Imprimatur Z. Isham R. P. D. Henr. Episc Lond. Ã Sacris Feb. 4. 1691 2. A TREATISE OF Church-Government Occasion'd by some LETTERS Lately Printed concerning the same SUBJECT BY ROBERT BURSCOUGH M. A. LONDON Printed for Samuel Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1692. THE PREFACE TO THE READER AN Observing Italian has given us an Account of a Transaction which is not so well known amongst us as many others of the like Nature He acquaints us that in an Assembly of Catholicks as he calls them which were brought together by the Late Earl of Bristol a Consultation was held concerning the fittest Means of propagating their Religion in this Kingdom and they agreed that one of the most proper Methods they could make use of for that purpose was to testifie a mighty Zeal and to make a great shew of Friendship for the Non-conformists Whereupon he tells us They represented them as Men of Trade whose Sufferings would be prejudicial to the Nation They pretended to commiserate their Condition and declaim'd perpetually against Persecution And there were two things he says which they propos'd to themselves in this Conduct The first was to maintain the Sectaries against the Church of England hoping they might sooner destroy it by Intestine Divisions and so more easily open a Gate to Popery The second was Under a pretence of tolerating these Sectaries to stop the Execution of the Laws about Religion that their Priests might meet with less opposition in advancing the Religion of the Church of Rome In pursuance of this Design as my Author also informs us They prevail'd with King Charles the Second to issue out his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience which was recall'd by the interposition of the Parliament But the Project which was then so happily blafted by the Parliament reviv'd to amazement in the following Reign and the Nation had the pain to see a Jesuite made a Privy Counsellor and Prime Minister of State and the Protestant Dissenters very deep in his Interests and warm under his Influence To see these Dissenters so liberally offering up their Incense to the Court which was then labouring to inslave us to the Pope and the Court answering their Devotion with many Favors For so it was as every Body knows And when this Alliance was confirm'd between them hardly a Week pass'd over our heads which did not bring us fresh Intelligence of their mutual Endearments What I have said of the Dissenters must not be understood of the whole Body of them without exception For to do them Right some of them were afflicted at the shameful Confederacy in which their Brethren were engaged But neither in Number nor in Zeal and Diligence did they equal those that beheld our Church in distress with such Eyes as the Children of Edom look'd on Jerusalem in the day of her Adversity when they cry'd to the Babylonians Rase it rase it to the foundation But it pleas'd God to disappoint their Devices so that their hands could not perform their Enterprise And one might then have thought that the Reflection on their Actions should have been such a Mortification to them as would have dispos'd them to an Accommodation and Union with those from whom they had made an Unreasonable Separation and who were so willing to forget their former Miscarriages and to receive them with all imaginable Tenderness But they on the contrary have since appear'd more averse from the Way of Peace than ever And it is Observable that the Kindness of the Papists put them into a strange fit of Complaisance and was the Cause that either they employ'd their Pens in the service of the Church of Rome or not against it But the Obligations which they have receiv'd from the Conformists instead of abating have inflam'd their Rage and given them Encouragement to write abundance of Books such as they are against the Church of England And this may shew how dissatisfied they remain in their present Circumstances and that as long as we live with them and not under them we are like to hear of their Complaints When my Adversary who is of their number and gave occasion to this Discourse saw Their Politicks and his Own defeated I had hopes that he would leave me to the Retirement I affected and give me no farther trouble with his Disputes about Church-Government I was in expectation that he would either study to be quiet or that I should meet with him amongst some late Apologists But when I least suspected it he appears in Print on the Offensive side and rudely attacking a whole Community he would persuade his Readers that a Separate National Jurisdiction such as he supposes that of our Ecclesiastical Rulers to be cannot but weaken the Jurisdiction of Kings and other States and is neither more nor less but the very same thing that heretofore was found so burdensom under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie So that he lays it down he says as a Maxim that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government than a National Hierarchy that does not depend upon it or is not in the Measures and Interests of it Fresh Experience has learn'd us this In which words his design is to cast an Odium on the Conforming Clergy and to suggest that they have been hurtful unto Kings and usurpt a Jurisdiction that is inconsistent with the Safety and the Rights of Sovereignty But if this cannot be prov'd against them either from the Nature of their Jurisdiction it self or from their National Union or Matter of Fact on which he grounds the Charge he must be content to bear the Infamy of a false Accuser By the Jurisdiction of the Clergy which is first to be consider'd either he understands that which is Spiritual and such as the Pastors of the Church receiv'd from Christ and to say that this hath no Limits and is pernicious to the State is not only to injure the Truth but to cast a Reproach upon our Lord himself Or else he means their Temporal Authority with which they have been legally vested by Sovereign Princes and then he knows that he hath falsly call'd it Independent Unboundable and Uncontrollable he knows it is false that this is neither more nor less but the very same Supreme and Absolute Power which the Popes claim'd and usurpt and by which they made our Kings so Uneasie And I leave him to answer the Convictions of his own Conscience for the wrong he hath done the Reformation by so odious a Reflexion Another thing on which he grounds his Censure of the Clergy is their National Union and he argues that This together with the Independence which he ascribes to them must needs render them very dangerous as putting them into a condition of being made a powerful Faction and easie to be practis'd upon and inabling the Heads of the Faction to convey Malignity to all their Subordinates and
Baume in the Bishoprick of Geneva and that Luther and Melancthon were Spiritual Princes of the Empire and Electors of Germany We are now almost at twice the distance from the beginning of Luther's Reformation as Tertullian was from the days of the Apostles And we are more remote from the coming of King James the First to the Crown of England than Irenaeus was from the death of S. John when he argued against the Valentinians from the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles in the Government of the Churches And what he said of it must then have appear'd either so palpably false that it would have expos'd him and his Cause to derision or so evidently true that your Exceptions against it would at that time have been to the same effect as if a Dissenter should now declare That the Conformists had in this last Age introduced several Corruptions into the Church and Episcopacy amongst the rest That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth all the Ministers in the Kingdom were equal but after her decease the Defection began and was afterwards gradually carried on till the Prelats arriv'd at their present Greatness That one need but some Experience in the use of things and a little proportion of mother wit to discover this and to make a clear and distinct conception of it That however the Bishops might pretend that they had Predecessors in the last Century and