not the least appearance that he had any Collegues join'd in Commission with him whose Votes were necessary for the performance of what was expected from him and since he alone is represented as responsible for the miscarriages of the Christians at Pergamus 't is manifest that they were all under his Jurisdiction He might have Subordinate Officers but he had no Equals If the Angels of the Churches had such power as I have ascrib'd to them there is no ground to suspect that they unjustly usurp'd it For if it be a good Argument that the Text it self of the Old Testament had not been corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees when our Saviour and his Apostles were upon Earth that neither of them laid it to the charge of those wicked men we may conclude from the Epistles directed to these Angels that our Lord was not offended at the Station which they had in the Churches since he censures their faults and makes that no part of them But this is not all that may be said for it He plainly signifies his approbation of it both in condemning their former remisness and in exciting them to greater vigour in the exercise of their Office This agrees exactly with the Historical Accounts that we have of the first Age and particularly with what Clemens Alexandrinus relates of S. John who as he tells us visited the Regions adjacent to Ephesus partly that he might form Churches partly that he might add fit persons to the Clergy and partly that he might Ordain Bishops And if there be any doubt remaining of what Quality they were it may be resolv'd from hence that the Bishop of a City not far from Ephesus is said to be a person placed over All which Character could belong to a Prelate only And as it is probable that this Prelate was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna so it is manifest from the Transaction which I have mention'd that those of his Order were of Divine or Apostolical Appointment CHAP. X. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the first Century consider'd I Have shew'd that the Churches of Jerusalem and Philippi of Ephesus and Crete the Churches of Smyrna and Pergamus Thyatira and Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea were govern'd by Bishops in the first Century And one need but read the second and third Book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History or S. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers to find that Bishops then presided in the Churches of Antioch and Rome of Alexandria and Athens and to be inform'd who they were This may give us reason to think that all the Churches in the World were at that time under an Episcopal Administration especially if it appear that they were so in the following Age But before I come to make enquiry into that it may be requisite to remove out of the way some Objections that relate to the Apostles days 1. You argue from Acts 20.17 28. Titus 1.5 7. that mere Presbyters were Bishops And this I am ready to grant But then it must be acknowledged that the Presbyters mention'd in those places were subordinate to other Pastors and consequently a continuance of their Office supposes a continuance of such Superiors as they had to the end of the World Their Superiors were S. Paul and Titus and if there be any question whether the Name of Bishops may be ascribed to them it may be determin'd from what has been said already For if it belongs to the Apostles as I have prov'd from the words of S. Peter and some passages of the Ancients it may fitly be apply'd not only to the Twelve but to all their Colleagues But Episcopacy you tell me is a word of ample signification for 't is not only to be met with in Homer Plutarch Cicero but it is apply'd to God by Basil and to the Elders by Peter nothing therefore is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy And what then Did I ever affirm that it had but one sense in all the Books where it occurs whether they are Sacred or Profane Did I ever assert that none but Apostles were called Bishops and deduce from that Title an account of the special Nature of their Office If you can impute to me neither of these things you must be content to fight with your own shadow And I shall think it enough that the instances I have produced perform what I design'd by them They shew that in affirming the Apostles were Bishops and particularly that S. James was a Bishop whatever exceptions some have taken against it we speak the Language of the Scripture and the Fathers They also shew that if mere Presbyters were Bishops others had the same denomination who had Jurisdiction over them and answer the Objections against Prelacy that have been rais'd from Acts 20.17 28. and other places 2. You argue from Clemens Romanus that in the first Age there were but two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers because he mentions no more when he speaks of the Bishops and Deacons that were constituted by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe As if the whole Scheme of the Government which the Apostles established might be taken from that one Act or they had done nothing but what this Author left upon Record But as Epiphanius tells us All things could not be regulated by them on a sudden And the Churches of their Plantation afford us the best Pattern of Ecclesiastical Polity not as they were only in design or in their infancy but as they had receiv'd from their Founders their due lineaments and just proportions and were grown up to some perfection This might have been a sufficient Answer to what you have objected from the place before us had you demonstrated that when Clemens only mentions two Ranks of Ministers he meant to exclude a greater number But this you have not prov'd as one might have expected you should before you built so much upon it Because persons differing in Degree or Order sometimes come under the same denomination There were many that were said to be Rulers of the same Synagogue as some have gather'd from Mark 5.22 Yet one of those Rulers was the President There were many that at the same time were said to be Princes of Asia yet one of them was called The Asiarcha by way of Eminence and distinguish'd from the rest in Dignity and Power as Spanhemius and Harduinus collect from some Ancient Coins and from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna And as a Learned Man of our own observes Aaron and his Successor Eleazar are never styled High Priests in the Books of Moses but Priests only and yet the other Priests were subject to them when they had no distinct Title Clemens Romanus himself speaking of Abraham says that all the Priests and Levites were descended from him and in one of the Members of that Division he must be suppos'd
