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
mention he makes of his power to use sharpness if his directions were not observ'd and his challenging obedience from them to whom he ow'd obedience could not but be very surprizing and his threatning that he would come with his Rod if they did not prevent it by their Reformation and that then he would not spare must needs have appear'd very strange language to his good Masters the Corinthians Another Argument by which you pursue the design of the Leviathan in opposing Ecclesiastical Authority is taken from the inconsistence you conceive it hath with the Civil Government if it be not deriv'd from it You conclude there can be no Jurisdiction at all unless it be in the Magistrate or proceeds from him because as you tell me in one Kingdom there can be but one spring or fountain of it But if this be at all pertinent and by Jurisdiction you do not only mean that which is Secular your Objection makes as much against the Ruling Power of the Apostles as of other Spiritual Pastors Yet is this some of that stuff which you so highly extol and I suppose that in your Epistle Dedicatory you had it particularly in your eye where you say that were your Idea of Church-Government receiv'd by all others with the same degree of candour as you assure your self it shall by your Noble Friends it would be of infinite advantage to end those fatal controversies that for many Ages have perplexed and in this last almost destroy'd the Church What your Noble Friends think of your performance I cannot tell For my own part I am not surpriz'd to find you ascribing Infinite Advantage to the Exploits of your own Pen nor convinced but that if your Principles about Ecclesiastical Polity were generally embraced they might be of more pernicious consequence than the Collection which as Lactantius informs us Vlpian made of the impious Rescripts of Princes that he might shew what punishments should be inflicted on those who professed themselves Worshippers of God The Justice of this Charge will be manifest from hence that the Church cannot subsist without Government nor Government without Authority If therefore as you contend there be no Ecclesiastical Government or Authority but what proceeds from the Magistrate this would put it into the power of a Julian to destroy the Church by dissolving that Government and abrogating that Authority And to this he might be the more inclin'd did he believe that the Hierarchy could not be tolerated with safety to himself or were so dangerous a thing as you have represented it Had the Apostles you say own'd any pretensions of a design to erect a National much more an Vniversal Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church or had they done any thing to occasion a just suspicion of such a Design it would have much obstructed the true design and end of their Mission which was the planting and spreading Christianity For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own defence and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives and Rights must have always oppos'd it That is they would have been obliged to restrain the Apostles or oppose their Attempts if they acted by other Principles or advanced other Notions than you have embraced And this may a little discover the tendency of your Letters of Church-Government There can be no question amongst those that believe the Gospel but that our Saviour might have established an Vniversal Hierarchy Nor can there be any doubt but if he enjoin'd his Apostles to erect an external form of Church-government it had been their duty to obey his Command And what must then the Kings and Rulers of the Earth have done If you have stated the Case right they might lawfully have taken counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed They might and ought to have resisted his Design and Constitution or in your words They must in their own defence and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives have always oppos'd it A passage which one would think you should hardly reflect on without something of Confusion It will deserve the severer Censure if it be true that such a Hierarchy as you condemn was indeed erected and that by the appointment of Christ himself And this I take to be certain For the Apostles to whom he committed the Government of all the Church Militant were not invisible Rulers nor were the people under their charge invisible Subjects They admitted not persons into the Christian Society by any secret Rite but by Baptism Nor did they expel them from it by any hidden practice but in a publick manner The Faithful were united to them and other Pastors ordain'd by them as also amongst themselves not only in Love or Charity as they were to all Mankind but in that mutual relation which they had as visible Members of the same Body and as such they were obliged to meet and communicate in the Assemblies that were held for the putting up of solemn Prayers and Praises to Heaven for the Celebration of the Eucharist and other external Acts of Worship And whosoever had Right to Communion in one of those Assemblies he had so in all provided his demand of it was no way irregular And whosoever was expell'd for his Offences from one particular Church he was virtually excluded from the Communion of all other Churches He could not rescind the Sentence against himself by shifting of places Nor could he be kept bound and loos'd on Earth unless he might have been absolv'd and condemn'd in Heaven at the same time After the Apostles days an universal and external Form of Church-Government was kept up and appear'd in great vigor notwithstanding the disturbance it receiv'd from without You your self confess that the Notion of Catholick Vnity then obtain'd which was not understood you say to be internal and spiritual but to consist in something external relating unto Order and Discipline as being an Vnity that was to be maintain'd by Communicatory and other Letters and by Orders and that was intended to support the Notion of but one Bishoprick in the Church and that every Bishop participated of that one Bishoprick in solidum A Notion that was of great use to make the Discipline and Power the more pointed for if but one Church then to be cast out of any part of the Church was indeed to be ejected out of the whole and if but one Bishoprick to be participated by all the Bishops what was done by one was done by all All did censure if one did The Expulsion made by one Bishop out of any Church was in effect an Expulsion from all Churches and so a cutting off entirely from Christianity and all Communion of Saints Yet useful as you think this Notion was and early as it obtain'd you take it to be intolerable The Authority which you acknowledge S. Cyprian approv'd and which was exercis'd by him and other excellent Men in his
