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
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
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
we may reckon the Apostles of the Churches mention'd by S. Paul 2. Cor. 8.23 For they are said to be the Glory of Christ which Character I suppose they did not beat because they were employ'd in going on Errands but as they were the Representatives of Christ in governing such parts of his Kingdom as were assign'd to their especial care The ground of this Interpretation I take from 1 Cor. 11.7 where we read that Man is the Image and Glory of God which words in the judgment of Theodoret are not to be understood with respect either to the Body of the Man or to his Soul but to the Dominion that he hath from God over the Creatures In the same Verse we read that the Woman is the Glory of the Man The Wife is the Glory of her Husband She is says Theodoret as it were the Image of that Image and as such she hath Power over the rest of the Family Thus when these Apostles are said to be the Glory of Christ this implies something of Jurisdiction which they receiv'd from him And when they are said to be the Apostles of the Churches the meaning is not that they were their Messengers but their Spiritual Pastors They were their Spiritual Rulers and our Lord's Vicegerents acting in his Name and by his Authority Agreeable to what has been said is this Observation of S. Jerom That in process of time besides those whom the Lord had chosen others were ordain'd Apostles as these words to the Philippians declare I suppos'd it necessary sayes S. Paul to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and Companion in labour and Fellow-souldier but your Apostle Phil. 2 25. But you wonder that after S. Jerom I should cite this place for a Proof that Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi and at first you could hardly believe that I was in earnest As if it were now such a fault to follow S. Jerom who when you have occasion to press him into your service is as Learned and Pious a Father as any the Churches ever own'd S. Jerom is not singular in what he says of Epaphroditus for Hilary tells us he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians which in his Language signifies that he was their Bishop And with him agrees Pacianus and Theodoret also whose Notions about the Primitive Government of the Church are usually very clear and coherent If you consult Writers of greatest fame amongst the Assertors of Presbyterian Parity you will find them granting that Epaphroditus was something more than a mere Messenger Blondel reckons him amongst the Chief Governors of Churches and for this he quotes Pacianus Jerom and Theodoret as I have done and if you can hardly believe him to be in earnest you may take the same exception against Walo Messalinus for says he Epaphroditus was call'd the Apostle of the Philippians as Paul was said to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision He mentions the contrary Opinion but then he adds To me it seems to have no appearance of truth since I know that the word Apostle is never us'd by S. Paul nor by any other Apostles and Evangelists but for a Sacred Ministery But this Observation of Walo you say will hold no water for you take it that John 13.16 in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a common promiscuous sense and render'd so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable instance against him That is you are now assur'd that whereas this Word is us'd about fourscore times in the New Testament in one of them it signifies any common Messenger And if you could demonstrate this as impregnably as you have asserted it with confidence it would be no great matter of triumph Yet this is more than I can grant you have perform'd For in the place you insist upon our Saviour speaks thus to his Disciples He that is sent or an Apostle is not greater than he that sent him As if he had said Ye my Apostles that I mean to settle Governours of the Church are not greater than I from whom you have your Commission and by whom you are constituted That is the Paraphrase of the Learned Dr. Hammond on those words of our Lord and as it is very agreeable to the Context so it shews to what little purpose you have employ'd this place of Scripture Nor have you any better success but less shew of reason where you tell me that notwithstanding Epaphroditus is in Greek call'd an Apostle yet it no more follows from thence that he was a Bishop than that Joseph the Mittendary as you call him in Epiphanius was on this account a Bishop for you might as well have urg'd that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles I think no man that reads the accounts of the Mittendary in Epiphanius and of Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians can form the same Notions of both for 't is manifest that one was an Officer under a Jewish Patriarch and the other a Christian Minister of great eminence The same general Title indeed was common to both but it was not so applied at the time about which we are in debate nor by those Writers from whose style and expressions the thing in controversie must be determin'd Jacobus Gothofredus who searched in to the Original of the Jewish Apostles of which Epiphanius speaks and was willing to carry it as high as possible could not find them mention'd by any Author before the fourth Century None of the Pen-men of the New Testament no Ecclesiastical Writer of the first Age calls any man an Apostle who was not a Pastor of the Christian Church and of an Order Superior to that of Presbyters And consequently he that was styled the Apostle of the Philippians was their Bishop By which word I always understand a Prelate when I give no intimation of the contrary or of leaving its signification undetermin'd You think the Connexion and Coherence carry it for your sense and that Epaphroditus was no more than a Mittendary because S. Paul says of him that he ministred to his wants But if Castellio has well expressed the sense of these words they will afford no such Inference as you have drawn from them but signifie that Epaphroditus was sent to supply the place of S. Paul at Philippi And much may be said for this Exposition but it is I confess out of the common road of Interpreters And to what you have objected I farther answer that Epaphroditus may be said to minister to the wants of S. Paul who received of him the things of the Philippians and yet it doth not appear from Scripture that they sent him much less is there any probability that if he was sent by them he was for that reason dignified with the
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
