will do me but small service for the force of the testimony which I cite from him depends on the word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as I understand it a Masterly Authority but Teaching and Doctrine for in this latter sense the word is often us'd by the Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as I may see lib. 1. Ep. 3. and in other places Yet in that very Epistle to which you refer me we may not understand by it Doctrine without Authority nor is it limited to any such sense amongst Ancient Writers In Suetonius in Ammianus Marcellinus in Sulpicius Severus and many others it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction It signifies Government in Apuleius and Casaubon observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magisterium Sacerdotii are expressions equivalent From hence it appears that Locus Magisterii in Irenaeus may fitly be translated the place of Authority or Government And that it ought to be so will be manifest if it be consider'd that he thought it peculiar to the Bishops to succeed the Apostles in their own place or Office He could not think it peculiar to them to derive from the Apostles the meer power of preaching which was known to be common to other Ministers His words therefore can import no less than that the Bishops were constituted Supreme Pastors without that dependance on Presbyters which these had on them or that they were vested with such Authority over other Officers and Churches as the Apostles before enjoy'd and exercis'd And now it may be fit and it will be no difficult matter to answer your Objection which I omitted before against the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and which is to this effect The Prelates you conceive cannot be said to be the Apostles Successors because the Apostles in their life time could not constitute any Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction nor convey to others the places which you suppose they still kept But if it be said they appointed that the Prelates should be inducted into those places after their decease you think there is no credible tradition transmitted to us of that matter But here is one thing you have forgotten that may deserve to be consider'd which is that unless all the Apostles had died together the Survivers might put others into the places of the deceas'd Accordingly tho Simeon was not nominated by S. James to be his Successor nor came into his place whilst he was alive yet after the death of that Apostle he was by others Constituted Bishop of Jerusalem It is farther observable that the Apostles before their decease were sometimes obliged to withdraw themselves from the Churches which they had planted and govern'd and thereupon they committed the Government of them to fit persons who may well be said to be their Successors in that Administration Especially since as I have prov'd the Apostles Communicated to them the same Authority that themselves had exercis'd Yet as Julius Capitolinus acquaints us that Lucius was as observant of Marcus who made him Partner of his Empire as a President was wont to be of the Emperor himself Thus Timothy and Titus and others of the same Rank who had been Ordain'd by the Apostles might still pay them such respect and deference as was due to persons of incomparable excellence and yet all be of the same Order The Apostles having Communicated their Episcopal Authority to some in their own time these transmitted it to others in the following Centuries and in this manner it has been conveyed to Bishops in all Ages The Bishops therefore may be said to succeed the Apostles and that not only in the Government of Churches which were of their Plantation but of others also in Countries to which they never arriv'd For since they had Commission to bring all Nations under the Discipline of Christ and govern them in his name a Right to that descends to their Spiritual Heirs and they may exercise it in all the parts of the World But notwithstanding your attempt to demonstrate that the Apostles could have no Successors you make no doubt to affirm that Presbyters succeed them in their ordinary work And about this I shall make some enquiry when I have first put you in mind that either you must suppose these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles in their discharge of that work and if so a subjection was consistent with a Succession to them or else they were not subject and then you must allow that the Apostles Constituted Officers over whom they retain'd no Jurisdiction Take it which way you please you are concern'd I think to reject or answer your own Argument To prove that Priests are Successors to the Apostles you quote a passage of Nilus as you call the Author of the Treatise de Primatu Papae which as Colomesius informs us was compos'd by Mark the Ephesian But to which of them soever it belongs it is not very material For neither of them flourish'd within a thousand years of the days of the Apostles and therefore come too late to determine what the belief of the Primitive Church was by their own Testimony Indeed if a Subordinate Officer may be said to succeed the Supreme for doing some things after his example by Authority deriv'd from him then may Priests be said to succeed the Apostles and so they are by some that use a great latitude of expression But the Ancients speaking exactly and telling us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles thereby intimated that they were both of the same Order or that both had the same Function For this they believ'd and urged when there was occasion Photius mentions it as a thing commonly acknowledg'd that both had the same Dignity of Place Clarus à Muscula acquaints us that both govern'd with the same Power S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs and that not only as Teachers but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches 'T is true the Bishops were not wont to assume to themselves the name of Apostles for a reason already given yet that it was sometimes ascrib'd to them appears from several instances It is also manifest that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici that their Office was call'd an Apostolate and that any Bishoprick especially if it was founded by an Apostle was called an Apostolick See For the Title of Apostolick that I may note this by the way was not appropriated to the See of Rome before the Eleventh Century says the Author of the Notes on Paulinus it was not before the thirteenth says Mabillon it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy CHAP. XIII The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors AS the Bishops were Successors