produce for it the Testimony of many Authors yet those Authors were tainted with partial humours and there were Fob Traditions passed for current in their time so that we are under no obligation to believe them And now Sir I leave you to judge whether a person that should discourse seriously in such a manner were fit to be argued with or to be managed another way according to the Rules of Art You have another Bold Stroke yet remaining which is that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought you see deserves but little more credit as being but little better ascertain'd than the Catalogues of the British Kings deduced from Brute And this falls heavy upon S. Jerom as well as others for he approv'd such Catalogues and hath helpt to convey them to Posterity When you press'd him into your service you made honourable mention of him under the Titles of Pious and Learned of which he must make a forfeiture when he stands in your way and though he only confirms by his own suffrage what was generally believ'd in former Ages yet in that câ—…se for ought you see his word deserves little more Credit than the most absurd or groundless Fables For such are the Stories of Brute and the Kings of his Line They have no foundation in any Ancient History or Authentick Records but about two thousand years after the time of Brute's reputed Landing at Totness they were first publish'd to the World He that gave the first reputation to them was Geoffrey of Monmouth who is call'd by one of our Antiquaries the English Homer and the Father of Lies And as for his Brutus some have observ'd as Mr. Camden acquaints us that he was never hoard of till in a Barbarous Age one Hunibald a foolish Writer feign'd that Francion a Son of Priamus was the Founder of the French Nation But then a report was rais'd that our Country-men were descended from the Trojans and our Princes from this Brutus who was said to be the Son of Sylvius and Grand-Son of Aeneas and 't is no wonder that in the times of the thickest ignorance a fiction so agreeable was entertain'd and propagated amongst our Ancestors who disdain'd that their Neighbours should excel them in extraction whom they equal'd in courage And now if any shall affirm that as much or near as much may be said against the Testimonies of the Fathers asserting the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles I must beg your excuse if I tell him in the words of a late Author for whom I know you have some fondness that he has not wip'd his eyes but is moist with prejudice and passion It is not any want of clearness or strength in the Testimony which the Fathers give concerning the Original of Episcopacy that drew from you the odious Reflections which you cast on them but the force there is in it to demonstrate that the Strokes and Lineaments of your Scheme of Church-Government are meerly the work of Fancy and that you have employ'd your Pen in the service of a bad Cause This appears from what has been said already and I shall here add nothing more to confirm it but one Instance which I think I may safely oppose against all that ever was written for the Presbyterian Equality of Ministers from the days of Aerius to this very moment The Instance I intend is that of Polycarp who is not only said to have been Bishop of Smyrna by Polycrates and Tertullian who flourish'd not long after him and by Eusebius Jerom Socrates Sozomen Victor Capuanus Suidas and many others who liv'd at a greater distance from him but by such as knew him and could not be ignorant of his Character There were many that had the advantage of his Ministry Many that had liv'd under his Government in the Church of Smyrna and were Eye-witnesses of his Martyrdom who expresly declare that he was their Bishop This they do in an Epistle which is yet extant and which the famous Joseph Scaliger Critical as he was so highly approv'd and valu'd that he reckons it amongst the Noblest Monuments of Christian Antiquity and professes that he could not read it without something of Extasie S. Irenaeus who was his Scholar informs us likewise that he was Bishop of Smyrna And the same is attested by S. Ignatius who was not only his Contemporary but his Friend as also by Philo and Agathopus who acquaint us further that Ignatius on whom they attended being in his way to Rome where he was about to be torn in pieces by Wild Beasts for the Christian Faith paid a Visit to Polycarp at Smyrna and that both these Excellent Men had been train'd up under the same Master and were the Disciples of S. John But if S. Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna he was not the only Minister there for he begins his Epistle to the Philippians thus Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him And from these Presbyters he had no reason to distinguish himself as he does if both of them had born the same Office But in what manner he stood related to them may appear from hence that there was not one of all the Ancients I have cited to prove that he was a Bishop who meant not that he was a Prelate And if enquiry be made how he obtain'd his Office from Tertullian and Jerom and many others we learn that it was convey'd to him by S. John But S. John it seems was not alone in that
of Grotius on Matth. 28.20 seem highly rational From hence says he it very manifestly appears it was the mind of Christ that the Apostles should commit to others and they again to other faithful persons that Charge of Government which was committed to them For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World and the Apostles could not live so long Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office And this Sir is the Testimony of that Learned Man who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge and exact Criticism may signifie something with you to use your own words and if he was not much mistaken this Text of Scripture by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers overthrows what you design by it and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment 4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve and it was preserved after their decease It was therefore design'd for Continuance and ought to remain in all Ages This Consequence I take for granted and the Assertions from whence it is drawn I shall clear in their proper places At present I only observe that if they are true they will much confirm what went before For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had it will be manifest that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church was none of them That could not be limited to them which was convey'd to others What was communicated was certainly communicable CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve I Shew'd before that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number and that it actually was so is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles and that not only in Title but in Power also For the first of these declares that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection when a Controversie happen'd between them it might easily have been ended by that Authority which one of them might have exercis'd and the other ought to have obey'd but they debated the matter on equal terms and neither of them gave place to the other The result was when the Contention between them grew sharp they departed asunder and took different courses But at another time they agreed and went together to Jerusalem and then James and Peter and John who seem'd to be Pillars paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues They gave to both the right hand of fellowship and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen as the other three did among those of the Circumcision You think however that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order and that he had his Apostleship from the Church For this you quote Acts 11.22 where you tell me the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him But you might as well have said that when the Brethren sent away Paul they did not barely dismiss him but made him an Apostle And at the same rate you may carry on the