being under his Jurisdiction He was requir'd to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on the disobedient and set things in order in many Churches His Office therefore or Power was Episcopal To prove this I have not urged any thing from the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus and therefore I am not concern'd at your exception against it or to enquire into its Authority What is manifest from the Epistle it self and confirm'd by the Testimony of the Fathers is sufficient for my purpose That however there were many Churches in Crete yet they were govern'd by a single Person as their Chief Pastor or Bishop What you object against his Episcopacy from the multitude of Cities in Crete looks like one of the Efforts of Mr. Prynne and is so confus'd that I can make no coherent sense of it You suppose that every Church or Congregation must have a Bishop for which you give no other reason but that some are confident of it and I confess if matters between us had been to be determin'd by confidence you had often put me to a loss Yet here I do not see what service it can do you For I would demand whether the Bishop you assign to every Congregation was a mere Presbyter or a Prelate If you say the first what is it to the purpose unless you could prove that he was not subject to another Pastor who had the Charge of many Congregations If the last what is become of the Cause for which you contend If Titus say you was a Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops that is of Prelatical Bishops as your words import and consequently if they express your thoughts you must believe that at that time there were such Bishops And now methinks our Controversie appears a little oddly For the Tables are turn'd and you are got on the side of Prelacy You contend that the Cretian Elders were Prelatical Bishops when I cannot allow that they were more than Presbyters I cannot be convinc'd but that Titus being left in Crete was the only Bishop in the modern sense of the word of all the Churches there Nor do I see any reason why this should be thought inconsistent with an Episcopal Function Theodoret had eight hundred Parishes under his Care yet this did not cause a Nullity in his Ordination And however there were many Cities in Scythia yet anciently one Bishop had the Charge of them all without any loss of his Episcopal Office Inconveniences indeed may arise from such large extent of Dioceses but this was not the case when as Rabanus Maurus tells us Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles or when Titus remain'd in Crete For then 't is certain there were many Churches under his Care and Administration and by what Title soever he was distinguish'd it is not material as to the Nature and Ends of Government But if he was Bishop of so many Churches you would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where he resided To which I can say nothing but that it seems probable he visited all the Churches of his Diocese and resided chiefly in the Metropolis If this satisfies not your pang of longing as I have no ability so I have no inclinati to gratifie it any farther For could I name with the greatest certainty the City where he commonly dwelt you might also enquire what part of that City or what Street he inhabited and propose many other Questions of the like importance to which I am not prepar'd to give any Reply It is sufficient that he was a Pastor of many Churches and had Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons For if this be true it strikes at the Root of the Presbyterian and Independent Opinions about Church-Government And I know not what can be said in Vindication of them unless it be that he was an Extraordinary Officer This you insist on and to prove it you tell me he was an Evangelist But the Scripture says of him no such thing From the Scripture indeed we learn that Philip was an Evangelist and yet he wanted Power either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd or to Ordain Officers by Imposition of Hands But Titus could perform the last of these which was the greater and consequently he was something more than an Evangelist and could be no less than an Apostle or a Bishop But that he may be reckon'd amongst the Pastors Extraordinary you likewise urge That he was only left in Crete as the Deputy or the Delegate of the Apostle and that but for a time till he should have established Churches in every City and Organiz'd them with Elders which having done you say 't is very probable that he return'd again to S. Paul to give an Account of that Affair and then you think his Commission expir'd Not that you have read any such thing of him in Scripture But since he was oblig'd to act as the Apostle had appointed from hence you collect that his Deputation was but Temporary And you might as well have concluded that since it was the Duty of Presbyters and Deacons to walk as the same Apostle appointed or according to the Rules he gave for their Conversation their Offices also were Temporary and design'd for no long continuance You think his Case differ'd from theirs in this that he was employ'd in frequent Travels but in answer to that I need only tell you That his Journeys to Jerusalem to Macedonia and to Corinth were undertaken and finished before he was left in Crete That he died there as we are inform'd by Paulinus and Sophronius and that the Government of the Church has been Episcopal in that Island ever since his days When I had proceeded thus far I had the satisfaction to peruse some Printed Papers of an Eminent Person wherein amongst other things he treats of this subject and I was glad to find that I had not differ'd from the Sentiments of so great a Man which he hath express'd in these words We are not to suppose says he that the Power of Titus extended not to a Jurisdiction over Elders when he had ordain'd them For if any of those whom he had ordain'd as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to wine can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercis'd ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual Vse did thereby suppose the same kind
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
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
these to the People And thus when the abolishing of the Episcopal Government with all its dependences Root and Branch was in agitation Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes objected against the Bishops That by their Power over other Ministers who had an influence upon the People they might mould them both according to their own wills and having put out our eyes says he as the Philistins did Sampson 's they may afterwards make us grind and reduce us to what slavery they please A dreadful thing indeed had there been any foundation for the apprehension of it But if such Fantômes as may at any time be rais'd by Art or the Strength of Imagination and have nothing in them of Substance or Reality be sufficient to disquiet us we are like to enjoy but little rest And to come nearer to the purpose If a meer possibility of doing hurt be so dangerous and formidable to Princes This would be enough to create in them frightful Idea's of their Guards and their Armies and of all that are about them and render them at last like Pashur a Terror to themselves He could not but see that a meer Capacity in the Clergy of conveying Malignity was not sufficient to make them Enemies to the State and he pretends that they have been actually guilty of a most notorious defection from their Duty to the Civil Magistrate and that it has been found by Experience not only that there never was but that there never can be in the World a thing more dangerous to any Government than the National Hierarchy An Accusation that sounds very harsh and runs high not against a few single persons only but a considerable Society But he hath not told us in what Instance they were liable to it or when it was they became so criminal It is certain that in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth they could not deserve so hateful a Character For Jealous as She was of her Glory She could not find that it was eclips'd by them But She did perceive how necessary it was to check and repress the Attempts against them and was sensible as Mr. Camden acquaints