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
is consistent enough with his setled Residence in his Diocese when the Church of Ephesus was committed to his Administration I do not remember any other material Objection against what I have said concerning this subject So that I make no doubt still to affirm that Timothy was an Ordinary Pastor of the Church and thus much in effect is acknowledged by some Learned Presbyterians who say he was the first Presbyter or President of the Presbytery And if they would allow such Presidents as have the full Power of Ordination which he had Presidents with Authority equal to his and which as Cameron gathers from 1 Tim. 5.19 was greater than was consistent with the Office of other Presbyters Presidents that are so for life as Ludovicus Cappellus thinks they originally were Then if they please they may call them Presidents still and I shall not contend about the Name if we are agreed about the Thing But since you and many others have not made the Concessions I have mention'd I shall farther prove that the Office of Timothy was such as I have describ'd by the following Arguments 1. If it had been intended that the Authority committed to Timothy and others of his Rank should be temporary either this may appear from the nature of the thing or it might have been expected that we should have had some notice of it in the Scripture For if we may take the liberty without any grounds to fasten on it the Title of Temporary or Extraordinary we may by the same means soon put an end to any Constitutions whatsover But there is nothing in the nature of this Authority that may hinder its continuance nothing in the Scripture that declares it to be abrogated We may conclude therefore that as it is fit to be continued so it was design'd to be so in all succeeding times 2. We have no reason to believe that S. Paul would alter his own Constitutions without a cause or that without any necessity he would put the Government of a Church into a new Model and divert the Course of Discipline from that Channel in which it ought to run in all Ages If therefore he sent Timothy as an Extraordinary Commissioner to interpose in the Affairs of Ephesus we may suppose this to have been either 1. Because there was some Extraordinary Work which none but Extraordinary Officers could perform or 2. Because there were no Ministers at Ephesus or such only as were unfit for Government But neither of these can well be imagin'd Not the first for the Work was no other than what hath or might have been perform'd by Bishops ever since Not the second for there were Presbyters at Ephesus of eminent Gifts such as the Holy Ghost had made Overseers It seems improbable then that these were constituted Supreme Standing Rulers of the Church or that the Work for which they were so well qualified was so soon taken out of their hands Particularly it seems improbable either that they had the Power of Ordination or that it would have been transfer'd from them to a Stranger who came to visit them but was not of their number and that without any ground or reason given or any notice taken of them as concern'd in the matter Flaminius did a thing acceptable to the Greeks when he gave them permission to live after their own Laws But if he had afterwards sent amongst them some Governour with Power and Commission to over-rule and controul their Magistrates and to disturb that Polity which had been established by his Concession by such Changes and Turns of Affairs he would have introduc'd and encouraged great Irregularities and put his former Admirers upon upbraiding his Levity or questioning his Veracity And let us now suppose if you please that such Elders were constituted by S. Paul at Ephesus as were inabled and obliged to perform the highest Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority as Supreme Ordinary Pastors and were design'd also to be a Pattern for following Ages Let us farther suppose that an Officer Extraordinary had afterwards been left amongst them with Commission from that Apostle to alter the measures they had taken and to suspend the exercise of a principal part of their Function by taking it wholly to himself and that without any Miscarriage laid to their Charge you may easily perceive what Reflections this might have occasioned and that such Proceedings would have been so far from setting things in order that one has reason to think they would have put them into greater confusion 3. If such eminent Presbyters as were at Ephesus and a Church so flourishing as that of Ephesus was had a Governour put over them this ought not to be esteemed an extraordinary thing for doubtless other Presbyters and Churches whose Exigences were greater had so too And if such a Subordination of Officers was necessary when the Apostles were alive I cannot imagine why an end should afterwards be put to it when there was more occasion of it than ever Some of the most Learned Opposers of Episcopacy grant that Timothy and others of his Rank govern'd Churches with the same Plenitude of Power as Bishops afterwards did who as they say were rais'd in the second Century for the Cure of Schism But if in the common sense of Christians Prelacy was useful to that purpose as 't is supposed this must have obliged them to