the one hand many Bishops besides the first Twelve were called Apostles so Timothy Titus V. Bovii Scholia in constit Apost And Dr. Hammonds Praef. to St. James Clement and abundance more had the Title given them which is the ground of that conjecture of Albaspinaeus and others that the Canones Constitutiones Apostolorum were the Canons and Constitutions virorum Apostolicorum or of these Secundary Apostles so on the other hand the Primary or Twelve Apostles were looked upon to have been Bishops I am sure when St. Peter moved that one should be chosen to succeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. 20. in the Apostolate of Judas he look'd upon it as a Succession into his Bishoprick or Episcopal Office that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the part of Apostleship which each of the Twelve had namely a Function and Power Episcopal And accordingly were the Epiph. lib. 1. cont Carpocr Ancients wont to style the Apostles Bishops So Epiphanius saith of Peter and Paul that they were Apostles in respect of their Mission and Bishops in respect of their charge And St. Cyprian bids Deacons to remember that our Lord chose Apostles Cypr. ep 65. ad Rogatianum id est Episcopos Praepositos that is Bishops and Governours and tells them moreover that the Apostles ordained Deacons to be Ministers to the Church and to them in the discharge of their Episcopal Office Episcopatûs sui Ecclesiae ministros And St. Austin is positive that when our Lord laid his hands Quaest in vet Nov. Test q. 97. upon the Apostles ordinavit eos Episcopos he ordained them Bishops Besides many more Testimonies to this purpose which are ready at hand and which yet I omit because this was evidently the Sence of the Ancients because they frequently affirm that Bishops are the Apostles successors that they hold their Place and are of their Degree and come after them in their Office and Function and the like which they would not have said had they not judged the Apostles themselves to have been I mean in their ordinary capacity no more and no less than Bishops 2. Which thing had it been well heeded might have prevented some Learned Tracts which have been written against the Divine Right of Episcopacy For to determin that Christ ordained not Episcopacy seemeth to me to be an Affirmation that He ordained not Apostles for they were invested with that Episcopal power which God be blessed hath continued in the Church hitherto notwithstanding all the gainsayings of Core Now this consideration leadeth us on to the next viz. That as the Apostles received this power themselves so it is proveable out of their Writings that they imparted it to others and invested them with their Apostolick or Episcopal Authority To shew this I shall make choice of three special Instances and they are these 1. First though the Scripture doth not expresly totidem verbis tell us that St. James was Bishop of V. Grot. in ep Ja. Jerusalem yet that he was so we are as certain as the most Ancient Records can make us And indeed St. Luke in his History of the Apostles Acts doth yield us such fair probabilities of this thing that the Testimonies of succeeding times seem to be unquestionably True For in Act. 21. 18. we read that when St. Paul was returned from his Circuit to Jerusalem the next day he and his company went in unto James and all the Elders were present Now certainly James would not have been named distinctly and by himself had he not had a preheminence over the College of Elders that were assembled with him St. Luke singles him out as the Person to whom St. Paul did after a particular manner address himself though all the Elders were there present yet they went in unto James intimating plainly that he was the President over that venerable Society And to confirm this it is likewise observable what is related of this St. James at the famous Convention at Jerusalem Act. 15. The occasion of that Synod was a Controversie about the Necessity and Use of Circumcision and great disputes there were about it at the Council But at last when Peter and the rest had given their Opinions of the matter St. James determins it and puts an end to the debate by his decisive Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I determine Judge and give Sentence saith he vers 19. and in his Judgement and Determination all did acquiesce This is a plain Argument that St. James was then Bishop of Jerusalem For otherwise why did St. Paul so particularly apply himself to St. James and why did the other Apostles and even Peter himself rest in the Determination of St. James Nay why should St. James take upon him to decide the Controversie For it is certain that this James was not one of the Twelve Apostles All do agree that he had been a Disciple and some think he was our Lords Cousin others do conceive that he was our Lords Brother in Law the Son of Joseph by his former Wife He is called by way of distinction James the Just And if he was not Bishop of Jerusalem how is it imaginable Euseb l. 2. c. 1. that he should have had at those meetings of the Apostles such Eminence Precedency and Authority The Truth is Eusebius tells that the Apostles declined the Honour of being in the Chair and See of Jerusalem and gave it unto this James as for other Reasons so for this Because he was our Saviours near Relation and so he took the Government of the Church with the Apostles saith Eusebius which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some do understand as if he was only taken into the number of the Apostles having been a bare Disciple before but this is a palpable mistake touching the sence of Eusebius for saith he this James the Just was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Jerusalem and a World of Testimonies more there are to confirm it Secondly my next instance is in Timothy who was ordained by St. Paul himself the Presbytery concurring as Approvers of his Ordination That he was an Apostolical Prelate we have the Joint Testimonies of all the Primitive Authors which speak of him some affirming him to have been Metropolitan of Asia and all confessing him to have been Bishop of Ephesus Out of those two Epistles which St. Paul sent him it appears that he himself constituted and sixt him at Ephesus requiring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide and settle there 1 Tim. 1. 3. Ephesus was the place of his Residence unless happily the necessities of the Church did oblige him to consult St. Paul for himself was young or the necessities of St. Paul required his attendance for he was his Convert 2. We find that he was to restrain Preachers within the boundaries of c. 1. 3. Truth and to charge some that they should teach no other c. 2. 1. 2. 10. 11. Doctrine He was
