Ancona and other Papal Parasites are stuft and with such Ornaments are the Decretal Epistles embellished To these he might have added the Annals of Baronius who amongst other things that occur in them of like nature grounds the Doctrine of deposing Princes on that expression Arise Peter kill and eat And accordingly that Doctrine prevail'd by killing and devouring It made its impressions with Blood and Violence but not without the assistance of
much Art as may partly appear by this discourse of the Cardinal Prosper Sanctacrucius with the French Ambassador Paul de Foix in the presence of Thuanus You compel me Sir said the Cardinal in your favour to reveal a Mystery that hath been conceal'd with a profound veneration which is that this Court uses an exquisite Severity when there is occasion and it may be done without danger and when any man of great Quality submits to it the Cause is prolong'd with abundance of delays till the fame thereof and the terror of our name be spread over the World This Severity is so long successful as it is tamely born either through weakness or religious fear but if a Prince be held by neither with caution and great dissimulation we depart from this Rigor This was an ingenuous Confession and it shews in what wretched condition they have been who most of all dreaded the Thunder of the Vatican That the Popes and their Creatures have infringed the Prerogatives of Princes is evident beyond exception And that others who have seem'd very adverse from them have notwithstanding in this imitated their Example appears also from many instances and will not be deny'd I suppose by you who have read Spotswood's History of the Church of Scotland and have no fondness for the Presbyterian Discipline But whoever they are that take such measures and invade and grasp into their hands the Rights of the Magistrate whether they pretend to it in order to things Spiritual or for the advancement of the Scepter of Christ they make the Gospel a Carnal thing and do infinite dishonour to Christianity by their Usurpations This may be sufficient to let you see that the sentiments I have of Ecclesiastical Government intrench not on the Temporal and that when you tell me The sword knows no other edge but what the Magistrate gives it it makes nothing against me who am of opinion that the Church hath no Secular Power but what is deriv'd from Secular Princes and what may be limited or extended by them Nevertheless I affirm in the next place that our Saviour communicated some Power to his Church and particularly that he conferr'd on his Apostles such Authority as Secular Princes could not bestow For he gave them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven He gave them Commission to absolve offenders and an assurance that their Sentence should be ratified Whose soever sins said he ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained After his Ascension they acted as his Representatives and by the Power they received from him they constituted other Officers to be Governours of Churches and to them they convey'd some Authority For Authority is implied in the Titles that are attributed to them in the Scripture and in different degrees it belongs to all Ecclesiastical Rulers Obey them that have the Rule over you says the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and submit your selves for they watch for your souls Heb. 13.17 And Clemens Romanus admonishes those who had laid the foundation of the Schism at Corinth To be subject to their Presbyters to be contrite and penitent for their former miscarriages to lay aside their arrogant speeches and to learn submission since it were better as he tells them that they should be little in the Fold of Christ than to swell with pride and fall from their hopes in him The Authority that has been assigned to the Apostles and other Pastors of the Church is commonly called Spiritual and not unfitly for it is exercis'd in Spiritual matters and relates to the affairs of another World It does not touch or hurt the Body or Life or Estate of an Offender but by accident It may be assisted by the Coercive Power of the Magistrate but that is not essential to it The administration of it is sometimes rendred more easie by the favour of Princes and sometimes more difficult by their opposition but it is the same in it self under those various circumstances It has its proper effects in the times of Persecution as well as in those that are serene and calm and it must be granted that Obedience is always due to it under the pain of God's displeasure unless one will say that his Precepts may be broken without danger or that Ecclesiastical Government is one of the most precarious useless things in the World Before I dismiss this Subject it may be fit to take notice of the Attempts against Ecclesiastical Authority that have been made by a late Writer who is suppos'd by some to be what he thought himself a man of Demonstration You are no Stranger to his Opinions amongst which this is one that Christ himself had not nor hath in this World any Regal or Governing Power Our Saviour was sent says he to persuade the Jews to return to and to invite the Gentiles to receive the Kingdom of the Father but not to reign in Majesty no not as his Fathers Lieutenant till the day of Judgment And from hence he gathers that no obedience to his Officers can be requir'd For this purpose he produces these words of Christ My Kingdom is not of this world But he certainly mistakes their sense as the Manichees did before him and the Answer may be apply'd to him which was given to them by Theophylact who observes that it is said indeed My Kingdom is not of this World and again it is not from hence But it is not said My Kingdom is not in this World or it is not here The Kingdom of Christ is not from the earth as its Cause nor is it earthly in its Nature Yet is the Earth part of his Empire and he turns about the affairs of it at his pleasure In his state of humiliation he had power on Earth to forgive sins And then it was that he said to his Disciples Ye call me Master and Lord and ye say well for so I am After his Resurrection he declar'd that all power was given to him in heaven and in earth And so far is it from being true that he reigns not till the day of judgment that the Apostle says expresly He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet If our Saviour had all Power he might delegate some part of it to his Apostles and that he did so appears from what has been said and it may be confirm'd from the Promise which he made to them that they should sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel This place I know has been made use of to prove that no Ministers of Christ have any ruling power till he comes to judgment But one that attentively considers that the Jurisdiction which is represented by sitting on Thrones commences not with his coming in Glory but with his entring into it or being in it may find reason to think he design'd to intimate to his Apostles
their Equals but subject to their Authority I will not contend as you have done that a Diocesan compar'd to an Apostle is less in Authority than a Parish Priest nor can I approve what you take for granted that the Apostles could constitute no Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction But since you offer more than I can accept you allow as much as I demand which is only this that Presbyters were subordinate to the Apostles If there be now any doubt whether the Title of Bishops may fitly be assign'd to the Apostles whose Authority was Prelatical that may easily be resolv'd from hence that when the Psalmist in one of his Prophecies and S. Peter in the Application of it spake of a Bishoprick they mean't an Apostleship His Bishoprick say they let another take that is let another be chosen in the room of Judas to bear the Office of an Apostle and accordingly the Apostles are said to have been Bishops by S. Cyprian and by Hilarius Sardus and other Ancient Writers CHAP. III. If the Apostles were Bishops Episcopacy is of a Divine Original The Objection against this that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers consider'd IF the Apostles were Bishops of the Church and if they had Episcopal Authority over Presbyters Episcopacy is not a mere prudential thing as you suggest or a defection from the first Rule of Ecclesiastical Government It was not the Invention of a Diotrephes or a Creature of Ambition but proceeded from our Lord himself and is of a Divine Extraction But however the Apostles were Bishops you conclude that they were not Precedents for Government in succeeding times because as you tell me they were Extraordinary Officers And in this Assertion you stand not single for it has been often urged by others and readily receiv'd by Persons of different Persuasions Nevertheless I think we ought not without due examination to admit a pretence which has been made use of to very bad purposes The greatest Zealots for the Papal Monarchy tell us that S. Peter only convey'd his Power to his Successors but as for the rest of the Apostles their Authority was Extraordinary and died with them But this the Socinians affirm of them all And the same reason for which they conclude that an end was put to the Apostolical Office they employ also to cancel the use of Ministerial Mission or Ordination They grant indeed that such Mission was requisite for the first Preachers of the Gospel but assert that now it is become unnecessary since we are not to teach a new Doctrine with which the World is unacquainted but to explain the old one But at this rate they that are weary of any Ordinance of Christ which is of positive Institution need but fasten on it the Name of Extraordinary and then it must be of no longer continuance I have therefore been desirous to know what Standard you have for Extraordinaries And on this occasion you have oblig'd me with an Act of pure Generosity for which I never ask'd You send me to Cicero and Lipsius to shew what were the Extraordinary Honors Power Magistrates among the Romans which I knew well enough before But what I demand is some plain and certain Rule by which the things design'd for continuance in the Christian Church may be distinguished from those that were shortly to expire And such a Standard as this I have not been able to obtain from you I must therefore be content to state the matter as well as I can without it and for that purpose I shall here set down some things wherein I suppose we are agreed 1. We are agreed that they are Extraordinary Officers who are only rais'd on some particular or special occasion or accident to which their work is limited But then it must be granted that whatsoever proves not that the Work or Office of the Apostles was limited to their own time or that they might have no Successors neither doth it prove them to have been Extraordinary Officers This I take to be manifest enough and what use I intend to make of it will shortly appear 2. We are agreed That Persons in Office may have Successors in some things who have none in others particularly they may have those for Successors in their Ordinary Work who are not so in some of their Privileges We have great reason for this for otherwise no Succession of Ecclesiastical Officers could have been preserv'd and we must have remain'd like the old Acephali without Ministers and without Sacraments 3. We are agreed that the Apostles themselves had Successors in their Ordinary work But that we may rightly understand one another and that nothing may disturb so friendly an accommodation I farther add 1. That I take all that to be their Ordinary work which others also did perform by the Authority they received from them and which hath been continued in the Church ever since their days 2. I call that their Extraordinary work which was peculiar to them Accordingly you may reckon amongst Extraordinaries such Circumstances as were appropriate to themselves or their actions and whatsoever Privileges and Qualifications they had which were incommunicable you may also set them down in your Catalogue of Extraordinaries for they were Personal and died with them 4. We are agreed that to teach and instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion to administer the Sacraments to constitute Guides and to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church was the Apostles Ordinary work This is what you your self assign unto them as such in the words of Dr. Cave which I cannot but approve But you must put a strange Interpretation on them if they do not overthrow that for which you produced them For if as you say well after that Excellent Author it did belong to the standing and perpetual part of the Apostles work to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church that must be either such a Discipline or such a Government as they did not exercise or such as they did If you say the first of these you suppose that to have been their Ordinary work which was not their work at all If you say the last then it will follow that such Government as they exercis'd and which was Prelatical ought to be continued to the end of the World I might now justly neglect all your Arguments drawn from the number of the Apostles from their seeing Christ and the Mission they receiv'd immediately from him from their being the Foundation of the Church and the Power they had to work Miracles from the Extent of their Charge and their unsetled condition by which you would prove that they are Extraordinary Officers for you may furnish your self with a Reply to them from the Articles of our Agreement But in hopes to give farther light to what has been said before I am content to attend your Motions and you are like to find me liberal
enough in my Concessions I. I grant that originally there were but twelve Apostles and I doubt not but as S. Barnabas intimates they were so many in allusion to the twelve Tribes of Israel But it does not follow from hence that the Office of the Apostles was limited to that Number or to their Persons On the contrary I shall prove in another place that it was actually communicated to others yet I deny not but the Name of the Twelve was continued for as it was assign'd to the Apostles with regard to their first Institution when Judas was fall'n and there remain'd only Eleven so it was also when many more were admitted into the Sacred College And thus says Peter du Moulin The Regions of Decapolis and Pentapolis kept up their Names when some of their old Cities were destroy'd or when new ones were built within their Precincts and Neapolis which signifies a New City is still so call'd notwithstanding its great Antiquity II. I grant That the first Apostles saw the Lord but this was no part of their Office only it made them fit to be the first Witnesses of Christianity Because says Paulinus they were to be sent into the World for the Information of all Nations it was requisite they should receive the Faith they were to preach not only with their ears but with their eys that what they had more firmly learned they might more constantly teach But we cannot infer from hence that none might succeed them in teaching and governing Their Conversation with Christ in the Flesh was a great Privilege to which at this time none can justly pretend But what qualified them for the Mission by which they were enabled to constitute subordinate Officers did not hinder them certainly from appointing others to preside over them as themselves had done III. I grant That the Apostles had their Commission immediately from our Saviour But notwithstanding this Privilege others might as well succeed them in the Authority they had to govern the Churches as Princes might sit on the Throne of David who were not advanced to it in a manner so Extraordinary by the particular Appointment and express Declaration of the Almighty as himself had been Noah his Sons receiv'd Power by an express Revelation over the beasts of the earth and over the fowl of the air over every thing that moved upon the earth and over the fishes of the sea and liberty to eat of every living thing as of the green herb Yet they transmitted that Power and Liberty to their Posterity who have not such an intercourse with Heaven as themselves had Thus the first Apostles who were sent immediately by Christ himself might convey their Authority to others who had not that advantage And 't is manifest that their Office was actually delegated to Matthias to whom our Lord did not immediately speak the words of their Commission IV. I grant That the Apostles were in some sense the Foundation on which the Christian Church was built for so we learn from S. Paul Eph. 2.20 But this does not demonstrate that they were an Extraordinary part of the Building Some think they were said to be the Foundation because they first published the Gospel So the Socinians interpret that Expression and they infer from thence as you have also done that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers But if for that reason they were so in any thing it was in teaching and consequently That was an Extraordinary Part of their work which you say was standing and perpetual Casaubon observes in one of his Exercitations on the Annals of Baronius that when the word Rock is used Metaphorically in Scripture it is with allusion to some Properties of a Rock and denotes Firmness and Stability or the like And says this Learned Man a Rock and Foundation are put for the same thing and differ not in Reality but in Notion only This is what you will be oblig'd to confute if you still adhere to your Opinion for in vain do you argue that the Apostles must needs have had Extraordinary Authority because they had the honour to be a Foundadation of the Catholick Church if no Authority be signified by that expression The Apostles were vested with Authority by their Commission before they planted Churches and therefore did not derive it from that work But if we think that because they formed those Societies their Authority must needs have been Extraordinary and Incommunicable we may as well conclude that Romulus was no King because at Rome he laid the Foundation of the Regal Government which work was not repeated by those that succeeded him in the Throne For my part I know no necessity that they who constitute Churches should be of a distinct Order from those that afterwards preside over them Frumentius was as much a Bishop when he travell'd from one place to another in India after his return thither to plant Churches as any that govern'd them in succeeding times and they that were ordain'd Bishops by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe did not forfeit their Character whatever that was or acquire any Extraordinary Authority if they were employ'd to convert those that were committed to their Charge But you tell me that whilst the Founder of a College lives it is the duty of the founded on emergent difficulties to have recourse to him and take his directions but he dying his Authority dies with him And it may be so and it may be otherwise You your self cannot be ignorant I am sure how usual it hath been for Founders to appoint Visitors of their Colleges and how permanent their Power has been in our Universities So that this Argument if one may call it so may easily be turn'd against you But Founders you say as such as have no Successors This is profound and it signifies that none came after them to lay the very same Foundations which they had finished before If such arguing as this silences all disputes and puts an end to the fatal Controversies which you truly say have almost destroy'd the Church it must be when the contending Parties are become very weary of their strife and are mightily inclin'd to an Accommodation V. I grant That the Apostles had Power to work Miracles for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrine But this hinders not a Succession to them in that Authority which is not miraculous but may be continued in all Ages There was something Extraordinary in the manner of discharging the Apostolical Office but it does not follow from hence that the Office itself was so or ought to be laid aside Otherwise for the same reason we must lay aside Baptism Imposition of Hands Praying and Preaching because all these things were attended with something Extraordinary and Miraculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says S. Chrysostom There was nothing that was merely humane or common in that Age of Wonders But Miracles are said to be the