preserve it when it had been introduced amongst them by such as were directed by the Spirit of God and it could be no great Argument of their Wisdom if they laid aside that which was of Divine Original and were very shortly afterwards put upon contriving how to restore it by a Humane Invention 4. It seems very improbable that the Apostle should write two Epistles to Timothy only to direct him in the temporary Administration of the Affairs of a Place where he was only to make a transient Visit But if from the Examples we have of Presbyters and the Rules that are laid down for them in Scripture we may gather that such ought to be continued Then may we also conclude from the Example of Timothy from the Authority he had and the Rules that were given to him for the exercise of it and which are of perpetual use that the Office with which he was vested ought to be preserv'd in the Church till the end of the World 5. As we learn from the Scripture that Timothy resided at Ephesus so it may something confirm what I have said of his relation to that Place if there he ended his days And this is what is testified by Sophronius who tells us that there he gloriously suffer'd Martyrdom But more fully by an Ancient Writer in Photius who acquaints us that he was put to death at the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which he would have abrogated 6. After his death we find Onesimus in his Place who is said to be Bishop of Ephesus by Ignatius his Co-temporary and by whom he is
well enough without them both so long as it shall be Christian it being now too late to try Experiments of new Models and to establish such Forms of Government as in the best Ages were never heard of in the World When I had enquir'd into the Original of Church-Government and shew'd that as it came out of the hands of Christ and his Apostles and remain'd in the Primitive Times it was in the Nature of it Spiritual and in Form Episcopal I had thoughts to discourse particularly of the Exercise of it in the Administration of Discipline and the Ordination of Ministers as also of the Extent of a Bishops Authority over many Congregations and of the Power of the Church in a Christian State and then to make some Remarks on that Mystery of Iniquity that has been working amongst Bigotted Papists and others in opposition to Episcopacy But being interrupted by many Avocations and not being willing to swell this Volume into too great a Bulk I have reserv'd those things with some others that may incidentally be consider'd for a second Part of this Treatise I doubt not but some will be ready to say that it had been much better to have let the whole Work alone For Now they think it is not a Time for Controversies I should think so too and would our Adversaries be of the same mind and not drag us into the Press by their Importunity But it may seem a little Unreasonable that a Truce should be maintain'd only on one side And I cannot imagine that it is a time for us to lye open to Acts of Hostility and not a time to guard our selves from them or that it is a time to cast reproach on an Apostolical Constitution of Government and not a time to defend it I rather think that it is High time to appear in vindication of it and that we cannot be unconcern'd Spectators of the Diligence with which others endeavour to promote the Interest of their several Parties unless we will declare to the World that we are not influenced by any due sense of Religion Indeed if we are only in the Communion of the Church by Law establish'd at certain seasons and with design to destroy it or to serve a Turn against it Then it is not strange if we cannot endure to hear any thing in defence of it But what is most astonishing is that persons should be found bearing the Name of Christian and carrying on the works of Darkness and Treachery of Avarice and Ambition in the most Solemn Acts of Worship and the most Sacred Rites of our Holy Religion Yet is the number of them considerable and because it may not be fit to pass by them without notice I shall here produce some part of the Charge against them as it is recited and address'd to them by a Late Writer There are some things says he that I will but lightly touch though others of contrary sentiment will lay on load One is at which I am not a little abash'd that though you according to your declar'd Principles and Ordinary Practice are Nonconformists and Dissenters yet upon occasion and to get into Place and Office of Honor or Profit you will and can take any manner of Tests that have of late been impos'd also that you can on such occasions take the Sacrament according to the Form and Way of the Church of England though you never did before nor perhaps will ever do the same again except on the like occasion and although the making and forming of these Tests and the taking of the Sacrament were intended and done on purpose to keep you and such as you out of Office yet by these ways they have not been able to exclude you and they think that nothing though never so contrary to your Principles can be devis'd and made to keep you out or to hold you in but that you will break all Bounds and leap over all Hedges so that they are at a loss what to do with you c. My Author who relates this to them as an Objection of their