Treatise he argues that Timothy was no Bishop because he was a Novice so he supposes he must needs be who was a young man Yet afterwards he expresly acknowledges that he was a Bishop but so that other Bishops were his Equals He had before told us that this same Novice was a Fellow-helper and Co-partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship and consequently in the judgment of all men if we may take his word for it of a degree superior to that of a Bishop Nevertheless within a few Pages after he makes him inferior to Presbyters because he was obliged to intreat them as Fathers and to pay them double honor and not to receive it from them And thus he snatches at any thing that may free him from a present inconvenience and at his pleasure Timothy must be such a Novice as is unfit to bear the Office of a Bishop at another time this is a depressing of him who was qualified for and exalted to a higher Dignity One while he must be superior then inferior and afterwards equal to the same Officers And this discovers such a flaw in the judgment of the Author to say no worse of him that I cannot but admire that some persons of greater sense seem to have the same good opinion of his Book which himself had whereas 't is a Rapsody of incoherent stuff and for the most part very trifling Yet he hits on some things that may deserve our notice and they shall not be neglected The common refuge of Dissenters that are concern'd for the Unbishoping of Timothy to speak in Mr. Prynne's Language is that he was an Extraordinary Officer and Evangelist He is expresly so styled says Mr. Prynne He is in direct terms call'd an Evangelist say the Assembly of Divines and that he was so says Smectymnuus is clear from the Letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4 5. Yet neither in this place nor in any other part of Scripture is that to be found which these men affirm with so much confidence 'T is true Timothy was admonish'd to do the work of an Evangelist but this he might and yet be no Evangelist Daniel did the work of the King and yet was no King The Levites did the work of all Israel yet were they not all Israel And Timothy who as M. Prynne says truly was a Partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship which virtually contains in it all other Ecclesiastical Offices might perform the work of other Ministers and not be of their Order nor come under their denomination This has been said upon a supposition that he was requir'd in this place to do the work of an Evangelist properly so called which I cannot grant For an Evangelist according to Eusebius was a person that preached the Gospel where it had not been receiv'd or to those who had not heard of it before And in this sense Timothy could not be an Evangelist to the Church of Ephesus which he was obliged to instruct and govern and when he was so it had flourished for many years I conclude therefore that the word Evangelist in this Verse ought to be taken in a larger sense and then to do the work of an Evangelist will signifie in general to preach the Word as it is expressed v. 2. And if this Interpretation which has been embraced by many Learned Men be admitted it leaves no ground for the Exception that hath been under consideration But Timothy and Titus you say were Co-founders of Churches with the Apostle Paul and from hence arose their Visitorial Power which consequently was peculiar and extraordinary That is you have assum'd a liberty of bestowing on persons what Titles you please and then you draw from them such Inferences as you think expedient This you call Arch-work whose strength you say lies in the combination A Church as we have seen had been founded at Ephesus several years before the Government of it was committed to Timothy and how he could be a Co-founder I do not understand I suppose he neither laid the Old Foundation over again nor raz'd it that he might lay another If you call him a Co-founder of that Church only because by his preaching he increas'd the number of Believers the Presbyters that were before his coming were for the same reason Co-founders also for doubtless they were employ'd in the same work But that they and others of the same Rank by converting Infidels and adding them to the Church started up into an higher Order than that of which they were before is what I think was never yet heard of in the Christian World Philip the Evangelist laid the Foundation of a Church at Samaria but by doing this he gained no new Jurisdiction he did not obtain by it the Power of Imposition of Hands which the Apostles had nor any Authority over Presbyters but remain'd a Deacon as he was before If Frumentius had not been ordain'd a Bishop his planting Churches amongst the Indians or more properly the Ethiopians could not have made him one Nor did his diligence in that work render his Office incommunicable But the Authority he had to constitute and govern Priests and Deacons was convey'd to others after his death and as Ludolphus will inform you he had Successors in Ethiopia to this very Age. Let us now suppose that Timothy had founded the Church of Ephesus it doth not follow as we have seen that his Authority was Extraordinary Yet in your opinion he could not be a Bishop unless his Office had related to a Church already planted for that you make the condition of Episcopal Charge But how groundless this Conceit is may appear from what has been said and particularly from that known Passage of Clemens Romanus where he says expresly that the Apostles ordain'd some to be Bishops of those that afterwards should believe What Bishops he speaks of is not here the Question They were such as you approve and they were constituted Bishops of those who at that time were Unbelievers But that Bishops who have Commission to preach the Gospel have Power to preach it to Believers only or if they preach it to Infidels that for that purpose they should either forfeit their former Office or need another is so absurd that to mention it is a sufficient Confutation of it Another of the Objections which you advance against the Episcopacy of Timothy is that he is not styled a Bishop in Scripture On this Mr. Prynne also insists and calls it an infallible Argument Yet what he pronounces so like an Oracle signifies no more than if one should attempt to prove that Presbyters neither are nor ought to be called Ministers because in Scripture they are never mention'd under that Title or that Baptism and the Supper of the Lord neither are nor may be called Sacraments because that Name is not ascribed to them in any part of Scripture The truth is if we