Signs of an Apostle 2 Cor. 12.12 And from hence you have infer'd that none can have a Title to the Authority of Apostles who cannot produce those Signs and Credentials And this I confess is very specious but that is all as may partly appear from what has been said already and will be more manifest by comparing the words of S. Paul in the place before mention'd with those of our Saviour Christ Mark 16.17 18. For speaking there in general terms of such as in all parts of the World should be drawn to the Christian Faith These signs says he shall follow them that believe In my name shall they cast out devils they shall speak with new tongues they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover Now if one should conclude that whosoever cannot cast out Devils speak with Tongues c. have not the Signs that should follow those that believe and therefore are no Believers this Consequence would be as good as the former But if it be absurd the other is so too Against this your Exception is That the Signs our Saviour speaks of did not follow all but only some that believed That Miracles were not called the Signs of Believers but that they were such Marks and Characteristical Notes of the Apostles that by them S. Paul prov'd himself to be one of their Order To which I reply 1. That you suppose a real difference between the Expression of Christ and that of the Apostle whereas there is none For I appeal to any Person that is a competent Judge of the sense of words whether these signs shall follow or attend a Believer and these shall be the signs of a Believer are not Propositions of the same import Certainly had S. Paul said the Signs which follow an Apostle have been wrought among you he had said as much as we find in his own words the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you If therefore the Promise of Christ extends not to all the Faithful but some may believe who cannot shew the Signs that once followed Believers so may some have such Authority over other Ecclesiastical Officers as the first Apostles exercis'd who cannot perform those things which were the Signs of those Apostles 2. If Miracles as such were a Note of the Apostolical Office if they were that peculiar or characteristical Mark by which S. Paul was known and demonstrated to be an Apostle then all that had that Mark that is all that wrought Miracles were also Apostles and consequently the number of the Apostles must be vastly increas'd by the accession of many Christians who did bear no Office in the Church at all Yet I deny not but Miracles in connexion with something else were Signs or Marks both of the Apostles and other Christians They were Signs of the Apostles as they confirm'd that Authority they exercis'd and which they declar'd they had receiv'd from Christ They were Signs of Believers as attesting the Truth of what they professed They were the Signs of those that had the Power of Miracles but not such Signs as exclude all others from their Order and Rank that have them not For Illustration of this I further add that something may be fit and necessary for the first Institution of an Order which is not so for the Continuance of it For example the Seventy Elders mention'd Num. 11. were constituted Judges by the immediate Command of Heaven and the Lord came down in a cloud and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses and gave it to them and they prophesied v. 25. This Spirit was no more Accidental to them than other Miraculous Gifts were to the Apostles for it was made necessary by the appointment of God v. 16 17. and it was such a Characteristical Mark of their being chosen by him that Eldad and Medad who remain'd in the Camp were distinguished by it and known to be of their number v. 26. But it was only a Mark of the first Elders None that came after them were advanced to that Dignity and confirm'd in it with such Solemnity Yet the great Council which is said to have consisted of this Order of Men remain'd till the last Desolation of the Jewish Nation The Advancement of Aaron to his Office was Extraordinary and so were his Circumstances yet others succeeded him in that Office who were not admitted into it nor established in it in a manner so miraculous and stupendous as their Great Ancestor had been They resided at Jerusalem whereas he had sojourn'd in the Wilderness They had not their Garments made by inspired Workmen as his were nor could they perform the mighty Acts which he did yet were they as certainly High-Priests as he was notwithstanding the want of his Qualifications Formerly you thought that if an Extraordinary Mission and Extraordinary Power do not constitute Extraordinary Officers then there never could be any such in the Church of God But upon better information you cannot but acknowledge that Aaron had such a Mission and such Power and yet was succeeded by some that had neither Only you tell me that these Extraordinary Qualifications of Aaron were contingent and that he had them not as he was High-Priest but by a particular and express Revelation nor could his Authority when he was oppos'd by Corah and his company have been preserv'd but by a Miracle Afterwards he could not have been continued High-Priest had he not been distinguished by the blossoming of his Rod for that by the appointment of God became a necessary Mark by which the Person might be known whom the Lord had chosen to that Dignity and without which none might have own'd him under the Character he had born But this Miracle was a visible confirmation of his Election and the wonderful Rod was kept as a lasting Sign of it against the Rebels The Successors of Aaron as they were High Priests gave Answers when they were consulted in weighty affairs by Vrim and Thummim But according to Josephus these Oracles ceas'd two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities which is much later than the Period assigned to them by the generality of the Jewish Rabbies yet it is early enough to shew that there were many High-Priests who had not that LIGHT and PERFECTION which distinguished their Predecessors and for which they were so eminent and useful to their Nation The Deacons at Jerusalem where they were first appointed were Originally seven and these might not have been chosen and constituted had they not been Men full of the Holy Ghost Stephen who was one of them was full of Faith and Power and did great Wonders and Miracles And Philip also cast out unclean Spirits and healed those that were taken with Palsies and those that were Lame So that Simon Magus who saw the mighty Works which he did was filled with Wonder
and Astonishment like the Inchanters of Egypt when they beheld the Finger of God But neither was it afterwards always requisite that there should be just seven Deacons however some religiously adher'd to that number nor was it necessary that they should always be adorn'd with Gifts that were Extraordinary and Miraculous for otherwise when Miracles ceas'd their Office must have ceas'd with them The Circumstances of the first Presbyters were also Extraordinary They were qualified for their Ordination with Extraordinary Gifts and Directions were given about it by Extraordinary Indications They could pray with the Spirit and preach by Inspiration They could speak Languages which they had never learn'd and perform other things as Miraculous Yet when all those Extraordinaries ceas'd the Order and Mission of Presbyters did not so but still remain'd and ought to remain to the end of the World From these Instances it is manifest that some things might be requisite for the beginning of an Office and for some that were vested with it a repetition of which is not always necessary for its preservation nor for all that are advanced to it However therefore the Apostles had some Prerogatives to which none at this time have any just pretence however it was very fit that they that were the first Planters of the Gospel should be able to recommend their Doctrine which was then new to the World with Miracles which we may call the Seals of that Commission which they receiv'd from Christ yet the Authority they had as Supreme Visible Pastors of the Church might descend to others who have no need of new Seals or Credentials for what may be sufficiently confirm'd by the same Let us now suppose if you please that the Apostles did more Miracles than any others or that the working of some was peculiar to them yet if Miracles as such hinder not a Succession to them the number and quality of their Miracles cannot do it without some declaration that they were intended for that purpose They may rather seem to concur with other things in signifying the pleasure of the Almighty to preserve that Office or Order which he so highly approv'd and which he had established in so wonderful a manner VI. I grant that the Charge of the Apostles was of great extent yet this hinders not but that they might have Successors in their Office or Authority They had a large Sphere of Action when they were sent to disciple all Nations But then no Apostle had sole Commission to do this Neither were the Apostles wont to act as in a Common Council by Majority of Voices but dispers'd themselves that they might better propagate the Doctrine of Christ They did not all travel together into the same Country but some went into Asia some into Scythia and others into other Nations says Didymus as they were directed by the Holy Spirit The Armenian Historian in Galanus tells us that having received the Holy Ghost they divided the Countries by Lot But certain it is that some of them were more especially engaged to plant Christianity amongst the Gentiles some amongst those of the Circumcision Some in this Nation and some in that No single Person had the whole work of preaching the Gospel committed solely to him For as there ought to be no Oecumenical Bishop so there was no Oecumenical Apostle who had Jurisdiction over the rest It is also manifest that all the Bishops in the second and other Centuries had Power to govern all the Churches that were planted by all the Apostles and to propagate Christianity far and near so that the Charge of both in general was of equal extent And if the multitude of Pastors as well as of other Christians increasing particular Bishops were concluded within a narrower compass than the Apostles had been such Disproportion of Dioceses does not necessarily hinder the Title of Succession of one from another as may appear by the following Instances The Kings of Judah are mentioned in Scripture as sitting on the Throne of David when ten Tribes pay'd them no Obedience So that however they had not his Dominions intire it was enough to preserve their Succession to him in Royal Authority that they retained it in such parts of them as remain'd under their subjection Eutropius says of Severus that he left his Sons Bassianus and Geta his Successors And Constantine he tells us left his three Sons his Successors none of which singly could have all the Dominions of their Father in which the other Brothers had their share And not to mention other Examples I find in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius the Great Men who divided amongst them the Empire of Alexander twice styled his Successors and once the Successors by way of Eminence yet no one of them had either the personal Courage and Conduct or all the Dominions of that Mighty Conqueror Perhaps it will be said that this is a mere Dispute about Words for that is the Reflection which a Learned Foreiner was pleas'd to cast on it when it had been managed by an incomparable hand But when Salmasius whom others have followed argues against the Succession to the Apostles from his own mistake of a Word to give its true Interpretation and to confute that which is erroneous is the best way I think to shew the weakness of his reasoning VII I grant That other Pastors of the Church are commonly under an Obligation to a more constant Residence in some particular Places than the Apostles were yet this hinders not the Bishops from succeeding the Apostles in their Office or Authority For 1. It is not Essential to the Office of a Bishop that he reside in a Place as a Local Pastor of a particular Church nor is it always necessary as you suggest that he should be ordain'd to a certain People They that with us are advanc'd to the Episcopal Chair are constituted Bishops in the Church of God But that they are limited to a certain Diocese proceeds from such Rules of Government as are not always of necessary Obligation The Council of Chalcedon declar'd that none should be ordain'd at large yet this Rule says Grotius was not of Divine and Perpetual but Positive Right and it may admit of many Exceptions Before that Council S. Paulinus was ordained Absolutely in Sacerdotiam tantùm Domini non in locum Ecclesiae dedicatus as himself speaks in an Epistle to Severus And when S. Jerom was made a Presbyter he had no peculiar Church or Title assign'd to him And to come nearer to the matter Photius tells us that Caius who flourished in the beginning of the Third Century was constituted Bishop of the Gentiles that is of the Heathen at large that by his Labours amongst them he might draw them to the Christian Faith Indeed where Ecclesiastical Government is setled and Christianity flourishes however persecuted by the Civil Power it is requisite for the most part that the Jurisdiction of
vast number of Believers And these are things that may put such Marks of Dignity on the Person that presides in it that the Chief Apostles had reason to think it would not have been a diminution but an honour rather to any of them to have been in his Station This may be sufficient to clear the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus as recorded by Eusebius to whom I refer'd you and I am not concern'd to enquire Whether the relation of it which you produce from Theodorus Metochita and others and which you say carries with it it s own Confutation be so absurd as you imagine Yet I cannot but observe that when I offer what you despair of opposing with success you think it enough to find out something else which in your judgment carries with it its own Confutation A Politick device I confess but no great Argument of your Ingenuity Hegesippus flourish'd in the same Age with Clemens but something more early and living so near the Apostles time he made use of that advantage in his Enquiries into the things that were done in them amongst which he acquaints us this was one That S. James took on him the Government of the Church of Jerusalem Hegesippus does not only relate this of him but he gives us a copious Account of his Life and Martyrdom yet this I confess would signifie but little were he as Joseph Scaliger represents him a trifling and a fabulous Writer But that he was unjustly censur'd by that celebrated Critick has been shew'd by Petavius and Valesius and to what they have said more might be added for his Vindication if it would not occasion too large a Digression or were it necessary to insist so much on the Authority of one for the Confirmation of a thing which may be sufficiently prov'd by the Suffrage of many others That S. James was Bishop or had the Charge of the Church of Jerusalem hath been generally believ'd by the Christians of different Nations and Languages The memory of it hath been preserv'd by the Ethiopians in their Diptychs by the Coptites in their Fasti and by the Syrians in their Menology It hath been receiv'd and related as an undoubted truth by Hippolytus and Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem and another Cyril of Scythopolis by Epiphanius and Chrysostom by Augustin and Fulgentius by Nicephorus and Photius by Oecumenius and Nilus And it was also mention'd as a thing universally acknowledged by the Sixth General Council and Blondel himself confesses that it was asserted by all the Fathers This Testimony in which they are so unanimous will appear the more considerable if it agree exactly with the Circumstances of S. James as they are represented in the Holy Scripture And that it does so will be manifest by comparing it with several places of the New Testament wherein he is mention'd For instance we read that when Peter had escap'd out of Prison he said to those that were surpriz'd and astonish'd at his presence Go and shew these things to James and to the Brethren In which words he passes by all Ecclesiastical Officers except James without any particular notice And this I take to be an Indication that however there might be others at Jerusalem that were subordinate to him there remain'd none with him that were his Equals When Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter other Disciples saw he none but James the Lord's Brother And this is that James says S. Jerom who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem a Person of great Sanctity and of such Reputation that the People would press and throng that they might touch but the Skirt of his Garment That Father also gives this reason why S. Paul did not see other Apostles it was he tells us because they were dispersed abroad to preach the Gospel but he resided where his peculiar Charge was Fourteen years after this or rather as some think after his Conversion S. Paul went up again to Jerusalem and there he found James and reckons him with Cephas and John who seem'd to be Pillars and were Chief Apostles hereby paying respect in the Opinion of Bede to the Dignity of his Chair And 't is observable that however Peter was one of the Number yet to James he gives the first place because says Anselm at Jerusalem where he was Bishop he had the Primacy But this you will not admit for that preference you say might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother As if John was not also the Lord's Brother who is mention'd after Peter or James had but lately contracted this relation I think this variation in the Order of Names from the usual Method must suppose a Change in the Affairs of the Apostles and import something peculiar to S. James which did not always belong to him but now gave him the pre-eminence in this place What that was we have seen already and Mr. Calvin saw it and does not speak of it as a thing improbable for says he When the question is concerning dignity it is wonderful that James should be prefer'd before Peter Perhaps it was because he was Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem The good man would not speak more plainly out of tenderness to his own Discipline At the Council of Jerusalem S. James makes a greater Figure than any of the rest of the Apostles and speaks with an Air of Authority as President of the Synod He was Bishop of Jerusalem says Chrysostom and to him was the chief Place assign'd And from hence it was that others having given their sense of things in debate S. James passes the final Sentence whereupon says Hesychius How shall I celebrate the Servant and Brother of Christ the Supreme Governour of the New Jerusalem the Prince of Priests the Chief of the Apostles the most resplendent amongst the Lamps and most illustrious amongst the Stars Peter preaches but James decrees His words are but few but comprehend the greatness of the question My sentence is says he that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God And thus says the Commentator on his Acts he spake the word and it was done His Suffrage passed into the form of a Law and was deliver'd to the Church Indeed if S. James had usurpt a Jurisdiction over his Collegues this had been criminal But I have ascrib'd to him no other Pre-eminence but what we may well suppose was granted to him by the rest of the Apostles that the proceedings in the Assembly might be the more regular It was agreeable to the Nature of a Synod not that he that presided in it should determine the thing in controversie by his sole Power but with the consent of the other members of it This is what S. James did after the full hearing of the matter and the manner of his giving