Adversaries is himself a Dissenter yet protests that he knows not how to answer it in their behalf with truth and honesty He confesses that they make use of the same Artifices as the Jesuits do in such cases and he knows nothing he tells them that will more render them in the eyes of all as men of flexible and profligate Consciences He also laments their Hypocrisie and breaks out into this Exclamation O! the horrible scandal that comes from hence c. But I suppose the Example of these men hath nothing in it that may prevail with us to abandon the Vindication of a good Cause their Practices being such as if we have any thing of Sincerity we cannot think on without Pain and Detestation ERRATA PAge 5. line 15. read averse p. 6. l. 17. r. to bind and ab p. 11. l. 6. marg r. 18. p. 13. l. 29. r. the intention of the person p. 39. l. 10. marg r. c. 4. p. 44. l. 8. r. such have p. 49. l. 11. after High Priest add And yet he could not have been constituted High Priest p. 54. l. 4. marg r. Successores reliquit p. 54. l. 11. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 63. l. 13. r. of all Churches l. 17. r. presided p. 73. l. 8. r. munere annos p. 80. l. 27. r. continuance l. 28. dele might p. 88. l. 2 3. marg r. Apostoli p. 102. l. 26. r. and as l. 28. r. more than p. 118. l. 1. r. of an p. 143. l. 6. r. were written p. 162. l. 26. s this note should have been placed after City l. 24. and another added here to refer to the words of Clemens p. 170. l. 17. marg r. c. 4. p. 179. l. 5. marg r. Ep. 54. p. 200. l. 2. marg r. lib. 9. c. 5. p. 208. l. 14. marg r. c. 32. p. 218. l. 7. marg r. obnitente p. 260. l. 12. r. is mop't THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS Chap. 1. JEsus Christ the Founder of Church-Government The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted To them he gave no Temporal Authority yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual p. 1 Chap. 2. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers particularly to the Seventy Disciples and to Presbyters as Superiors they were Bishops both in Title Authority p. 25 Chap. 3. If the Apostles were Bishops Episcopacy is of a Divine Original The Objection against this that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers consider'd p. 34 Chap. 4. S. James was an Apostle and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there p. 60 Chap. 5. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance p. 78 Chap. 6. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve p. 90 Chap. 7. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy
their Equals but subject to their Authority I will not contend as you have done that a Diocesan compar'd to an Apostle is less in Authority than a Parish Priest nor can I approve what you take for granted that the Apostles could constitute no Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction But since you offer more than I can accept you allow as much as I demand which is only this that Presbyters were subordinate to the Apostles If there be now any doubt whether the Title of Bishops may fitly be assign'd to the Apostles whose Authority was Prelatical that may easily be resolv'd from hence that when the Psalmist in one of his Prophecies and S. Peter in the Application of it spake of a Bishoprick they mean't an Apostleship His Bishoprick say they let another take that is let another be chosen in the room of Judas to bear the Office of an Apostle and accordingly the Apostles are said to have been Bishops by S. Cyprian and by Hilarius Sardus and other Ancient Writers CHAP. III. If the Apostles were Bishops Episcopacy is of a Divine Original The Objection against this that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers consider'd IF the Apostles were Bishops of the Church and if they had Episcopal Authority over Presbyters Episcopacy is not a mere prudential thing as you suggest or a defection from the first Rule of Ecclesiastical Government It was not the Invention of a Diotrephes or a Creature of Ambition but proceeded from our Lord himself and is of a Divine Extraction But however the Apostles were Bishops you conclude that they were not Precedents for Government in succeeding times because as you tell me they were Extraordinary Officers And in this Assertion you stand not single for it has been often urged by others and readily receiv'd by Persons of different Persuasions Nevertheless I think we ought not without due examination to admit a pretence which has been made use of to very bad purposes The greatest Zealots for the Papal Monarchy tell us that S. Peter only convey'd his Power to his Successors but as for the rest of the Apostles their Authority was Extraordinary and died with them But this the Socinians affirm of them all And the same reason for which they conclude that an end was put to the Apostolical Office they employ also to cancel the use of Ministerial Mission or Ordination They grant indeed that such Mission was requisite for the first Preachers of the Gospel but assert that now it is become unnecessary since we are not to teach a new Doctrine with which the World is unacquainted but to explain the old one But at this rate they that are weary of any Ordinance of Christ which is of positive Institution need but fasten on it