work of Criticism farther and declare that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants to free Paul and Silas when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour all these that were sent were transform'd into so many Apostles That Barnabas was as you imagine subordinate to any other Apostles is altogether improbable For S. Paul speaks of him as a Person in the same Station with himself where he says Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas and I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working 1 Cor. 9.5 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority that belonged to the Apostleship for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions Besides Paul and Barnabas there were many others that were not of the Twelve and yet did bear the Title of Apostles and of what account they were in the Church Theodoret informs us He observes that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops and then such as are now call'd Bishops were styled Apostles but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles and on others who sometimes had it the Name of Bishop was impos'd To the same effect is that passage which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose wherein he shews that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles by which says Salmasius he means others besides the Twelve finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided That of Presbyters they left to others and that of Bishops was appropriated to them who had the Power of Ordination so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right This place is quoted several times by Salmasius but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish is very obvious for it plainly intimates that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church only with this difference The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts and were call'd Apostles but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title thought fit to decline it and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops Yet both were of the same Order and govern'd with the same Authority This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth with disservice to his Cause For in his Dissertation against Petavius he proves that there were many Secondary Apostles as we call them for distinction sake which were the Disciples of the First And these he tells us govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power and in the same manner as the First had done He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters that Bishops had in succeeding times So that according to him there were always Prelates since the days of Christ differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages but not in Authority Amongst the Prelates of the first Century I think
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
to comprehend the High Priests whom he does not expresly mention And probably it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews that many of the Primitive Christian Writers distinguish'd the Clergy into two Ranks and to make them speak consistent with themselves we need only grant that two different Orders by reason of some general agreement between them are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use This one thing being consider'd may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology And it shews that if nothing else hinders Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church under the Name of Bishops that being a word which at that time was of a general signification yet some of them might be Supreme and others Subordinate to them He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters yet some of them might be Prelats and the rest of an inferior Rank and under their Authority But supposing what for my part I am inclin'd to believe that all the Bishops mention'd by Clemens were mere Presbyters I know not what service this can do you For he intimates that there were Officers distinct from them and superior to them And only to these Renowned Men as he calls them and the Apostles whom he joyns with them he ascribes the Power of Ordination which hath been the Prerogative of the Bishops ever since his days 'T is true it may seem that there was no Bishop at Corinth when he sent this Epistle thither which was before the Destruction of Jerusalem But if the See was vacant at that time it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd Certain it is that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession as you may learn from Hegesippus And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession Tertullian will lead you to it for he places at Corinth one of the Chairs of the Apostles It was in another of them that S. Clemens himself sate who is the Author of this Epistle He was a Bishop or an Apostle as he is styl'd by Clemens Alexandrinus He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles which was taken by Mabillon out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie and which amounts to the same thing he is reckon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops S. Irenaeus who liv'd near his time informs us that he was Bishop of Rome The same is attested by Tertullian and Origen by Eusebius and Epiphanius by Optatus and Jerom by Augustin and many others So that we have as great certainty of it as there is that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name And if there be no ground to doubt of it as I think there is not his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy as his own Example is for it there not being the least cause to believe that so Excellent a Person would have born an Office which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful CHAP. XI After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops IN what hath been already said of Episcopal Government I have for the most part limited my Discourse to the first Century and only touch'd on it incidentally as continued in succeeding times I come now more fully to shew that after the Apostles decease the Churches or Dioceses were govern'd by Single Persons who were then distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops This appears from many passages in the Epistles of S. Ignatius as also from the Fragments that remain of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth of Polycrates and others who flourish'd in the second Century In the third Origen acquaints us it was the custom to have no more than One Bishop of a Church and this he plainly intimates where he tells us expresly that in every Church there were Two For according to him one of them was visible and the other invisible One of them a Man and the other an assisting Angel 'T is true near the beginning of that Age Narcissus had Alexander for his Colleague in the Government of the Church of Jerusalem But as he was the first we meet with in Ecclesiastical History that after the Apostles days admitted of a Coadjutor so his Case was Extraordinary not only by reason of his extreme Old Age but also because as Eusebius informs us his breach of the Churches Rule was dispenc'd with by Divine Revelation The Rule was that of One Church or Diocese there might be no more than one Bishop On which principle Cyprian and Cornelius argued against the Novatians And the Council of Nice meant the same thing in prohibiting a plurality of Bishops in one City and did not thereby introduce an Innovation but confirm an useful part of the Ancient Discipline It was high time to do this for when Epiphanius speaking of Alexandria says that it never had two Bishops as other Cities he intimates that in the days of Alexander who was present in the Nicene Council some Cities in Egypt had a plurality of Bishops and if so it was a thing fit to be repress'd as being contrary to the Primitive Custom a Custom so avow'd and which had been so well establish'd that when the Roman Confessors abandon'd the Schismaticks by whose arts they had been deluded and made their submission to Cornelius when they acknowledged their errors before him with great humility they