of Office to continue for the sake whereof those excellent Epistles were written And we have no greater Assurance that these Epistles were by S. Paul than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the Care and Government of the Churches CHAP. IX Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches WHat Timothy was at Ephesus and Titus in Crete that were the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 in their several Dioceses They govern'd the seven Churches of Asia with Apostolical or Episcopal Authority This is what you oppose and one might therefore have expected from you another Account of them to which you would adhere but you fix upon nothing a practice very common amongst many that are engaged with you in the same work who combine indeed in their attempts against the Truth but without any steady Principles and in great confusion Amongst the rest the Assembly of Divines tell us that these Titles of Angels are Mysterious and Metaphorical and that it cannot not be safe or solid to build on them the structure of Episcopacy And yet they are not of the mind of the old Alogians who derided the Revelation of S. John saying of what advantage is it that he talks of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets They affirm that this Book is of singular use to Christians to the end of the world They have also furnished us with Annotations on it such as they are and particularly without any he sitation they give their Interpretation of this expression which yet they would have us believe is so Mysterious and Obscure As for their Argument that Symbolical Theology is not Argumentative it is no farther to be admitted than as it signifies that Parables and Figures are not to be stretched beyond the plain intention of any Author But if no determinate sense can be gather'd from them this would make a great part of the Holy Scriptures useless to us and leave us mightily in the dark concerning the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which yet the Reformed think and that with good reason they clearly apprehend Yet after all we do not read of the Mystery of the Angels but of the Seven Stars of which the Angels are the explication and therefore must be suppos'd to be intelligible And indeed there seems to be no difficulty in this but what has been created by those that would amuse us with exceptions that they may find some way to escape You pretend not to have any certainty that the Title of these Angels was Metaphorical For what say you if by the Name of an Angel an Angel properly so call'd should be understood Should this be so then farewel to any ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And should it not be so you are not unprovided of other shifts but if they succeed no better than this the Diocesans are safe enough For to your Quaere 'tis easie to reply that these Angels of the Churches could not be Celestial Spirits unless we may believe that one of those Spirits was faln and summon'd to repentance that another of them had a name to live but was dead and that a third was wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked which I think is sufficiently absurd But the Revelation you tell me goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Which signifies nothing to the purpose unless you were able to shew that to charge the Blessed Angels with the sins of men and call them to Reformation of Life hath a Congruity with the Prophetick Scheme of Daniel or with the nature of those holy Beings who are so constant and chearful in their obedience to the Divine Will Walo Messalinus and some others affirm that these Angels were the Churches themselves and to comply with them we must believe that the Angels of the Churches were the Churches of the Churches which I think is no good sense Grotius reflecting on their Exposition does justly charge it with a manifest contradicting of the Holy Scripture which declares that The Candlesticks are the Churches and that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches But Whither says he may not men be drawn by an itch of contradiction when they dare confound those things which the Spirit of God does so plainly distinguish Yet I deny not that the Instructions which did immediatly relate to the Angels were communicated by the Spirit not only to them but to the Churches also it being fit that both should be made sensible how their Duty and Interest were combin'd and encourage one another in the performance of the things enjoin'd and in carrying on the work of Reformation with the greater vigour and application If these Angels were neither Celestial Spirits nor the Churches of Asia themselves it cannot be imagin'd that they were any thing else but the Pastors of those Churches Yet this being suppos'd some question has been made about their number which is omitted says Smectymnuus not without some mystery lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company This you call a Critical nicety But I take it to be a prophane abuse of the Holy Scripture under a pretence of discovering a Mystery 'T is said expresly in Scripture that the seven Stars are the Angels there were therefore just so many Angels as there were Stars The Churches also were seven and every Church had its distinct and peculiar Angel and if any notwithstanding this deny that the number of the Angels and Churches was equal they seem not in a capacity to be convinced of any thing by the clearest demonstration As for the conceit that every Angel was a Company it is inconsistent with the Scripture for the Angels are not called Constellations but seven Stars And says Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet if these words sometimes happen to be us'd promiscuously we ought not however to depart from their genuine and usual signification without necessity Such a necessity there is not here for an Angel no more properly signifies a Colledge of Angels than a man signifies a Troop or a Corporation Nor are the descriptions of the several Angels applicable to a multitude unless we will suppose that all the Elders of the respective Societies deserv'd the same particular reproof or commendation which hath not the least shadow of Truth We read indeed that the strong Cattel before whom Jacob placed his Rods generally brought forth the speckled or ringstraked and this we impute to a Miracle and question not the thing because it is related by Moses in the Book of Genesis But what should make all the Presbyters of each of the seven Churches