the Name of Extraordinary and then it must be of no longer continuance I have therefore been desirous to know what Standard you have for Extraordinaries And on this occasion you have oblig'd me with an Act of pure Generosity for which I never ask'd You send me to Cicero and Lipsius to shew what were the Extraordinary Honors Power Magistrates among the Romans which I knew well enough before But what I demand is some plain and certain Rule by which the things design'd for continuance in the Christian Church may be distinguished from those that were shortly to expire And such a Standard as this I have not been able to obtain from you I must therefore be content to state the matter as well as I can without it and for that purpose I shall here set down some things wherein I suppose we are agreed 1. We are agreed that they are Extraordinary Officers who are only rais'd on some particular or special occasion or accident to which their work is limited But then it must be granted that whatsoever proves not that the Work or Office of the Apostles was limited to their own time or that they might have no Successors neither doth it prove them to have been Extraordinary Officers This I take to be manifest enough and what use I intend to make of it will shortly appear 2. We are agreed That Persons in Office may have Successors in some things who have none in others particularly they may have those for Successors in their Ordinary Work who are not so in some of their Privileges We have great reason for this for otherwise no Succession of Ecclesiastical Officers could have been preserv'd and we must have remain'd like the old Acephali without Ministers and without Sacraments 3. We are agreed that the Apostles themselves had Successors in their Ordinary work But that we may rightly understand one another and that nothing may disturb so friendly an accommodation I farther add 1. That I take all that to be their Ordinary work which others also did perform by the Authority they received from them and which hath been continued in the Church ever since their days 2. I call that their Extraordinary work which was peculiar to them Accordingly you may reckon amongst Extraordinaries such Circumstances as were appropriate to themselves or their actions and whatsoever Privileges and Qualifications they had which were incommunicable you may also set them down in your Catalogue of Extraordinaries for they were Personal and died with them 4. We are agreed that to teach and instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion to administer the Sacraments to constitute Guides and to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church was the Apostles Ordinary work This is what you your self assign unto them as such in the words of Dr. Cave which I cannot but approve But you must put a strange Interpretation on them if they do not overthrow that for which you produced them For if as you say well after that Excellent Author it did belong to the standing and perpetual part of the Apostles work to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church that must be either such a Discipline or such a Government as they did not exercise or such as they did If you say the first of these you suppose that to have been their Ordinary work which was not their work at all If you say the last then it will follow that such Government as they exercis'd and which was Prelatical ought to be continued to the end of the World I might now justly neglect all your Arguments drawn from the number of the Apostles from their seeing Christ and the Mission they receiv'd immediately from him from their being the Foundation of the Church and the Power they had to work Miracles from the Extent of their Charge and their unsetled condition by which you would prove that they are Extraordinary Officers for you may furnish your self with a Reply to them from the Articles of our Agreement But in hopes to give farther light to what has been said before I am content to attend your Motions and you are like to find me liberal
Bishops should be confin'd within their proper and certain bounds Yet when their circumstances resemble those of the Apostles and the great work is to convert Infidels to the Christian faith doubtless it is then fit that they should make freer Excursions And therefore the Great Council of Constantinople that so strictly limited Bishops within their own Dioceses excepted those from their general Rule who liv'd among the Heathens and gave them liberty to attempt their Conversion and that within the bounds of other Bishops as Balsamon and Zonaras explain the Canon And yet I cannot think that they to whom this Liberty was indulged were Bishops of a distinct Species when they only differ'd from others in a particular Circumstance Nor can I believe that they were Bishops at home and something else abroad or that they forfeited their Episcopal Character when they were making Converts or confirming them in a forein Province It is farther observable that the Canons by which Ecclesiastical Officers were restrain'd within certain Precincts being made in Times of Peace did not bind in Cases of Necessity On which account Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople determin'd that it was lawful to communicate with the