profess'd they could not charge themselves with the ignorance of this That as there is one God one Christ and one Holy Spirit so there ought to be but one Bishop of a Catholick Church Yet a doubt still remains on what account it was that other Cities differ'd from Alexandria in such a manner as Epiphanius suggests And some are of opinion that the reason of it was because some Catholick Bishops assum'd Coadjutors after the example of Narcissus But I rather think it proceeded from the Meletians of whom he discourses in this place and who with a mighty industry set up their Schismatical Bishops and Assemblies At Alexandria it seems they could not carry on their designs so successfully as in other parts of Egypt till as Epiphanius relates the matter they took their advantage of the death of Alexander and the absence of Achillas his Successon and then in opposition to him they made Theonas their Bishop and at Alexandria it self erected Altar against Altar But if you are not mistaken these Meletians reform'd a great abuse at Alexandria by that action For there you say the departure from the Primitive Institution of having divers Bishops of one City began as we are told by Danaeus who citeth Epiphanius and might have cited others Thousands doubtless Sir he might have cited to as much purpose that is to testifie such things as never enter'd
to the Apostles so after their example they stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to Presbyters as Superiors in Office and Authority 1. They stood related amongst themselves as Equals According to Cyprian every one of them in his own Diocese was a Judge in Christs stead And says that Father None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a Tyrannical terror compells his Collegues into a necessity of obedience This he spake in a Council at Carthage and with reflection probably on Stephen Bishop of Rome who injuriously invaded the Rights and Liberties of his Brethren 'T is true some Bishops were distinguish'd from others by a Primacy of Order and had the chief direction of Ecclesiastical Affairs When Synods were call'd they presided in them and for this they had the example of S. James in the Council of Jerusalem But their Primacy depended on the consent of other Bishops and was mutable It did not render them Judges of the rest within their several Provinces nor might they condemn any of them by their own Sentence without the Suffrages of their Collegues 2. In the purest Ages after the Apostles the Bishops stood related to Presbyters as Superiors And in this it is that our Controversie is chiefly concern'd I shall therefore prove it more largely and for this purpose I shall not only serve my self of such passages of Ancient Writers as describe the Office or Authority of Bishops but others also that only mention them as an Order distinct from Priests For if they were so there can be no question to which of them the Supremacy did belong I begin with the Testimony of S. Ignatius who says in his Epistle to the Philadelphians that he cried with a loud voice Attend to the Bishop and to the Presbytery and to the Deacons He instructs the Ephesians to respect the Bishop as the Lord that sent him And to the Smyrnaeans he declares that in things relating to the Church none ought to act without the Bishop that the Eucharist is then valid when it is perform'd under his Authority or by his permission without which he says it is not lawful to Baptize or celebrate the Feasts of Love So clearly does he assert the Prerogatives of Episcopacy What I have cited from Ignatius carries the greater weight with it because as Chrysostom informs us he was conversant with the Apostles and instructed by them He was a person of so much Sanctity and Zeal that he was willing to endure all the torments that the Devil could inflict that he might be with Christ and thought it more desirable to be torn in pieces by wild Beasts for his sake than to be Emperor of the World Having had the advantages of such an Education and being so wonderfully inflam'd with the love of Jesus he cannot be thought to have corrupted the Church nor had he time to accomplish it had he design'd a thing so detestable For he did not long survive S. John whose Disciple he was He suffer'd death under the Emperor Trajan as Simeon also did and probably both receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom the same year If an Author so Ancient and Venerable had only told us that the Government of the Church in his time was Episcopal this might have signified much But he does not only relate it as matter of Fact that there were Bishops He shews that Obedience was due to them as the Supreme Pastours and as the Representatives and Ambassadours of Christ And because it was suspected that his asserting their Authority had no higher cause than a prudential foresight of the Divisions which some were about to make he calls him to witness for whom he was in bonds that it proceeded from the Spirit of God And this Protestation being made at a time when miraculous inspirations were frequent there is not the least ground to question his veracity The truth is the Epistles of this Admirable man afford such plain evidence for Episcopacy that this has been the foundation of all the quarrels against them and particularly it was the cause as Grotius informs us why they were rejected by Blondel tho in the Florentino Copy they were free from those things for which they had before been suspected by the Learned The famous Isaac Vossius who publish'd them from that Copy tells us that every time he read them over they presented him with fresh Arguments of their Exellence and of their being Genuine and this will not appear strange to any person that peruses them with care and without prejudice But if you take them to be spurious you may try your skill in answering what has been said by Dr. Pearson and others in their vindication and if you succeed in that attempt I pray let us know what grounds of certainty you have that there are any Books of the Antiquity to which they pretend now extant in the Christian world To S. Ignatius may be added his Cotemporaries Philo and Agathopus or whoever were the Writers of the Acts of his Martyrdom They attended on him in his journey from Syria to Rome at which time they tell us the Churches and Cities of Asia did honour the Saint by their Bishops Priests and Deacons And they deserve the more credit as being Eye-witnesses of what they relate Not long after that time the Emperor Hadrian writ an Epistle to Servianus which was preserv'd by Phlegon and transcrib'd from him by Flavius Vopiscus and in that there occurs a passage from whence it is manifest that Bishops were then esteem'd of a different Rank from Presbyters and that the distinction between them was obvious to the very Heathen But you are much surpriz'd you say at my citation of this Epistle of Hadrian for certainly it appears by it that Hadrian had but little acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of men for he represents them as well as the other inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most injurious sort of men and particularly says that those that worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds that the very Patriarch coming into Egypt was constrain'd of some to worship Serapis and of some to worship Christ Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians or indeed more mistakingly c. These are your words and they seem an effect of the surprize you speak of rather than any sedate thoughts For to begin where you leave off that I may remove out of the way what is little to our purpose 1. You suppose that the Patriarch mention'd by Hadrian was a Christian Whereas there was not then in the World any Ecclesiastical Officer who did bear that title Eutychius indeed informs us that there were Patriarchs of Alexandria but this was an Argument of his ignorance unless the Apology which the Learned and