us that her own Authority was struck at through the sides of the Bishops As this Admirable Princess penetrated into the Secrets of Foreign Courts so She perfectly understood the Interests of her own Kingdoms And if any would know what She thought of some fiery Zealots of those Times who spent their Heats in opposing Episcopacy and the Liturgy it may be seen in Serjeant Puckering's Speech recorded by Sr. William Dugdale for it is made by Her Command Her Successor King James could never discover that nothing could be more dangerous to him than the National Hierarchy He always believ'd that Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and as he found it establish'd here to his great satisfaction so he never saw cause to repent of his defence of it and the Privileges annex'd to it How well he approv'd the Constitution of the Church of England may appear from hence that in his Speech in the Star-Chamber he affirm'd That of any Church that ever he read or knew of present or past he thought in his Conscience This was the most pure and nearest the Primitive and Apostolical Church in Doctrine and Discipline and the sureliest founded on the Word of God of any Church in Christendom At the same time he complain'd of the Contempt that was cast on a Church so Reform'd and the Governours thereof and looking on it as a sign of Impending Judgments he says God will not bless us and our Laws if we do not reverence and obey Gods Law which cannot be except the Interpreters of it be respected and reverenced Such a regard He had for them from a Principle of Religion and their Fidelity to Him was answerable to it and contributed not a little to the Safety of his Person the Support of the Throne and the Welfare of the Nation But as for the many Dangers to which he was expos'd they arose from other Quarters They either proceeded from the Conspiracies of Papists whose Principles he examin'd and confuted that neither the Subversion of States nor the Murthers of Kings should have free passage in the World for want of timely Advertisement or from the Practices of another sort of persons whom he calls the very Pests in the Church and Common-wealth and by whom as he declares to all Christian Monarchs Free Princes and States he was persecuted not from his Birth only but four Months before his Birth In the Reign of King Charles the First the Clergy were not wanting in their demonstrations of Loyalty as we all know and they felt Yet I grant that some had discours'd before his Majesty that Episcopacy as claim'd and exercis'd within this Realm was not a little derogatory to the Regal Authority as well in the Point of Supremacy as Prerogative in the one by claiming the Function as by a Divine Right in the other by exercising the Jurisdiction in their own Names But on that occasion He told Dr. Sanderson that he did not believe the Church-Government as by Law establish'd was in either of the aforesaid respects or any other way prejudicial to his Crown Nevertheless he requir'd that Learned Man from whom I borrow'd this Relation to draw up an Answer to those two Objections for the satisfaction of others which he did accordingly And I shall only crave leave to transcribe from him the following words which he uses near the Conclusion of his Treatise By this time says he I doubt not all that are not wilfully blind do see and understand by sad experience that it had been far better both with King and Kingdom than now it is or is like to be in haste if the Enemies of Episcopacy had meant no worse to the King and his Crown than the Bishops and those that favour'd them did I shall not further exercise your patience in going about to prove that the Clergy were faithful to the Crown in the Reign of King Charles the Second You may well enough remember what King James the Second acknowledged that the Church of England had been eminently Loyal in the defence of his Father and support of his Brother in the worst of Times But that our Church-men have since revolted from their Principles which were then said to be for Monarchy I do not understand Nor was our Author willing in plain terms to inform us when it was that they became such Examples of Malignity lest the Calumny might easily be detected Yet Obscure as he is he hath left us a Key to his meaning for he intimates that they have been found to be dangerous by fresh experience when they were not in the Measures and Interests of the Government respecting doubtless the late Times before the great Revolution And so the Secret comes out which was at the bottom and rais'd his Indignation In the Opinion you see of this Gentleman the Clergy were
to be acquainted with those Gentlemen to whom he dedicates his Book But if I am not mistaken in their Character they are of more Judgment than to believe that if others were as Candid as themselves this Idea which he so much magnifies would be of Infinite Advantage They will rather perceive that it would not otherwise put an end to the Fatal Controversies that have perplext the Church than Poison would cure Diseases that is by the death of the Patients For 't is evident that the design of it is to abrogate the Authority which Christ bestow'd on his Ecclesiastical Officers and consequently our Author instead of Intitling his Book The Nature of Church-Government Freely Discussed might more fitly have call'd it A Treatise of Church-Anarchy or Church-Confusion I know not whether the Applause of his Performances be continued to him in his own Person which he first receiv'd by Proxy from the neighbouring Dissenters But sure I am that he contradicts the avowed Principles of their Party and the sense of their Writers He contends that the Pastors of the Church have no Authority but what they derive from the State He makes Church-Government a meer Prudential Thing and Alterable in the Form of it according to the various Forms of the Civil Government and argues that it ought to take its Model from the appointment of the Civil Magistrate Whereas their other Writers tell us That a Spiritual Extraction of a Legitimate Ecclesiastical Power cannot be made from a Secular Root That the Introduction of Humane Authority into the Rule of the Church of Christ in any kind destroyeth the Nature of it That there is but one Form of Government laid down in the Word and that Unchangeable and that to think Church-Government must be fram'd according to the Common-wealth or Civil Government is as if one should fashion his House according to his Hangings But that his Friends may not resent the matter too highly when they find how they have been impos'd on by him I can assure them that in contradicting their Authors he uses them no worse than he does himself For having formerly concluded from 2 Thess 2.15 that it was the duty of Christians to preserve the same Government in the Churches after the Apostles days that was appointed and practis'd in them he now comes to prove that let the Government in those days be what it will it is but a Prudential and Ambulatory Thing and lyable to Changes according to the difference of Times and Occasions And that his Friends may not for the future expect to find him any more fix'd or steady he professes in his Epistle Dedicatory that he hath nothing of fondness in him for any Opinions He hath as little fondness in him for the Authority of the Apostles as he hath for his own Opinions For however he takes Diocesan Prelacy to be a Degeneracy or Defection from an Apostolical Constitution yet he boasts of his Vindication of