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
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
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
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
Care You will not pretend I presume that there was any such person whilst the Apostles were alive for the Apostles you tell me constituted no Officers over whom they retain'd not a Jurisdiction And I give you the space of five hundred years after their days to find but one single Presbyterian or Independent Bishop in any sound part of the Catholick Church or any approved Instances of Ordinations perform'd by him But if you attempt this I am desirous you would only insist on good Authorities and not as I shall find you shortly on Legends and Romances CHAP. XV. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd I Shall despair of proving any matter of fact that was perform'd many Ages since if it be not manifest from the Testimonies which I have produc'd that the Government of the Primitive Church was Episcopal Yet for the contrary Opinion you pretend you have Vouchers and these Fathers too as Learned and Pious Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd And 't is very true you have drawn Quotations from some that were of great Eminence How pertinently you have done it I come now to enquire S. Cyprian is one of the Ancients to whom you appeal and he says The Deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Praepositi but the Apostles after his Ascension constituted Deacons for the service of themselves and of the Church And from hence you gather that the Praepositi here were only Presbyterial or Congregational Bishops because they are contradistinguish'd to Deacons That is because this Father makes no mention in this place of Presbyters that being nothing to his purpose the Bishops must be depress'd into their order But it is obvious and I wonder how it escap'd your notice that the Apostles themselves were the Bishops or Praepositi of which he speaks And now you may conclude if you please that the twelve Apostles were no more than fixed Pastors of so many single Congregations You likewise argue from S. Cyprian that however he had the Title of Bishop yet he consider'd himself only as first Presbyter for which you give this notable reason that his Name for a Bishop is always Praepositus in respect of the People and you add that he calls Presbyters Compresbyters but he no where calls Deacons Condeacons But you might as well say that S. Peter consider'd himself only as first Presbyter because he addresses his Exhortation to the Elders as being also an Elder Or that S. Basil was of no higher Order than that of Deacon because he styles Eustathius Elpidius and Sabinus Condeacons And the like may be said of other examples of the same nature for an account of which I refer you to Blondel and Mabillon I think it is observable that howsoever S. Cyprian calls Presbyters his Compresbyters yet he never calls them his Colleagues Nor did he think they might over-rule him by the number of voices But when some of them attempted to restore the Lapsi in his absence without regard to his Authority he express'd a just resentment of it He complain'd of this as a thing that was never done in the time of his Predecessors So that however he could at other times dissemble the Contempt that was cast upon his Office he did not think fit on this occasion to be silent or remiss but gave order that the rash and insolent offenders should be prohibited to exercise their Function 'T is true S. Cyprian says he resolv'd from the time that he was made Bishop not to act any thing without the Counsel and Consent of his Clergy and People But the reason of this was he treated the Lapsi with unusual Lenity so that he needed the Concurrence of others to support his Authority yet as he did not prescribe to others his own Rules of Discipline so neither did himself always take the same measures Sometimes he restor'd Offenders to the peace of the Church when the people were brought to consent to it but with difficulty sometimes when they oppos'd it He also requir'd his Presbyters and Deacons and People to receive amongst the Clergy Numidicus a Presbyter without consulting them before about this matter And he acquainted his Clergy and People that without their Suffrage Celerinus was constituted Reader and appointed that he should be joyn'd with Aurelius and that both should have their share of the monthly maintenance as Presbyters had At another time he thus express'd his thoughts to them about a breach of Discipline If there be any person said he either amongst our Presbyters or Deacons or amongst strangers so extravagant or rash that he shall dare before our sentence be given to communicate with the Lapsed let him be expell'd from our communion And not expecting the concurrence of any he depriv'd Philumenus Fortunatus and Favorinus of their monthly Dividend till their Cause should have a publick hearing Upon the whole we find that S. Cyprian was a person of an excellent temper and as he us'd such great condescension towards his Clergy and People as seems not to have been practis'd before nor is always necessary but was very fit for the time in which he liv'd so on the other hand he was not wanting to assert his own Authority and the Dignity of his Order For he tells us Christ says to his Apostle and consequently to all Bishops who succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me heareth him that sent me And he that rejecteth you rejecteth me and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me He adds that Schisms and Heresies arise from hence that the Bishop who is one and governs the Church is by the presumption of some despis'd And to those that forsook their Bishop and erected Altar against Altar he applies these words of Isaiah Wo unto ye Children that are Deserters saith the Lord. Ye have taken counsel but not of me Ye have made a Covenant but not by my Spirit to add sins to sins Another of the Ancients which you have quoted for the support of your Opinion is the Commentator on S. Paul's Epistles that bears the Name of Ambrose and from him you expect some assistance because he says that of a Bishop and Presbyter there is but one Ordination But his meaning is not as you suppose that their Consecration was the same but that they are both of the same Order by which he intends no more than that they agree in this that both are Priests He did not believe them to be of Equal Power however he comprehended them under one general denomination For says he the Bishop is the Chief and Every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop And what service this can do you I do not understand But the Bishop he tells us is the First Presbyter and this is a thing on which