made up of converted Gentiles Now over each of these Churches there did preside a Bishop with his Deacons so that frequently you shall find in Church-History two several Bishops in one City 2. Secondly that these and the Neighbouring Bishops were wont to convene and meet together to consult concerning the ordering and management of Ecclesiastical Matters 3. And thirdly that the necessities and condition of places were such in the beginning that all Churches were not so compleatly and perfectly modelled at the first as they were in process of time For as Churches were greater or less in proportion so were Church-Officers more or fewer in number Where the multitude of Christians was not great there a Bishop and his Deacon were enough to discharge the work of the Ministry where the numbers of Christians did increase there Presbyters were appointed to assist the Bishop and to act under him and where an Apostle thought good not to fix any Bishop but to hold the Government of a Church immediately in his own hands there he did commonly appoint a College or Bench of Presbyters to perform Ministerial Offices as his Proxies in his absence and by his Authority derived and delegated unto them For so did St. Paul keep the Superintendency over the Church of Corinth in his own hands as their immediate and sole Bishop because he had converted them to the Faith and what the Presbyters did in excommunicating that incestuous person they did it by St. Paul's Spirit that is by 1 Cor. 5. 4. his Episcopal Authority and Power committed unto him by Christ I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit or by my Authority have judged already concerning him saith the Apostle This Observation will give us to understand the meaning Epiph. haeres 75. of that which we collect out of Epiphanius that in one Church there were Bishops and Deacons only where the numbers of Converts were small in another there were Presbyters without any Bishops besides an Apostle where there was need of many Ministers and yet one could not be found that was so fit for the Bishoprick in others agen there were Bishops Presbyters and Deacons too where the condition of the place did require it and the worth and abilities of the Men did admit of it Now then to come to the Objection St. Paul gives Timothy an 1 Tim. 3. account of the Qualifications necessary in Bishops and this questionless was in order to their Ordination But how doth it appear that Presbyters are meant by the word Bishops Were Presbyters now to be Ordained Did the word of God Act. 19. 20. grow and prevail so mightily in the Ephesian Churches and yet no Presbyters in them Was St. Paul among them for the space of three years preaching disputing and converting so many Act. 20. 31. Multitudes to the Faith and yet ordained no Presbyters to water what he had so prosperously planted And if Presbyters were ordained were setled in the Churches of Ephesus before the Apostles departure to Macedonia what necessity was there for him to send his Son Timothy Instructions concerning the Ordination of Presbyters especially when he hoped to return unto him shortly Divines conceive that this Epistle was sent by 1 Tim. 3. 14. him soon after he departed from Ephesus and were all the Presbyters dead in that little time 'T is hardly to be believed that Presbyters were wanting but Bishops were For hitherto St. Paul had been with the Ephesians for the most part in his own person he had governed them in his own person and had exercised his Episcopal Authority in his own person But now he was gone leaving Timothy in his room he was the first Bishop that was fixt at Ephesus and the only Bishop indeed now and yet but a young Man that had need of other Bishops to concur with him and help him in his Office and considering that St. Paul was uncertain when he should see him 1 Tim. 3. 15. again there was an urgent necessity for him to write speedily to his Son that other Bishops might be ordained that other Churches might be guarded from the Gnostic Seducers as well as Ephesus it self the great Metropolis There is no necessity then for us to conceive that St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy did mean Presbyters when he spake of Bishops but rather that he gave directions for the Ordination of those who were to be Bishops indeed to be invested with Episcopal Power and to preside over other Cities as Timothy did over Ephesus in St. Paul's own Chair Again the Apostle saluteth the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. But there is no Demonstrative Reason to constrain nor probable Argument to induce us to believe that he directed his salutation to Presbyters much less that he gave them the Title of Bishops For there are several fair accounts to be given of this matter either as some conceive that there were two Bishops over two Churches in Philippi Jewish and Gentile Christians as 't was usual in other places or as others are of Opinion that the Neighbouring Bishops were now assembled at Philippi as 't was usual at other times or as others are persuaded that the Salutation is sent not to but from the Bishops and Deacons and so the words are to be read thus with a Parenthesis Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Grace be unto you c. But which way soever we interpret the Text we are so far from finding any Presbyters in the Salutation that there is no argument to prove that they were at all in the City whither the Salutation was sent For Epiphanius tells us that many Churches at the first were ordered by Bishops and Deacons only and then why not the Churches of Philippi also Thus their whole Argument fails them who would prove the Office and Order of Bishop and Presbyter to have been the same in the Apostles days because forsooth the Name is given to both in Scripture Though the Consequence would not be good should their grand Principle be granted yet there is no solid reason for us to grant the Principle it self And therefore I shall not stick to conclude peremptorily That the Order of Bishops both as to name and thing is so far from being either an Antichristian or an Ecclesiastical Ordinance that it was instituted by Christ himself and founded in the Apostles of Christ and by them so establish'd and continued in all the Churches of Christ that for 1500 years together no Church in the world being perfectly and rightly form'd was ever under any other sort of Government but that the Episcopal Office and Authority hath through a continual Succession of Ages been communicated transmitted and handed down to the whole Catholick Church even from the most primitive and infant times of Christianity and consequently that this way of Government
Provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Hieron ad Lucian Rites were of Apostolical Appointment and they did generally call the Customs of the Church and the Injunctions of their Ancestors by the name of Apostolical Traditions But yet 't is reasonable to believe that Christians of the second and third Century who gave diligence to search into and had means to find out the Original of many Ecclesiastical Observations were able to give a very fair and satisfactory account what had been transmitted to them from the Apostles and what not For some of them conversed with the Apostles themselves or with some of them as Polycarp Ignatius and S. Clement of Rome Others again as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were acquainted with Apostolical men And others were so near to these as Clemens of Alexandria Origen Tertullian Cyril c. that it was not very hard for them to know whether the Ordinances and Customs then used in the Church did owe their birth to the first Preachers of Religion or whether they were postnate to the Age of the Apostles Do not we know by the Acts and Monuments of former times what the Governours of our Church did and appointed in the beginning of the Reformation under King Henry the Eighth Why it is very probable then that what the Apostles did and instituted at the Planting of Religion under Nero Vespasian and Domitian might be easily known to those Fathers of the Church who lived and flourished some ten some thirty years after them and others onward to an hundred or say two hundred years successively So that if it shall hereafter appear that the outward Frame of Religion which is establish'd in the present Church of England was the very same Model for the most part which was used anciently in other Churches in the days of those primitive Writers and the very Model which they professed to have received from Christ's immediate Successors then I cannot imagine what just reason any man can have against the asking for and the walking in a way so ancient so laudable and so safe If he will not grant that our Establishments were instituted by the holy Apostles which yet in probability is true that they were appointed by them as things useful decent and convenient though not as necessary in every particular he must needs grant that they were appointed by due Authority that is by Apostolical Persons and so may claim veneration and observance at our hands Besides it is to be consider'd that not to the Apostles onely but to their lawful Successors also was that Promise of our blessed Saviour made that he would be with them always even unto the end of the world Matth. 28. 20. and that other Promise that he would send his Spirit to guide them into all truth John 16. 13. Now though that Promise requireth certain conditions of us and extends it self chiefly to the necessaria fidei matters of faith and necessary matters too yet 't is altogether improbable that Christ and his Spirit should take so little care of his Church in reference to its Polity and Discipline as to forsake her in the very next age or to leave her to be abused by the Fancies of Dreamers and to be imposed upon by men of foolish and degenerous Spirits and to be defaced and spoiled of her pristine Beauty by the frothy Conceptions of men of corrupt minds I pray whither went the Spirit of Christ from the old Christians to speak unto us after the space of Fifteen hundred years How came he to suspend his Influences from those who lived Saints and died Martyrs and at last came to breathe afresh into dry bones and to restore Religion which had been lost in a long interval of Time and succession of Ages Can any but Franticks conceive that the Church was never pure till an hundred years ago Or that for so many Centuries she needed to be swept and yet a Besom could never be found till the DIsciplinarian started up and made one and swept at such a rate that with us Order Decency and Religion were quite flung out of doors and Hypocrisie and Oppression were set up in its room 2. Zanchius profest that he had rather drink old Wine than Vorst ad Theolog Heidelb in Epist Ecclesiasticis new meaning that he preferred the Sense of the Ancients above that of Modern Divines in all Points not determined in Scripture He said like a wise man and 't would be much for the Peace of Christendom if all Christians would resolve in matters of Opinion to follow the Judgment and in matters of Discipline to observe the Practice of the ancient Church But some Palats are for new Wine onely not because it is so good for the old is better but because it is new And I am not likely to persuade such to conform to the Establishments of our Church by this Argument because they are ancient Establishments Yet I would beseech them to consider in the second place that the way we plead for is not onely an old but a good way also We must not think that the Contrivers of our Constitutions and Usages were so many Fools how low soever they may lie in the esteem of men who have less Wisdom and worse Manners and value a little Serpentine Craft above the Dove's Innocence A Church being gather'd it was impossible that without Laws that Society should hold together or answer the ends of its Foundation and therefore Government was necessary and of all sorts of Government that by Bishops was thought most convenient and fitting because presumed to be the best Defensative against Faction Schism and Disorder and the Experience of all Ages hath found it to be so Again since the Church is a Collection of men learned and unlearned who are set apart to worship God and do hold their Title unto Christ by their Faith in him it was judg'd very expedient that Set Forms of Publick Prayer should be prescrib'd both as a Repository of wholsom and sound Doctrines and likewise as a Provision for the necessities of the ignorant and moreover as a Preservative of Order Unity and Peace among Christians Lastly considering that the Worship of God is to be celebrated with solemn Decency and Comliness suitable in some degree to the Greatness of that Majesty which is to be adored certain outward Rites and Ceremonies were appointed as good means to conduct 1 Cor. 14. 40. men to a sense of Religion and to the exercise of Godliness and to create and stir up the Devotion of the Mind and the Reverence of the Heart For by the Judgment and Practice of the whole World it doth appear that an external Solemnity and Observance of Circumstances such as Habits Ornaments Gestures c. do bring a mighty respect to all secular Transactions and the Grandeur of Princes Courts of Courts of Judicature and of Civil Corporations is much upheld and Government becomes venerable