being under his Jurisdiction He was requir'd to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on the disobedient and set things in order in many Churches His Office therefore or Power was Episcopal To prove this I have not urged any thing from the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus and therefore I am not concern'd at your exception against it or to enquire into its Authority What is manifest from the Epistle it self and confirm'd by the Testimony of the Fathers is sufficient for my purpose That however there were many Churches in Crete yet they were govern'd by a single Person as their Chief Pastor or Bishop What you object against his Episcopacy from the multitude of Cities in Crete looks like one of the Efforts of Mr. Prynne and is so confus'd that I can make no coherent sense of it You suppose that every Church or Congregation must have a Bishop for which you give no other reason but that some are confident of it and I confess if matters between us had been to be determin'd by confidence you had often put me to a loss Yet here I do not see what service it can do you For I would demand whether the Bishop you assign to every Congregation was a mere Presbyter or a Prelate If you say the first what is it to the purpose unless you could prove that he was not subject to another Pastor who had the Charge of many Congregations If the last what is become of the Cause for which you contend If Titus say you was a Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops that is of Prelatical Bishops as your words import and consequently if they express your thoughts you must believe that at that time there were such Bishops And now methinks our Controversie appears a little oddly For the Tables are turn'd and you are got on the side of Prelacy You contend that the Cretian Elders were Prelatical Bishops when I cannot allow that they were more than Presbyters I cannot be convinc'd but that Titus being left in Crete was the only Bishop in the modern sense of the word of all the Churches there Nor do I see any reason why this should be thought inconsistent with an Episcopal Function Theodoret had eight hundred Parishes under his Care yet this did not cause a Nullity in his Ordination And however there were many Cities in Scythia yet anciently one Bishop had the Charge of them all without any loss of his Episcopal Office Inconveniences indeed may arise from such large extent of Dioceses but this was not the case when as Rabanus Maurus tells us Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles or when Titus remain'd in Crete For then 't is certain there were many Churches under his Care and Administration and by what Title soever he was distinguish'd it is not material as to the Nature and Ends of Government But if he was Bishop of so many Churches you would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where he resided To which I can say nothing but that it seems probable he visited all the Churches of his Diocese and resided chiefly in the Metropolis If this satisfies not your pang of longing as I have no ability so I have no inclinati to gratifie it any farther For could I name with the greatest certainty the City where he commonly dwelt you might also enquire what part of that City or what Street he inhabited and propose many other Questions of the like importance to which I am not prepar'd to give any Reply It is sufficient that he was a Pastor of many Churches and had Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons For if this be true it strikes at the Root of the Presbyterian and Independent Opinions about Church-Government And I know not what can be said in Vindication of them unless it be that he was an Extraordinary Officer This you insist on and to prove it you tell me he was an Evangelist But the Scripture says of him no such thing From the Scripture indeed we learn that Philip was an Evangelist and yet he wanted Power either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd or to Ordain Officers by Imposition of Hands But Titus could perform the last of these which was the greater and consequently he was something more than an Evangelist and could be no less than an Apostle or a Bishop But that he may be reckon'd amongst the Pastors Extraordinary you likewise urge That he was only left in Crete as the Deputy or the Delegate of the Apostle and that but for a time till he should have established Churches in every City and Organiz'd them with Elders which having done you say 't is very probable that he return'd again to S. Paul to give an Account of that Affair and then you think his Commission expir'd Not that you have read any such thing of him in Scripture But since he was oblig'd to act as the Apostle had appointed from hence you collect that his Deputation was but Temporary And you might as well have concluded that since it was the Duty of Presbyters and Deacons to walk as the same Apostle appointed or according to the Rules he gave for their Conversation their Offices also were Temporary and design'd for no long continuance You think his Case differ'd from theirs in this that he was employ'd in frequent Travels but in answer to that I need only tell you That his Journeys to Jerusalem to Macedonia and to Corinth were undertaken and finished before he was left in Crete That he died there as we are inform'd by Paulinus and Sophronius and that the Government of the Church has been Episcopal in that Island ever since his days When I had proceeded thus far I had the satisfaction to peruse some Printed Papers of an Eminent Person wherein amongst other things he treats of this subject and I was glad to find that I had not differ'd from the Sentiments of so great a Man which he hath express'd in these words We are not to suppose says he that the Power of Titus extended not to a Jurisdiction over Elders when he had ordain'd them For if any of those whom he had ordain'd as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to wine can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercis'd ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual Vse did thereby suppose the same kind