we may reckon the Apostles of the Churches mention'd by S. Paul 2. Cor. 8.23 For they are said to be the Glory of Christ which Character I suppose they did not beat because they were employ'd in going on Errands but as they were the Representatives of Christ in governing such parts of his Kingdom as were assign'd to their especial care The ground of this Interpretation I take from 1 Cor. 11.7 where we read that Man is the Image and Glory of God which words in the judgment of Theodoret are not to be understood with respect either to the Body of the Man or to his Soul but to the Dominion that he hath from God over the Creatures In the same Verse we read that the Woman is the Glory of the Man The Wife is the Glory of her Husband She is says Theodoret as it were the Image of that Image and as such she hath Power over the rest of the Family Thus when these Apostles are said to be the Glory of Christ this implies something of Jurisdiction which they receiv'd from him And when they are said to be the Apostles of the Churches the meaning is not that they were their Messengers but their Spiritual Pastors They were their Spiritual Rulers and our Lord's Vicegerents acting in his Name and by his Authority Agreeable to what has been said is this Observation of S. Jerom That in process of time besides those whom the Lord had chosen others were ordain'd Apostles as these words to the Philippians declare I suppos'd it necessary sayes S. Paul to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and Companion in labour and Fellow-souldier but your Apostle Phil. 2 25. But you wonder that after S. Jerom I should cite this place for a Proof that Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi and at first you could hardly believe that I was in earnest As if it were now such a fault to follow S. Jerom who when you have occasion to press him into your service is as Learned and Pious a Father as any the Churches ever own'd S. Jerom is not singular in what he says of Epaphroditus for Hilary tells us he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians which in his Language signifies that he was their Bishop And with him agrees Pacianus and Theodoret also whose Notions about the Primitive Government of the Church are usually very clear and coherent If you consult Writers of greatest fame amongst the Assertors of Presbyterian Parity you will find them granting that Epaphroditus was something more than a mere Messenger Blondel reckons him amongst the Chief Governors of Churches and for this he quotes Pacianus Jerom and Theodoret as I have done and if you can hardly believe him to be in earnest you may take the same exception against Walo Messalinus for says he Epaphroditus was call'd the Apostle of the Philippians as Paul was said to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision He mentions the contrary Opinion but then he adds To me it seems to have no appearance of truth since I know that the word Apostle is never us'd by S. Paul nor by any other Apostles and Evangelists but for a Sacred Ministery But this Observation of Walo you say will hold no water for you take it that John 13.16 in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a common promiscuous sense and render'd so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable instance against him That is you are now assur'd that whereas this Word is us'd about fourscore times in the New Testament in one of them it signifies any common Messenger And if you could demonstrate this as impregnably as you have asserted it with confidence it would be no great matter of triumph Yet this is more than I can grant you have perform'd For in the place you insist upon our Saviour speaks thus to his Disciples He that is sent or an Apostle is not greater than he that sent him As if he had said Ye my Apostles that I mean to settle Governours of the Church are not greater than I from whom you have your Commission and by whom you are constituted That is the Paraphrase of the Learned Dr. Hammond on those words of our Lord and as it is very agreeable to the Context so it shews to what little purpose you have employ'd this place of Scripture Nor have you any better success but less shew of reason where you tell me that notwithstanding Epaphroditus is in Greek call'd an Apostle yet it no more follows from thence that he was a Bishop than that Joseph the Mittendary as you call him in Epiphanius was on this account a Bishop for you might as well have urg'd that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles I think no man that reads the accounts of the Mittendary in Epiphanius and of Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians can form the same Notions of both for 't is manifest that one was an Officer under a Jewish Patriarch and the other a Christian Minister of great eminence The same general Title indeed was common to both but it was not so applied at the time about which we are in debate nor by those Writers from whose style and expressions the thing in controversie must be determin'd Jacobus Gothofredus who searched in to the Original of the Jewish Apostles of which Epiphanius speaks and was willing to carry it as high as possible could not find them mention'd by any Author before the fourth Century None of the Pen-men of the New Testament no Ecclesiastical Writer of the first Age calls any man an Apostle who was not a Pastor of the Christian Church and of an Order Superior to that of Presbyters And consequently he that was styled the Apostle of the Philippians was their Bishop By which word I always understand a Prelate when I give no intimation of the contrary or of leaving its signification undetermin'd You think the Connexion and Coherence carry it for your sense and that Epaphroditus was no more than a Mittendary because S. Paul says of him that he ministred to his wants But if Castellio has well expressed the sense of these words they will afford no such Inference as you have drawn from them but signifie that Epaphroditus was sent to supply the place of S. Paul at Philippi And much may be said for this Exposition but it is I confess out of the common road of Interpreters And to what you have objected I farther answer that Epaphroditus may be said to minister to the wants of S. Paul who received of him the things of the Philippians and yet it doth not appear from Scripture that they sent him much less is there any probability that if he was sent by them he was for that reason dignified with the
highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church There is another reason for that Title for S. Paul calls him his Brother in such a manner as he does no man who was not his Colleague He also calls him his Companion in labour and his Fellow souldier not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions from place to place but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry I make no question but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow And the word so translated in Nonnus signifies an Equal In the Glossary of Philoxenus and in the Vulgar Latin 't is render'd by Compar And by Compar says Reinesius is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition and he shews that so it is us'd in Plautus This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3 compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function and if so he was not only in Name but in Reality an Apostle I am not ignorant that in this Explication I dissent from a Learned Author who thinks it sounds too harsh that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission But it should be consider'd that the sense of words of such especially as are Terms of Art often varies from their original signification so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation as are not consistent with their use And certain it is that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent They that are styled by Clemens Romanus the Apostles of us are not such as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans in whose Name he writes or from the Corinthians to whom he directs his Epistle but from Christ The Apostle of the Gentiles had not his Commission from them The Apostles and Angels of the Churches which I take to be of the same Order were not their Messengers but their principal Governors So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians should be call'd their Apostle 'T is true S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi But these in the Syriack Version as Mr. Selden tells us in the Arabick of Erpenius are said to be Presbyters And that they were no more than Presbyters we are agreed Many of the Fathers particularly Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and Oecumenius had the same opinion of them for which they give this reason that of one City there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop And for such a Bishop we need not here be at a loss having consider'd under what Character it was that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians CHAP. VII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy who was Bishop of Ephesus WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve I come now to shew that there were others of the same Order or to whom the same Authority was convey'd who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles Such are Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches to which more may be added but on these I chiefly insist That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence that he had full Power of Ordination This appears from the advice that was given him to lay hands suddenly on no man That is not to admit any into a Sacred Function without a due examination For so I interpret the words with Theodoret Photius and several others both Ancient and Modern Writers Some Learned Men I know put another sense on them and by laying on of hands understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures But I cannot find in Scripture that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers He speaks of the double honour or maintenance which is due to those that rule well and shews the reason of it He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any lest by his Precipitance he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry and partake with them in their sins And from hence we may learn what high trust was impos'd in him For in the Church committed to his Care the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices was wholly committed to him and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications There were many Presbyters where he resided yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government is manifest from hence that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you receive not an Accusation but it was said to him Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5.19 Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge For as Morinus observes from hence we may gather that three things belong'd to Timothy in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it and prescribe the Form of it He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate and hear them pleaded and he might determine them by passing Sentence Presbyters therefore as well as others being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority And this the Apostle intimates where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons 1 Tim. 5.21 We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority or that if they were rebuk'd by him before all they might make the following Reply We believe our Doctrine to be true or know our Actions just but if not we are not accountable to you for them for you Sir and we stand upon the same level if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures you take too much upon you and usurp a Power to which you have no Right Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded that Answer they might have given him or they might have appeal'd from him to their own Colleagues in the Consistory or to their own private Congregations But that no such thing could be done is evident because it would have rendred the
Treatise he argues that Timothy was no Bishop because he was a Novice so he supposes he must needs be who was a young man Yet afterwards he expresly acknowledges that he was a Bishop but so that other Bishops were his Equals He had before told us that this same Novice was a Fellow-helper and Co-partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship and consequently in the judgment of all men if we may take his word for it of a degree superior to that of a Bishop Nevertheless within a few Pages after he makes him inferior to Presbyters because he was obliged to intreat them as Fathers and to pay them double honor and not to receive it from them And thus he snatches at any thing that may free him from a present inconvenience and at his pleasure Timothy must be such a Novice as is unfit to bear the Office of a Bishop at another time this is a depressing of him who was qualified for and exalted to a higher Dignity One while he must be superior then inferior and afterwards equal to the same Officers And this discovers such a flaw in the judgment of the Author to say no worse of him that I cannot but admire that some persons of greater sense seem to have the same good opinion of his Book which himself had whereas 't is a Rapsody of incoherent stuff and for the most part very trifling Yet he hits on some things that may deserve our notice and they shall not be neglected The common refuge of Dissenters that are concern'd for the Unbishoping of Timothy to speak in Mr. Prynne's Language is that he was an Extraordinary Officer and Evangelist He is expresly so styled says Mr. Prynne He is in direct terms call'd an Evangelist say the Assembly of Divines and that he was so says Smectymnuus is clear from the Letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4 5. Yet neither in this place nor in any other part of Scripture is that to be found which these men affirm with so much confidence 'T is true Timothy was admonish'd to do the work of an Evangelist but this he might and yet be no Evangelist Daniel did the work of the King and yet was no King The Levites did the work of all Israel yet were they not all Israel And Timothy who as M. Prynne says truly was a Partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship which virtually contains in it all other Ecclesiastical Offices might perform the work of other Ministers and not be of their Order nor come under their denomination This has been said upon a supposition that he was requir'd in this place to do the work of an Evangelist properly so called which I cannot grant For an Evangelist according to Eusebius was a person that preached the Gospel where it had not been receiv'd or to those who had not heard of it before And in this sense Timothy could not be an Evangelist to the Church of Ephesus which he was obliged to instruct and govern and when he was so it had flourished for many years I conclude therefore that the word Evangelist in this Verse ought to be taken in a larger sense and then to do the work of an Evangelist will signifie in general to preach the Word as it is expressed v. 2. And if this Interpretation which has been embraced by many Learned Men be admitted it leaves no ground for the Exception that hath been under consideration But Timothy and Titus you say were Co-founders of Churches with the Apostle Paul and from hence arose their Visitorial Power which consequently was peculiar and extraordinary That is you have assum'd a liberty of bestowing on persons what Titles you please and then you draw from them such Inferences as you think expedient This you call Arch-work whose strength you say lies in the combination A Church as we have seen had been founded at Ephesus several years before the Government of it was committed to Timothy and how he could be a Co-founder I do not understand I suppose he neither laid the Old Foundation over again nor raz'd it that he might lay another If you call him a Co-founder of that Church only because by his preaching he increas'd the number of Believers the Presbyters that were before his coming were for the same reason Co-founders also for doubtless they were employ'd in the same work But that they and others of the same Rank by converting Infidels and adding them to the Church started up into an higher Order than that of which they were before is what I think was never yet heard of in the Christian World Philip the Evangelist laid the Foundation of a Church at Samaria but by doing this he gained no new Jurisdiction he did not obtain by it the Power of Imposition of Hands which the Apostles had nor any Authority over Presbyters but remain'd a Deacon as he was before If Frumentius had not been ordain'd a Bishop his planting Churches amongst the Indians or more properly the Ethiopians could not have made him one Nor did his diligence in that work render his Office incommunicable But the Authority he had to constitute and govern Priests and Deacons was convey'd to others after his death and as Ludolphus will inform you he had Successors in Ethiopia to this very Age. Let us now suppose that Timothy had founded the Church of Ephesus it doth not follow as we have seen that his Authority was Extraordinary Yet in your opinion he could not be a Bishop unless his Office had related to a Church already planted for that you make the condition of Episcopal Charge But how groundless this Conceit is may appear from what has been said and particularly from that known Passage of Clemens Romanus where he says expresly that the Apostles ordain'd some to be Bishops of those that afterwards should believe What Bishops he speaks of is not here the Question They were such as you approve and they were constituted Bishops of those who at that time were Unbelievers But that Bishops who have Commission to preach the Gospel have Power to preach it to Believers only or if they preach it to Infidels that for that purpose they should either forfeit their former Office or need another is so absurd that to mention it is a sufficient Confutation of it Another of the Objections which you advance against the Episcopacy of Timothy is that he is not styled a Bishop in Scripture On this Mr. Prynne also insists and calls it an infallible Argument Yet what he pronounces so like an Oracle signifies no more than if one should attempt to prove that Presbyters neither are nor ought to be called Ministers because in Scripture they are never mention'd under that Title or that Baptism and the Supper of the Lord neither are nor may be called Sacraments because that Name is not ascribed to them in any part of Scripture The truth is if we