Orders were distinct especially as to some things as that of Ordination and they all taught that even in the Apostles times or at least before S. John's death there were three several Degrees of Ministers in the Church and Tert. de Bapt. Orig. hom 7. in Jer. in Mat. tract 24. Clem. Alex. de Gnost that as Presbyters were superiour to Deacons so Bishops were superiour to both Those Writers of the second Century after the Apostles as Tertullian Origen and if you will reckon him Clemens Alexandrinus do make express mention of three ranks of Clergy-men in their days viz. Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and of these the Bishops to have been in chief Lastly though it is suppos'd that the Testimonies of Antiquity touching the Constitution of the Church be most of all wanting in that Age which was the very next to the Holy Apostles yet by the plain and pregnant evidences out of Ireneus Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. Hegesip in Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. c. 22. Id. de Dionys c. 23. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. Hegesippus Dionysius of Corinth Clement of Rome and out of those Canons which go under the Name of the Apostles many whereof were framed and observed in that Age it doth appear to any considerate and indifferent person that certain particular Men called Bishops were in those early days of Christianity entrusted with the Superintendency and Authority over whole Churches But above all the Epistles of Ignatius a Contemporary of the Apostles themselves yield us so many and such strong Arguments of this matter that they who have been Schismaticks from the Catholic Church in this particular of Government have used all their Art and Skill to decry those Epistles as spurious and fictitious though the late Reverend Dr. Hammond and the present Bishop of Chester have laboured Dissertationes vindiciae with so much Learning and Success to prove those Epistles to be the genuine issue of St. Ignatius that they have said enough to lay this whole Controversie asleep unless Men will expect that an Angel from Heaven shall Preach to us to bury our Disputes as well as Summon us with the sound of a Trumpet to come out of our Graves Briefly the most ancient Ecclesiastical writers where they reckon up the Orders of those who were intrusted with the work of the Ministry do so carefully distinguish between Bishops as the first Order and Presbyters as the second that the most Learned of that Party who are no good friends to Episcopal Government have been forced to confess that Episcopacy was the only Government of the Church in the most Primitive times that is in the very next Age to the Apostles but that Age they do except and we shall see the Practice of that Age too anon In the mean time it may be Objected that Antiquity is an incompetent witness to prove that Episcopacy was the setled form of Government in the first Ages and that upon these three accounts 1. Because we have no clear and particular account of the uniformity of Episcopal Government in all Apostolical Plantations so that for ought we know it might vary in some places But this is a fallacious way of arguing because a Negative is not to be proved from the silence of Antiquity as to the constitution of some parts of Christendom Though we have no exact Records of what St. Thomas did in Parthia or St. Andrew in Scythia or some other Apostles in their respective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioceses and Jurisdictions yet it doth not follow that they either did or might set up another form of Government different from that in other Churches When by the joint-Testimony of the first writers and their followers we find that Episcopal Chairs were set up in all the Western parts of Asia and in sundry other Countries Provinces and Cities when Ireneus who was Polycarp's Disciple and but one remove from the Apostles tells us Hier. in Catal. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. plainly and peremptorily that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles and that he was able to enumerate but that he should be too prolix Omnium Ecclesiarum Successiones those Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all Churches and when St. Clement who was St. Paul's fellow-labourer tells us expresly that Phil. 4. 3. Clem. Ep. p. 54. the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities ordained the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons for those who should afterwards believe we have no reason to doubt but that Episcopal Government was erected every where though by the iniquity of times some Records of particular Churches are lost unto us which were extant in former Ages They who argue from the defect of Testimonies that another Government there might be would do well to shew us from Testimonies extant that another Government there was 2. It may be pretended that Antiquity is no competent witness of Episcopal Government setled in the first Ages because those Testimonies we have do not give us a particular Catalogue of those Bishops who succeeded the Apostles And to this purpose is urged that of Eusebius that it is not easie to Euseb l. 3. c. 4. tell what or who they were that were appointed to feed the Church setting aside those whom we pick out of the writings of St. Paul Now to this Allegation there are four things in Answer 1. That Eusebius speaks only of the Bishops in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia 2. That he declared it not altogether impossible but somewhat hard meaning for him who was at some considerable distance from the first Age to give account of the Apostles Successors in all those Churches 3. That the difficulty was not as to the Succession it self but as to the particular Names of the succeeding Bishops for so Ruffinus his Interpreter did understand Quorum nomina non est facilè explicare per singulos it 4. But all this is nothing to our present purpose because Eusebius could not readily tell all the Names of the Bishops which had been before him it doth not follow that there had been no such thing as a setled Episcopacy For who can reasonably expect that there should be an exact Register of the Names of all the Bishops in the World Though in the Age next to the Apostles we find Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna and Onesimus of Ephesus and Dama of Magnesia and Polybius at Trallis and Papias of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis and Symeon the Son of Cleophas of Jerusalem and Palmeas of Amastris and Thraseas of Eumenia and Sagaris of Laodicea yet 't is not to be wondred at if we meet not with the Names of many more who presided over other Churches in those parts of Asia and yet 't is easie to gather from Polycrates his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome that all the Asiatic Euseb Eccles Hist l. 5. c. 24. Churches were under the Government of Episcopacy Again though in the same