in such terms as they could then receive it that when he was departed from them and sate down at the Right Hand of the Father they should act as the supreme visible Governours of the Church which is the Mystical Israel Another Objection which the Author of the Leviathan brings against Ecclesiastical Authority is taken from our Saviour's forbidding his followers to be called Masters But that proves too much or nothing for in what sense they might not assume the Title of Masters in that it may not be attributed to any man upon Earth but belongs to Christ The want of it therefore would abrogate all Humane Authority or none at all The like may be said of his Argument which he grounds on these words of S. Paul Not that we have Dominion over your faith for no man in the World hath any such Dominion as implies a right to coin new Articles of Religion or to impose things to be believ'd as the Doctrine of God which he hath no where reveal'd This is what was disclaim'd by the Great Justinian and ought to be so by all other Princes Since therefore there is a want of that Dominion equally in all men if such a defect were inconsistent with Authority it would destroy that of the Civil Magistrate or render it a mere Usurpation But the Objector assigns to Supreme Magistrates such Authority that by it he says All sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected and according to him those Magistrates must be obey'd though they command their Subjects to profess an Assent to the Alcoran or to condemn the Gospel of Christ or to worship Idols And for this he pleads from the Example of Naaman the Syrian who bowed himself in the House of Rimmon when his Master leaned upon his hand But how impertinently he makes use of that Instance others have demonstrated and I shall only note that it is not strange that a person who shews such an enmity to Religion and to Christianity in particular should tell us That Temporal and Spiritual Government are but two words brought into the World to make men see double and mistake their lawful Sovereign Whosoever reads and believes the Scripture cannot but approve what he derides so manifest it is from thence that a Government distinct from the Temporal was establish'd by our Lord himself The Apostles were constituted by him the first Rulers of his Church but without any Commission from the Civil Magistrate They laid their Commands on the Christian Converts and expected an obedience to their Orders And we must believe they had Power to do this from Christ notwithstanding this man so confidently denies that he left them any such Authority They asserted the Right he gave them to preach notwithstanding the Prohibitions and Menaces of the Officers of State and this was so reasonable that they appeal'd to their enemies to be Judges of it Without asking leave of any Secular Powers they planted Churches they form'd Societies under their proper Rulers and did not teach them to see double when they requir'd them to honour and obey those that presided over them in the Lord Such Spiritual Governours remain'd after the Decease of the Apostles when they were so far from receiving their Office or any support and assistance in the discharge of it from Temporal Princes that they were hated and persecuted by them Yet they proceeded in their work and kept up their Discipline And it is certain that before the Empire was Christian the Church was govern'd by its proper Officers as a Society distinct from the State and independent on it yet were not the Christians then in danger of mistaking their lawful Sovereign You must excuse me Sir that I have been so long detain'd by the Exceptions of an Author of no good fame It is from him that you have taken some of your Principles and you are not neglected when they are consider'd as I find them in the Original You follow the Leviathan exactly where you tell me that the Apostleship itself was not a Magistracy but a Ministry For your meaning is not that the Apostles had no Secular Power about which there was no dispute but as it is manifest from your own words that they had no Authority at all unless it was to preach the Gospel and for this you quote 2 Cor. 4.5 Where S. Paul says We preach not our selves but Christ Jesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake But if this be for your purpose and prove what you design by it then was the Office of the Apostles which has been so much magnified a servile thing Then were they put under the Dominion and left to the Disposal of their own Converts and made subject to the Churches which they had planted or which is all one the Chief Pastors were obliged to be govern'd by their Flocks And this comes of stretching a Metaphor beyond the person that us'd it You might have observ'd that the Apostles were not properly the Ministers of the Churches but of Christ and employ'd by him for the good of Mankind and this no more derogates from their Power than it does from the Dignity of the Blessed Angels that they are Ministring Spirits not of men indeed but for them that shall be heirs of salvation You might also have consider'd what S. Paul declares that he was so a servant unto all men as to remain free and consequently that he could not otherwise be their Servant but in a Figure And this which he us'd was very suitable to the condition of a person who was so abundant in his labours and comply'd so much with men of different tempers not out of weakness indeed or want of ability but out of zeal and an ardent desire of the happiness both of Jews and Gentiles Another reason for which S. Paul represented himself under this Figure is that as Servants then received no wages for their work so he reaped no temporal profit from his industry in communicating things that are Spiritual Yet this proceeded from his Choice and not from the necessary Obligation of his Office Nor did it signifie want of Power in him but a voluntary departing from his own Right He declar'd that the Labourer is worthy of his reward that the Lord hath so ordain'd that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and that himself as well as others might justly have expected his maintenance from the Contributions of those whom he had instructed if he would have insisted on it But had he been literally their servant especially such a servant as those times afforded his acting amongst them as a Judge or Governour his passing Sentence of Condemnation on a Criminal and the Order he sends that his Decree should be put in Execution his declaring also that he was in readiness to revenge all disobedience must remain unaccountable The
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
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
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
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
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