Action for Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp was not only taught by the Apostles but constituted by them Bishop of Smyrna And his words deserve the greater credit because he was a Hearer of Polycarp in his younger years and understood doubtless what place he had in the Church and the manner of his Advancement to it I need make no Inferences from this Example because it is so obvious that it destroys your Hypothesis CHAP. XVIII The Testimony of the Fathers is necessary for the ascertaining to us the Canon of the Holy Scripture It is as Cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy THere are some that will hardly hear with patience any Arguments that are drawn from the Authority of the Fathers because as they conceive or pretend it favours the Papists A thing very acceptable to the Papists could it be prov'd But we do them too much honour if we believe that the Ancient Tradition is on their side when some of the most Learned amongst them dare lay no claim to it for the support of those Doctrines wherein they differ from us and many of their greatest Bigots have found themselves so press'd by it that they have appeal'd from it to their Oracle for the time Being the Pope I mean to whom Cornelius Mussus one of their number profess'd that he attributed more credit than to a thousand Austins Jeroms and Gregories and so ends the noise of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent It is not my business here to attempt a Vindication of the Fathers any farther than it answers my present design and I shall only observe that they that despise them most are sometimes forced to serve themselves of their Authority For example Gittichius says that his Friends who had read their Books found them plunged into the profoundest ignorance hardly understanding so much as one Article of the Christian Faith but like blind men moving irregularly and with a trembling pace And such confidence he had that the Censures which his party had pass'd on them were just or rather too modest that he declares The Truth of the Christian Religion was wholly lost a little after the death of the Apostles and commends Flaccius Illyricus for comparing the Disputations of the Fathers to a Fight of Drunkards at a Feast who are not solicitous to betake themselves to their Swords but supply the want of Weapons with Dishes or Trenchers with Bread or any thing that comes to hand Yet his Friends sometimes make use of the Testimony of those whom he so impudently charges with Apostasie and Folly and whom they are wont to reproach and they depend on it in matters of great importance They prove from thence in the Racovian Catechism that our Lord rose from the dead as the Scriptures relate and that the several Books of the New Testament were written by the Persons whose Names they bear herein following the Example of their Master Socinus who argues from the unanimous consent of the Primitive Christians that the four Gospels the Acts of the Apostles c. were written by those to whom they are attributed and for this he refers us to Eusebius At other times he treated the Ancients with great contempt because they stood in the way of this Animal of Glory when he was resolv'd to make himself the Head of a Sect yet he plainly shews that for the vindication of the Authority of the Holy Scripture an assent is necessary and due to their Suffrage And others who ascribe very little to that Suffrage cannot but perceive if they will attentively consider it that when there is a dispute about some passages or parts of the Holy Scripture whether they are genuine or not one would render himself extreamly ridiculous that should reject the Testimony of the Fathers as useless on this occasion and go about to determine the Controversie and to convince gainsayers by his own Instinct or the dictates of a private Spirit But if immediately after the Apostles decease there was a general departure from that Rule of Government which they appointed if all the Primitive Bishops were Usurpers of the Rights of those whom Heaven had made their Equals and all the Presbyters upon Earth did tamely abandon that Power which God had given them and all the Christians in the World with one Consent approv'd and promoted the evil designs of the former and the treachery of the last and if we must believe that the Primitive Writers conspir'd to put a Cheat upon us in the Representations they have made of the Affairs of the Church I would then be inform'd what assurance we can have that they have convey'd to us the true Canon of Scripture For it may seem that if they were Men so extreamly Corrupt they deserv'd no great Credit in any thing and might be suspected to have made as bold with the Oracles of God as they had done with his Institution of Church-Government I make no doubt to affirm that the Testimony of the Fathers is at least as cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy as it is when they ascertain to us the Canon of Scripture which yet is like to suffer nothing by this comparison For if we reject them as false Witnesses when they inform us that Bishops were appointed by the Apostles we must not only believe as I have intimated already that the Pastors of the Church notwithstanding their great distance from one another and their different Customs and Interests generally hit at the same time upon the same Project to destroy that Ecclesiastical Polity which had Christ for its Founder but that every where they had the same fatal Success We must also believe that however Government is a very nice thing and is not usually changed without fears and jealousies and mighty clamours and however the alterations of the Forms of Government are so easily observed yet did the Rising Prelates give so dextrous and nimble a Turn to the Government of the Church over all the World that that there was not the least notice taken of it or else we must believe that they destroy'd all the Records of that Transaction so that no Monuments remain of their Ambition And this we must also believe against the declarations of those that were conversant with the Apostles and their immediate Successors against the informations of Martyrs and Confessors in the best and purest times and against the common faith of Christians for above a thousand years after the death of our Saviour Being thus Credulous we shall much resemble one Vilgardus of Ravenna mention'd by Glaber Rodulphus who asserted that all the sayings of the Poets ought in every point to be believ'd And when we are arriv'd at that pitch of sense no body I suppose will be much concern'd at what we contradict or care to dispute with us who are only fit for the Entertainments of Inchanted Castles Thus Sir I have consider'd your Objections against that Authority which I still think our Saviour