of Office to continue for the sake whereof those excellent Epistles were written And we have no greater Assurance that these Epistles were by S. Paul than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the Care and Government of the Churches CHAP. IX Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches WHat Timothy was at Ephesus and Titus in Crete that were the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 in their several Dioceses They govern'd the seven Churches of Asia with Apostolical or Episcopal Authority This is what you oppose and one might therefore have expected from you another Account of them to which you would adhere but you fix upon nothing a practice very common amongst many that are engaged with you in the same work who combine indeed in their attempts against the Truth but without any steady Principles and in great confusion Amongst the rest the Assembly of Divines tell us that these Titles of Angels are Mysterious and Metaphorical and that it cannot not be safe or solid to build on them the structure of Episcopacy And yet they are not of the mind of the old Alogians who derided the Revelation of S. John saying of what advantage is it that he talks of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets They affirm that this Book is of singular use to Christians to the end of the world They have also furnished us with Annotations on it such as they are and particularly without any he sitation they give their Interpretation of this expression which yet they would have us believe is so Mysterious and Obscure As for their Argument that Symbolical Theology is not Argumentative it is no farther to be admitted than as it signifies that Parables and Figures are not to be stretched beyond the plain intention of any Author But if no determinate sense can be gather'd from them this would make a great part of the Holy Scriptures useless to us and leave us mightily in the dark concerning the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which yet the Reformed think and that with good reason they clearly apprehend Yet after all we do not read of the Mystery of the Angels but of the Seven Stars of which the Angels are the explication and therefore must be suppos'd to be intelligible And indeed there seems to be no difficulty in this but what has been created by those that would amuse us with exceptions that they may find some way to escape You pretend not to have any certainty that the Title of these Angels was Metaphorical For what say you if by the Name of an Angel an Angel properly so call'd should be understood Should this be so then farewel to any ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And should it not be so you are not unprovided of other shifts but if they succeed no better than this the Diocesans are safe enough For to your Quaere 'tis easie to reply that these Angels of the Churches could not be Celestial Spirits unless we may believe that one of those Spirits was faln and summon'd to repentance that another of them had a name to live but was dead and that a third was wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked which I think is sufficiently absurd But the Revelation you tell me goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Which signifies nothing to the purpose unless you were able to shew that to charge the Blessed Angels with the sins of men and call them to Reformation of Life hath a Congruity with the Prophetick Scheme of Daniel or with the nature of those holy Beings who are so constant and chearful in their obedience to the Divine Will Walo Messalinus and some others affirm that these Angels were the Churches themselves and to comply with them we must believe that the Angels of the Churches were the Churches of the Churches which I think is no good sense Grotius reflecting on their Exposition does justly charge it with a manifest contradicting of the Holy Scripture which declares that The Candlesticks are the Churches and that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches But Whither says he may not men be drawn by an itch of contradiction when they dare confound those things which the Spirit of God does so plainly distinguish Yet I deny not that the Instructions which did immediatly relate to the Angels were communicated by the Spirit not only to them but to the Churches also it being fit that both should be made sensible how their Duty and Interest were combin'd and encourage one another in the performance of the things enjoin'd and in carrying on the work of Reformation with the greater vigour and application If these Angels were neither Celestial Spirits nor the Churches of Asia themselves it cannot be imagin'd that they were any thing else but the Pastors of those Churches Yet this being suppos'd some question has been made about their number which is omitted says Smectymnuus not without some mystery lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company This you call a Critical nicety But I take it to be a prophane abuse of the Holy Scripture under a pretence of discovering a Mystery 'T is said expresly in Scripture that the seven Stars are the Angels there were therefore just so many Angels as there were Stars The Churches also were seven and every Church had its distinct and peculiar Angel and if any notwithstanding this deny that the number of the Angels and Churches was equal they seem not in a capacity to be convinced of any thing by the clearest demonstration As for the conceit that every Angel was a Company it is inconsistent with the Scripture for the Angels are not called Constellations but seven Stars And says Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet if these words sometimes happen to be us'd promiscuously we ought not however to depart from their genuine and usual signification without necessity Such a necessity there is not here for an Angel no more properly signifies a Colledge of Angels than a man signifies a Troop or a Corporation Nor are the descriptions of the several Angels applicable to a multitude unless we will suppose that all the Elders of the respective Societies deserv'd the same particular reproof or commendation which hath not the least shadow of Truth We read indeed that the strong Cattel before whom Jacob placed his Rods generally brought forth the speckled or ringstraked and this we impute to a Miracle and question not the thing because it is related by Moses in the Book of Genesis But what should make all the Presbyters of each of the seven Churches
will do me but small service for the force of the testimony which I cite from him depends on the word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as I understand it a Masterly Authority but Teaching and Doctrine for in this latter sense the word is often us'd by the Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as I may see lib. 1. Ep. 3. and in other places Yet in that very Epistle to which you refer me we may not understand by it Doctrine without Authority nor is it limited to any such sense amongst Ancient Writers In Suetonius in Ammianus Marcellinus in Sulpicius Severus and many others it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction It signifies Government in Apuleius and Casaubon observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magisterium Sacerdotii are expressions equivalent From hence it appears that Locus Magisterii in Irenaeus may fitly be translated the place of Authority or Government And that it ought to be so will be manifest if it be consider'd that he thought it peculiar to the Bishops to succeed the Apostles in their own place or Office He could not think it peculiar to them to derive from the Apostles the meer power of preaching which was known to be common to other Ministers His words therefore can import no less than that the Bishops were constituted Supreme Pastors without that dependance on Presbyters which these had on them or that they were vested with such Authority over other Officers and Churches as the Apostles before enjoy'd and exercis'd And now it may be fit and it will be no difficult matter to answer your Objection which I omitted before against the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and which is to this effect The Prelates you conceive cannot be said to be the Apostles Successors because the Apostles in their life time could not constitute any Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction nor convey to others the places which you suppose they still kept But if it be said they appointed that the Prelates should be inducted into those places after their decease you think there is no credible tradition transmitted to us of that matter But here is one thing you have forgotten that may deserve to be consider'd which is that unless all the Apostles had died together the Survivers might put others into the places of the deceas'd Accordingly tho Simeon was not nominated by S. James to be his Successor nor came into his place whilst he was alive yet after the death of that Apostle he was by others Constituted Bishop of Jerusalem It is farther observable that the Apostles before their decease were sometimes obliged to withdraw themselves from the Churches which they had planted and govern'd and thereupon they committed the Government of them to fit persons who may well be said to be their Successors in that Administration Especially since as I have prov'd the Apostles Communicated to them the same Authority that themselves had exercis'd Yet as Julius Capitolinus acquaints us that Lucius was as observant of Marcus who made him Partner of his Empire as a President was wont to be of the Emperor himself Thus Timothy and Titus and others of the same Rank who had been Ordain'd by the Apostles might still pay them such respect and deference as was due to persons of incomparable excellence and yet all be of the same Order The Apostles having Communicated their Episcopal Authority to some in their own time these transmitted it to others in the following Centuries and in this manner it has been conveyed to Bishops in all Ages The Bishops therefore may be said to succeed the Apostles and that not only in the Government of Churches which were of their Plantation but of others also in Countries to which they never arriv'd For since they had Commission to bring all Nations under the Discipline of Christ and govern them in his name a Right to that descends to their Spiritual Heirs and they may exercise it in all the parts of the World But notwithstanding your attempt to demonstrate that the Apostles could have no Successors you make no doubt to affirm that Presbyters succeed them in their ordinary work And about this I shall make some enquiry when I have first put you in mind that either you must suppose these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles in their discharge of that work and if so a subjection was consistent with a Succession to them or else they were not subject and then you must allow that the Apostles Constituted Officers over whom they retain'd no Jurisdiction Take it which way you please you are concern'd I think to reject or answer your own Argument To prove that Priests are Successors to the Apostles you quote a passage of Nilus as you call the Author of the Treatise de Primatu Papae which as Colomesius informs us was compos'd by Mark the Ephesian But to which of them soever it belongs it is not very material For neither of them flourish'd within a thousand years of the days of the Apostles and therefore come too late to determine what the belief of the Primitive Church was by their own Testimony Indeed if a Subordinate Officer may be said to succeed the Supreme for doing some things after his example by Authority deriv'd from him then may Priests be said to succeed the Apostles and so they are by some that use a great latitude of expression But the Ancients speaking exactly and telling us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles thereby intimated that they were both of the same Order or that both had the same Function For this they believ'd and urged when there was occasion Photius mentions it as a thing commonly acknowledg'd that both had the same Dignity of Place Clarus à Muscula acquaints us that both govern'd with the same Power S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs and that not only as Teachers but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches 'T is true the Bishops were not wont to assume to themselves the name of Apostles for a reason already given yet that it was sometimes ascrib'd to them appears from several instances It is also manifest that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici that their Office was call'd an Apostolate and that any Bishoprick especially if it was founded by an Apostle was called an Apostolick See For the Title of Apostolick that I may note this by the way was not appropriated to the See of Rome before the Eleventh Century says the Author of the Notes on Paulinus it was not before the thirteenth says Mabillon it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy CHAP. XIII The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors AS the Bishops were Successors
it I do not understand You have some other quotations from the Fathers which I need not here examine having done it already But I proceed to shew that it is altogether improbable that the Pastours of the Church who came next after the Apostles should conspire to deprave a Divine Institution And this I think will appear if it be consider'd 1. That they were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue 2. If they had not been such they could not so suddenly have agreed in the same design to corrupt the Church as you contend in the same manner 1. They were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account what care S. John took of the Churches after his return from Patmos and that he admitted such into the Clergy as were design'd or distinguish'd by the Holy Ghost And as I noted before Irenaeus says the Apostles were desirous that they should be very perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left to be their Successors to whom they committed their own place of Government And can we imagine that such persons as these conspir'd to deprave an Institution of Christ When they daily expos'd their lives to danger when they despis'd the Vngulae and Catastae the rage of Savage Boasts and more Savage Men when a firm adherence to their Religion expos'd them to the Scourge or the Cross the Axe or the Fire and when they express'd such a chearful readiness to embrace the sorest evils that could be inflicted on them and death it self under the most dreadful Circumstances rather than deny their Master were they then contriving to ruin his Discipline or Caballing to make themselves great Or if the mystery of iniquity did so generally work in the Prelates who are suppos'd to have usurpt Authority over their Brethren was there not an honest Presbyter in the world to put them in mind of their Duty or to admonish them to keep their Station Was there not one upon earth that would oppose their Innovations or plainly tell them that by the appointment of Heaven all Presbyters are equal If the Presbyters had no regard for their own Authority had they no concern for their Masters glory Had they no remembrance of what the Apostles taught or of the Instructions for the Government of the Church which they had given Did they not only quietly see the degeneracy spread apace but help it forward by relinquishing the Trust and Authority committed to them by the Holy Ghost We have no reason certainly to suspect any such matters of them but if we had I should dread the Consequences of it 2. If the Bishops who liv'd in the next Age to that of the Apostles had not been persons of so much Perfection and Virtue yet they could not so suddenly have agreed to corrupt the Church in the same manner Arnobius disputing against the Gentiles says in vindication of the History of Christianity If that be false whence comes it to pass that the whole World was in so short a time fill'd with this Religion or how came Nations so distant to receive it with one consent And in like manner I may demand If Prelacy be a defection from an Institution of Christ or his Apostles how came it to gain so early an admission amongst persons of so many different Countries and Languages How came it so suddenly to be establish'd in all the Churches upon the face of the Earth You say that Ecclesiastical Prelates arose at best by occasion and prudentially upon the increase of Believers But how did they every where meet with the like occasions How came all the Churches in the World to act by the same Prudential Rules If you can shew how all the Bishops upon Earth agreed to exalt themselves above their Brethren and how the Presbyters every where so suddenly consented in their submission to them you are the man of the world fittest to write a Commentary on the Philosophy of Epicurus and to prove that his Atoms by their accidental concourse perform'd all the feats and wonders that have been attributed to them That I have not been singular in matching such improbabilities may appear from the words of Mr. Chillingworth which I shall here set down When I shall see says he all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep and awake into Monarchies Then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles Doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a Scene in a Masque and transform'd into Episcopacy In the mean time continues my Author whilst these things remain thus incredible and in human reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally receiv'd in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick CHAP. XVII Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated IT is certain that the Testimony of the Fathers cannot be admitted to determine the Controversie between us but with the ruine of your Cause it being altogether inconsistent with your Opinion That Episcopacy was not of a Divine or Apostolical Appointment but introduced prudentially and gradually advanced upon the steps to Corruption Even of that select Company who as you say were as Pious and Learned Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd and to whom you profess'd your adherence there was not a man who did not believe that Bishops were constituted by Christ himself or his Apostles or by both You have one Refuge however yet remaining which is to reject those as incompetent Witnesses who upon examination appear against you And accordingly you tell me That the Fathers wrote things they saw not and fram'd matters according to their own conceits and many of them were tainted with partial humours You farther add That the Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops which Eusebius has given us are only Conjectural and Traditionary words fitly join'd together That himself tells us there was a great Chasm in Ecclesiastical History for the three first Centuries Ay that in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul c. But the sum of what Eusebius does indeed say in that