it upon Prudential grounds He represents Episcopacy as a Corruption and yet he supposes that it is of Divine Right when it is by Law established The truth is he hath confusedly jumbl'd together the Notions of the Dissenters and the Principles of Hobbes and Erastus and with this odd kind of mixture he thinks himself sufficiently qualified to heal the Breaches of Christendom Before him one Peter Cornelius Van Zurick-zee set up for a Reconciler General and his Project for Union was that in every City and in every County there should be appointed a General Meeting-place in which the Christians of all Persuasions should be requir'd to assemble together that they might hear the Scriptures read and afterwards talk about them and give their Interpretations of them according to their various Sentiments Of this Device he had such a conceit that leaving his Family and Native Country he cross'd the Seas that he might reveal it in England expecting that here it would receive a kind entertainment and from hence break forth as a Light into all other Countries and Nations But whether this Man or the Free Discusser hath furnish'd us with a better Plan of an Universal Peace or whether Prudential Reason hath been more happy than a Freak of Enthusiasm in proposing a Method of Union or Scheme of Ecclesiastical Polity I leave you to determine In the mean time I am of opinion that the way of governing Churches which is agreeable to the will of God was not to be invented or first discover'd fifteen or sixteen hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour I suppose a thing of such use must needs have been known to the Primitive Christians And they generally believ'd 1. That our Saviour Christ who was the Founder of Church-Government bestow'd on his Officers such Authority as qualified them for the Administration of it 2. That this Government was Episcopal from the beginning On these two things I have chiefly insisted in this Discourse but far more copiously on the last against which I met with the greatest opposition By which opposition I do not only mean That which hath been made by my Adversary for I have considerd the utmost that I could find objected on That side And upon the whole I am satisfied that it requires no great Abilities to defend Episcopacy and that it proceeds from the Goodness of the Cause that the more Learned the Opposers of it are the more ready have they been to let fall such things as may serve for the Vindication of it and answer their own Objections This was the Case of Blondel and Salmasius but more particularly of the last who hath so many things that favour my Hypothesis that of all Modern Authors none has been more useful to me than Walo Messalinus But all the assistance I have receiv'd from him has been only to confirm the Notions which I had before grounded on the Holy Scriptures the Testimony of the Ancients from which I have prov'd That Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and that meer Presbyters were generally subordinate to Superior Pastors in the Apostles days and afterwards in the best and purest Ages And if so there can be no doubt concerning the succeeding Times or of the Truth of what was affirm'd by the Lord Falkland in a warm Speech which he made against some of the Bishops that the Order of the Bishops hath always remain'd in the Churches from Christ to Calvin What I have said on this subject fastens an Imputation of Novelty on the Dissenters but I cannot help it and they have no reason to be offended at it For their own Friends the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches who met at the Savoy confess that it is true in respect of the publick and open profession either of Presbytery or Independency this Nation hath been a stranger to each way it 's possible ever since it hath been Christian And I will adventure to add that the Nation may be
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
for since that Book is not very common I may perhaps gratifie the Curiosity of some by shewing what sort of Gospel it is that he communicated to the Indians This Missionary represents our Saviour directing his followers not to relate to the Church the Sin of an offending Brother who remains unreformed after two Admonitions but to tell it to the Prince of the Church meaning S. Peter and after him the Pope If he had done this no otherwise than as a Commentator he had deserved says Ludovicus de Dieu the Character of a bad Interpreter But when as an Historian he puts such words into the Mouth of Christ he may be justly charged with Forgery and lying against his own Conscience At the same rate and in pursuance of the same design when he had truly set down these words of Christ Simon Simon Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat but I have pray'd that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren he informs us that for Illustration our Saviour adds The faith of Peter who is the first Successor or Calif shall never fail and 't is his work to confirm others And so it came to pass says the Author not one Pope succeeding Peter has been defective in the faith And thus he comments on his own Vision and would establish an impudent Fiction by an Assertion that is notoriously false Yet he declares that this History excell'd all other things that had been translated into the Persian Tongue in the Reign of Acabar the Great Mogul for whose instruction it was compos'd This says he is the Book that most deserves that the King should be proud of it and think it worthy of an honourable acceptance He therefore petitions him that a Command should be issued out for the reading of it in the Church as being the root of the Doctrine of Righteousness the tranquillity of the Heart and the medicine of Spirit These are glorious Titles and we have partly seen how consistent they are with his performances Xavier might be the more hardy in a place where he was in no great danger of having the Materials of his History examin'd Others perceive they have reason to be more cautious and they proceed not by way of Narrative but labour to support the same Cause for which he was concern'd by Arguments But these we may be sure can have no great weight since they are employ'd to prove that there was a certain kind of Government established amongst the Apostles of which it is plain enough themselves were ignorant Doubtless when the Sons of Zebedee made their Petition to our Saviour by their Mother that one of them might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in his Kingdom they knew nothing of the Sovereignty of Peter which yet is supposed to have been promised before and S. Paul was afterwards as great a Stranger to it when in so publick a manner he withstood him to the face at Antioch I need not engage farther in this Controversie since it hath been so lately and fully handled by others And perhaps Sir you may think that I have already dwelt too long on a Subject in which I have no Adversary but the Advocates of the Papacy But their Doctrine being so inconsistent with that Scheme of Thoughts which you have obliged me to publish I was not willing to pass by them without Ceremony But now I return to you and observe Secondly That notwithstanding there was such an Equality amongst the Apostles yet there were other Ecclesiastical Officers inferior to them Such I think were the Seventy Disciples whom our Lord constituted in the days of his flesh For since the Apostles and Seventy Disciples are thus represented under different