you much insist as if it afforded some great advantage to your Cause Whereas the Fathers who us'd that expression which you so well approve had no such Notion of a First Presbyter as you have entertain'd but made the same distinction between him and his Clergy as there was between the High Priest and the other Priests that were under his Authority Another thing for which you cite this Commentator is the information he gives us that the Eldest was always the First Presbyter till the inconveniences of that course occasion'd the change which he says was made by a Council But to this I know not how to assent because it appears from Scripture and the Writings of the most Primitive Fathers that they who in the early times of Christianity were advanced to the Charge of Bishops were commonly qualified for it and distinguish'd by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost or their own personal worth and there is no probability that a meer number of years was then held sufficient to recommend a person to the highest Office in the Christian Church Yet if there was sometime such preference given to seniority and such a change made in some particular Country as the Author mentions I am not concern'd about it But if you think the Ancient Custom he speaks of was universal and that a departure from it over the World was decreed by a General Council I would gladly know where it was assembled Blondel thinks the alteration was introduced by the Council of Nice and for this he directs us to the fourth Canon of that Council in which there is not a word of this matter nor are there any footsteps of it in Antiquity But whatever was the ground of advancing persons to the Office of Bishops manifest it is that this Commentator believ'd the Office it self was of Divine Institution and superior to that of Presbyters For he declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and that the Apostles in general were Bishops He affirms that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were Bishops also And in the Bishop says he all Orders are contain'd because he is the Prince or Chief of the Priests And yet this is one of the Fathers by whose Testimony you are content matters between us should be determin'd Another of them is S. Jerom who informs us I confess that originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the common Counsel of Priests But it must be consider'd that according to him the Churches were only under that Administration till by the instigation of the Devil divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas And it may seem not a little for the advantage of Episcopacy if as he intimates it was the best means of extirpating Schism when a Presbyterian parity was found insufficient for that purpose and if it was therefore establish'd over the world by universal Decree and that whilst many of the Apostles were alive Blondel I know assigns a later date to that Decree and would have us believe that it was not made before the year 140. But I am much more inclin'd to think that it was never made at all than that this project was first set on foot to remove the seeds or beginnings of Schisms almost a hundred years after they were sown at Corinth or after it was there said among the people I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas Blondel saw this absurdity and to avoid it he falls into another He would persuade us that the Schisms here mention'd are such as did not disturb the Church till a long time after the decease of Paul and Apollos and Cephas and did not arise amongst the Corinthians but others that imitated their example But by this exposition he does not only force the words of the Author from their plain literal meaning without any necessity but also makes him contradict his own avowed sense say in effect that Episcopacy was not instituted before the year 140 notwithstanding in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and other parts of his works he hath left us an account of several Bishops distinct from Presbyters that were ordain'd by the Apostles themselves 'T is true S. Jerom sometimes in his heats of which the cause is sufficiently known let fall such words as seem inconsistent with the Rights of Episcopacy yet if those words had been assaulted by his Adversaries he would not have been at a loss but had made provision for a vindication of himself or a safe retreat either by other expressions or the secret meaning of the same He may seem to oppose the subordination of Presbyters to the Bishop as an innovation or a departure from a former institution of Government yet he allows as we have seen that this departure was made about the time that S. Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians He intimates that it was necessary and in his Treatise against the Luciferians he declares that the welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Bishop to whom says he if there be not granted a certain peerless Authority there will be as many Schisms as there are Priests He may seem to believe that Bishops were not Constituted by any Divine order or disposal and perhaps he thought that they were not appointed by any Precept of Christ himself yet he denies not that they were Ordained by those that had Commission from him and acted in his Name and by his Power He may seem to be of Opinion that the Episcopal Praeeminence or Jurisdiction was at first a meer prudential Contrivance and afterwards confirm'd by Custom Yet in the production of it he ascribes no more to Prudence than the laying hold on a sad occasion when it was offer'd for its establishment And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition and this he grounds on Scripture That we may know says he that the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple That may the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Church And this is as much as I demand Another of your Authors is S. Augustin who acquaints us indeed that the Titles of Bishop and Presbyter were distinguish'd by Custom But it does not follow that there was not the same disparity of Officers when those words were of promiscuous use as there was afterwards when they were limited in their signification If this gives you not satisfaction Grotius will tell you what is agreeable to that which has been said already That when the Fathers speak of Custom they do not exclude an Apostolical Institution Nay S. Augustin says that what hath been always held by the whole Church and was not appointed by Councils is most
rightly believ'd to proceed from Apostolical Authority And that he did not believe Episcopacy was introduced into the Church after the Apostles decease appears from several instances and particularly from hence that he thought the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were their Bishops Thus far your Witnesses have appear'd against you and with them you have fitly join'd S. Chrysostom who says not as you pretend that there is no difference in a manner between Bishops and Priests but that the difference is not great Thereby intimating that some difference there was even in the Apostles days for of these he he speaks And in this he tells us they were distinguish'd that only the Bishops had the power of Ordination A thing so destructive of the cause for which you are concern'd that the Dissenters doubtless had rather see all the Volumes of Chrysostom in a flame than be concluded by his testimony After all you must depend I think on the testimony of such as Danaeus Buchanan Johannes Major and Hector Boethius and of what Authority these men are I come now to enquire If we may believe Danaeus say you Epiphanius himself was at last compell'd to confess that in the Age of the Apostles no such distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as I contend for was to be found To which I reply If we may believe Epiphanius himself he confess'd no such matter On the contrary when he had represented Aerius as the plague of mankind when he had expos'd and condemn'd his detestable ingratitude towards Eustathius and shew'd how he loaded his Benefactor with calumnies because he was advanced to a Bishoprick to which that modest Leveller aspir'd he then gives an account of this opinion of the Heretick That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter which he censures as extremely foolish and proceeds to