you much insist as if it afforded some great advantage to your Cause Whereas the Fathers who us'd that expression which you so well approve had no such Notion of a First Presbyter as you have entertain'd but made the same distinction between him and his Clergy as there was between the High Priest and the other Priests that were under his Authority Another thing for which you cite this Commentator is the information he gives us that the Eldest was always the First Presbyter till the inconveniences of that course occasion'd the change which he says was made by a Council But to this I know not how to assent because it appears from Scripture and the Writings of the most Primitive Fathers that they who in the early times of Christianity were advanced to the Charge of Bishops were commonly qualified for it and distinguish'd by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost or their own personal worth and there is no probability that a meer number of years was then held sufficient to recommend a person to the highest Office in the Christian Church Yet if there was sometime such preference given to seniority and such a change made in some particular Country as the Author mentions I am not concern'd about it But if you think the Ancient Custom he speaks of was universal and that a departure from it over the World was decreed by a General Council I would gladly know where it was assembled Blondel thinks the alteration was introduced by the Council of Nice and for this he directs us to the fourth Canon of that Council in which there is not a word of this matter nor are there any footsteps of it in Antiquity But whatever was the ground of advancing persons to the Office of Bishops manifest it is that this Commentator believ'd the Office it self was of Divine Institution and superior to that of Presbyters For he declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and that the Apostles in general were Bishops He affirms that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were Bishops also And in the Bishop says he all Orders are contain'd because he is the Prince or Chief of the Priests And yet this is one of the Fathers by whose Testimony you are content matters between us should be determin'd Another of them is S. Jerom who informs us I confess that originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the common Counsel of Priests But it must be consider'd that according to him the Churches were only under that Administration till by the instigation of the Devil divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas And it may seem not a little for the advantage of Episcopacy if as he intimates it was the best means of extirpating Schism when a Presbyterian parity was found insufficient for that purpose and if it was therefore establish'd over the world by universal Decree and that whilst many of the Apostles were alive Blondel I know assigns a later date to that Decree and would have us believe that it was not made before the year 140. But I am much more inclin'd to think that it was never made at all than that this project was first set on foot to remove the seeds or beginnings of Schisms almost a hundred years after they were sown at Corinth or after it was there said among the people I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas Blondel saw this absurdity and to avoid it he falls into another He would persuade us that the Schisms here mention'd are such as did not disturb the Church till a long time after the decease of Paul and Apollos and Cephas and did not arise amongst the Corinthians but others that imitated their example But by this exposition he does not only force the words of the Author from their plain literal meaning without any necessity but also makes him contradict his own avowed sense say in effect that Episcopacy was not instituted before the year 140 notwithstanding in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and other parts of his works he hath left us an account of several Bishops distinct from Presbyters that were ordain'd by the Apostles themselves 'T is true S. Jerom sometimes in his heats of which the cause is sufficiently known let fall such words as seem inconsistent with the Rights of Episcopacy yet if those words had been assaulted by his Adversaries he would not have been at a loss but had made provision for a vindication of himself or a safe retreat either by other expressions or the secret meaning of the same He may seem to oppose the subordination of Presbyters to the Bishop as an innovation or a departure from a former institution of Government yet he allows as we have seen that this departure was made about the time that S. Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians He intimates that it was necessary and in his Treatise against the Luciferians he declares that the welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Bishop to whom says he if there be not granted a certain peerless Authority there will be as many Schisms as there are Priests He may seem to believe that Bishops were not Constituted by any Divine order or disposal and perhaps he thought that they were not appointed by any Precept of Christ himself yet he denies not that they were Ordained by those that had Commission from him and acted in his Name and by his Power He may seem to be of Opinion that the Episcopal Praeeminence or Jurisdiction was at first a meer prudential Contrivance and afterwards confirm'd by Custom Yet in the production of it he ascribes no more to Prudence than the laying hold on a sad occasion when it was offer'd for its establishment And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition and this he grounds on Scripture That we may know says he that the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple That may the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Church And this is as much as I demand Another of your Authors is S. Augustin who acquaints us indeed that the Titles of Bishop and Presbyter were distinguish'd by Custom But it does not follow that there was not the same disparity of Officers when those words were of promiscuous use as there was afterwards when they were limited in their signification If this gives you not satisfaction Grotius will tell you what is agreeable to that which has been said already That when the Fathers speak of Custom they do not exclude an Apostolical Institution Nay S. Augustin says that what hath been always held by the whole Church and was not appointed by Councils is most