Age we find Pothinus to have been Bishop of Lyons and Clement of Rome and Denys the Areopagite of Athens and another Denys of Corinth who mentions Philippus Bishop of Gortina and Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus I say though the Names of these and other Primitive Bishops in the very next Century to the Apostles do still stand upon good Record yet 't is not modest ingenuous or reasonable for any Man to require us either to nominate every one of the Apostles Successors in all parts of the World or to lay down our pretensions of a setled Episcopacy in the Ages next to them especially since Ireneus hath told us that he was able though Iren. ubi suprà Idem affirmat Tertullianus de Praesc Adv. Her we are not to reckon up the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches Were there no exact List of the former Prelates of England yet I hope it would not follow that these Churches have not been all along under the Government of Episcopacy It will trouble the best Antiquary to tell us all the old Bishops among the ancient Britains and Scots and yet we know that they had Bishops before the Saxons came in hither which was about Anno 450 and many Ages before the Bishops of Rome claimed any Jurisdiction in this Island 3. But then supposing a Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches nevertheless it is Objected Thirdly that Antiquity is no sufficient witness of a setled Episcopacy in the first Ages because the Ancients speak ambiguously and doubtfully of those Bishops calling them sometimes Presbyters so that we have no certain account whether those Men were superiour to Presbyters in Order Power and Authority or whether they were above them only in a Degree of Honour like the Chair-men in Assemblies or like the Archontes at Athens and the Ephori at Sparta who had an equal power but gave a deference of Honour and Dignity to one above the rest Now I cannot but wonder that Men should invent doubts where there are none for nothing is more clear then that the Bishops thus succeeding the Apostles had a Superiority of Power over the rest of the Clergy not only to ordain but also to judge and censure them without any Authority given them by a Bench of Presbyters though not always without their Aid and Advice For the removing of this third Scruple then these five things are to be noted 1. That in many of the writers of the first and second Age after Apostles we find a plain distinction between Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct Orders 2. That in not one of these writers can we find that this Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters was thought then what ever was imagined in after-times to be founded on any act vote or consent of the Church as bestowing this Power upon them 3. But on the contrary that the care of all Ecclesiastical Can. Ap. 39. matters was acknowledged then to belong to the Bishops that Presbyters were charged to obey the Bishops in all things and to do nothing without them or contrary to their Sentence is plain and evident out of Ignatius and other writers of that Age and all this was grounded upon the Sacredness and Superiority of their Power which they all owned to have been derived to them not from the Presbytery but from God and Christ by Divine appointment and institution and through the hands of the Apostles who left them for their Successors Suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes as Ireneus said delivering to Iren. l. 3. c. 3. them their own Office Power and Authority 4. Therefore whereas it is alleaged that a Father or two of that Age do sometimes comprehend Bishops under the general Name of Presbyters it is granted that the Prelates were so humble and modest as upon occasion to stile themselves Presbyters thereby giving a deference of Honour to those as were such only But yet they looked upon the Offices to be distinct and saith St. Clemens Ep. ad Cor. pag 57. the Apostles fore-seeing that a contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy for that reason they appointed the Orders aforesaid and divided their parts and Offices among them meaning to the Bishop his Office and to the Presbyter his that they being dead other fit Men might succeed them in their Ministry Office or Apostolic function Now how all this can consist with that novel pretence that Presbyters had an equall Power with Bishops and that Bishops had only an Honorary Dignity above Presbyters seemeth to me to be altogether unimaginable 5. But fifthly to put all out of doubt we are beholding to a very Learned Prelate of our Church for Two useful and choice Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Observations which we may well take upon his Credit First that no writer of that Age next to the Apostles did so promiscuously use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as to give the Name of Bishop to one who was only a Presbyter of the second Order Though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters the greater Office including the less yet that a bare Presbyter was ever then called a Bishop is not to be proved by any one instance out of the Monuments of those times Secondly that no writer of that Age did ever give the Name of Presbyter to a Bishop when he reckoned up the Degrees and Orders of Church-men and where he spake of some single Minister then living So that as you shall never find a Presbyer called Bishop so you shall rarely find Bishops called Presbyters and where they are so the writer mentioneth things in a lump not counting up the Degrees orderly nor speaking of one single person of his time With these two positive Assertions I shall rest 'till I see some body to have either the confidence to contradict or the Learning to confute them By what has been briefly said it may appear to any unprejudiced person that in the earliest and first times when Christianity was but green in the World the Churches were under the Government of Bishops We find innumerable instances of it in those Churches planted by St. Paul St. Peter St. John and other Apostles We find in undoubted Monuments of the best Antiquity the very Names mentioned of several Primitive Bishops who presided over some Apostolical Churches and a certain Succession avowed of other Bishops in other Churches whose particular Names do not occur We find that these Bishops were then looked upon as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy sometimes called Bishops in contra-distinction to Presbyters and always own'd as Superiour unto them not by any Ecclesiastical consent or grant for the avoiding of confusion only but by an Antecedent Charter derived to them from the Apostles All which do abundantly satisfie me of the Truth of that declaration of the Church of England that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Pref. to the form of