the confutation of it That a Presbyter says he cannot be the same with a Bishop the sacred word of the Apostle declares For thus he writes to Timothy Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder but that he had Authority over him He admonishes him ver 19. Not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses But he did not give direction to any of the Presbyters not to receive an accusation against a Bishop not to rebuke a Bishop This then is a manifest Argument of the disparity of those Officers in the judgment of Epiphanius But if you can make him confess what he denies if you can make him approve what he confutes and bring him to an agreement with one whom he represents as a prodigious villain and a monster then you may believe Danaeus But his credit labours much at present and you have said nothing to relieve it It hath been little for the honour of the Presbyterian Government that the Father of it hath been thought to be Aerius But you think it is of more ancient and better extraction The Scots you say who receiv'd the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age had not any knowledge for many Ages after that appears of any but Presbyterian jurisdiction And for this you quote Buchanan who tell us that no Bishop ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Palladius his time and that the Church unto that time was govern'd by Monks without Bishops with less pride and outward pomp but greater simplicity and holiness And if his word may be taken for it this would be something to the purpose But Camden says that his History was condemn'd of falshood by the Parliament of Scotland and that Buchanan before his death bitterly accus'd himself of the Calumnies he had divulged So that however I have a great value for his wit and learning I think no great credit is due to his testimony since he wanted that veracity which is essential to a good Historian But here it seems we need not depend on his word alone for he is warranted by the Authority of Johannes Major whose words you set down and they are to the same effect as the former And really say you this testimony given by Johannes Major is very full And who would not now think that this Johannes Major was an Ancient Father that could give such a full and exact account of the Primitive times Yet did this man draw down his History of Great Britain as far as the Marriage of K. Henry VIII of England with the Princess Catherine of Aragon and dedicated it to K. James V. of Scotland He was alive says Labbe in the year 1520. And one that would undertake to declare what men were doing above a thousand years before he was born had need to vouch better Authority than his own to gain belief But John Major is not the only Evidence Buchanan might have cited Beda you tell me says that Palladius was sent unto the Scots who believ'd in Christ as their first Bishop How great an advantage is it to have the faculty of close reasoning Yet so dull am I that I do not perceive how the words of Bede prove those of Buchanan to be true For 1. Palladius might be sent into Scotland and yet not into the Country now call'd by that name and intended by Buchanan It might be into Ireland of which Beda himself says that it is properly the Country of the Scots and accordingly in Claudian the Scot is the Irish man And that Palladius was sent to the Irish Scots hath been prov'd by those great Antiquaries the Bishops of S. Asaph and Worcester to whom I refer you for satisfaction 2. The Christian faith hath no such dependance on Monkery but the Scots might believe though there had never been any Monks in the world And I take it to be manifest that there were none so early as you imagine Polydor Vergil ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died as he tells us in the year 361. Danaeus says that it began to be in request in Egypt after the year 300 and that it was later before it was receiv'd in Europe He attributes the invention of it to superstition and an idolatrous admiration of external things He compares the Monks to swarms of drones and says that in the year 500. they were dispers'd and multiplied like the Locusts in the Revelation upon the face of the whole Earth You see Sir what sentiments your friend Danaeus had of these men and of their institution and little did he think that the Church of Scotland was so happy in an excellent sort of Presbyterian Monks in the best and purest Ages S. Jerom himself who had such a zeal for the Monastick way of living that he was willing to say as much for the honour of it as he was able carries the original of it notwithstanding no higher than Antony or Paul the Thebaean But which of them soever was the Founder of it
Noble Job Ludolfus makes for him may be admitted that he mention'd them under that denomination by way of anticipation This is the most plausible thing that can be said in his vindication But that he did not only speak properly but may as well be believ'd to have forgotten his own name as that of his Predecessors is a thought peculiar to your self It is not my business here to enquire into the Original of Patriarchs in the Christian Church It is sufficient for my purpose that they are not mention'd by any Author under that Title before Socrates who flourish'd in the fifth Century But the Jews had their Patriarchs much more early as Jacobus Gothofredus and other Learned Men have prov'd from unquestionable evidence and amongst these Jewish Patriarchs I reckon this in Vopiscus not only for the reason already given but because it is said that he was compell'd to worship Christ If he had been a Christian there had been no need of that compulsion neither can it be suppos'd that the Infidels would have attempted to force him to do what his avowed Principles obliged him to perform Indeed if some cruelty had been us'd to extort from him a denial of Christ this had been an argument that he made profession of Christianity to which he had no Title if without violence he could not be brought to confess our Saviour and adore him 2. You suppose the little knowledge Hadrian had of the Egyptian Christians confutes my Argument taken from his testimony by which I would prove that the Office of a Bishop in his time was distinct from that of a Presbyter whereas it gives it the greater force For the thing may well be thought to be the more evident in that it was taken notice of by a person who was so little acquainted with the Christian affairs in Egypt 3. You suppose that because Hadrian was under great mistakes concerning the Egyptian Christians and their Bishops this must render his testimony useless whereas it evidently proves what I design'd by it whether his description of them be true or false For whosoever gave him this relation it cannot be imagin'd that they invented a sort of Men that never were in being that they might have a subject for their accusation Nor is there any ground to believe that Hadrian or his Informers had the Spirit of Prophecy or discover'd by Divination that there would be such Officers in succeeding times as had not then been heard of and that they contriv'd to bring an odium upon the Prelates before they did exist But as we may collect from the Emperors words that whether the Christians were so fickle or not as he represents them yet there were Christians so we may conclude that whether the Bishops worshipped Serapis or not there were Bishops notwithstanding And this is all that I intended by this instance Yet I may further add that if the charge against these Bishops be false as you would have it it is more for my purpose than if it were true as it is far more desirable that persons of their Character should walk worthy of their vocation than dishonour it by their practices and be loaded with infamy and reproach In your endeavours therefore to vindicate their innocence you have taken care to confute your own Objection which is founded on the injustice of the accusation that the Emperor brings against them But if you had omitted this stroke you had lost a fair opportunity of being deliver'd of a quaint conceit which I have not met with in any other Author and I believe it to be new As for the