vast number of Believers And these are things that may put such Marks of Dignity on the Person that presides in it that the Chief Apostles had reason to think it would not have been a diminution but an honour rather to any of them to have been in his Station This may be sufficient to clear the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus as recorded by Eusebius to whom I refer'd you and I am not concern'd to enquire Whether the relation of it which you produce from Theodorus Metochita and others and which you say carries with it it s own Confutation be so absurd as you imagine Yet I cannot but observe that when I offer what you despair of opposing with success you think it enough to find out something else which in your judgment carries with it its own Confutation A Politick device I confess but no great Argument of your Ingenuity Hegesippus flourish'd in the same Age with Clemens but something more early and living so near the Apostles time he made use of that advantage in his Enquiries into the things that were done in them amongst which he acquaints us this was one That S. James took on him the Government of the Church of Jerusalem Hegesippus does not only relate this of him but he gives us a copious Account of his Life and Martyrdom yet this I confess would signifie but little were he as Joseph Scaliger represents him a trifling and a fabulous Writer But that he was unjustly censur'd by that celebrated Critick has been shew'd by Petavius and Valesius and to what they have said more might be added for his Vindication if it would not occasion too large a Digression or were it necessary to insist so much on the Authority of one for the Confirmation of a thing which may be sufficiently prov'd by the Suffrage of many others That S. James was Bishop or had the Charge of the Church of Jerusalem hath been generally believ'd by the Christians of different Nations and Languages The memory of it hath been preserv'd by the Ethiopians in their Diptychs by the Coptites in their Fasti and by the Syrians in their Menology It hath been receiv'd and related as an undoubted truth by Hippolytus and Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem and another Cyril of Scythopolis by Epiphanius and Chrysostom by Augustin and Fulgentius by Nicephorus and Photius by Oecumenius and Nilus And it was also mention'd as a thing universally acknowledged by the Sixth General Council and Blondel himself confesses that it was asserted by all the Fathers This Testimony in which they are so unanimous will appear the more considerable if it agree exactly with the Circumstances of S. James as they are represented in the Holy Scripture And that it does so will be manifest by comparing it with several places of the New Testament wherein he is mention'd For instance we read that when Peter had escap'd out of Prison he said to those that were surpriz'd and astonish'd at his presence Go and shew these things to James and to the Brethren In which words he passes by all Ecclesiastical Officers except James without any particular notice And this I take to be an Indication that however there might be others at Jerusalem that were subordinate to him there remain'd none with him that were his Equals When Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter other Disciples saw he none but James the Lord's Brother And this is that James says S. Jerom who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem a Person of great Sanctity and of such Reputation that the People would press and throng that they might touch but the Skirt of his Garment That Father also gives this reason why S. Paul did not see other Apostles it was he tells us because they were dispersed abroad to preach the Gospel but he resided where his peculiar Charge was Fourteen years after this or rather as some think after his Conversion S. Paul went up again to Jerusalem and there he found James and reckons him with Cephas and John who seem'd to be Pillars and were Chief Apostles hereby paying respect in the Opinion of Bede to the Dignity of his Chair And 't is observable that however Peter was one of the Number yet to James he gives the first place because says Anselm at Jerusalem where he was Bishop he had the Primacy But this you will not admit for that preference you say might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother As if John was not also the Lord's Brother who is mention'd after Peter or James had but lately contracted this relation I think this variation in the Order of Names from the usual Method must suppose a Change in the Affairs of the Apostles and import something peculiar to S. James which did not always belong to him but now gave him the pre-eminence in this place What that was we have seen already and Mr. Calvin saw it and does not speak of it as a thing improbable for says he When the question is concerning dignity it is wonderful that James should be prefer'd before Peter Perhaps it was because he was Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem The good man would not speak more plainly out of tenderness to his own Discipline At the Council of Jerusalem S. James makes a greater Figure than any of the rest of the Apostles and speaks with an Air of Authority as President of the Synod He was Bishop of Jerusalem says Chrysostom and to him was the chief Place assign'd And from hence it was that others having given their sense of things in debate S. James passes the final Sentence whereupon says Hesychius How shall I celebrate the Servant and Brother of Christ the Supreme Governour of the New Jerusalem the Prince of Priests the Chief of the Apostles the most resplendent amongst the Lamps and most illustrious amongst the Stars Peter preaches but James decrees His words are but few but comprehend the greatness of the question My sentence is says he that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God And thus says the Commentator on his Acts he spake the word and it was done His Suffrage passed into the form of a Law and was deliver'd to the Church Indeed if S. James had usurpt a Jurisdiction over his Collegues this had been criminal But I have ascrib'd to him no other Pre-eminence but what we may well suppose was granted to him by the rest of the Apostles that the proceedings in the Assembly might be the more regular It was agreeable to the Nature of a Synod not that he that presided in it should determine the thing in controversie by his sole Power but with the consent of the other members of it This is what S. James did after the full hearing of the matter and the manner of his giving