making or ordaining Bishops c. ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And in that our Church mentioneth the reading of Holy Scripture it is clear that in her account she taketh in the very times of the Apostles and meaneth that from the Scripture it may be proved that Episcopacy was erected while the Apostles were living Which shall give me warrant to take one step more backward from the Age next to the Apostles to the Apostolical Age it self and to affirm that even then there was such a Sacred Order of men as we now call properly strictly and by way of eminence and distinction Bishops Now that we meet with the Name frequently in our Translation and oftner in the Original is altogether out of doubt The grand Question is about the thing whether in those days the Office Power and Order of a Bishop was distinct from and in any respect superiour unto the Office Power and Order of a Presbyter And though the Sence and Practice of the succeeding Age be enough to make us morally certain that it was so because it cannot be reasonably suppos'd that men so harassed by Persecution so zealous for Truth and Honesty and so careful to observe the Apostles orders even in the least things could or would conspire together to make an universal defection from so main a part of Christianity as the Government of the Church is yet setting aside that consideration to me it seemeth obvious and certain that Christ the great Bishop of our Souls erected an Episcopal Power and that the Apostles continued and propagated it I mean still a Power above that belonging to Presbyters This I shall endeavour briefly to shew 1. By making good the Affirmative and then Secondly By clearing up those difficulties which are usually brought from Scripture to prove the Negative 1. For probation of Episcopacy we begin with the Ordination of the Twelve Apostles which evidently differ'd from the Mission of the Seventy two Disciples in whom 't is conceived that the Office and Power of Presbyters was founded Now the Twelve Apostles were indeed Bishops though they were not clenched to any particular Sees and Chairs which the necessities of those times would not give way to For the clearing of this it is observable that the Mission of the Twelve Apostles as to their own Persons was extraordinary and that which none could pretend to in following Ages because they were sent immediately by Christ himself and had a common jurisdiction and care over all the Churches that should be and were endowed with a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of their Doctrin But then their Authority and Charge as to their Function was an ordinary and standing Power that was not to dye with them nor to cease as Miracles did after a little interval but such as was to be transmitted to others from time to time and so to continue to the Worlds end Now if it doth appear First that the Twelve had a Superiour power over Presbyters Secondly that this Power was to be imparted and communicated to their Successors for ever Thirdly that this was no other than the Ordinary Episcopal Power Then this will suffice to shew that the Twelve Apostles were truly and indeed Bishops in their ordinary capacity and consequently that Episcopal Power was erected in their Time First then That the Twelve Apostles had a Superior power over Presbyters appeareth not only from the Extent of their Commission which compared with that given to the Seventy two Disciples was much larger for as the Father sent Joh. 20. 21. Christ so Christ sent them with full power to Teach and Govern the Church according to God's Will and to ordain Successors and in all respects to execute that power which he was invested with and had delegated unto them but moreover it is clear from the Exercise of this their Authority for they ordained Deacons Act. 6. They Ordained Matthias and took Act. 1. him into the number of Apostles who before was one of the Seventy two as Eusebius tells us twice they made Decrees Euseb lib. 2. c. 1. and sent them abroad to be observed in all Churches Act. 16. They had power of Censure and Jurisdiction every single Apostle had over inferiour Presbyters for St. John threatned ambitious Diotrephes that when he came he would remember his deeds meaning that he would correct him with the Rod of 3 Joh. his Apostolical Power And so were Hymenâ—us and Alexander delivered unto Satan by St. Paul after that he was ordained an Apostle This is enough to shew the Superiority of the Apostles 1 Tim. 1. 20. power 2. Again This power of theirs was no Temporary thing that was to vanish with their breath but that which was to be communicated to others to be transmitted unto Posterity and to hold as long as there should be need of it that is as long as the World should hold For so the promise of Christ runs Lo I am with you always even unto the end of Matt. 28. 20. the World Here our Lord did engage not to be with their Persons alone for they were to dye within a short time but to be with their Successors too that is to assist their Function for ever And truly had not Christ assisted it marvellously it would have fallen e're now since it hath been so lustily beav'd at especially in these last Ages 'T is plain that our Saviour intended that the Apostles power should continue to the Worlds end I mean their Ordinary power which was for the Regiment of the Church For their Extraordinary power of speaking all Languages and working Miracles which was for the Planting of the Church was not to last long but to cease after a while So that it was their ordinary and standing power to Administer Sacraments to Preach to Govern to Ordain and to exercise the power of the Keys this was that which was to hold to be delivered and banded down from Generation to Generation Now if there be any truth in that Promise of Christ this Apostolic Power and Office doth last and still continue and is even at this hour in the World 3. Thirdly then this Power we speak of is really that which we now call Episcopacy The Apostles Function is part of it in Deacons more of it in Presbyters and all of it in Bishops there the whole Ordinary power centers and is united The Twelve were called as their immediate Successors were many times also called Apostles in respect of their Mission and Authority from Christ but in respect of their Office and Inspection over Christ's Church they were indeed Bishops They were the first possessors of Episcopacy and the Bishops now are their Successors to the Apostolate 'T is plain that they themselves and the Church following them understood them to be no more than Bishops in their ordinary capacity For as on