denominations Since it is not doubted but they were appointed in accommodation to the twelve Princes of the Tribes and the Seventy Elders in the Mosaical Polity since none of the Seventy could be of the Order of the Twelve without a new Election and Advancement you need not think it strange that I conclude as many have done before me that they were of different Ranks and that in this state of things there was a disparity of Ministers But you tell me that if the prejudices of my Education or of my Circumstances had not stuck too fast to me I might have discover'd that the Institution of the Seventy Disciples was only temporary Yet if this Discovery will do you any service I cannot find that your self have made it You say indeed that the Seventy were sent about a particular business to the House of Israel and that their Office ceas'd of course at their Return But of this I find no grounds in the Holy Scripture I am sure the Apostles and Seventy Disciples were sent abroad and employ'd in like manner at different times But the first return'd without any loss of their Function and so might the last And that they did so we have reason to think unless they were degraded or depressed into the Rank of private men by some Act of their Master But to me it seems incredible as it did also to Blondel that when the Harvest was like to increase our Lord diminished the Number of his Labourers that he dismissed them when they were become acquainted with their Work which still was necessary or that he gave them a discharge at that time when for their Confirmation he bestow'd on them power over all the power of the enemy Luke 10.19 'T is true the Scriptures mention them not afterwards by the Name of the Seventy but if this proves that their Office was expired one may also conclude from it that they were all dead for there is as great a Silence about their Lives as about their Ministry It may be useful to contemplate that Platform of Ecclesiastical Polity which those early times afford yet I confess they are something obscure and that you do not unfitly call them a Twilight between the Law and the Gospel And this might have restrain'd you from reflecting on me as influenced by prejudices or my circumstances for not acknowledging that the Office of Apostles which was first confer'd on the Twelve as well as in your Opinion the Commission of the Seventy Disciples was temporary or expired at the farthest after our Saviour's Resurrection when for this you produce no better Argument than what implies that a former Grant must necessarily be cancell'd when Additions are made to it But about this I have no need to dispute We come now to another state of things which is most clear and in which we are infinitely concern'd The wall of partition was broken down And after our Lord's Ascension the multitude of Believers increasing first amongst the Jews and afterwards amongst the Gentiles the Apostles found it necessary to have some Assistance in their Labours and for that purpose ordain'd Presbyters and Deacons neither of which were
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
judgment and the deference that was pay'd to the Sentence he pronounc'd are very remarkable for all did not only acquiesce in it so that the Debate ended but his words were put into the Decree which became obligatory to the Churches I find several Persons of the Roman Communion as much dissatisfied as your self with the place that hath been assigned to S. James in this Council There says Binius Peter rising up as the Head of the Apostles speaks first And says M. de Marca it is Peter that assembles the Council in which he gives the first or chief Sentence by defining the matter as the Emperor was wont to do in the Senate This sounds very great but hath nothing in it of truth Binnius himself affirms after Baronius that the Apostles who were dispers'd over the World were brought together by Divine Instinct or Revelation and this he proves from the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians And we read Acts 15.7 that there had been much disputing not without words I presume and then and not before Peter rose up and expressed his sense of the thing in question Yet if he had been the first Speaker neither will it be granted that this is sufficient to establish the Prerogatives which some have assign'd to him nor yet that the account he gave to the Synod of the Success of his preaching to the Gentiles and the expostulation with which he concludes it are any Arguments of his Supremacy Yes says Mr. Schelstrate When he had spoken the debate ceased All were silent and thereby gave a very manifest sign that they thought they must all acquiesce in his determination That is because 't is said that all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul V. 12. therefore S. Peter was the Supreme Judge of Controversies and the other Apostles had nothing to do but to approve the Sentence of their Head Certainly he had need to have a very favourable Judge to get this admitted for demonstration But any thing satisfies a willing mind and some have been content on any grounds to attribute to S. Peter what he never had that they may derive from him what was never in his possession But I return to S. James who after the Council was ended continued in his Diocese For S. Paul in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians v. 12. takes notice of some Jews that came from him to Antioch That is says S. Augustin they came from Judea for James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem Several years after this S. Paul return'd to Jerusalem and there he found S. James and his Presbyters together Acts 21.18 And this James as Chrysostom tells us was that great and admirable man who was Brother to our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem The last time he is mention'd in the Scripture is by S. Jude but from him I confess we can learn but little that may give any light to our affair For however in the Title prefixed to the Syriack Version of his Epistle published by Dr. Pocock he is styled the Brother of James the Bishop he is only said to be his Brother in the Text it self v. 1. Yet from hence we may gather that Jude knew him to be a Person of that Figure in the Church that the consideration of his Relation to him might gain Attention to his Doctrine and Instruction And I see no reason why he should not as well have call'd himself the Brother of Simeon as of James but that Simeon was not then in so eminent a Station How long it was that S. James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem we cannot learn from Scripture But S. Jerom says it was thirty years and he is followed amongst others by an Ancient Writer of Our Nation cited by Whelock in his Annotations on Bede's Ecclesiastical History It was not much less according to Eutychius to whom on other occasions you pay respect For as he tells us James continued Bishop of Jerusalem twenty eight years and with him agrees Elmacinus as I find him quoted by Abraham Ecchellensis In these accounts there will be no real difference if it be allow'd that in the greater are reckon'd two parts of years as if they were entire and that both are omitted in the less During all his time after our Lord's Ascension we have no relation of his Travels but so frequently do we find him mention'd in Scripture as remaining at Jerusalem that Walo Messalinus thought that he did not remove a foot from thence It was perhaps by reason of his constant Residence