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
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
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
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
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
represented as a Person of admirable Charity and a Worthy Pattern and great Blessing to his Flock Polycrates was another of his Successors and it were easie to reckon many more If therefore your Standard of Extraordinaries be true and of any use it must be granted that his Office was not of their number and that the Inferences you draw from his doing the work of an Evangelist and from your supposition of his being a Co-founder are groundless for 't is in vain to advance little Conjectures against plain Matter of Fact CHAP. VIII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus who was Bishop of Crete I Have said so much of Timothy that the less need be added concerning Titus who had been train'd up with him under the same Spiritual Father and was employ'd in the same manner They were both S. Paul's Fellow-Labourers and Partners in the Apostolate and they were left under the same Character and with the same Authority the one at Ephesus and the other in Crete Titus was left in Crete of which he was Bishop say the Fathers and one part of his Episcopal Power appears from the Commission he had to ordain Elders there in every City Tit. 1.5 But say you the word there which is render'd Ordain is the same that is us'd Acts 6.3 in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the people And one might well admire that the same word which is translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordain'd in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if it were a plain Text for sole Ordination So that here is a heavy Charge against the Translators and perhaps never was any more groundless For I pray Sir what did they mean either by appointing or ordaining but constituting And if all the Apostles constituted the Deacons which were chosen by the People will it follow from the signification of this word that Titus might not constitute Elders unless they were chosen by the People or that he could not do it unless he had Colleagues to assist him or was himself a multitude When the Lord in the Gospel is said to set a Ruler over his houshold must the interpretation of this expression be that he did it not without a previous Election in the Family and with the concurrence of his equals And when we read that Pharaoh made Joseph Governour over Egypt and all his house must the meaning of this be that Pharaoh and some Partners with him in the Thone did this but not without the common consent of their Subjects If these things be absurd you may at your leisure reflect on the Success of your Criticism and the Justice of your Censure We have seen what Right Titus had to constitute Elders And if it be absurd to imagine that all his Care of them was to be employ'd in examining and admitting them into Office and none afterwards it will follow that since the Rules for their Conversation are directed unto him he had over them an Episcopal Authority For as the Command that was given to the Master of a Family that his Children and Servants should keep the Sabbath was an Argument that they were under his Jurisdiction which rendred him accountable for them So when the Precepts by which Presbyters ought to govern their Actions were addressed to Titus this signifies that he had Power to see them executed and Offences against them prevented or punish'd Another Argument of his Episcopal Power may be taken from hence that he is required to rebuke the disobedient and refractory with all Authority That is says Beza with the highest Authority as an Ambassador of God and to let no man despise him which last advice confirms Beza's Exposition of the former and shews that if Titus would exercise the Authority he had That was sufficient to create a Reverence for him amongst all that were committed to his care But this I confess might seem very strange had his Orders or his Proceedings against Offenders been precarious or some Notions about the Pastors of the Church then prevail'd which of late have been entertain'd In the Imperial Law the following Precept is given to a Judge or President Observandum est jus reddenti ut se contemni non patiatur And it is suitable enough to the condition of a Magistrate But if it be said Of what use could it be to instruct a person to let no man despise him who had no coercive force to vindicate himself from Contempt if any were inclin'd to throw it on him To this I know no other answer can be given than that the Authority of Bishops however it was only Spiritual did in that Age strike such an awe upon the Minds of Christians that they were able to stop the Mouths of False Teachers without any external violence or deprive them of their followers if these had any true sense of Piety Their publick reproof of Scandalous Offenders was then very dreadful and when they expell'd them from the Church by their Censures this was justly esteem'd a sad presage of their future judgment Such Censures I suppose were meant by the Apostle where he instructs Titus to reject a Heretick after the first and second admonition On which words Dr. Hammond hath this Annotation which is not vulgar but in my opinion very rational The first and second admonition says he here refers to the method prescrib'd by Christ in proceeding against Christian Offenders Matth 18.15 but in some circumstances differs from it There is mention of a threefold admonition one by the injured person alone a second by two or three taken with him the third by the Church But here only a first and second admonition The cause of this difference is to be taken from the quality of the person to whom this Epistle is written Titus a Bishop whereas there the speech is address'd to every private Christian that is injured by any Here the first admonition of the Bishop carries an Authority along with it far above that of the private person and the two or three with him and so may well supply the place of both those and then the second here will be parallel to the third there and so after that is despis'd or proved uneffectual it is seasonable to proceed to Censures to excommunicate the contumacious Thus 2 Cor. 13.2 immediately after the second admonition deliver'd by S. Paul he tells the Offenders he will not spare and v. 10. he tells them that this admonition is that he may not proceed to excision or cutting off which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking away the word ordinarily used in the Canons for Excommunication The summ of what I have said of Titus is That he had Commission to constitute Officers and to govern with plenitude of Power Presbyters as well as others