to order the public Service of God and to take care that decency and a grave decorum might be in Christian Assemblies He was to see that such as would be Bishops and Deacons should be rightly qualified c. 3. 2. and himself to keep up his Authority by being an Example of Believers He was to allot a double Portion of c. 4. 12. maintenance to Elders that Ruled well under him and c. 5. 17. laboured in the Word He was to take cognizance of the 19. irregularities of Presbyters but with this caution that he should not receive an Accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses And such as sinned he was to Rebuke before all He was to hold Ordinations but with 20. this Proviso That he should lay bands suddainly on no man 22. Briefly St. Paul gave him a plenitude of that power which he had himself And if to Model Churches to prescribe Rules to confer holy O deus to command examin judge and reprehend O fenders Openly and even Presbyters themselves I say if these are parts of Episcopal Power then was Timothy a Bishop indeed And I should be loth to see half that Charter given to a single Presbyter as is here given to Timothy by this Great Apostle 3. The third instance to shew that the Apostles setled the Episcopal form of Government is Titus whom Antiquity acknowledgeth to have been Metropolitan of Crete an Island consistng of an hundred Cities and to have been intrusted with the power of Modelling and Governing of all the Churches there That St. Paul left him there is clear from his own words and Tit. 1. 5. questionless his design was that Titus should remain and continue there unless summoned away upon some Emergency and for a Time only and even then St. Paul promised to send either Artemas or Tychicus to be his Vicar and Procurator c. 3. 12. in his absence Now that Titus was indeed a Bishop superior in Authority to Presbyters and invested with a Superintendency and Power over all his Clergy doth plainly appear from the Authority he had both to Ordain and to Judge of so many Bishops as St. Chrysostom declares he had For this cause Chrysost Hom. in Tit. 1. it was that when the Apostle himself could not stay in Crete to put every thing into due Order but was obliged to be gone he left Titus behind him to set in order the things that Tit. 1. 5 11. c. 2. 10. were wanting and unsettled at S. Paul's departure to ordain Bishops and to dispose of them into Cities into every City one to provide against the heterodox Preaching of Deceivers to stop their mouths to silence them and to rebuke them sharply and to admonish Hereticks once and again and then to excommunicate them upon their Contumacy This was Titus his Office and this was plainly the Exercise of Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction And to confirm this further two things are observable First that this Authority was given to Titus alone not to a College of Presbyters which 't is presumable S. Paul appointed before his going away but to Titus singly for this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set things in order that thou shouldest ordain c. This argues a supreme and a sole Superintendency and Authority in Titus Secondly that there was a necessity for S. Paul's committing this Authority unto him for otherwise the things that were wanting could not be set in order nor could Ordinations or Censures be there for this cause left I thee in Crete Which is a manifest Argument that the Presbyters in Crete had no power either to ordain or to excommunicate or to do such acts of Jurisdiction for then why was Titus left to those purposes And yet we see S. Paul left him and for this cause left him so that unless we will offer violence to the Sence of Scripture we must confess that Titus was left and fix'd at Crete as Bishop and Metropolitan of the whole Island To these three Apostolical Bishops I might add many more Const Apost l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Names we meet with in Ecclesiastical Writers either occasionally and scatteringly mentioned as in Irenaeus Eusebius and divers others or more orderly collected as in the Book of Constitutions commonly called Apostolical But because the truth of this dependeth upon the Credit of Church History which yet we have no reason to question I shall forbear further Instances having already and I hope sufficiently shewed out of Scripture that the Order and Authority of Bishops was in being 〈◊〉 in the Apostles days and from them continued and transmitted to succeeding Ages 2. Having done then with the Proof of the Affirmative I proceed next with what brevity I can to answer that grand Argument usually brought to make good the Negative viz. that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are indifferently and promiscuously used in the Apostolical Writings as if onely one Order of men were meant by them As for instance in Tit. 1. 2 5. Paul tells Titus that he left him in Crete as for other reasons so for this that he should Ordain Elders or Presbyters in every City Then ver 6. he layeth down the Qualifications of these Elders and as a reason for it he saith ver 7. for a Bishop must be blameless c. Here a Bishop and a Presbyter seem to be not two distinct Orders but one and the same and so some say that by a Presbyter is here meant a Bishop and others affirm that by a Bishop is here meant a Presbyter and hence are willing to conclude that in the Apostles time they were not thought to be two distinct Offices but Bishop and Presbyter to be one both in Name Order and Authority and so Prelacy must fall to the ground without any help from Scripture For the removing of this Difficulty three things are to be observed 1. That Aerius the Heretic was the first that ever found out or insisted on this Community and Identity of Names for the Writers before him in the first and second Age after the Apostles did not discourse at this rate could not discover such a promiscuous use of the words 2. The Catholick Writers after Aerius who thought as he did that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were common in the Apostles days did not yet think as that Heretic did affirm that the Office and Order were ever the same No they held that though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops yet Bishops were a rank of Ministers above Presbyters both in Degree and Authority even in the Age of the Apostles 3. But then there is one Observation more for which I must thank a very Learned Prelate of our Church viz. that notwithstanding Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 184. this Construction and late Pretence of the Promiscuous use of the words yet it doth not appear that the Scripture gives the Titles of