well enough without them both so long as it shall be Christian it being now too late to try Experiments of new Models and to establish such Forms of Government as in the best Ages were never heard of in the World When I had enquir'd into the Original of Church-Government and shew'd that as it came out of the hands of Christ and his Apostles and remain'd in the Primitive Times it was in the Nature of it Spiritual and in Form Episcopal I had thoughts to discourse particularly of the Exercise of it in the Administration of Discipline and the Ordination of Ministers as also of the Extent of a Bishops Authority over many Congregations and of the Power of the Church in a Christian State and then to make some Remarks on that Mystery of Iniquity that has been working amongst Bigotted Papists and others in opposition to Episcopacy But being interrupted by many Avocations and not being willing to swell this Volume into too great a Bulk I have reserv'd those things with some others that may incidentally be consider'd for a second Part of this Treatise I doubt not but some will be ready to say that it had been much better to have let the whole Work alone For Now they think it is not a Time for Controversies I should think so too and would our Adversaries be of the same mind and not drag us into the Press by their Importunity But it may seem a little Unreasonable that a Truce should be maintain'd only on one side And I cannot imagine that it is a time for us to lye open to Acts of Hostility and not a time to guard our selves from them or that it is a time to cast reproach on an Apostolical Constitution of Government and not a time to defend it I rather think that it is High time to appear in vindication of it and that we cannot be unconcern'd Spectators of the Diligence with which others endeavour to promote the Interest of their several Parties unless we will declare to the World that we are not influenced by any due sense of Religion Indeed if we are only in the Communion of the Church by Law establish'd at certain seasons and with design to destroy it or to serve a Turn against it Then it is not strange if we cannot endure to hear any thing in defence of it But what is most astonishing is that persons should be found bearing the Name of Christian and carrying on the works of Darkness and Treachery of Avarice and Ambition in the most Solemn Acts of Worship and the most Sacred Rites of our Holy Religion Yet is the number of them considerable and because it may not be fit to pass by them without notice I shall here produce some part of the Charge against them as it is recited and address'd to them by a Late Writer There are some things says he that I will but lightly touch though others of contrary sentiment will lay on load One is at which I am not a little abash'd that though you according to your declar'd Principles and Ordinary Practice are Nonconformists and Dissenters yet upon occasion and to get into Place and Office of Honor or Profit you will and can take any manner of Tests that have of late been impos'd also that you can on such occasions take the Sacrament according to the Form and Way of the Church of England though you never did before nor perhaps will ever do the same again except on the like occasion and although the making and forming of these Tests and the taking of the Sacrament were intended and done on purpose to keep you and such as you out of Office yet by these ways they have not been able to exclude you and they think that nothing though never so contrary to your Principles can be devis'd and made to keep you out or to hold you in but that you will break all Bounds and leap over all Hedges so that they are at a loss what to do with you c. My Author who relates this to them as an Objection of their Adversaries is himself a Dissenter yet protests that he knows not how to answer it in their behalf with truth and honesty He confesses that they make use of the same Artifices as the Jesuits do in such cases and he knows nothing he tells them that will more render them in the eyes of all as men of flexible and profligate Consciences He also laments their Hypocrisie and breaks out into this Exclamation O! the horrible scandal that comes from hence c. But I suppose the Example of these men hath nothing in it that may prevail with us to abandon the Vindication of a good Cause their Practices being such as if we have any thing of Sincerity we cannot think on without Pain and Detestation ERRATA PAge 5. line 15. read averse p. 6. l. 17. r. to bind and ab p. 11. l. 6. marg r. 18. p. 13. l. 29. r. the intention of the person p. 39. l. 10. marg r. c. 4. p. 44. l. 8. r. such have p. 49. l. 11. after High Priest add And yet he could not have been constituted High Priest p. 54. l. 4. marg r. Successores reliquit p. 54. l. 11. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 63. l. 13. r. of all Churches l. 17. r. presided p. 73. l. 8. r. munere annos p. 80. l. 27. r. continuance l. 28. dele might p. 88. l. 2 3. marg r. Apostoli p. 102. l. 26. r. and as l. 28. r. more than p. 118. l. 1. r. of an p. 143. l. 6. r. were written p. 162. l. 26. s this note should have been placed after City l. 24. and another added here to refer to the words of Clemens p. 170. l. 17. marg r. c. 4. p. 179. l. 5. marg r. Ep. 54. p. 200. l. 2. marg r. lib. 9. c. 5. p. 208. l. 14. marg r. c. 32. p. 218. l. 7. marg r. obnitente p. 260. l. 12. r. is mop't THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS Chap. 1. JEsus Christ the Founder of Church-Government The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted To them he gave no Temporal Authority yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual p. 1 Chap. 2. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers particularly to the Seventy Disciples and to Presbyters as Superiors they were Bishops both in Title Authority p. 25 Chap. 3. If the Apostles were Bishops Episcopacy is of a Divine Original The Objection against this that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers consider'd p. 34 Chap. 4. S. James was an Apostle and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there p. 60 Chap. 5. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance p. 78 Chap. 6. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve p. 90 Chap. 7. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy
in such terms as they could then receive it that when he was departed from them and sate down at the Right Hand of the Father they should act as the supreme visible Governours of the Church which is the Mystical Israel Another Objection which the Author of the Leviathan brings against Ecclesiastical Authority is taken from our Saviour's forbidding his followers to be called Masters But that proves too much or nothing for in what sense they might not assume the Title of Masters in that it may not be attributed to any man upon Earth but belongs to Christ The want of it therefore would abrogate all Humane Authority or none at all The like may be said of his Argument which he grounds on these words of S. Paul Not that we have Dominion over your faith for no man in the World hath any such Dominion as implies a right to coin new Articles of Religion or to impose things to be believ'd as the Doctrine of God which he hath no where reveal'd This is what was disclaim'd by the Great Justinian and ought to be so by all other Princes Since therefore there is a want of that Dominion equally in all men if such a defect were inconsistent with Authority it would destroy that of the Civil Magistrate or render it a mere Usurpation But the Objector assigns to Supreme Magistrates such Authority that by it he says All sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected and according to him those Magistrates must be obey'd though they command their Subjects to profess an Assent to the Alcoran or to condemn the Gospel of Christ or to worship Idols And for this he pleads from the Example of Naaman the Syrian who bowed himself in the House of Rimmon when his Master leaned upon his hand But how impertinently he makes use of that Instance others have demonstrated and I shall only note that it is not strange that a person who shews such an enmity to Religion and to Christianity in particular should tell us That Temporal and Spiritual Government are but two words brought into the World to make men see double and mistake their lawful Sovereign Whosoever reads and believes the Scripture cannot but approve what he derides so manifest it is from thence that a Government distinct from the Temporal was establish'd by our Lord himself The Apostles were constituted by him the first Rulers of his Church but without any Commission from the Civil Magistrate They laid their Commands on the Christian Converts and expected an obedience to their Orders And we must believe they had Power to do this from Christ notwithstanding this man so confidently denies that he left them any such Authority They asserted the Right he gave them to preach notwithstanding the Prohibitions and Menaces of the Officers of State and this was so reasonable that they appeal'd to their enemies to be Judges of it Without asking leave of any Secular Powers they planted Churches they form'd Societies under their proper Rulers and did not teach them to see double when they requir'd them to honour and obey those that presided over them in the Lord Such Spiritual Governours remain'd after the Decease of the Apostles when they were so far from receiving their Office or any support and assistance in the discharge of it from Temporal Princes that they were hated and persecuted by them Yet they proceeded in their work and kept up their Discipline And it is certain that before the Empire was Christian the Church was govern'd by its proper Officers as a Society distinct from the State and independent on it yet were not the Christians then in danger of mistaking their lawful Sovereign You must excuse me Sir that I have been so long detain'd by the Exceptions of an Author of no good fame It is from him that you have taken some of your Principles and you are not neglected when they are consider'd as I find them in the Original You follow the Leviathan exactly where you tell me that the Apostleship itself was not a Magistracy but a Ministry For your meaning is not that the Apostles had no Secular Power about which there was no dispute but as it is manifest from your own words that they had no Authority at all unless it was to preach the Gospel and for this you quote 2 Cor. 4.5 Where S. Paul says We preach not our selves but Christ Jesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake But if this be for your purpose and prove what you design by it then was the Office of the Apostles which has been so much magnified a servile thing Then were they put under the Dominion and left to the Disposal of their own Converts and made subject to the Churches which they had planted or which is all one the Chief Pastors were obliged to be govern'd by their Flocks And this comes of stretching a Metaphor beyond the person that us'd it You might have observ'd that the Apostles were not properly the Ministers of the Churches but of Christ and employ'd by him for the good of Mankind and this no more derogates from their Power than it does from the Dignity of the Blessed Angels that they are Ministring Spirits not of men indeed but for them that shall be heirs of salvation You might also have consider'd what S. Paul declares that he was so a servant unto all men as to remain free and consequently that he could not otherwise be their Servant but in a Figure And this which he us'd was very suitable to the condition of a person who was so abundant in his labours and comply'd so much with men of different tempers not out of weakness indeed or want of ability but out of zeal and an ardent desire of the happiness both of Jews and Gentiles Another reason for which S. Paul represented himself under this Figure is that as Servants then received no wages for their work so he reaped no temporal profit from his industry in communicating things that are Spiritual Yet this proceeded from his Choice and not from the necessary Obligation of his Office Nor did it signifie want of Power in him but a voluntary departing from his own Right He declar'd that the Labourer is worthy of his reward that the Lord hath so ordain'd that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and that himself as well as others might justly have expected his maintenance from the Contributions of those whom he had instructed if he would have insisted on it But had he been literally their servant especially such a servant as those times afforded his acting amongst them as a Judge or Governour his passing Sentence of Condemnation on a Criminal and the Order he sends that his Decree should be put in Execution his declaring also that he was in readiness to revenge all disobedience must remain unaccountable The
time was in your judgment fit to be extirpated by Magistrates and Rulers in their own vindication Because as you tell me the permission of such a Power over their Subjects as would not only possess an interest in their Consciences but be strengthned as a Secular Empire by a close connection of all the parts of it and an exact dependance and subordination would render their own precarious How unfit this was to fall from the Pen of a Person that makes profession of Christianity your self may better be able to judge if you suppose that you had stood before Decius or Dioclesian to give your advice concerning the state of Christians and the manner how they were to be treated For had you then spoken your mind freely as you have now expressed it it would have been to this effect Amongst the Christians O Emperor there hath generally obtain'd a Form of External Government which is very useful indeed to them but to you as dangerous For it possesses an interest in the Consciences of your Subjects it is strengthned by a close Connection and an exact Dependance and Subordination of its parts and being so it renders your own Power precarious I therefore think that it is necessary for you to oppose it if you will be safe upon the Throne and not weakly abandon the defence of your own inherent Prerogatives But to this the Christians might have reply'd That what you had suggested was false and injurious That no danger arriv'd to the Emperor from the Form or Administration of that Government which obtain'd amongst them or from the Exercise of their Religion in their Assemblies but much advantage rather to himself and his Dominions For example By their Discipline they did not usurp his Prerogatives but put greater restraints upon Vice than he did by his Laws By their solemn Prayers they endeavour'd not to engage Heaven against him but to draw down Blessings on him and by hearing the Doctrine of the Gospel they were not instructed in the Arts of Sedition but to be subject to Principalities and Powers and to pay Tribute and Custom Fear and Honor to whom they were due By their Sacramental Engagements they did not carry on any wicked design but bound themselves not to commit any Thefts or Robberies not to break their Faith or Promise nor to conceal or keep back a pledge And they that so carefully avoided all Injustice were far enough from invading the Rights of Princes and could not but be useful Members of Humane Society 'T is true the Heathen Emperors were sometimes under apprehensions of danger from their Assemblies But Plinius Secundus could discover nothing in them that might give any just occasion to such fears or create disturbance to the Empire Tertullian who knew them better speaks with great assurance of their Innocence He professes that if they were not unlike the Seditious Societies or Factions which are unlawful they ought both to be involv'd in the same condemnation But says he We are the same being assembled as when we were dispers'd We are the same all together as when we are taken singly and apart hurting no man grieving no man The union of Persons so inoffensive and so ready to render to all their due could not be pernicious to any especially not to the Magistrate The Government which was establish'd amongst them could not be inconsistent with that of the State for however they were distinguished from one another yet were they both preserv'd together The Authority of Spiritual Rulers did subsist without Injury to the Secular Power which flow'd in another Channel and without help or assistance from it And in this Condition was Church-Government in the Days of the Apostles and afterwards under the Reigns of the Heathen persecuting Tyrants The variation of Circumstances which it met with under the Influence of Christian Princes comes not under my present Enquiry but it will be consider'd in the Second Part of this Treatise CHAP. II. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers particularly to the Seventy Disciples and to Presbyters as Superiors they were Bishops both in Title and Authority I Have shew'd what Authority the Apostles had not and what they had I shall in the next place consider how they stood related amongst themselves and to other Ecclesiastical Officers I shall digress from you in handling the former of these but it will not belong before I come to the last in which our present Controversie is chiefly concern'd First I observe That the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals in their Office and Authority They were all sent by our Lord as he was by the Father They had all alike Power to pardon and retain sins And nothing of Jurisdiction can be mention'd that was peculiar to one of them and not common to the rest Yet the Zealots of the Roman Communion ascribe to S. Peter a Sovereignty over the rest and for this they passionately contend not caring what they say if they think it may advance the Glory of that Apostle One may conjecture what is to be expected in this kind from their lesser Writers when so great a Man as Leo Allatius so much passes the bounds of Modesty Peter on earth says Allatius is Christ in Dignity and Authority What things soever therefore were under the Administration of Christ are subject also to Peter who after him is truly Christ So that he hath Authority over all the Churches in the World over all the Sheep and over all the Shepherds He tells us in another place That as the Earth was divided amongst the Sons of Noah so that Shem had Asia Cham had Africa and Japhet Europe thus was the Christian Common-wealth divided by S. Peter into three Patriarchates which were the Alexandrian the Antiochian and the Roman But as for the Roman it hath Dominion he says in the other Patriarchates So that the Pope is subject to none He judges all men but is not judged by any He gives Laws to others but receives none He changes Laws at his pleasure He creates Magistrates He decrees what is to be receiv'd as matter of faith and as he thinks fit determines the weightier affairs of the Church Although he would yet he cannot err for a bar is put upon falshood that it may have no access to him He cannot be impos'd on by delusions and although an Angel should declare otherwise yet being fortified by the Authority of Christ 't is impossible he should be changed This is very lofty and the Author hath furnished us in this Harangue with a notable train of thoughts He was Keeper of the Vatican Library to three Popes successively and he shews what sordid flattery he had at the service of his Masters It were easie to make large Collections of such Extravagancies but I hasten to more useful matter I shall only produce an instance or two out of Xavier's History of Christ