said of them in the Holy Scripture 2. They are said to be the seven Stars in Our Lords Right Hand ver 16. which signifies that they had such Dignity and Power as were not ascrib'd to any other Officers in their respective Churches and if so there is no question but our Saviour approv'd their Function and would support those that were so near him in the discharge of it 3. They were called Angels in allusion to the practice of the Jews who attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel For of him I suppose Solomon speaks where he says Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin neither say thou before the Angel it was an error Eccl. 5.6 I cannot think that Solomon here advis'd a person that had bound himself by a Vow not to make this speech before the Messiah or any Ministring Spirits as some Interpreters conceive or not to attempt to delude with words any invisible Beings It may seem he was in no danger of that But the Royal Preacher gives him caution that he should not satisfie himself if by his excuses he could impose on the High Priest who was obliged to take cognizance of his Vows but to remember that God would be an Avenger of the falshood that was acted before his Vicegerent however it was cover'd with the greatest art That Exposition and what I infer from it may be confirm'd from the 42 d. Chapter of Isaiah ver 19. where we find this expostulation Who is deaf as my Messenger But the the Original may well be rendred who is deaf as my Angel And this doubtless was not an Angel of Light nor can an inspir'd Prophet be thought so stupid as the person was against whom that complaint was made His Character is not so applicable to any as the High Priest whose duty indeed it was to understand the Will of God and instruct others but at that time it seems himself had great need of admonition which yet he was in no readiness to receive The like use of the word we meet with in Malac. 2.7 For I make no question but what the Prophet speaks there of the Priest is to be understood of the High Priest or that it is he who is styled the Angel of the Lord of Hosts at whose mouth the people were required to seek the Law And it may seem that the High Priests were not only called Angels whilst they were inabled as the Messengers of the Almighty to reveal his mind by Vrim and Thummim but after the period to which the Cessation of these Oracles is assign'd by Josephus himself For Diodorus Siculus speaking of the Jews and their High Priest says They esteem him an Angel to convey to them the commands of God And from what has been said I collect that there was an Analogy between the Jewish High Priest and every Angel of the Asiatick Churches that both of them were Governours in Chief and had their subordinate Officers and that the Presbyters and Deacons were subject to the one as the Priests and Levites were to the other But say you Should it be yielded that the Jews had any such practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High Priest what could this amount to in our case since every Bishop is not a High Priest in the sense of the Jews For in their sense there could be but one and then that one amongst the Christians must be a Pope And to the Pope you would do no small service if you may be permitted to make Inferences for him from this Analogy for you stretch it as far as he desires and beyond what is consistent with Scripture and the common sense of Christians in the best Ages with both which it agrees that there should be one Bishop in a Diocese resembling the High Priest within the bounds of his Jurisdiction Farther than this the similitude may not be extended unless it be said that as there is but one Catholick Church which is the Mystical Israel so Mystically there is but one Bishop For all the Bishops were anciently esteem'd as one and what was done by one in the due exercise of his Office was esteem'd the Act of the whole Colledge A Notion that supposes an equality of all Bishops in their Office and Authority and consequently is so far from affording any advantage to the Popes that it directly opposes their pretences and has sometimes been us'd to very good purpose to prevent their Usurpations and check their Ambition 4. The Epistles directed to these Angels are such as suppose them to have had Jurisdiction over all others both Ministers and People within their respective Dioceses And on this it is that I principally insist Our Lord says Arethas does by the Angel treat with the Church as if by the Master a person should discourse of one that is under his Government knowing that the Master is wont to esteem those things as his own which are done by his Scholars whether they were worthy of honour or reproach But he might have added that a Master could then only justly be charged with the irregularities of his Scholars when he had power but did not exercise it to prevent their miscarriages And how much this is the case here may partly appear from this concession of Blondel The actions of the Church says that learned Man whether they were glorious or infamous were imputed to the Angels as their Exarchs or Chief Governours They were therefore more than Moderators in a Presbytery and had full power to correct abuses And this is what may be illustrated from the following instance which I have chosen out of several that might be given The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is celebrated for his personal Virtues He dwelt where Satan's seat was and yet he held fast the name of Christ and denyed not the Faith in those days when Antipas the faithful Martyr was slain C. 2. v. 13. But some defect was imputed to him as a Governour I have a few things against thee saith the Lord because thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam c. So thou hast also them which hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which thing I hate ver 14 15. And from hence we may gather that it was in his power to suppress those pernicious Doctrines and Sects that disturb'd the Church and for this purpose the concurrence of any Coordinate Officers was not necessary He could not alledge that he wanted Authority or that others controul'd him in his proceedings against enormities But as it was laid to his charge alone that he had not stopt the mouths of Gainsayers so he alone was warn'd to repent for this want of Discipline lest the Lord should come quickly and fight against him with the sword of his mouth ver 16. Since therefore this Angel had full power of reforming Abuses since the defect of that Reformation is intirely imputed to him Since there is