Presbyters who were ordain'd at Rome and Naples and in Lombardy without the Acclamation or a Title And this he confirms from the Examples of Athanasius and Eusebius who when Arianism prevail'd confer'd Orders out of their own Dioceses A plain Argument that they had contracted no such Relation to a particular People but they remembred they were Bishops of the Catholick Church and thought they might on some occasions exercise their Episcopal Power in any part of it without a breach of Catholick Communion To conclude As the Office of Presbyters was the same when they were severally appropriated to distinct Congregations as it was when they had the Care or Government in common of many Congregations under the Presidence of the Bishop So is the Office of Bishops the same whether they are limited or not within certain Dioceses And to serve the Necessities of the Church some of them may be the more strictly confin'd and not suffer'd to pass their Line and others may be left to greater freedom in the exercise of their Function without any essential difference 2. It was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should constantly be engag'd in Travels S. Paul who was so abundant in his Labours remained two years at Ephesus and S. James resided much longer at Jerusalem as I shall shew in the following Chapter In the mean time let me tell you that all the Arguments by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers perform more than you would have them or nothing at all If they prove any thing it is that the Apostles could have no Successors in Teaching and Instructing the People which yet you say was a standing and perpetual part of their Office So that you must be content I think either to yield up the Cause or you will be concern'd as much as I to answer your own Objections CHAP. IV. S. James was an Apostle and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there AMongst the Arguments by which some would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers I find none more frequently produced than that which is taken from their unsetled condition And this you urge after the example of others but something you have in the management of it that is peculiar and must be ascrib'd to to your own invention Sure I am say you Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms the Office of the Apostles to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare But excuse me Sir if I tell you that sure I am you never saw any such Comment of Athanasius nor any such Translator as you have mention'd nor have they any Being but in your Imagination The use you make of the words you have cited is almost as surprising as the Quotation it self In the judgement say you of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers as if you had a mind to depress them now as much as you exalted them before I leave you to clear your self as well as you can and I come now to prove what I have already propos'd that it was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should be constantly engaged in Travels And this I think is very clear from the example of S. James the Just I know that many Learned Men have deny'd that this James was one of the Twelve which others notwithstanding of great Eminence have affirm'd But I have no need to be interessed in that Controversy I think it sufficient that he had both the Name and Authority of an Apostle And I shall shew that he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there I join these things together because of their Affinity If I prove either of them it will be for my purpose if both the truth will be more confirm'd and they will give mutual light to one another That S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem appears from the Testimony of a whole Cloud of Witnesses amongst which Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus are the most commonly produced and chiefly depended on by the Assertors of Episcopacy as being the most Ancient and best qualified to gain an assent to their information S. Clemens flourished in the next Age after the Apostles and as Blondel says truly of him he was eminent for Holiness and all manner of Learning But Divine Learning was the highest in his esteem to acquire which he travel'd into many Countries and as himself acquaints us he had Masters to instruct him that were of several Nations One of them he tells us was of Coelosyria and another of Egypt the third he mentions was an Assyrian and the fourth a Hebrew And these having preserv'd the Doctrines and Institutions of the Apostles pure which they receiv'd from Peter and James from John and Paul as Children from their Parents communicated them to him and others in his time We have therefore reason to think that he was not deceiv'd nor design'd to impose on Posterity when he left us this relation for which I now make use of his Name That although our Lord had prefer'd Peter and James and John before the rest of the Apostles yet they did not contend about Honour but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem Jerusalem was the principal Place wherein our Saviour himself exercis'd his Office and taught personally when he was upon Earth It was the Metropolis of the Jews who afforded Converts to the Christian Faith before Salvation was brought to the Idolatrous Gentiles The Church of Jerusalem therefore was justly styl'd by the Council of Constantinople the Mother of Churches and it consisted of a