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
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
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
enough in my Concessions I. I grant that originally there were but twelve Apostles and I doubt not but as S. Barnabas intimates they were so many in allusion to the twelve Tribes of Israel But it does not follow from hence that the Office of the Apostles was limited to that Number or to their Persons On the contrary I shall prove in another place that it was actually communicated to others yet I deny not but the Name of the Twelve was continued for as it was assign'd to the Apostles with regard to their first Institution when Judas was fall'n and there remain'd only Eleven so it was also when many more were admitted into the Sacred College And thus says Peter du Moulin The Regions of Decapolis and Pentapolis kept up their Names when some of their old Cities were destroy'd or when new ones were built within their Precincts and Neapolis which signifies a New City is still so call'd notwithstanding its great Antiquity II. I grant That the first Apostles saw the Lord but this was no part of their Office only it made them fit to be the first Witnesses of Christianity Because says Paulinus they were to be sent into the World for the Information of all Nations it was requisite they should receive the Faith they were to preach not only with their ears but with their eys that what they had more firmly learned they might more constantly teach But we cannot infer from hence that none might succeed them in teaching and governing Their Conversation with Christ in the Flesh was a great Privilege to which at this time none can justly pretend But what qualified them for the Mission by which they were enabled to constitute subordinate Officers did not hinder them certainly from appointing others to preside over them as themselves had done III. I grant That the Apostles had their Commission immediately from our Saviour But notwithstanding this Privilege others might as well succeed them in the Authority they had to govern the Churches as Princes might sit on the Throne of David who were not advanced to it in a manner so Extraordinary by the particular Appointment and express Declaration of the Almighty as himself had been Noah his Sons receiv'd Power by an express Revelation over the beasts of the earth and over the fowl of the air over every thing that moved upon the earth and over the fishes of the sea and liberty to eat of every living thing as of the green herb Yet they transmitted that Power and Liberty to their Posterity who have not such an intercourse with Heaven as themselves had Thus the first Apostles who were sent immediately by Christ himself might convey their Authority to others who had not that advantage And 't is manifest that their Office was actually delegated to Matthias to whom our Lord did not immediately speak the words of their Commission IV. I grant That the Apostles were in some sense the Foundation on which the Christian Church was built for so we learn from S. Paul Eph. 2.20 But this does not demonstrate that they were an Extraordinary part of the Building Some think they were said to be the Foundation because they first published the Gospel So the Socinians interpret that Expression and they infer from thence as you have also done that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers But if for that reason they were so in any thing it was in teaching and consequently That was an Extraordinary Part of their work which you say was standing and perpetual Casaubon observes in one of his Exercitations on the Annals of Baronius that when the word Rock is used Metaphorically in Scripture it is with allusion to some Properties of a Rock and denotes Firmness and Stability or the like And says this Learned Man a Rock and Foundation are put for the same thing and differ not in Reality but in Notion only This is what you will be oblig'd to confute if you still adhere to your Opinion for in vain do you argue that the Apostles must needs have had Extraordinary Authority because they had the honour to be a Foundadation of the Catholick Church if no Authority be signified by that expression The Apostles were vested with Authority by their Commission before they planted Churches and therefore did not derive it from that work But if we think that because they formed those Societies their Authority must needs have been Extraordinary and Incommunicable we may as well conclude that Romulus was no King because at Rome he laid the Foundation of the Regal Government which work was not repeated by those that succeeded him in the Throne For my part I know no necessity that they who constitute Churches should be of a distinct Order from those that afterwards preside over them Frumentius was as much a Bishop when he travell'd from one place to another in India after his return thither to plant Churches as any that govern'd them in succeeding times and they that were ordain'd Bishops by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe did not forfeit their Character whatever that was or acquire any Extraordinary Authority if they were employ'd to convert those that were committed to their Charge But you tell me that whilst the Founder of a College lives it is the duty of the founded on emergent difficulties to have recourse to him and take his directions but he dying his Authority dies with him And it may be so and it may be otherwise You your self cannot be ignorant I am sure how usual it hath been for Founders to appoint Visitors of their Colleges and how permanent their Power has been in our Universities So that this Argument if one may call it so may easily be turn'd against you But Founders you say as such as have no Successors This is profound and it signifies that none came after them to lay the very same Foundations which they had finished before If such arguing as this silences all disputes and puts an end to the fatal Controversies which you truly say have almost destroy'd the Church it must be when the contending Parties are become very weary of their strife and are mightily inclin'd to an Accommodation V. I grant That the Apostles had Power to work Miracles for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrine But this hinders not a Succession to them in that Authority which is not miraculous but may be continued in all Ages There was something Extraordinary in the manner of discharging the Apostolical Office but it does not follow from hence that the Office itself was so or ought to be laid aside Otherwise for the same reason we must lay aside Baptism Imposition of Hands Praying and Preaching because all these things were attended with something Extraordinary and Miraculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says S. Chrysostom There was nothing that was merely humane or common in that Age of Wonders But Miracles are said to be the