to comprehend the High Priests whom he does not expresly mention And probably it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews that many of the Primitive Christian Writers distinguish'd the Clergy into two Ranks and to make them speak consistent with themselves we need only grant that two different Orders by reason of some general agreement between them are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use This one thing being consider'd may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology And it shews that if nothing else hinders Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church under the Name of Bishops that being a word which at that time was of a general signification yet some of them might be Supreme and others Subordinate to them He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters yet some of them might be Prelats and the rest of an inferior Rank and under their Authority But supposing what for my part I am inclin'd to believe that all the Bishops mention'd by Clemens were mere Presbyters I know not what service this can do you For he intimates that there were Officers distinct from them and superior to them And only to these Renowned Men as he calls them and the Apostles whom he joyns with them he ascribes the Power of Ordination which hath been the Prerogative of the Bishops ever since his days 'T is true it may seem that there was no Bishop at Corinth when he sent this Epistle thither which was before the Destruction of Jerusalem But if the See was vacant at that time it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd Certain it is that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession as you may learn from Hegesippus And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession Tertullian will lead you to it for he places at Corinth one of the Chairs of the Apostles It was in another of them that S. Clemens himself sate who is the Author of this Epistle He was a Bishop or an Apostle as he is styl'd by Clemens Alexandrinus He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles which was taken by Mabillon out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie and which amounts to the same thing he is reckon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops S. Irenaeus who liv'd near his time informs us that he was Bishop of Rome The same is attested by Tertullian and Origen by Eusebius and Epiphanius by Optatus and Jerom by Augustin and many others So that we have as great certainty of it as there is that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name And if there be no ground to doubt of it as I think there is not his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy as his own Example is for it there not being the least cause to believe that so Excellent a Person would have born an Office which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful CHAP. XI After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops IN what hath been already said of Episcopal Government I have for the most part limited my Discourse to the first Century and only touch'd on it incidentally as continued in succeeding times I come now more fully to shew that after the Apostles decease the Churches or Dioceses were govern'd by Single Persons who were then distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops This appears from many passages in the Epistles of S. Ignatius as also from the Fragments that remain of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth of Polycrates and others who flourish'd in the second Century In the third Origen acquaints us it was the custom to have no more than One Bishop of a Church and this he plainly intimates where he tells us expresly that in every Church there were Two For according to him one of them was visible and the other invisible One of them a Man and the other an assisting Angel 'T is true near the beginning of that Age Narcissus had Alexander for his Colleague in the Government of the Church of Jerusalem But as he was the first we meet with in Ecclesiastical History that after the Apostles days admitted of a Coadjutor so his Case was Extraordinary not only by reason of his extreme Old Age but also because as Eusebius informs us his breach of the Churches Rule was dispenc'd with by Divine Revelation The Rule was that of One Church or Diocese there might be no more than one Bishop On which principle Cyprian and Cornelius argued against the Novatians And the Council of Nice meant the same thing in prohibiting a plurality of Bishops in one City and did not thereby introduce an Innovation but confirm an useful part of the Ancient Discipline It was high time to do this for when Epiphanius speaking of Alexandria says that it never had two Bishops as other Cities he intimates that in the days of Alexander who was present in the Nicene Council some Cities in Egypt had a plurality of Bishops and if so it was a thing fit to be repress'd as being contrary to the Primitive Custom a Custom so avow'd and which had been so well establish'd that when the Roman Confessors abandon'd the Schismaticks by whose arts they had been deluded and made their submission to Cornelius when they acknowledged their errors before him with great humility they profess'd they could not charge themselves with the ignorance of this That as there is one God one Christ and one Holy Spirit so there ought to be but one Bishop of a Catholick Church Yet a doubt still remains on what account it was that other Cities differ'd from Alexandria in such a manner as Epiphanius suggests And some are of opinion that the reason of it was because some Catholick Bishops assum'd Coadjutors after the example of Narcissus But I rather think it proceeded from the Meletians of whom he discourses in this place and who with a mighty industry set up their Schismatical Bishops and Assemblies At Alexandria it seems they could not carry on their designs so successfully as in other parts of Egypt till as Epiphanius relates the matter they took their advantage of the death of Alexander and the absence of Achillas his Successon and then in opposition to him they made Theonas their Bishop and at Alexandria it self erected Altar against Altar But if you are not mistaken these Meletians reform'd a great abuse at Alexandria by that action For there you say the departure from the Primitive Institution of having divers Bishops of one City began as we are told by Danaeus who citeth Epiphanius and might have cited others Thousands doubtless Sir he might have cited to as much purpose that is to testifie such things as never enter'd