judgment and the deference that was pay'd to the Sentence he pronounc'd are very remarkable for all did not only acquiesce in it so that the Debate ended but his words were put into the Decree which became obligatory to the Churches I find several Persons of the Roman Communion as much dissatisfied as your self with the place that hath been assigned to S. James in this Council There says Binius Peter rising up as the Head of the Apostles speaks first And says M. de Marca it is Peter that assembles the Council in which he gives the first or chief Sentence by defining the matter as the Emperor was wont to do in the Senate This sounds very great but hath nothing in it of truth Binnius himself affirms after Baronius that the Apostles who were dispers'd over the World were brought together by Divine Instinct or Revelation and this he proves from the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians And we read Acts 15.7 that there had been much disputing not without words I presume and then and not before Peter rose up and expressed his sense of the thing in question Yet if he had been the first Speaker neither will it be granted that this is sufficient to establish the Prerogatives which some have assign'd to him nor yet that the account he gave to the Synod of the Success of his preaching to the Gentiles and the expostulation with which he concludes it are any Arguments of his Supremacy Yes says Mr. Schelstrate When he had spoken the debate ceased All were silent and thereby gave a very manifest sign that they thought they must all acquiesce in his determination That is because 't is said that all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul V. 12. therefore S. Peter was the Supreme Judge of Controversies and the other Apostles had nothing to do but to approve the Sentence of their Head Certainly he had need to have a very favourable Judge to get this admitted for demonstration But any thing satisfies a willing mind and some have been content on any grounds to attribute to S. Peter what he never had that they may derive from him what was never in his possession But I return to S. James who after the Council was ended continued in his Diocese For S. Paul in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians v. 12. takes notice of some Jews that came from him to Antioch That is says S. Augustin they came from Judea for James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem Several years after this S. Paul return'd to Jerusalem and there he found S. James and his Presbyters together Acts 21.18 And this James as Chrysostom tells us was that great and admirable man who was Brother to our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem The last time he is mention'd in the Scripture is by S. Jude but from him I confess we can learn but little that may give any light to our affair For however in the Title prefixed to the Syriack Version of his Epistle published by Dr. Pocock he is styled the Brother of James the Bishop he is only said to be his Brother in the Text it self v. 1. Yet from hence we may gather that Jude knew him to be a Person of that Figure in the Church that the consideration of his Relation to him might gain Attention to his Doctrine and Instruction And I see no reason why he should not as well have call'd himself the Brother of Simeon as of James but that Simeon was not then in so eminent a Station How long it was that S. James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem we cannot learn from Scripture But S. Jerom says it was thirty years and he is followed amongst others by an Ancient Writer of Our Nation cited by Whelock in his Annotations on Bede's Ecclesiastical History It was not much less according to Eutychius to whom on other occasions you pay respect For as he tells us James continued Bishop of Jerusalem twenty eight years and with him agrees Elmacinus as I find him quoted by Abraham Ecchellensis In these accounts there will be no real difference if it be allow'd that in the greater are reckon'd two parts of years as if they were entire and that both are omitted in the less During all his time after our Lord's Ascension we have no relation of his Travels but so frequently do we find him mention'd in Scripture as remaining at Jerusalem that Walo Messalinus thought that he did not remove a foot from thence It was perhaps by reason of his constant Residence there that the Jewish Rabbies became acquainted with his Miracles the memory of which they have preserv'd But certain it is that Josephus speaks of him as a Person that liv'd there under a very high Character He tells us that all good men and careful Observers of the Law were highly dissatisfied with the Proceedings of Ananus the High-Priest against him And he imputes the Calamities of the Jews and the destruction of their Temple to their killing this James the Just who as he says was the Brother of Jesus who is called Christ And from hence it appears that Jerusalem was the Scene of his Actions and of his Sufferings that there he had flourish'd in great Reputation and there was condemned and persecuted to death by the fury of his enemies But Josephus you tell me speaks not a word of his Dignity as a Prelate as if I or any body else had ever affirm'd that he did It is sufficient that what he says of James concurs with other things to prove that he did not travel about the World or that he was not an Itinerant Preacher and for this cause I produced his Testimony If after all this you say he was no standing Officer I desire to be inform'd what it is that constitutes a standing Officer or by what Marks he may be known If you say he was engaged in frequent Journies to plant the Gospel I pray oblige me with the History of his Travels If you say that however he was an Apostle his Jurisdiction was but equal to that of Presbyters I must leave you to combat your self who have ascrib'd to Apostles a Superior Authority One Evasion you have yet remaining which is that granting S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem it was in that sense only as he was Bishop of all the Churches in the World and for this you quote a passage of an Epistle suppos'd to have been written to him by Clement whose Name it bears But as the Words of this Epistle are set down in the Basil Edition the Author does not address himself to James as governing all the Churches in the World but to him as Bishop of Jerusalem and to all Churches where-ever they are Be it as it will No great regard I think is to be paid to an Impostor who amongst other Marks of Forgery hath this one that
is notorious He gives an account of the last words of Peter and of his decease to James who died before him the space of several years We have seen under what Character S. James remain'd at Jerusalem and we may conclude that this Office was not Personal but continued after his death if it be evident that Simeon or Simon as he is sometimes call'd was his Successor And this is what is affirm'd by the Ancients generally and the notice of what they declare might be the better convey'd to them because Simeon lived to so great an Age that his Martyrdom falls within the Compass of the second Century Eusebius and Abulpharagius assign it to the tenth year of Trajan which was the one hundred and seventh year of our Lord. But a Learned Man of our own ascribes it to the one hundred and sixteenth year of Christ and for this he produces some probable Reasons which have met with good reception Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer and he testifies amongst many others that after the death of James Simeon was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem A Truth that in the Ages which afforded the best Judges of it met with an universal approbation This being clear I know not what better Form of Government we can have than that which was established at Jerusalem in the first Christian Church that ever was and of which some of the Kindred of our Saviour had the Administration I know not what more excellent Model can be contriv'd if this gives no satisfaction CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance I Have consider'd the Arguments by which you would demonstrate that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and in examining the last of them which I mention'd I proceeded farther than was necessary because I was willing to lay some things together that relate to the same subject It was my business to shew that a setled Residence in a Place was consistent with the Office of an Apostle and this I have not only done but also prov'd that S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that Simeon was his Successor and if so this does not only answer whatever you produce for your Opinion but is a direct Argument for Episcopacy It also shews that the Apostolate differs not in substance from Episcopacy and that it was design'd for continuance A Truth which I shall confirm 1. From the Nature of that Office or Authority which was confer'd on the Apostles 2. From the Necessity of the Continuance of some things which depend on a Succession to them 3. From the Promise which was annexed to their Commission 4. From the Actual Communication of their Office to others and the Preservation of it after their Decease 1. This Office or Authority which was of Divine Institution was never abrogated by any Divine Precept It was neither appropriated to the Apostles nor can Time render it useless or unfit It is therefore such as ought to be preserv'd in all Ages We may well think that they who were conversant with Christ himself and had receiv'd their Commission immediately from him have afforded us the best Pattern of Government that ever was and it seems very improbable that our Lord should shew us in their example the most excellent way of managing Ecclesiastical Affairs and put us under an obligation to reject it without telling us so or that such a disparity of Officers as had his approbation but never was oppos'd by him should now become Antichristian They say that Empires are best preserv'd by such means as they were founded and if the Apostles thought a disparity of Officers necessary when they were employ'd in converting the Gentiles I think 't is still requisite for the Government of them now that they are converted for their Conversion did prepare them for more Instruction it obliged them to an attendance at Religious Assemblies it made them subject to Discipline who were not so before And when the Work increases I think the Labourers ought not to be diminished nor their Ranks broken We may rather suppose that when whole Kingdoms embraced the Christian Faith disorders would be increas'd And when the first Apostles were departed who could convey Diseases and Death in their Censures whenever that Miraculous Power ceas'd it was requisite that some should retain all the Authority they had which was communicable that by the Dignity of their Office they might keep up a Reverence of Discipline and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church 2. There is a Necessity of the Continuation of some things which might depend on a Succession to the Apostles and cannot be preserv'd without it Amongst them I reckon the Administration of the Sacraments and the reason of it will be manifest when I have examin'd by what Right it is that you assign that Administration to Presbyters as a standing part of their Work I therefore demand in the first place From whence it is that they have Right to Baptize If it be from any Declaration that is made to them in Scripture let it be shew'd if from any Command let it be produc'd if from Example I pray inform me where any of their Order did Baptize I think upon enquiry it will be found that none in Scripture are said to Baptize but such as you call Extraordinary Officers and if they were so as many of their Actions as were peculiar to them may not be drawn into precedent It follows therefore from your Principles either that Baptism must be laid aside or else the Laity may confer it and they that have taken it out of their hands have done it in their wrong and that ever since the days of the Apostles Concerning the Lord's Supper you are like to be as much or more at a loss for you tell me that these words Do this in remembrance of me were said to the Apostles not as they were Ministers but as Communicants you mean private Christians And if so I would demand what grounds you have from Scripture for assigning to any Ecclesiastical Officers the Administration of this Sacrament or how with Consistence to your own Principles you can free them from Usurpation The reason for which you think those words of Christ were not said to the Apostles as Ministers but as private Christians is that otherwise there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity at which I suppose some of them who talk much of Religion would not be offended But if there be nothing else on which their Right to the Communion is founded without any injury to them this matter may be thus adjusted The Apostles as receiving the Communion might be the Representatives of the Faithful and of Ministers only in receiving the Command of Christ to do as he had shew'd them that is to bless and give to others the Sacramental Elements of Bread and Wine And such I affirm they were and such
you must acknowledge them to have been unless you will say that the Administration of the Eucharist by the Pastors of the Church hath no foundation in the Holy Scripture I see no way to avoid the difficulties with which you are intangled unless it be granted that the Apostles receiv'd Commission to administer both the Sacraments for not only themselves but others also And since a Right to that Commission cannot be convey'd but by Ordination and there can be no Power of Ordination unless it be deriv'd from the Apostles from hence I gather that in this which was a principal part of their Authority as well as in that of conferring Baptism and celebrating the Eucharist they ought to have Successors in all Ages 3. When our Lord before his Ascension gave his Commission to the Apostles he left them an assurance of his Presence with them in these words Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And from hence it appears that it is agreeable to our Saviour's intention that they should have Successors for as the Assembly of Divines say well This promise cannot be confin'd to their persons who did not live to the end of the world but reacheth all Ages and strongly argueth that the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ And if so let us see whether the words be capable of such a Paraphrase as this Hereafter there shall be another sort of Ministers far inferior to you not only in personal Gifts or inward and miraculous Qualifications but in Authority and these I will protect to the end of the world but you and your Function must shortly be extinct Now this is such an odd kind of Interpretation as I can by no means approve But since the Promise was made immediately to the Apostles one would think that it had a more especial regard to the preservation of their Order if it was also meant of any others Against this your exception is that by the End of the World some understand the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum and think they have good reason for so doing by comparing Matth. 28.20 with 24.3 14. But that expression is only used in the former of those Verses of Matth. 24. where the Disciples said to our Saviour What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the End of the World And here they seem to understand such an End as should be put to the World at our Lord 's personal and glorious Appearance and not that earlier Period of his coming in a Figure only to take vengeance on the Jewish Nation for this could hardly agree with the Idea they had of that state of things about which they made their enquiry However it be thrice do we meet with this Phrase in the thirteenth Chapter of the same Evangelist and as often it signifies the Consummation of all things at the day of Judgment For then it is that the Son will send forth his Angels to gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity and cast them in the furnace of fire And then shall the Righteous shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father that is when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father for then says the Apostle cometh the end But if it be said that the Predictions I have mention'd from Matth. 13. import no more than the Calamities that fell on the Jews and the refreshment that the Christians receiv'd above sixteen hundred years ago after this rate of expounding Scripture one may evacuate the clearest Prophecies of the future and glorious appearance of our Lord to render to every one according to his deeds The Exposition which you defend is not free from other inconveniences For it supposes that the continuance of Christ with his Apostles must be commensurate with the time of his long-sufferance towards his mortal enemies and then however he had already freed them from the Mosaical Yoke and intended to disperse them into remote Regions where they would be little concern'd with the Political Affairs and Government of Judea yet wherever they were they could have no assurance of the presence of our Lord with them any longer than he preserv'd his Crucifiers and so their hopes must live and dye with his Murderers 'T is true all the Apostles did not live till Titus executed on the Jews a most just Vengeance But then I would demand of you that limit the Advantage of our Saviour's Promise to the Persons of the Apostles and understand by it that extraordinary Assistance he gave them in the discharge of their Office how he continued with them that were deceas'd and whether their dust and ashes or their reliques perform'd the Work and Signs of Apostles till that Period which you call the end of the Mosaical Seculum But some lived after that time and I would be inform'd whether they were then abandon'd by our Lord If so what afflicting thoughts must it cost S. John who liv'd above thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem when his Master that lov'd him so well all that while deserted him or lest him without his usual Consolation But this inconvenience you think may be avoided by comparing Matth. 28.20 with Matth. 1.25 where we are inform'd that Joseph knew not Mary till she had brought forth her first born Son For as the meaning is not that he knew her afterwards so when our Saviour says that he would be with his Apostles to the end of the Jewish World this signifies indeed that he would be with them so long but does not imply that he would be with them no longer That is you had fixed a Period of Christ's Presence but finding your self pressed with the consequence of it you declare that there was no Period of it at all And his declaring that he would be with them to the End of the World was as if he had said he would be with them after the End of the World indefinitely I do not see how that instance from Matth. 1.25 supports this Exposition For neither doth this shew how our Saviour could be said to be with those that were deceas'd before the end of the Jewish Polity that is how he assisted them in the work of their Apostleship when that work was over and they were entred into their rest nor yet does it reach the Case of those that surviv'd For however it is enough for us to know that the Mother of our Lord remain'd a Virgin till the time of his Birth yet it was not enough for them to know that he would be with them till the Jews were destroy'd They had as much need of Comfort and Encouragement from his gracious Promise afterwards as they had before yet of this they must have been deprived had the End of the World beyond which that Promise was not extended signified the Ruine of their Nation Upon the whole these words