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
you must acknowledge them to have been unless you will say that the Administration of the Eucharist by the Pastors of the Church hath no foundation in the Holy Scripture I see no way to avoid the difficulties with which you are intangled unless it be granted that the Apostles receiv'd Commission to administer both the Sacraments for not only themselves but others also And since a Right to that Commission cannot be convey'd but by Ordination and there can be no Power of Ordination unless it be deriv'd from the Apostles from hence I gather that in this which was a principal part of their Authority as well as in that of conferring Baptism and celebrating the Eucharist they ought to have Successors in all Ages 3. When our Lord before his Ascension gave his Commission to the Apostles he left them an assurance of his Presence with them in these words Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And from hence it appears that it is agreeable to our Saviour's intention that they should have Successors for as the Assembly of Divines say well This promise cannot be confin'd to their persons who did not live to the end of the world but reacheth all Ages and strongly argueth that the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ And if so let us see whether the words be capable of such a Paraphrase as this Hereafter there shall be another sort of Ministers far inferior to you not only in personal Gifts or inward and miraculous Qualifications but in Authority and these I will protect to the end of the world but you and your Function must shortly be extinct Now this is such an odd kind of Interpretation as I can by no means approve But since the Promise was made immediately to the Apostles one would think that it had a more especial regard to the preservation of their Order if it was also meant of any others Against this your exception is that by the End of the World some understand the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum and think they have good reason for so doing by comparing Matth. 28.20 with 24.3 14. But that expression is only used in the former of those Verses of Matth. 24. where the Disciples said to our Saviour What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the End of the World And here they seem to understand such an End as should be put to the World at our Lord 's personal and glorious Appearance and not that earlier Period of his coming in a Figure only to take vengeance on the Jewish Nation for this could hardly agree with the Idea they had of that state of things about which they made their enquiry However it be thrice do we meet with this Phrase in the thirteenth Chapter of the same Evangelist and as often it signifies the Consummation of all things at the day of Judgment For then it is that the Son will send forth his Angels to gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity and cast them in the furnace of fire And then shall the Righteous shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father that is when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father for then says the Apostle cometh the end But if it be said that the Predictions I have mention'd from Matth. 13. import no more than the Calamities that fell on the Jews and the refreshment that the Christians receiv'd above sixteen hundred years ago after this rate of expounding Scripture one may evacuate the clearest Prophecies of the future and glorious appearance of our Lord to render to every one according to his deeds The Exposition which you defend is not free from other inconveniences For it supposes that the continuance of Christ with his Apostles must be commensurate with the time of his long-sufferance towards his mortal enemies and then however he had already freed them from the Mosaical Yoke and intended to disperse them into remote Regions where they would be little concern'd with the Political Affairs and Government of Judea yet wherever they were they could have no assurance of the presence of our Lord with them any longer than he preserv'd his Crucifiers and so their hopes must live and dye with his Murderers 'T is true all the Apostles did not live till Titus executed on the Jews a most just Vengeance But then I would demand of you that limit the Advantage of our Saviour's Promise to the Persons of the Apostles and understand by it that extraordinary Assistance he gave them in the discharge of their Office how he continued with them that were deceas'd and whether their dust and ashes or their reliques perform'd the Work and Signs of Apostles till that Period which you call the end of the Mosaical Seculum But some lived after that time and I would be inform'd whether they were then abandon'd by our Lord If so what afflicting thoughts must it cost S. John who liv'd above thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem when his Master that lov'd him so well all that while deserted him or lest him without his usual Consolation But this inconvenience you think may be avoided by comparing Matth. 28.20 with Matth. 1.25 where we are inform'd that Joseph knew not Mary till she had brought forth her first born Son For as the meaning is not that he knew her afterwards so when our Saviour says that he would be with his Apostles to the end of the Jewish World this signifies indeed that he would be with them so long but does not imply that he would be with them no longer That is you had fixed a Period of Christ's Presence but finding your self pressed with the consequence of it you declare that there was no Period of it at all And his declaring that he would be with them to the End of the World was as if he had said he would be with them after the End of the World indefinitely I do not see how that instance from Matth. 1.25 supports this Exposition For neither doth this shew how our Saviour could be said to be with those that were deceas'd before the end of the Jewish Polity that is how he assisted them in the work of their Apostleship when that work was over and they were entred into their rest nor yet does it reach the Case of those that surviv'd For however it is enough for us to know that the Mother of our Lord remain'd a Virgin till the time of his Birth yet it was not enough for them to know that he would be with them till the Jews were destroy'd They had as much need of Comfort and Encouragement from his gracious Promise afterwards as they had before yet of this they must have been deprived had the End of the World beyond which that Promise was not extended signified the Ruine of their Nation Upon the whole these words