judgment and the deference that was pay'd to the Sentence he pronounc'd are very remarkable for all did not only acquiesce in it so that the Debate ended but his words were put into the Decree which became obligatory to the Churches I find several Persons of the Roman Communion as much dissatisfied as your self with the place that hath been assigned to S. James in this Council There says Binius Peter rising up as the Head of the Apostles speaks first And says M. de Marca it is Peter that assembles the Council in which he gives the first or chief Sentence by defining the matter as the Emperor was wont to do in the Senate This sounds very great but hath nothing in it of truth Binnius himself affirms after Baronius that the Apostles who were dispers'd over the World were brought together by Divine Instinct or Revelation and this he proves from the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians And we read Acts 15.7 that there had been much disputing not without words I presume and then and not before Peter rose up and expressed his sense of the thing in question Yet if he had been the first Speaker neither will it be granted that this is sufficient to establish the Prerogatives which some have assign'd to him nor yet that the account he gave to the Synod of the Success of his preaching to the Gentiles and the expostulation with which he concludes it are any Arguments of his Supremacy Yes says Mr. Schelstrate When he had spoken the debate ceased All were silent and thereby gave a very manifest sign that they thought they must all acquiesce in his determination That is because 't is said that all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul V. 12. therefore S. Peter was the Supreme Judge of Controversies and the other Apostles had nothing to do but to approve the Sentence of their Head Certainly he had need to have a very favourable Judge to get this admitted for demonstration But any thing satisfies a willing mind and some have been content on any grounds to attribute to S. Peter what he never had that they may derive from him what was never in his possession But I return to S. James who after the Council was ended continued in his Diocese For S. Paul in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians v. 12. takes notice of some Jews that came from him to Antioch That is says S. Augustin they came from Judea for James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem Several years after this S. Paul return'd to Jerusalem and there he found S. James and his Presbyters together Acts 21.18 And this James as Chrysostom tells us was that great and admirable man who was Brother to our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem The last time he is mention'd in the Scripture is by S. Jude but from him I confess we can learn but little that may give any light to our affair For however in the Title prefixed to the Syriack Version of his Epistle published by Dr. Pocock he is styled the Brother of James the Bishop he is only said to be his Brother in the Text it self v. 1. Yet from hence we may gather that Jude knew him to be a Person of that Figure in the Church that the consideration of his Relation to him might gain Attention to his Doctrine and Instruction And I see no reason why he should not as well have call'd himself the Brother of Simeon as of James but that Simeon was not then in so eminent a Station How long it was that S. James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem we cannot learn from Scripture But S. Jerom says it was thirty years and he is followed amongst others by an Ancient Writer of Our Nation cited by Whelock in his Annotations on Bede's Ecclesiastical History It was not much less according to Eutychius to whom on other occasions you pay respect For as he tells us James continued Bishop of Jerusalem twenty eight years and with him agrees Elmacinus as I find him quoted by Abraham Ecchellensis In these accounts there will be no real difference if it be allow'd that in the greater are reckon'd two parts of years as if they were entire and that both are omitted in the less During all his time after our Lord's Ascension we have no relation of his Travels but so frequently do we find him mention'd in Scripture as remaining at Jerusalem that Walo Messalinus thought that he did not remove a foot from thence It was perhaps by reason of his constant Residence there that the Jewish Rabbies became acquainted with his Miracles the memory of which they have preserv'd But certain it is that Josephus speaks of him as a Person that liv'd there under a very high Character He tells us that all good men and careful Observers of the Law were highly dissatisfied with the Proceedings of Ananus the High-Priest against him And he imputes the Calamities of the Jews and the destruction of their Temple to their killing this James the Just who as he says was the Brother of Jesus who is called Christ And from hence it appears that Jerusalem was the Scene of his Actions and of his Sufferings that there he had flourish'd in great Reputation and there was condemned and persecuted to