of Grotius on Matth. 28.20 seem highly rational From hence says he it very manifestly appears it was the mind of Christ that the Apostles should commit to others and they again to other faithful persons that Charge of Government which was committed to them For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World and the Apostles could not live so long Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office And this Sir is the Testimony of that Learned Man who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge and exact Criticism may signifie something with you to use your own words and if he was not much mistaken this Text of Scripture by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers overthrows what you design by it and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment 4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve and it was preserved after their decease It was therefore design'd for Continuance and ought to remain in all Ages This Consequence I take for granted and the Assertions from whence it is drawn I shall clear in their proper places At present I only observe that if they are true they will much confirm what went before For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had it will be manifest that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church was none of them That could not be limited to them which was convey'd to others What was communicated was certainly communicable CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve I Shew'd before that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number and that it actually was so is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles and that not only in Title but in Power also For the first of these declares that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection when a Controversie happen'd between them it might easily have been ended by that Authority which one of them might have exercis'd and the other ought to have obey'd but they debated the matter on equal terms and neither of them gave place to the other The result was when the Contention between them grew sharp they departed asunder and took different courses But at another time they agreed and went together to Jerusalem and then James and Peter and John who seem'd to be Pillars paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues They gave to both the right hand of fellowship and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen as the other three did among those of the Circumcision You think however that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order and that he had his Apostleship from the Church For this you quote Acts 11.22 where you tell me the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him But you might as well have said that when the Brethren sent away Paul they did not barely dismiss him but made him an Apostle And at the same rate you may carry on the work of Criticism farther and declare that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants to free Paul and Silas when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour all these that were sent were transform'd into so many Apostles That Barnabas was as you imagine subordinate to any other Apostles is altogether improbable For S. Paul speaks of him as a Person in the same Station with himself where he says Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas and I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working 1 Cor. 9.5 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority that belonged to the Apostleship for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions Besides Paul and Barnabas there were many others that were not of the Twelve and yet did bear the Title of Apostles and of what account they were in the Church Theodoret informs us He observes that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops and then such as are now call'd Bishops were styled Apostles but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles and on others who sometimes had it the Name of Bishop was impos'd To the same effect is that passage which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose wherein he shews that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles by which says Salmasius he means others besides the Twelve finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided That of Presbyters they left to others and that of Bishops was appropriated to them who had the Power of Ordination so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right This place is quoted several times by Salmasius but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish is very obvious for it plainly intimates that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church only with this difference The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts and were call'd Apostles but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title thought fit to decline it and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops Yet both were of the same Order and govern'd with the same Authority This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth with disservice to his Cause For in his Dissertation against Petavius he proves that there were many Secondary Apostles as we call them for distinction sake which were the Disciples of the First And these he tells us govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power and in the same manner as the First had done He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters that Bishops had in succeeding times So that according to him there were always Prelates since the days of Christ differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages but not in Authority Amongst the Prelates of the first Century I think
must always use the words of Scripture and no other in treating of Religious or Ecclesiastical Affairs all Translations of it ought to be rejected It should be read to the People only in the Original and Sermons should be made to them in Greek and Hebrew which I suppose would not be much for their Edification You farther urge that Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus because the stay he made there was only upon the desire of the Apostle and did not arise from the duty of his place But what if he first took on him the peculiar Charge of the Church of Ephesus immediately after S. Paul besought him to remain there could he not be a Bishop of it unless he was under an antecedent obligation to that Residence or if he did it before which is improbable might he not be exhorted to the performance of a thing which was incumbent on him by his Office The Apostle you know beseeches the Romans to present their Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God He beseeches the Corinthians to speak the same thing He beseeches the Thessalonians to walk worthy of God and Buodias and Syntiche to be of the same mind in the Lord And from these instances it is manifest that things may be duties on another account when he makes them the matter of his Exhortation You fancy however that Timothy could be no standing Officer at Ephesus because as you tell me his stay and business there are limited to the Apostles return for which you quote 1 Tim. 1.3 compar'd with Chap. 3. v. 14.15 Chap. 4. v. 13. And this gives me occasion to shew 1. That where S. Paul acquaints Timothy with his hopes to see him at Ephesus he speaks as under some uncertainty for being acted by the Holy Ghost says Theoophylact he knew not whither that would carry him Theodoret observes that however the Spirit reveal'd to the Divine Prophets and Apostles whatever was expedient yet did they not foresee all things And it was as consistent with the Dignity of S. Paul not certainly to foresee whether he should visit Timothy or not as to be doubtful concerning the time of his coming when he had this in his hopes These things says he write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the house of God Some necessary cause might detain him besides his expectation and it doth not appear that he took any Journey to Ephesus after the writing of this Epistle 2. When he says Till I come give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine This does not signifie that if he did come to Timothy his attendance on these things must then cease or his work be at an end But the Apostle might think by such an admonition to excite his diligence when he was absent from him or else he might hereby intimate that when he saw him he would communicate to him farther Instructions 3. When the second Epistle was sent to Timothy he was neither remov'd from his Authority nor the place where he resided when the first was written For in several passages of both Epistles the same Rules of Discipline are given him He is advis'd in both to avoid the same Errors and Miscarriages and warn'd against the same persons Hymeneus and Alexander are mention'd in both under marks of Infamy and this last is that Alexander who was drawn out by the multitude when the Tumult was at Ephesus Acts 19.33 'T is likewise observable that in the second Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 19. the Apostle salutes Prisca and Aquila whom he left formerly at Ephesus Acts 18.19 He also salutes the houshold of Onesiphorus who ministred unto him whilst he was at Ephesus as Timothy knew very well 2. Tim. 1.18 Yet says Smectymnuus to whom you refer me Paul was so far from setling Timothy at Ephesus that he rather continually sent him up and down for which they quote 1 Thess 3.1 2. Acts 18.5 19.22 20.4 You also tell me that we find Timothy as an Itinerant Officer often going from place to place upon occasion and from hence you would infer that he was not a Bishop But there is no sufficient ground for any such Consequence as may appear if it be consider'd 1. That Presbyters and Deacons were sometimes engaged in Travels and that without any loss of their Character Philip was appointed at Jerusalem to serve tables yet he did not relinquish his Office but remain'd one of the Seven when he went down to Samaria and when he was at Caesarea And I know nothing in Scripture that confines Bishops perpetually within their own Dioceses or Limits their absence from them to a certain number of Days or Miles Ordinarily indeed they are obliged to reside where their peculiar Charge is yet great occasions and their care for the publick good may sometimes call them thence And diligent as they ought to be to instruct and govern that part of the Church which is assign'd to them they may not forget the relation they bear to the whole Primis Ecclesiae temporibus says a Learned Man omnes Episcopi praeter peculiarem curam propriae sibi Ecclesiae in solidum sibi commissam ut loquitur Cyprianus etiam universam suo quodam modo curabant These are the words of Casaubon and Alstedius was so affected with them that he hath transcribed them into his Supplement of Chamier's Panstratia and about two hundred lines more verbatim all very near together without any mention of the Author being willing it seems that they should pass for his own 2. The Journeys mention'd in the Smectymnuan Objection were taken before Timothy was requested to remain at Ephesus as may be gather'd from hence that S. Paul left him there when he went into Macedonia But this could not be the first time of his going thither for then Timothy was a Companion of his Travels and 't is probable that he had not been yet at Ephesus Neither was it the second time for he had then sent Timothy before him into Macedonia where afterwards they were both together Nor yet the third for then to avoid the Conspiracy of the Jews he return'd in great haste from Achaia to Macedonia and departing thence Timothy who waited for him at Troas attended on him to Jerusalem And from these reasons which I have briefly mention'd but which Bishop Pearson hath fully illustrated and confirm'd we may conclude that Timothy was not desir'd by S. Paul to remain at Ephesus before this Apostle was brought to Rome nor till after he had written his Epistles to the Romans Corinthians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians Philemon and the Hebrews What account therefore soever of the Travels of Timothy may be collected from any of those Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles it
into their thoughts Epiphanius knew very well that plurality of Bishops in one City proceeded commonly from Schism or Heresie and was far enough from taking that to be an Argument of the Purity of the Church which in the common sense of Christians both before and after his own time was esteem'd a Corruption Danaeus had a Conceit that when there was in a City a plurality of Bishops they differ'd in this from the Bishop of Alexandria that they were Presbyters and he a Prelate which sufficiently discovers the weakness of his judgment or something worse But he was willing we see it should be believ'd that the first Prelate was to be found at Alexandria that he might have occasion to tell the World that Prelacy and Monkery and other Plagues of the Church had their Original from the same place But that all Bishops were Equal or that they had the same Prelatical Authority I shall shew hereafter and I am no farther concern'd with it here than as it results from this Proposition That according to the Primitive Rule the Government of every Diocese was Monarchical And this I think is manifest from what has been said beyond all just exception CHAP. XII The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles WE have seen that in the second and other Centuries the Churches were govern'd by single persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops And in the next place I shall prove that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles Because this will confirm my Leading Proposition That the Apostles were Ordinary Pastors and prepare my way to consider how the Bishops stood related amongst themselves and to others and what regard is due to persons of their Character That the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles S. Augustin thought might be gather'd from the Prediction that was made to the Church by the Psalmist in these words In stead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children For of them he gives us the following Paraphrase The Apostles begat thee they are thy Fathers But could they remain with us always One of them said I desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you He said so indeed But how long could he continue here Could he live on Earth to this and future Ages or was the Church deserted when the Apostles were deceased God forbid Instead of the Fathers there are Children Bishops are constituted in room of the Apostles Do not therefore think thy self forsaken because thou seest not Peter or because thou seest not Paul or because thou seest not any of those from whom thou art descended since Fathers are risen out of thy own offspring The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms that goes under the Name of Jerom agrees with S. Augustin in that Exposition And S. Jerom himself who upbraids the Montanists for depressing the Bishop into the third Rank says in opposition to them With us the Bishops possess the place of the Apostles His sense of this he expresses more copiously in his Epistle to Evagrius for there he says Wherever there be a Bishop whether at Rome or Eugubium at Constantinople or Rhegium at Alexandria or Tanis he is of the same Merit and of the same Priesthood The power of Riches and meanness of Poverty may render one Bishop higher or lower than another That is with respect to things external or a priority of Order if that be the true reading which I follow But they are all the Apostles Successors Long before Jerom Firmilian was of the same judgment for speaking of the Bishops in general he tells us that they succeeded the Apostles And with him agrees Cyprian and Clarus à Muscula his Cotemporary Many others might be added but here I shall only mention S. Irenaeus who argues thus against the Hereticks in his time We can number those says he who by the Apostles were instituted Bishops in the Churches and their Successors to our own time and they taught us none of the dotages of these men But if the Apostles knew any hidden Mysteries which they secretly taught the perfect they would chiefly have imparted them to the persons to whom they committed the Churches For they desir'd that they should be very perfect and unblamable to whom they deliver'd their own Place of Government Thus that Excellent Father and his Testimony is the more considerable because of his great Antiquity For 't is probable he was born several years before the death of S. John and 't is certain he receiv'd instruction from some that had seen and heard the Apostles themselves To invalidate his Authority you tell me he is agreed by some to have affirm'd that our Lord Christ did undergo his passion in the fiftieth year of his age As if that might better be determin'd by their agreement about it than his own Writings in which we find no such thing He no where fixes the period of our Saviours Passion He no where assigns it to a certain year Yet I grant he was of opinion that our Saviour liv'd about fifty years if that passage be his wherein he treats of this matter But Antonius Pagi and other Learned Men conceive it has been corrupted it seeming incredible to them that Irenaeus should attribute to our Lord so many years in that very Chapter wherein he reckons no more than three Passovers which he celebrated after he enter'd upon the thirtieth year of his Age and declares He did eat the last of them the day before his suffering But there being no Copies to justifie that Charge of Corruption what I insist upon is That if Irenaeus was mistaken in the time of Christs Passion it does not follow that he was so in the thing which I have cited from him If he err'd concerning that Period about which all mankind have been in the dark he might notwithstanding be a credible Witness of such matters as could not well escape his notice and have nothing in them that is improbable Such was the severity of our Saviours Life and deportment that it may seem he appear'd more aged than he was For when the Jews said to him Thou art not yet fifty years old doubtless they thought he was near so much And it is easie then to conceive how the report might arise and be continued which Irenaeus follow'd But it was so far from becoming an universal Tradition that it was never embraced that we find by so much as two of the Fathers The Case is very different when he relates who succeeded the Apostles for of this lie could hardly be ignorant that lived so near them And the account he gives having been confirm'd by many others and having met with an universal approbation cannot be rejected by us with any shadow of reason But you say Admitting Irenaeus 's Authority to be unblemished and cite as one could wish it yet on this occasion it