of Grotius on Matth. 28.20 seem highly rational From hence says he it very manifestly appears it was the mind of Christ that the Apostles should commit to others and they again to other faithful persons that Charge of Government which was committed to them For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World and the Apostles could not live so long Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office And this Sir is the Testimony of that Learned Man who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge and exact Criticism may signifie something with you to use your own words and if he was not much mistaken this Text of Scripture by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers overthrows what you design by it and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment 4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve and it was preserved after their decease It was therefore design'd for Continuance and ought to remain in all Ages This Consequence I take for granted and the Assertions from whence it is drawn I shall clear in their proper places At present I only observe that if they are true they will much confirm what went before For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had it will be manifest that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church was none of them That could not be limited to them which was convey'd to others What was communicated was certainly communicable CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve I Shew'd before that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number and that it actually was so is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles and that not only in Title but in Power also For the first of these declares that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection when a Controversie happen'd between them it might easily have been ended by that Authority which one of them might have exercis'd and the other ought to have obey'd but they debated the matter on equal terms and neither of them gave place to the other The result was when the Contention between them grew sharp they departed asunder and took different courses But at another time they agreed and went together to Jerusalem and then James and Peter and John who seem'd to be Pillars paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues They gave to both the right hand of fellowship and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen as the other three did among those of the Circumcision You think however that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order and that he had his Apostleship from the Church For this you quote Acts 11.22 where you tell me the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him But you might as well have said that when the Brethren sent away Paul they did not barely dismiss him but made him an Apostle And at the same rate you may carry on the work of Criticism farther and declare that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants to free Paul and Silas when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour all these that were sent were transform'd into so many Apostles That Barnabas was as you imagine subordinate to any other Apostles is altogether improbable For S. Paul speaks of him as a Person in the same Station with himself where he says Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas and I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working 1 Cor. 9.5 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority that belonged to the Apostleship for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions Besides Paul and Barnabas there were many others that were not of the Twelve and yet did bear the Title of Apostles and of what account they were in the Church Theodoret informs us He observes that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops and then such as are now call'd Bishops were styled Apostles but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles and on others who sometimes had it the Name of Bishop was impos'd To the same effect is that passage which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose wherein he shews that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles by which says Salmasius he means others besides the Twelve finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided That of Presbyters they left to others and that of Bishops was appropriated to them who had the Power of Ordination so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right This place is quoted several times by Salmasius but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish is very obvious for it plainly intimates that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church only with this difference The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts and were call'd Apostles but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title thought fit to decline it and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops Yet both were of the same Order and govern'd with the same Authority This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth with disservice to his Cause For in his Dissertation against Petavius he proves that there were many Secondary Apostles as we call them for distinction sake which were the Disciples of the First And these he tells us govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power and in the same manner as the First had done He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters that Bishops had in succeeding times So that according to him there were always Prelates since the days of Christ differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages but not in Authority Amongst the Prelates of the first Century I think