Devotion you say of the Egyptian Bishops to Serapis you cannot imagine any occasion they should give which with any colour should render them suspected of Idolatry but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross and the reason why you are inclin'd to think so is because Pignorius in his Mensa Isiaca assures us that Serapis was anciently denoted by a Cross and you conceive that this might be the Hieroglyphick of the three headed Monster of which Chartarius gives the Icon since that was annected to the Image of Serapis Now Chartarius and his terrible Icon I never saw but am apt to think that the act of signing with the Cross which leaves no visible impression behind it hath no great resemblance of a three headed Monster And however Pignorius says that the Cross denotes Serapis I know not that he hath given us any assurance of it We find another interpretation put upon it in Suidas to whom you refer me and in Socrates who is cited by Pignorius for in both it is said to signifie the life to come Be it as it will The Egyptians must have been very foolish if they gather'd that the Bishops were Worshippers of Serapis from the use of that which was a Sign of Devotion and of their adherence to Christ in opposition to all Idolatry The Heathens could without any such ground cast reproach on the innocent and of this they made no difficulty The Apologists generally take notice how they accus'd the Christians of Atheism and Incest and devouring mans flesh when they were the holiest and the most vertuous persons in the world Eusebius acquaints us that they forged lies and calumnies against our Lord himself under the name of Pilat's Acts and no wonder that they treated the Servants no better than they did the Master of the Family But to give more colour to their slanders they compell'd some infamous persons to profess themselves Christians that they might load those that were so indeed with the blackest aspersions And if the Pastours of the Church fled from the rage of Persecution or hid themselves 't is easie to conceive that men extreamly malicious against them and their Religion might hite or force some Wretches to personate them in the worship of Serapis and we may be assur'd that any thing which tended to the dishonour of Christianity would gain an easie belief amongst the Adversaries But whether the Calumny was propagated this or some other way against the Bishops I am not much concern'd about it since we are agreed about their existence and their innocence But about their Character you have rais'd some doubt for in this Epistle you say there is only the name of Bishop or Presbyter without any specification of the Office signified by it either as to its nature or limits As if these things could not be known unless we had here met with their description or the Emperor could not write intelligibly unless he had left us a Clavis or Glossary to let us into his meaning I thought it had been sufficient for that purpose that he uses the word Bishop in such a sense as the other Writers of that Age generally did none of which apply it to any other person of their own time but the Prelate only Besides as I have shew'd he distinguishes the Bishop from the Presbyter for which he
would have had no reason had their Office been the same as he would have had no cause to make the difference he does between Jews and Christians had they been of the same Principles and Religion The next Witness I shall mention is Clemens Alexandrinus who mentions the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he calls the advances or progressions from one of these Offices to another imitations of the Angelical Glory But this you believe I mention'd for pomp rather than any cogency I thought was in it it being only a conceit or flourish of Rhetorick in that Father And you might as well have said that when he compares the visible Officers of the Church to the different Ranks of Angels it was a meer conceit or flourish of Rhetorick that there were such Officers or that there were Angels Certain it is from this place that Clemens makes the Dignity of a Bishop superior to that of a Presbyter as he does the Dignity of a Presbyter superior to that of a Deacon And in another place he shews that there were distinct Rules prescrib'd to each of them And I take this testimony of a person who flourish'd in the next Age after the Apostles to be very considerable But say you Tho in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet in his Stromata where he treats of Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but two the Presbyter and Deacon and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honour'd with the first Seat And how is it that he plainly intimates this Has he in any other part of his Writings given us any notice of such a Presbyter and his Seat No He hath not said a word about them Hath any other Writer in or near his time left us a description of them No they mention no such matter Could he not speak of Presbyters but one of them must needs be the President and Moderator in the Consistory That is not pretended How hath he then so plainly intimated that there was such a person No other way but by a profound silence about him And thus a man that speaks not a word or is asleep may plainly intimate what you please 'T is certain however that in the passage to which you refer me he speaks but of two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers yet he knew there were more and he mentions three not only in his Paedagogue but in his Stromata and his silence in one place cannot evacuate what he expresly declares in another Tertullian was Cotemporary with Clemens and he in his Treatise of Baptism tell us that the Chief Priest who is the Bishop hath the power of giving that Sacrament and after him the Presbyters and Deacons but not without the Authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being safe the peace is secur'd But Tertullian you tell me does more than seem to be on your side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quiquo Seniores c. That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them And here you take it for granted that these Seniores are mere Presbyters and yet you know this is a thing in question a thing that hath been deny'd by many not without good appearance of reason since the Titles of Ancients or Elders have sometimes been apply'd to Bishops as Blondel will inform you and that it is so here the words seem to import But about this I may have occasion to discourse in another place And at present I will suppose that the Seniors Tertullian speaks of were meer Presbyters and yet did preside I know not however why he should more than seem to be on your side but that great is the strength of Imagination For manifest it is from him as we have seen that the Bishop stood related to the Presbyters as their High Priest and without his licence or permission they could not baptize Notwithstanding therefore they might preside in particular Congregations or otherwise as his Assistants yet it was with dependance on him and subordination to him in the Administration of the Government To evade this you say That such a distinction of Officers according to Tertullian was rather a matter of Order for peace sake and the honour of the Church than by Divine Institution There was however such a distinction and as for the Original of it that is another Question which may also be resolv'd from this Father For he declares that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles and there is no doubt but one Motive of it was the welfare of the Church which without Peace and Order cannot be preserv'd Indeed if there had been no such Institution if the Honor of the Church were not to be regarded and if Peace which is so much recommended in the Gospel were an unnecessary thing then he would have allow'd that even Lay-men might baptize But now he charges them not to invade those things that belong to their Superiors nor to usurp the Episcopal Function Not long after Tertullian flourish'd Origen and he tells us in his Discourse of Prayer that the Obligation of a Deacon is distinct from that of a Presbyter