to the Apostles so after their example they stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to Presbyters as Superiors in Office and Authority 1. They stood related amongst themselves as Equals According to Cyprian every one of them in his own Diocese was a Judge in Christs stead And says that Father None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a Tyrannical terror compells his Collegues into a necessity of obedience This he spake in a Council at Carthage and with reflection probably on Stephen Bishop of Rome who injuriously invaded the Rights and Liberties of his Brethren 'T is true some Bishops were distinguish'd from others by a Primacy of Order and had the chief direction of Ecclesiastical Affairs When Synods were call'd they presided in them and for this they had the example of S. James in the Council of Jerusalem But their Primacy depended on the consent of other Bishops and was mutable It did not render them Judges of the rest within their several Provinces nor might they condemn any of them by their own Sentence without the Suffrages of their Collegues 2. In the purest Ages after the Apostles the Bishops stood related to Presbyters as Superiors And in this it is that our Controversie is chiefly concern'd I shall therefore prove it more largely and for this purpose I shall not only serve my self of such passages of Ancient Writers as describe the Office or Authority of Bishops but others also that only mention them as an Order distinct from Priests For if they were so there can be no question to which of them the Supremacy did belong I begin with the Testimony of S. Ignatius who says in his Epistle to the Philadelphians that he cried with a loud voice Attend to the Bishop and to the Presbytery and to the Deacons He instructs the Ephesians to respect the Bishop as the Lord that sent him And to the Smyrnaeans he declares that in things relating to the Church none ought to act without the Bishop that the Eucharist is then valid when it is perform'd under his Authority or by his permission without which he says it is not lawful to Baptize or celebrate the Feasts of Love So clearly does he assert the Prerogatives of Episcopacy What I have cited from Ignatius carries the greater weight with it because as Chrysostom informs us he was conversant with the Apostles and instructed by them He was a person of so much Sanctity and Zeal that he was willing to endure all the torments that the Devil could inflict that he might be with Christ and thought it more desirable to be torn in pieces by wild Beasts for his sake than to be Emperor of the World Having had the advantages of such an Education and being so wonderfully inflam'd with the love of Jesus he cannot be thought to have corrupted the Church nor had he time to accomplish it had he design'd a thing so detestable For he did not long survive S. John whose Disciple he was He suffer'd death under the Emperor Trajan as Simeon also did and probably both receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom the same year If an Author so Ancient and Venerable had only told us that the Government of the Church in his time was Episcopal this might have signified much But he does not only relate it as matter of Fact that there were Bishops He shews that Obedience was due to them as the Supreme Pastours and as the Representatives and Ambassadours of Christ And because it was suspected that his asserting their Authority had no higher cause than a prudential foresight of the Divisions which some were about to make he calls him to witness for whom he was in bonds that it proceeded from the Spirit of God And this Protestation being made at a time when miraculous inspirations were frequent there is not the least ground to question his veracity The truth is the Epistles of this Admirable man afford such plain evidence for Episcopacy that this has been the foundation of all the quarrels against them and particularly it was the cause as Grotius informs us why they were rejected by Blondel tho in the Florentino Copy they were free from those things for which they had before been suspected by the Learned The famous Isaac Vossius who publish'd them from that Copy tells us that every time he read them over they presented him with fresh Arguments of their Exellence and of their being Genuine and this will not appear strange to any person that peruses them with care and without prejudice But if you take them to be spurious you may try your skill in answering what has been said by Dr. Pearson and others in their vindication and if you succeed in that attempt I pray let us know what grounds of certainty you have that there are any Books of the Antiquity to which they pretend now extant in the Christian world To S. Ignatius may be added his Cotemporaries Philo and Agathopus or whoever were the Writers of the Acts of his Martyrdom They attended on him in his journey from Syria to Rome at which time they tell us the Churches and Cities of Asia did honour the Saint by their Bishops Priests and Deacons And they deserve the more credit as being Eye-witnesses of what they relate Not long after that time the Emperor Hadrian writ an Epistle to Servianus which was preserv'd by Phlegon and transcrib'd from him by Flavius Vopiscus and in that there occurs a passage from whence it is manifest that Bishops were then esteem'd of a different Rank from Presbyters and that the distinction between them was obvious to the very Heathen But you are much surpriz'd you say at my citation of this Epistle of Hadrian for certainly it appears by it that Hadrian had but little acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of men for he represents them as well as the other inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most injurious sort of men and particularly says that those that worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds that the very Patriarch coming into Egypt was constrain'd of some to worship Serapis and of some to worship Christ Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians or indeed more mistakingly c. These are your words and they seem an effect of the surprize you speak of rather than any sedate thoughts For to begin where you leave off that I may remove out of the way what is little to our purpose 1. You suppose that the Patriarch mention'd by Hadrian was a Christian Whereas there was not then in the World any Ecclesiastical Officer who did bear that title Eutychius indeed informs us that there were Patriarchs of Alexandria but this was an Argument of his ignorance unless the Apology which the Learned and
rightly believ'd to proceed from Apostolical Authority And that he did not believe Episcopacy was introduced into the Church after the Apostles decease appears from several instances and particularly from hence that he thought the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were their Bishops Thus far your Witnesses have appear'd against you and with them you have fitly join'd S. Chrysostom who says not as you pretend that there is no difference in a manner between Bishops and Priests but that the difference is not great Thereby intimating that some difference there was even in the Apostles days for of these he he speaks And in this he tells us they were distinguish'd that only the Bishops had the power of Ordination A thing so destructive of the cause for which you are concern'd that the Dissenters doubtless had rather see all the Volumes of Chrysostom in a flame than be concluded by his testimony After all you must depend I think on the testimony of such as Danaeus Buchanan Johannes Major and Hector Boethius and of what Authority these men are I come now to enquire If we may believe Danaeus say you Epiphanius himself was at last compell'd to confess that in the Age of the Apostles no such distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as I contend for was to be found To which I reply If we may believe Epiphanius himself he confess'd no such matter On the contrary when he had represented Aerius as the plague of mankind when he had expos'd and condemn'd his detestable ingratitude towards Eustathius and shew'd how he loaded his Benefactor with calumnies because he was advanced to a Bishoprick to which that modest Leveller aspir'd he then gives an account of this opinion of the Heretick That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter which he censures as extremely foolish and proceeds to the confutation of it That a Presbyter says he cannot be the same with a Bishop the sacred word of the Apostle declares For thus he writes to Timothy Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder but that he had Authority over him He admonishes him ver 19. Not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses But he did not give direction to any of the Presbyters not to receive an accusation against a Bishop not to rebuke a Bishop This then is a manifest Argument of the disparity of those Officers in the judgment of Epiphanius But if you can make him confess what he denies if you can make him approve what he confutes and bring him to an agreement with one whom he represents as a prodigious villain and a monster then you may believe Danaeus But his credit labours much at present and you have said nothing to relieve it It hath been little for the honour of the Presbyterian Government that the Father of it hath been thought to be Aerius But you think it is of more ancient and better extraction The Scots you say who receiv'd the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age had not any knowledge for many Ages after that appears of any but Presbyterian jurisdiction And for this you quote Buchanan who tell us that no Bishop ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Palladius his time and that the Church unto that time was govern'd by Monks without Bishops with less pride and outward pomp but greater simplicity and holiness And if his word may be taken for it this would be something to the purpose But Camden says that his History was condemn'd of falshood by the Parliament of Scotland and that Buchanan before his death bitterly accus'd himself of the Calumnies he had divulged So that however I have a great value for his wit and learning I think no great credit is due to his testimony since he wanted that veracity which is essential to a good Historian But here it seems we need not depend on his word alone for he is warranted by the Authority of Johannes Major whose words you set down and they are to the same effect as the former And really say you this testimony given by Johannes Major is very full And who would not now think that this Johannes Major was an Ancient Father that could give such a full and exact account of the Primitive times Yet did this man draw down his History of Great Britain as far as the Marriage of K. Henry VIII of England with the Princess Catherine of Aragon and dedicated it to K. James V. of Scotland He was alive says Labbe in the year 1520. And one that would undertake to declare what men were doing above a thousand years before he was born had need to vouch better Authority than his own to gain belief But John Major is not the only Evidence Buchanan might have cited Beda you tell me says that Palladius was sent unto the Scots who believ'd in Christ as their first Bishop How great an advantage is it to have the faculty of close reasoning Yet so dull am I that I do not perceive how the words of Bede prove those of Buchanan to be true For 1. Palladius might be sent into Scotland and yet not into the Country now call'd by that name and intended by Buchanan It might be into Ireland of which Beda himself says that it is properly the Country of the Scots and accordingly in Claudian the Scot is the Irish man And that Palladius was sent to the Irish Scots hath been prov'd by those great Antiquaries the Bishops of S. Asaph and Worcester to whom I refer you for satisfaction 2. The Christian faith hath no such dependance on Monkery but the Scots might believe though there had never been any Monks in the world And I take it to be manifest that there were none so early as you imagine Polydor Vergil ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died as he tells us in the year 361. Danaeus says that it began to be in request in Egypt after the year 300 and that it was later before it was receiv'd in Europe He attributes the invention of it to superstition and an idolatrous admiration of external things He compares the Monks to swarms of drones and says that in the year 500. they were dispers'd and multiplied like the Locusts in the Revelation upon the face of the whole Earth You see Sir what sentiments your friend Danaeus had of these men and of their institution and little did he think that the Church of Scotland was so happy in an excellent sort of Presbyterian Monks in the best and purest Ages S. Jerom himself who had such a zeal for the Monastick way of living that he was willing to say as much for the honour of it as he was able carries the original of it notwithstanding no higher than Antony or Paul the Thebaean But which of them soever was the Founder of it
for since that Book is not very common I may perhaps gratifie the Curiosity of some by shewing what sort of Gospel it is that he communicated to the Indians This Missionary represents our Saviour directing his followers not to relate to the Church the Sin of an offending Brother who remains unreformed after two Admonitions but to tell it to the Prince of the Church meaning S. Peter and after him the Pope If he had done this no otherwise than as a Commentator he had deserved says Ludovicus de Dieu the Character of a bad Interpreter But when as an Historian he puts such words into the Mouth of Christ he may be justly charged with Forgery and lying against his own Conscience At the same rate and in pursuance of the same design when he had truly set down these words of Christ Simon Simon Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat but I have pray'd that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren he informs us that for Illustration our Saviour adds The faith of Peter who is the first Successor or Calif shall never fail and 't is his work to confirm others And so it came to pass says the Author not one Pope succeeding Peter has been defective in the faith And thus he comments on his own Vision and would establish an impudent Fiction by an Assertion that is notoriously false Yet he declares that this History excell'd all other things that had been translated into the Persian Tongue in the Reign of Acabar the Great Mogul for whose instruction it was compos'd This says he is the Book that most deserves that the King should be proud of it and think it worthy of an honourable acceptance He therefore petitions him that a Command should be issued out for the reading of it in the Church as being the root of the Doctrine of Righteousness the tranquillity of the Heart and the medicine of Spirit These are glorious Titles and we have partly seen how consistent they are with his performances Xavier might be the more hardy in a place where he was in no great danger of having the Materials of his History examin'd Others perceive they have reason to be more cautious and they proceed not by way of Narrative but labour to support the same Cause for which he was concern'd by Arguments But these we may be sure can have no great weight since they are employ'd to prove that there was a certain kind of Government established amongst the Apostles of which it is plain enough themselves were ignorant Doubtless when the Sons of Zebedee made their Petition to our Saviour by their Mother that one of them might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in his Kingdom they knew nothing of the Sovereignty of Peter which yet is supposed to have been promised before and S. Paul was afterwards as great a Stranger to it when in so publick a manner he withstood him to the face at Antioch I need not engage farther in this Controversie since it hath been so lately and fully handled by others And perhaps Sir you may think that I have already dwelt too long on a Subject in which I have no Adversary but the Advocates of the Papacy But their Doctrine being so inconsistent with that Scheme of Thoughts which you have obliged me to publish I was not willing to pass by them without Ceremony But now I return to you and observe Secondly That notwithstanding there was such an Equality amongst the Apostles yet there were other Ecclesiastical Officers inferior to them Such I think were the Seventy Disciples whom our Lord constituted in the days of his flesh For since the Apostles and Seventy Disciples are thus represented under different denominations Since it is not doubted but they were appointed in accommodation to the twelve Princes of the Tribes and the Seventy Elders in the Mosaical Polity since none of the Seventy could be of the Order of the Twelve without a new Election and Advancement you need not think it strange that I conclude as many have done before me that they were of different Ranks and that in this state of things there was a disparity of Ministers But you tell me that if the prejudices of my Education or of my Circumstances had not stuck too fast to me I might have discover'd that the Institution of the Seventy Disciples was only temporary Yet if this Discovery will do you any service I cannot find that your self have made it You say indeed that the Seventy were sent about a particular business to the House of Israel and that their Office ceas'd of course at their Return But of this I find no grounds in the Holy Scripture I am sure the Apostles and Seventy Disciples were sent abroad and employ'd in like manner at different times But the first return'd without any loss of their Function and so might the last And that they did so we have reason to think unless they were degraded or depressed into the Rank of private men by some Act of their Master But to me it seems incredible as it did also to Blondel that when the Harvest was like to increase our Lord diminished the Number of his Labourers that he dismissed them when they were become acquainted with their Work which still was necessary or that he gave them a discharge at that time when for their Confirmation he bestow'd on them power over all the power of the enemy Luke 10.19 'T is true the Scriptures mention them not afterwards by the Name of the Seventy but if this proves that their Office was expired one may also conclude from it that they were all dead for there is as great a Silence about their Lives as about their Ministry It may be useful to contemplate that Platform of Ecclesiastical Polity which those early times afford yet I confess they are something obscure and that you do not unfitly call them a Twilight between the Law and the Gospel And this might have restrain'd you from reflecting on me as influenced by prejudices or my circumstances for not acknowledging that the Office of Apostles which was first confer'd on the Twelve as well as in your Opinion the Commission of the Seventy Disciples was temporary or expired at the farthest after our Saviour's Resurrection when for this you produce no better Argument than what implies that a former Grant must necessarily be cancell'd when Additions are made to it But about this I have no need to dispute We come now to another state of things which is most clear and in which we are infinitely concern'd The wall of partition was broken down And after our Lord's Ascension the multitude of Believers increasing first amongst the Jews and afterwards amongst the Gentiles the Apostles found it necessary to have some Assistance in their Labours and for that purpose ordain'd Presbyters and Deacons neither of which were