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
would have had no reason had their Office been the same as he would have had no cause to make the difference he does between Jews and Christians had they been of the same Principles and Religion The next Witness I shall mention is Clemens Alexandrinus who mentions the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he calls the advances or progressions from one of these Offices to another imitations of the Angelical Glory But this you believe I mention'd for pomp rather than any cogency I thought was in it it being only a conceit or flourish of Rhetorick in that Father And you might as well have said that when he compares the visible Officers of the Church to the different Ranks of Angels it was a meer conceit or flourish of Rhetorick that there were such Officers or that there were Angels Certain it is from this place that Clemens makes the Dignity of a Bishop superior to that of a Presbyter as he does the Dignity of a Presbyter superior to that of a Deacon And in another place he shews that there were distinct Rules prescrib'd to each of them And I take this testimony of a person who flourish'd in the next Age after the Apostles to be very considerable But say you Tho in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet in his Stromata where he treats of Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but two the Presbyter and Deacon and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honour'd with the first Seat And how is it that he plainly intimates this Has he in any other part of his Writings given us any notice of such a Presbyter and his Seat No He hath not said a word about them Hath any other Writer in or near his time left us a description of them No they mention no such matter Could he not speak of Presbyters but one of them must needs be the President and Moderator in the Consistory That is not pretended How hath he then so plainly intimated that there was such a person No other way but by a profound silence about him And thus a man that speaks not a word or is asleep may plainly intimate what you please 'T is certain however that in the passage to which you refer me he speaks but of two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers yet he knew there were more and he mentions three not only in his Paedagogue but in his Stromata and his silence in one place cannot evacuate what he expresly declares in another Tertullian was Cotemporary with Clemens and he in his Treatise of Baptism tell us that the Chief Priest who is the Bishop hath the power of giving that Sacrament and after him the Presbyters and Deacons but not without the Authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being safe the peace is secur'd But Tertullian you tell me does more than seem to be on your side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quiquo Seniores c. That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them And here you take it for granted that these Seniores are mere Presbyters and yet you know this is a thing in question a thing that hath been deny'd by many not without good appearance of reason since the Titles of Ancients or Elders have sometimes been apply'd to Bishops as Blondel will inform you and that it is so here the words seem to import But about this I may have occasion to discourse in another place And at present I will suppose that the Seniors Tertullian speaks of were meer Presbyters and yet did preside I know not however why he should more than seem to be on your side but that great is the strength of Imagination For manifest it is from him as we have seen that the Bishop stood related to the Presbyters as their High Priest and without his licence or permission they could not baptize Notwithstanding therefore they might preside in particular Congregations or otherwise as his Assistants yet it was with dependance on him and subordination to him in the Administration of the Government To evade this you say That such a distinction of Officers according to Tertullian was rather a matter of Order for peace sake and the honour of the Church than by Divine Institution There was however such a distinction and as for the Original of it that is another Question which may also be resolv'd from this Father For he declares that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles and there is no doubt but one Motive of it was the welfare of the Church which without Peace and Order cannot be preserv'd Indeed if there had been no such Institution if the Honor of the Church were not to be regarded and if Peace which is so much recommended in the Gospel were an unnecessary thing then he would have allow'd that even Lay-men might baptize But now he charges them not to invade those things that belong to their Superiors nor to usurp the Episcopal Function Not long after Tertullian flourish'd Origen and he tells us in his Discourse of Prayer that the Obligation of a Deacon is distinct from that of a Presbyter but the greatest of all is that of a Bishop And says he in another place More is requir'd of me than of a Deacon more of a Deacon than a Lay-man But he that governs in Chief must give an account of the whole Church One passage more I shall add because it hath something in it that is peculiar and this is taken from his Commentaries on the Gospel according to S. Matthew wherein he shews how necessary it was for those to repress their arrogance who thought too highly of themselves for this cause especially that their Ancestors or Great Grand-fathers had been advanced to the Episcopal Throne or to the honour of Priests and Deacons And this carries back his Testimony much higher than his own time and lower than that I need not here descend CHAP. XIV After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy IF matters between us may be determin'd by the Writings of the Ancients as you have granted I think it sufficiently evident from what has been said that Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the best Ages after the decease of the Apostles And for the improvement of this Argument and to prevent evasions I observe That it is manifest from the Testimony of the Fathers 1. That after the Apostles days there was no space of time without Episcopacy Nor 2. Was there any Country without it where Christianity prevail'd 1. There was no space of time after the decease of the Apostles without Episcopacy There was no such Interval of forty years between that Period and the Constitution of Bishops as Blondel dreamt of nor had he any thing but meer conjectures to