but the greatest of all is that of a Bishop And says he in another place More is requir'd of me than of a Deacon more of a Deacon than a Lay-man But he that governs in Chief must give an account of the whole Church One passage more I shall add because it hath something in it that is peculiar and this is taken from his Commentaries on the Gospel according to S. Matthew wherein he shews how necessary it was for those to repress their arrogance who thought too highly of themselves for this cause especially that their Ancestors or Great Grand-fathers had been advanced to the Episcopal Throne or to the honour of Priests and Deacons And this carries back his Testimony much higher than his own time and lower than that I need not here descend CHAP. XIV After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy IF matters between us may be determin'd by the Writings of the Ancients as you have granted I think it sufficiently evident from what has been said that Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the best Ages after the decease of the Apostles And for the improvement of this Argument and to prevent evasions I observe That it is manifest from the Testimony of the Fathers 1. That after the Apostles days there was no space of time without Episcopacy Nor 2. Was there any Country without it where Christianity prevail'd 1. There was no space of time after the decease of the Apostles without Episcopacy There was no such Interval of forty years between that Period and the Constitution of Bishops as Blondel dreamt of nor had he any thing but meer conjectures to
Care You will not pretend I presume that there was any such person whilst the Apostles were alive for the Apostles you tell me constituted no Officers over whom they retain'd not a Jurisdiction And I give you the space of five hundred years after their days to find but one single Presbyterian or Independent Bishop in any sound part of the Catholick Church or any approved Instances of Ordinations perform'd by him But if you attempt this I am desirous you would only insist on good Authorities and not as I shall find you shortly on Legends and Romances CHAP. XV. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd I Shall despair of proving any matter of fact that was perform'd many Ages since if it be not manifest from the Testimonies which I have produc'd that the Government of the Primitive Church was Episcopal Yet for the contrary Opinion you pretend you have Vouchers and these Fathers too as Learned and Pious Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd And 't is very true you have drawn Quotations from some that were of great Eminence How pertinently you have done it I come now to enquire S. Cyprian is one of the Ancients to whom you appeal and he says The Deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Praepositi but the Apostles after his Ascension constituted Deacons for the service of themselves and of the Church And from hence you gather that the Praepositi here were only Presbyterial or Congregational Bishops because they are contradistinguish'd to Deacons That is because this Father makes no mention in this place of Presbyters that being nothing to his purpose the Bishops must be depress'd into their order But it is obvious and I wonder how it escap'd your notice that the Apostles themselves were the Bishops or Praepositi of which he speaks And now you may conclude if you please that the twelve Apostles were no more than fixed Pastors of so many single Congregations You likewise argue from S. Cyprian that however he had the Title of Bishop yet he consider'd himself only as first Presbyter for which you give this notable reason that his Name for a Bishop is always Praepositus in respect of the People and you add that he calls Presbyters Compresbyters but he no where calls Deacons Condeacons But you might as well say that S. Peter consider'd himself only as first Presbyter because he addresses his Exhortation to the Elders as being also an Elder Or that S. Basil was of no higher Order than that of Deacon because he styles Eustathius Elpidius and Sabinus Condeacons And the like may be said of other examples of the same nature for an account of which I refer you to Blondel and Mabillon I think it is observable that howsoever S. Cyprian calls Presbyters his Compresbyters yet he never calls them his Colleagues Nor did he think they might over-rule him by the number of voices But when some of them attempted to restore the Lapsi in his absence without regard to his Authority he express'd a just resentment of it He complain'd of this as a thing that was never done in the time of his Predecessors So that however he could at other times dissemble the Contempt that was cast upon his Office he did not think fit on this occasion to be silent or remiss but gave order that the rash and insolent offenders should be prohibited to exercise their Function 'T is true S. Cyprian says he resolv'd from the time that he was made Bishop not to act any thing without the Counsel and Consent of his Clergy and People But the reason of this was he treated the Lapsi with unusual Lenity so that he needed the Concurrence of others to support his Authority yet as he did not prescribe to others his own Rules of Discipline so neither did himself always take the same measures Sometimes he restor'd Offenders to the peace of the Church when the people were brought to consent to it but with difficulty sometimes when they oppos'd it He also requir'd his Presbyters and Deacons and People to receive amongst the Clergy Numidicus a Presbyter without consulting them before about this matter And he acquainted his Clergy and People that without their Suffrage Celerinus was constituted Reader and appointed that he should be joyn'd with Aurelius and that both should have their share of the monthly maintenance as Presbyters had At another time he thus express'd his thoughts to them about a breach of Discipline If there be any person said he either amongst our Presbyters or Deacons or amongst strangers so extravagant or rash that he shall dare before our sentence be given to communicate with the Lapsed let him be expell'd from our communion And not expecting the concurrence of any he depriv'd Philumenus Fortunatus and Favorinus of their monthly Dividend till their Cause should have a publick hearing Upon the whole we find that S. Cyprian was a person of an excellent temper and as he us'd such great condescension towards his Clergy and People as seems not to have been practis'd before nor is always necessary but was very fit for the time in which he liv'd so on the other hand he was not wanting to assert his own Authority and the Dignity of his Order For he tells us Christ says to his Apostle and consequently to all Bishops who succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me heareth him that sent me And he that rejecteth you rejecteth me and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me He adds that Schisms and Heresies arise from hence that the Bishop who is one and governs the Church is by the presumption of some despis'd And to those that forsook their Bishop and erected Altar against Altar he applies these words of Isaiah Wo unto ye Children that are Deserters saith the Lord. Ye have taken counsel but not of me Ye have made a Covenant but not by my Spirit to add sins to sins Another of the Ancients which you have quoted for the support of your Opinion is the Commentator on S. Paul's Epistles that bears the Name of Ambrose and from him you expect some assistance because he says that of a Bishop and Presbyter there is but one Ordination But his meaning is not as you suppose that their Consecration was the same but that they are both of the same Order by which he intends no more than that they agree in this that both are Priests He did not believe them to be of Equal Power however he comprehended them under one general denomination For says he the Bishop is the Chief and Every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop And what service this can do you I do not understand But the Bishop he tells us is the First Presbyter and this is a thing on which