there that the Jewish Rabbies became acquainted with his Miracles the memory of which they have preserv'd But certain it is that Josephus speaks of him as a Person that liv'd there under a very high Character He tells us that all good men and careful Observers of the Law were highly dissatisfied with the Proceedings of Ananus the High-Priest against him And he imputes the Calamities of the Jews and the destruction of their Temple to their killing this James the Just who as he says was the Brother of Jesus who is called Christ And from hence it appears that Jerusalem was the Scene of his Actions and of his Sufferings that there he had flourish'd in great Reputation and there was condemned and persecuted to death by the fury of his enemies But Josephus you tell me speaks not a word of his Dignity as a Prelate as if I or any body else had ever affirm'd that he did It is sufficient that what he says of James concurs with other things to prove that he did not travel about the World or that he was not an Itinerant Preacher and for this cause I produced his Testimony If after all this you say he was no standing Officer I desire to be inform'd what it is that constitutes a standing Officer or by what Marks he may be known If you say he was engaged in frequent Journies to plant the Gospel I pray oblige me with the History of his Travels If you say that however he was an Apostle his Jurisdiction was but equal to that of Presbyters I must leave you to combat your self who have ascrib'd to Apostles a Superior Authority One Evasion you have yet remaining which is that granting S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem it was in that sense only as he was Bishop of all the Churches in the World and for this you quote a passage of an Epistle suppos'd to have been written to him by Clement whose Name it bears But as the Words of this Epistle are set down in the Basil Edition the Author does not address himself to James as governing all the Churches in the World but to him as Bishop of Jerusalem and to all Churches where-ever they are Be it as it will No great regard I think is to be paid to an Impostor who amongst other Marks of Forgery hath this one that
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
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
support his Opinion which is oppos'd by the whole current of Antiquity His Friend Walo Messalinus was more cautious who acknowledges that the distinction of the Orders of Bishops and Presbyters was most Ancient and only requires that the Apostles times should be excepted and yet his demand is too extravagant For the Fathers generally believ'd that there was such a distinction in their days and that by their appointment in Churches of their own plantation This may appear from what has been said already and it may be farther confirm'd from Tertullian who thus upbraids the Hereticks with their Novelty and confutes their pretences to Tradition Let them declare says he the Originals of their Churches Let them shew an Order of their Bishops flowing by Succession in such a manner from the beginning that their first Bishop had an Apostle or an Apostolical Person who was conversant with the Apostles for his Ordainer and Predecessor And he adds that this the Apostolical Churches did And thus he thought to stop the mouths of Gain-sayers and triumphs much in his Argument But his attempt had been extremely vain if they might have return'd him this Answer Sir you are under a mistake or would impose on us The Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and had no Successors nor did they constitute any Bishops as you pretend The Bishops you speak of have deprav'd the Government of the Church They have advanced themselves upon the steps to corruption and contrary to the Divine Institution usurpt a power over their Brethren What reason have we then to believe that they hold fast that profession of faith which was once deliver'd to the Saints since they have so ambitiously trampled on their Equals and made no conscience to establish their own Greatness on the ruines of the Ancient Discipline 'T is our Glory that we have none of them and that we regard not their Authority Yet upon your grounds this they might have replied to the Confusion of that Learned Father had it then been believ'd that Episcopacy was an Innovation I know it has been objected that there are Intricacies and Inconsistences in the Catalogues of the Successions which the Fathers have left us But so there are in the Catalogues of the High Priests that are gâ—ven by Jewish and Christian Writers as Mr. Selden will inform you And also in the Catalogues of the Archontes who amongst the Athenians gave the Name and Title to the year as you may find if you compare many of their Names as they are express'd in the Marble Chronicle at Oxford with what is extant concerning them in the Books of the most famous Greeks and those Books one with another Yet no Body doubts but there was amongst the Israelites a Succession of High Priests from Aaron and amongst the Athenians a Succession of Archontes from Creon And we have no reason to question but there was such a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as the Fathers speak of notwithstanding in the Tables of their Succession which have been convey'd to us there be some variation The Words of King Charles l. are very apposite to my purpose For says that Judicious and Excellent Prince All Humane Histories are subject to such frailties There are differences in Historiographers in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian Persian and Macedonian Kings and of the Saxon Kings in England And we find more inextricable difficulties in the Fasti Consulares the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls notwithstanding their great care in keeping the publick Records and the exactness of the Roman Histories than are to be found in the Episcopal Catalogues c. Yet all men believe there were Kings in those Countreys and Consuls in Rome in those times So that the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops in respect of some uncertainty and differences which yet may be fairly reconcil'd tendeth rather to the Confirmation of the thing it self 2. Wherever Christianity prevail'd the Government of the Churches was Episcopal For as S. Irenaeus argued for the Christian Religion that the Churches amongst the Germans amongst the Hiberi and Celtae the Churches planted in the East in Egypt and Libya and in the Middle Region of the World or Palestine had not a Faith or Tradition different from one another but as one Sun gave light to all the World so did the same Truth shine every where Thus may we say of the Ecclesiastical Polity or Government in the first Ages after the Apostles It was every where the same It was the same as we have seen in Europe and in Asia and in Africa And distant as the Nations were in situation and different as they were in their Customs and Manners yet when Christianity was receiv'd amongst them it brought Episcopacy with it A plain Argument that both proceeded from the same Uniform Cause and that Prelacy was not esteem'd a mere prudential thing that might be rejected at pleasure In the passage that I last cited from Tertullian he manifestly shews that all Apostolical Churches were govern'd by a Succession of Bishops from the beginning And in this he follows Irenaeus who intimates that he could have set down such a Succession in the rest as he did in the Church of Rome but