Signs of an Apostle 2 Cor. 12.12 And from hence you have infer'd that none can have a Title to the Authority of Apostles who cannot produce those Signs and Credentials And this I confess is very specious but that is all as may partly appear from what has been said already and will be more manifest by comparing the words of S. Paul in the place before mention'd with those of our Saviour Christ Mark 16.17 18. For speaking there in general terms of such as in all parts of the World should be drawn to the Christian Faith These signs says he shall follow them that believe In my name shall they cast out devils they shall speak with new tongues they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover Now if one should conclude that whosoever cannot cast out Devils speak with Tongues c. have not the Signs that should follow those that believe and therefore are no Believers this Consequence would be as good as the former But if it be absurd the other is so too Against this your Exception is That the Signs our Saviour speaks of did not follow all but only some that believed That Miracles were not called the Signs of Believers but that they were such Marks and Characteristical Notes of the Apostles that by them S. Paul prov'd himself to be one of their Order To which I reply 1. That you suppose a real difference between the Expression of Christ and that of the Apostle whereas there is none For I appeal to any Person that is a competent Judge of the sense of words whether these signs shall follow or attend a Believer and these shall be the signs of a Believer are not Propositions of the same import Certainly had S. Paul said the Signs which follow an Apostle have been wrought among you he had said as much as we find in his own words the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you If therefore the Promise of Christ extends not to all the Faithful but some may believe who cannot shew the Signs that once followed Believers so may some have such Authority over other Ecclesiastical Officers as the first Apostles exercis'd who cannot perform those things which were the Signs of those Apostles 2. If Miracles as such were a Note of the Apostolical Office if they were that peculiar or characteristical Mark by which S. Paul was known and demonstrated to be an Apostle then all that had that Mark that is all that wrought Miracles were also Apostles and consequently the number of the Apostles must be vastly increas'd by the accession of many Christians who did bear no Office in the Church at all Yet I deny not but Miracles in connexion with something else were Signs or Marks both of the Apostles and other Christians They were Signs of the Apostles as they confirm'd that Authority they exercis'd and which they declar'd they had receiv'd from Christ They were Signs of Believers as attesting the Truth of what they professed They were the Signs of those that had the Power of Miracles but not such Signs as exclude all others from their Order and Rank that have them not For Illustration of this I further add that something may be fit and necessary for the first Institution of an Order which is not so for the Continuance of it For example the Seventy Elders mention'd Num. 11. were constituted Judges by the immediate Command of Heaven and the Lord came down in a cloud and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses and gave it to them and they prophesied v. 25. This Spirit was no more Accidental to them than other Miraculous Gifts were to the Apostles for it was made necessary by the appointment of God v. 16 17. and it was such a Characteristical Mark of their being chosen by him that Eldad and Medad who remain'd in the Camp were distinguished by it and known to be of their number v. 26. But it was only a Mark of the first Elders None that came after them were advanced to that Dignity and confirm'd in it with such Solemnity Yet the great Council which is said to have consisted of this Order of Men remain'd till the last Desolation of the Jewish Nation The Advancement of Aaron to his Office was Extraordinary and so were his Circumstances yet others succeeded him in that Office who were not admitted into it nor established in it in a manner so miraculous and stupendous as their Great Ancestor had been They resided at Jerusalem whereas he had sojourn'd in the Wilderness They had not their Garments made by inspired Workmen as his were nor could they perform the mighty Acts which he did yet were they as certainly High-Priests as he was notwithstanding the want of his Qualifications Formerly you thought that if an Extraordinary Mission and Extraordinary Power do not constitute Extraordinary Officers then there never could be any such in the Church of God But upon better information you cannot but acknowledge that Aaron had such a Mission and such Power and yet was succeeded by some that had neither Only you tell me that these Extraordinary Qualifications of Aaron were contingent and that he had them not as he was High-Priest but by a particular and express Revelation nor could his Authority when he was oppos'd by Corah and his company have been preserv'd but by a Miracle Afterwards he could not have been continued High-Priest had he not been distinguished by the blossoming of his Rod for that by the appointment of God became a necessary Mark by which the Person might be known whom the Lord had chosen to that Dignity and without which none might have own'd him under the Character he had born But this Miracle was a visible confirmation of his Election and the wonderful Rod was kept as a lasting Sign of it against the Rebels The Successors of Aaron as they were High Priests gave Answers when they were consulted in weighty affairs by Vrim and Thummim But according to Josephus these Oracles ceas'd two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities which is much later than the Period assigned to them by the generality of the Jewish Rabbies yet it is early enough to shew that there were many High-Priests who had not that LIGHT and PERFECTION which distinguished their Predecessors and for which they were so eminent and useful to their Nation The Deacons at Jerusalem where they were first appointed were Originally seven and these might not have been chosen and constituted had they not been Men full of the Holy Ghost Stephen who was one of them was full of Faith and Power and did great Wonders and Miracles And Philip also cast out unclean Spirits and healed those that were taken with Palsies and those that were Lame So that Simon Magus who saw the mighty Works which he did was filled with Wonder
highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church There is another reason for that Title for S. Paul calls him his Brother in such a manner as he does no man who was not his Colleague He also calls him his Companion in labour and his Fellow souldier not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions from place to place but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry I make no question but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow And the word so translated in Nonnus signifies an Equal In the Glossary of Philoxenus and in the Vulgar Latin 't is render'd by Compar And by Compar says Reinesius is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition and he shews that so it is us'd in Plautus This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3 compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function and if so he was not only in Name but in Reality an Apostle I am not ignorant that in this Explication I dissent from a Learned Author who thinks it sounds too harsh that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission But it should be consider'd that the sense of words of such especially as are Terms of Art often varies from their original signification so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation as are not consistent with their use And certain it is that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent They that are styled by Clemens Romanus the Apostles of us are not such as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans in whose Name he writes or from the Corinthians to whom he directs his Epistle but from Christ The Apostle of the Gentiles had not his Commission from them The Apostles and Angels of the Churches which I take to be of the same Order were not their Messengers but their principal Governors So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians should be call'd their Apostle 'T is true S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi But these in the Syriack Version as Mr. Selden tells us in the Arabick of Erpenius are said to be Presbyters And that they were no more than Presbyters we are agreed Many of the Fathers particularly Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and Oecumenius had the same opinion of them for which they give this reason that of one City there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop And for such a Bishop we need not here be at a loss having consider'd under what Character it was that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians CHAP. VII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy who was Bishop of Ephesus WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve I come now to shew that there were others of the same Order or to whom the same Authority was convey'd who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles Such are Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches to which more may be added but on these I chiefly insist That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence that he had full Power of Ordination This appears from the advice that was given him to lay hands suddenly on no man That is not to admit any into a Sacred Function without a due examination For so I interpret the words with Theodoret Photius and several others both Ancient and Modern Writers Some Learned Men I know put another sense on them and by laying on of hands understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures But I cannot find in Scripture that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers He speaks of the double honour or maintenance which is due to those that rule well and shews the reason of it He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any lest by his Precipitance he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry and partake with them in their sins And from hence we may learn what high trust was impos'd in him For in the Church committed to his Care the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices was wholly committed to him and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications There were many Presbyters where he resided yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government is manifest from hence that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you receive not an Accusation but it was said to him Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5.19 Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge For as Morinus observes from hence we may gather that three things belong'd to Timothy in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it and prescribe the Form of it He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate and hear them pleaded and he might determine them by passing Sentence Presbyters therefore as well as others being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority And this the Apostle intimates where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons 1 Tim. 5.21 We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority or that if they were rebuk'd by him before all they might make the following Reply We believe our Doctrine to be true or know our Actions just but if not we are not accountable to you for them for you Sir and we stand upon the same level if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures you take too much upon you and usurp a Power to which you have no Right Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded that Answer they might have given him or they might have appeal'd from him to their own Colleagues in the Consistory or to their own private Congregations But that no such thing could be done is evident because it would have rendred the
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