of the Government and Liturgie of the Church and to take away nothing in the one or the other but what was evil and justly offensive or at least unnecessary and burthensome Let the world judge whether this was not a plain Equivocation But it seems what in a Jesuit is unlawful that in others hath been allowable and sanctified I have not made these Remarks as if I did believe that all our former Non-conformists were Jesuits God forbid but I fear that great numbers of them were Jesuited and they knew it not at least did not consider it And I do heartily wish that our present Non-conformists among whom I doubt not but there are many well-meaning persons would for the Protestant Religion sake at last consider by what base fellows they are abus'd influenced and made use of to weaken us by our sad Divisions I would not therefore be uncharitably and unjustly censured as if I designed to upbraid and render them odious No that was not my purpose or intention But what I have said hitherto was to shew how crafty and cunning the Jesuit has been for many years to take advantage of mens discontents and to infuse such Principles into them as are not very distant from their own and all this under a disguise and pretending to be Protestants when indeed they were utter Enemies to Protestancy and intended by degrees to extirpate it though according to Contzen's directions they dissembled Dissimulet propositum extirpandae Haeresis Contz Pol. l. 2. c. 18. § 6. their purpose and seemed to row a quite contrary way I think there is no reason to doubt but that several Jesuits and other Romanists have been preaching and infecting unwary people in separate Meetings and especially those which are most properly called Fanatical as the Anabaptists Quakers Muggletonians and the rest And therefore I cease to wonder that of our vulgar sort of people who have lately been seduced to the Church of Rome most are such as were seduced from the Church of England before 'T was no hard matter for subtile Impostors to poyson those throughly whom they had infected already and of borderers to make them Proselytes and to draw them gradually out of one extream into another There is an honest man in the world whose name and book I shall purposely conceal who tells us of one Father Brown a Jesuit that he boasted on his death-bed at Ingeston-briggs in Scotland that he had preached as down-right Popery in the Field-Conventicles as ever he had preached at Rome Many Instances of that nature might be collected but that the thing is unquestionable Now why may we not believe that the same tricks have been played at House-Conventicles in England too Have not the Whitebreads and Fenwicks and Gawens been as industrious here as Brown and many others have been in Scotland How many are there who have known and conversed with Romish Priests abroad whom afterwards they have found here up and down in Conventicles preaching and scolding at Popery to wipe off all suspition from themselves and to curry favour with the silly people Alas some that call the Church of Rome Whore have been of the same Trade and 't is in this case as it was with that worthy Gentleman Sir Edmundbury Godfrey when he was murder'd two Papists scuffled together but 't was only a pretended skirmish designed to draw in the Protestant They followed each other with innocent Cuffs and hurtless Blows and the Justice was call'd in to end the Fray and as soon as he was come the Combatants having obtain'd their designe parted of themselves fell foul upon the Magistrate and strangled him 'T is too notorious that the Jesuits have play'd such Pranks at Conventicles in the Savoy in Moor fields and in a world of places more they cry out against Superstition and Popery and give the Papists gentle blows and dry drubs without any Arguments but all this while the Quarrel is but a counterfeit and the real designe is against the Church of England and if by any wiles they can but ensnare and ruine her which is their great and formidable Enemy the Combate will soon be at an end and the politick Antagonists will soon agree 'T is a main piece of Jesuitical Policy and we may count it their sole Master-piece to create Divisions among us and then to make every little Sect an Harbour and Covert for themselves This way they employ their utmost dexterity but were we all true to the Old Paths their designes would easily be defeated first to form and then to animate Factions by setting up such new Lights among us which serve not to illuminate but to inflame They skrew themselves into all even Mechanical Professions and by canting words and fair speeches insinuate themselves into all Parties and transform themselves into all shapes and dresses that what the Poets feigned of a Proteus and an Empusa is true of these Hobgoblins of darkness that they put on any colour form and likeness so that you have no way to discover the Serpent but by his poyson nor the Wolf but by his ravenous stomach But of all the Sects which are among us undoubtedly the Quakers have been and are most eminently serviceable to our common Adversary for their Principles are such as could not come out of any other Mint but the Jesuits 'T is not very long ago since one Father Talbot ingenuously told a Friend of mine That it had cost them Twenty years study at St. Omers before they could bring Quakerism to its perfection And truly no Opinions can more resemble theirs than those which are held by that crafty and perverse Sect. Do they not think themselves as infallible as any Romanist thinketh the Pope himself to be and do they not say that one reason why they divide from us is because we confess our selves to be men subject unto Errour Do they not lower the Magistrates Authority as the Jesuits do and by all imaginable methods endeavour to render him contemptible Do they not vilisie the Holy Scriptures as the Jesuits do and call the Bible a Dead Letter Do they not cry up the Light the Light just as the Jesuits cry up Tradition Tradition Do they not think themselves to be the onely people of God as the Jesuits think their Faction to be and count all others who are not of their Communion to be Reprobates and damned persons Do they not take it for granted that they are perfect and cannot sin Why do but turn the Tables and behold this is Jesuitism upon which they build the Doctrine of meritorious good Works for where there is no Perfection there can be no Merit But the most luckie and advantageous Principle that was ever infus'd into them is this That they must not by any means swear though called unto it by due Authority The Jesuit was no fool when he taught them this for hereby he keeps out of harms-way and shelters himself from a necessity of taking any Oaths of