that he was unwilling to swell his Volume into too great a Bulk And in the following Age S. Cyprian says that Bishops were long since ordain'd through all Provinces and all Cities To the Testimony of the Fathers I shall add another of a Modern Writer but it relates to the practice of former times and is pertinent to my design The Author I mean is the celebrated Dr. Walton whose Edition of the Polyglott Bibles was not a little for the honour of our Church and Nation yet it rais'd the Envy of some and that drew from him these words It appears says he by these Ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cryed down in the Church of England as Popish Innovations viz. Episcopal Government Set Forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivals besides the Lord's Day were us'd as they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their Conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been Anciently us'd by those famous and flourishing Churches which never profess'd Subjection to the See of Rome This is that Cordolium of our Novelists the Practice of the Vniversal Church of Christ all the World over I have shew'd what was the Original of Prelacy or Episcopacy and how universally it did obtain But the Dissenters understanding by a Bishop such a Minister as may have no other Pastor above him nor any Presbyter under him I would demand Where there is any instance of him in the holy Scripture or whether the Primitive Fathers writ any thing of him In what Country did he live In what Nation under the Heavens did he exercise his Pastoral
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
place of those that were the Disciples of the Apostles and succeeded them in the Government of the Churches is only this That it is hard to determine how many and who they were yet from the words of S. Paul the Names of some of them may be gather'd He does not say that he could give an account of none that were constituted Governours of the Apostolick Churches except those that were mention'd by that Apostle Nor does he say as you would have him that he found the Names of some in Scripture and tack'd Bishopricks to them from his own fancy On the contrary he acquaints us in the Chapter to which you refer me That Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens where he did not establish him by way of Collection and Inference Nor does he pretend to ground the relation he hath left us of him on the words either of S. Paul or S. Luke or on his own invention But he had it from Dionysius of Corinth whom he calls a most Ancient Writer and that with good reason for he flourish'd about the middle of the second Century From an Epistle of the same Dionysius of Corinth he was inform'd that Publius succeeded the Areopagite in the Government of the Church of Athens and suffer'd Martyrdom and that Quadratus succeeded Publius And this is that Quadratus who was a Disciple of the Apostles and who declar'd in his Apology for the Christians which he presented to the Emperor Hadrian that he had seen many that had been cur'd and rais'd from Death by our Lord himself And that a Person of such Eminence should be Bishop of Athens after such Predecessors as he had is more for the advantage of Episcopacy than all the Quotations are against it that have been heaped up by Blondel in his Laborious Collections and I am persuaded that if an instance so early and so well attested could have been produced in favour of a Presbyterian Parity it had long since made a mighty noise and alarm'd the World 'T is true Eusebius is the first that left us a Body of Ecclesiastical History But he did not frame it out of his own Conjectures Himself hath given us an account of the helps he had from others that were before him and Valesius will present you at one view with a Catalogue of Books and Records out of which he drew Materials for his Work that are very considerable They are not so many indeed as one might have desir'd yet as King Charles the First observes with his usual exactness of Judgment Even the Darkness of the Primitive Times affords a very strong Argument for Episcopacy which from the History of them obscure as they were receives so full and clear a proof as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like Against Tertullian you object that many Fob Traditions past for current in his time An Exception that would destroy the Credit of all the Books that ever were written if it were of force against any For Fob Traditions as you call them have pass'd for current amongst some in every Age since the days of Adam But Tertullian himself you think was one that transmitted such Traditions to Posterity and particularly you are offended at him for reporting that the Apostles had Chairs in particular Churches And yet you are not sure that this ought to be laid to his Charge Only you tell me his words at first sight may seem to sound that way A notable way of confuting the Fathers grounded on the sense of one of them and that not certain neither but taken from his words as at first sight they seem to sound One might have expected that you should have spent a thought or two more about them before you pass'd your Censure on them or reckon'd the Author amongst the Fabulous Writers and made him an instance of the Partiality or Impostures of the Ancients For my part I think he meant by Chairs what you so quickly apprehended at the first glance and that Bishops sate in the Material Seats of the Apostles in the Administration of the Government And yet I see nothing in this that is incredible It is neither contrary to the Faith of History nor without Example in it Nor is it improbable that before Adoration was pay'd to Reliques the Chairs of the Apostles should be preserv'd about a hundred years Sure I am that he might better judge of such a matter of Fact than we can at this time And I know not why this word may not as well be accepted when he discourses of these Chairs as when he adds That the Authentick Letters of the Apostles were read in the Apostolick Churches But whatever he meant by the Chairs 't is plain enough he thought the Bishops were the Successors of the Apostles in particular Dioceses or Churches And if you can no more believe this than the Story of the Cells of the Seventy Interpreters though Justin Martyr affirms that he saw the Ruines of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandria I cannot help it Nor do I think it necessary to enter into a dispute about the truth or falshood of Justin's Relation But since that which he says of those Cells depends on the Credit of some unknown Alexandrians since they were reported to have been built in the Pharos only and that about four hundred years before he writ his Paraenesis to the Greeks And since the Tradition which he hath convey'd to us about them was not universally receiv'd but was with some disdain rejected by S. Jerom the most Learned Critick of his Age it was not in any of these respects parallel to the Account which I have given from Tertullian and others concerning the Original of Bishops nor is there any such Connexion between them as that they must stand or fall together There is such clear evidence that the Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the beginning of the Second Century that it hath extorted a Confession from the most Learned Adversaries And if we had never been told that they were constituted by the Apostles or Apostolical Persons or deriv'd their Power by Succession from them the thing had notwithstanding been probable But there is not the least reason to doubt of it when we find it so universally believ'd by the Ancient Church and particularly when Tertullian asserts it in such a manner as he does and urges it with so much assurance against the Hereticks For if he had no grounds for it I should not say that he was tainted with partial humours and framed matters according to his own conceit but that he was void of common sense and as extravagant as a Protestant would be at this day if to confute the Exceptions of Papists against the meanness of some of the first Reformers he should affirm with great confidence and insist on it as a thing too notorious to be deny'd that Calvin succeeded Peter de la