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
is such a Society as should have its own Spiritual Officers chosen out of the rest of the faithful of any Nation and remaining distinct from them 2. That the Titles of Priests and Levites which have been so often attributed to the Officers of the Christian Church had not their Original from the meer fancies of the Ancient Fathers much less were they an invention of later times but are founded on an expression of the Holy Scripture 3. That amongst these Officers there should be such disparity as had been under the Law amongst the posterity of Levi. 2. You pretend to discover by what degrees Prelacy grew up to its present Grandeur And you tell me one need but some experience in the course of things and a little proportion of Mother wit to make a clear and distinct conception of what you have said on this Subject You believe that all Presbyters were equal by a Divine Institution Yet notwithstanding that appointment of Heaven it was requisit you say for orders sake that in every Assembly one should have the direction and 't is most probable the Eldest Presbyter had the first place and the first direction of matters Yet probable as it is if one should affirm that 't is a meer conjecture of Mother Wit you have said nothing that may be sufficient to confute him However this must be made the first prudential reason for a departure from a Divine Institution and the first step towards the degeneracy of succeeding times But this State of Affairs did not long continue Another prudential reason appears to justle out the former and introduces another step to corruption For it was found by experience you say that the eldest was not always the worthiest and fittest for the direction of matters A very notable discovery But it may seem a little strange that men inspir'd or but of ordinary capacity did not foresee this and that no care was taken to prevent the inconveniences of the last contrivance It also seems incredible that the old men should be so easily degraded from their accustomed precedence and suffer their juniors to be pearcht into their places They must be suppos'd to be persons of a very complaisant humour tho they had no great proportions of Mother-Wit seeing they would yield up their Title and Dignity of first Presbyters without the least murmur or complaint But that 's no matter Once upon a time all the world over it came to pass that the place devolv'd not by seniority but was confer'd by Election made by all the Presbyters and not unlikely but with Prayer and imposition of Hands Things very piously reckon'd amongst the means of depraving the Institution of Christ And now the first Presbyter by this new Ordination begins to look pretty like a Bishop yet he had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is by all Protestants allow'd to Peter in that of the Apostles But one step more brings him to the Episcopal Throne For the best men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions liable to rust and canker There was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own times and those that follow'd after improv'd upon the example And so the first Presbyter soon became advanced into another order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters A great and sudden change And the thing was managed with so much fineness that it was conceal'd many hundred years above a thousand and it may seem strange that it should be discover'd at last not from any Ancient writings or credible informations but by experience in the course of things and some proportions of Mother-Wit Authors indeed you quote and several Arguments you have by which you would prove that corruptions were introduced into the Church in such a manner as you have describ'd but you had much better have left us to depend wholly on your own word than at all have produced them Since they can only serve to expose the weakness of your Cause One of those Arguments you ground on 1 Tim. 5.17 where S. Paul says Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine From hence you gather that there was a distinction of Elders and that some of them being better at Ruling and some at Preaching they exercis'd themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrine And you farther conclude that there was always a first Presbyter and make no question but he was of the number of those that labour'd in the Word And I make no question but here you have put together several things that might better have been omitted For you suppose that the Elders who labour'd in the Word and Doctrine were excell'd by others in Ruling whereas all that the Apostle mentions in this place are such as Rule well And then to those that you conceive were better at Preaching than at Ruling you attribute the praeeminence in Ruling or that chief direction of matters in the Consistories which belongs to the place of Presidents And this I think is sufficiently absurd But what is worst of all is you make a Text of Scripture a foundation of one of the steps to Corruption An instance of some that were better at Ruling than at Preaching you think you have found in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians and if you had the matter is not great since all that you would infer from thence is that others were prefer'd before them who were not so well qualified as themselves for the Administration of the Government I am willing however to see the exercise of your Critical faculty You think then that they who are said by Clemens to have Politiz'd well were the Presbyters that Ruled rather than Preach'd well But you might have found that in another place this Father tells us that Peter and Paul Politiz'd divinely if I may borrow your expression and doubtless did not mean thereby to distinguish them from Preaching Apostles You might also have found that when he upbraids some for not Politizing as they ought he meant not to reflect on them as Bad Governours but in general as persons that did not walk worthy of Christ These things so plainly shew your mistake that you will not I believe review your Criticism with any great satisfaction For an example of one that was better at Preaching than at Ruling and was a first Presbyter you produce the President mention'd by Justin Martyr And 't is true that Preaching was the work of that President for so it appears from Justin And it is as true that he govern'd in chief For he was a Bishop as Grotius will inform you whose Learning you with so much reason admire But of what use this can be to you unless it be to overthrow what you would establish by