is notorious He gives an account of the last words of Peter and of his decease to James who died before him the space of several years We have seen under what Character S. James remain'd at Jerusalem and we may conclude that this Office was not Personal but continued after his death if it be evident that Simeon or Simon as he is sometimes call'd was his Successor And this is what is affirm'd by the Ancients generally and the notice of what they declare might be the better convey'd to them because Simeon lived to so great an Age that his Martyrdom falls within the Compass of the second Century Eusebius and Abulpharagius assign it to the tenth year of Trajan which was the one hundred and seventh year of our Lord. But a Learned Man of our own ascribes it to the one hundred and sixteenth year of Christ and for this he produces some probable Reasons which have met with good reception Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer and he testifies amongst many others that after the death of James Simeon was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem A Truth that in the Ages which afforded the best Judges of it met with an universal approbation This being clear I know not what better Form of Government we can have than that which was established at Jerusalem in the first Christian Church that ever was and of which some of the Kindred of our Saviour had the Administration I know not what more excellent Model can be contriv'd if this gives no satisfaction CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance I Have consider'd the Arguments by which you would demonstrate that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and in examining the last of them which I mention'd I proceeded farther than was necessary because I was willing to lay some things together that relate to the same subject It was my business to shew that a setled Residence in a Place was consistent with the Office of an Apostle and this I have not only done but also prov'd that S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that Simeon was his Successor and if so this does not only answer whatever you produce for your Opinion but is a direct Argument for Episcopacy It also shews that the Apostolate differs not in substance from Episcopacy and that it was design'd for continuance A Truth which I shall confirm 1. From the Nature of that Office or Authority which was confer'd on the Apostles 2. From the Necessity of the Continuance of some things which depend on a Succession to them 3. From the Promise which was annexed to their Commission 4. From the Actual Communication of their Office to others and the Preservation of it after their Decease 1. This Office or Authority which was of Divine Institution was never abrogated by any Divine Precept It was neither appropriated to the Apostles nor can Time render it useless or unfit It is therefore such as ought to be preserv'd in all Ages We may well think that they who were conversant with Christ himself and had receiv'd their Commission immediately from him have afforded us the best Pattern of Government that ever was and it seems very improbable that our Lord should shew us in their example the most excellent way of managing Ecclesiastical Affairs and put us under an obligation to reject it without telling us so or that such a disparity of Officers as had his approbation but never was oppos'd by him should now become Antichristian They say that Empires are best preserv'd by such means as they were founded and if the Apostles thought a disparity of Officers necessary when they were employ'd in converting the Gentiles I think 't is still requisite for the Government of them now that they are converted for their Conversion did prepare them for more Instruction it obliged them to an attendance at Religious Assemblies it made them subject to Discipline who were not so before And when the Work increases I think the Labourers ought not to be diminished nor their Ranks broken We may rather suppose that when whole Kingdoms embraced the Christian Faith disorders would be increas'd And when the first Apostles were departed who could convey Diseases and Death in their Censures whenever that Miraculous Power ceas'd it was requisite that some should retain all the Authority they had which was communicable that by the Dignity of their Office they might keep up a Reverence of Discipline and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church 2. There is a Necessity of the Continuation of some things which might depend on a Succession to the Apostles and cannot be preserv'd without it Amongst them I reckon the Administration of the Sacraments and the reason of it will be manifest when I have examin'd by what Right it is that you assign that Administration to Presbyters as a standing part of their Work I therefore demand in the first place From whence it is that they have Right to Baptize If it be from any Declaration that is made to them in Scripture let it be shew'd if from any Command let it be produc'd if from Example I pray inform me where any of their Order did Baptize I think upon enquiry it will be found that none in Scripture are said to Baptize but such as you call Extraordinary Officers and if they were so as many of their Actions as were peculiar to them may not be drawn into precedent It follows therefore from your Principles either that Baptism must be laid aside or else the Laity may confer it and they that have taken it out of their hands have done it in their wrong and that ever since the days of the Apostles Concerning the Lord's Supper you are like to be as much or more at a loss for you tell me that these words Do this in remembrance of me were said to the Apostles not as they were Ministers but as Communicants you mean private Christians And if so I would demand what grounds you have from Scripture for assigning to any Ecclesiastical Officers the Administration of this Sacrament or how with Consistence to your own Principles you can free them from Usurpation The reason for which you think those words of Christ were not said to the Apostles as Ministers but as private Christians is that otherwise there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity at which I suppose some of them who talk much of Religion would not be offended But if there be nothing else on which their Right to the Communion is founded without any injury to them this matter may be thus adjusted The Apostles as receiving the Communion might be the Representatives of the Faithful and of Ministers only in receiving the Command of Christ to do as he had shew'd them that is to bless and give to others the Sacramental Elements of Bread and Wine And such I affirm they were and such
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