death by the fury of his enemies But Josephus you tell me speaks not a word of his Dignity as a Prelate as if I or any body else had ever affirm'd that he did It is sufficient that what he says of James concurs with other things to prove that he did not travel about the World or that he was not an Itinerant Preacher and for this cause I produced his Testimony If after all this you say he was no standing Officer I desire to be inform'd what it is that constitutes a standing Officer or by what Marks he may be known If you say he was engaged in frequent Journies to plant the Gospel I pray oblige me with the History of his Travels If you say that however he was an Apostle his Jurisdiction was but equal to that of Presbyters I must leave you to combat your self who have ascrib'd to Apostles a Superior Authority One Evasion you have yet remaining which is that granting S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem it was in that sense only as he was Bishop of all the Churches in the World and for this you quote a passage of an Epistle suppos'd to have been written to him by Clement whose Name it bears But as the Words of this Epistle are set down in the Basil Edition the Author does not address himself to James as governing all the Churches in the World but to him as Bishop of Jerusalem and to all Churches where-ever they are Be it as it will No great regard I think is to be paid to an Impostor who amongst other Marks of Forgery hath this one that
we may reckon the Apostles of the Churches mention'd by S. Paul 2. Cor. 8.23 For they are said to be the Glory of Christ which Character I suppose they did not beat because they were employ'd in going on Errands but as they were the Representatives of Christ in governing such parts of his Kingdom as were assign'd to their especial care The ground of this Interpretation I take from 1 Cor. 11.7 where we read that Man is the Image and Glory of God which words in the judgment of Theodoret are not to be understood with respect either to the Body of the Man or to his Soul but to the Dominion that he hath from God over the Creatures In the same Verse we read that the Woman is the Glory of the Man The Wife is the Glory of her Husband She is says Theodoret as it were the Image of that Image and as such she hath Power over the rest of the Family Thus when these Apostles are said to be the Glory of Christ this implies something of Jurisdiction which they receiv'd from him And when they are said to be the Apostles of the Churches the meaning is not that they were their Messengers but their Spiritual Pastors They were their Spiritual Rulers and our Lord's Vicegerents acting in his Name and by his Authority Agreeable to what has been said is this Observation of S. Jerom That in process of time besides those whom the Lord had chosen others were ordain'd Apostles as these words to the Philippians declare I suppos'd it necessary sayes S. Paul to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and Companion in labour and Fellow-souldier but your Apostle Phil. 2 25. But you wonder that after S. Jerom I should cite this place for a Proof that Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi and at first you could hardly believe that I was in earnest As if it were now such a fault to follow S. Jerom who when you have occasion to press him into your service is as Learned and Pious a Father as any the Churches ever own'd S. Jerom is not singular in what he says of Epaphroditus for Hilary tells us he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians which in his Language signifies that he was their Bishop And with him agrees Pacianus and Theodoret also whose Notions about the Primitive Government of the Church are usually very clear and coherent If you consult Writers of greatest fame amongst the Assertors of Presbyterian Parity you will find them granting that Epaphroditus was something more than a mere Messenger Blondel reckons him amongst the Chief Governors of Churches and for this he quotes Pacianus Jerom and Theodoret as I have done and if you can hardly believe him to be in earnest you may take the same exception against Walo Messalinus for says he Epaphroditus was call'd the Apostle of the Philippians as Paul was said to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision He mentions the contrary Opinion but then he adds To me it seems to have no appearance of truth since I know that the word Apostle is never us'd by S. Paul nor by any other Apostles and Evangelists but for a Sacred Ministery But this Observation of Walo you say will hold no water for you take it that John 13.16 in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a common promiscuous sense and render'd so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable instance against him That is you are now assur'd that whereas this Word is us'd about fourscore times in the New Testament in one of them it signifies any common Messenger And if you could demonstrate this as impregnably as you have asserted it with confidence it would be no great matter of triumph Yet this is more than I can grant you have perform'd For in the place you insist upon our Saviour speaks thus to his Disciples He that is sent or an Apostle is not greater than he that sent him As if he had said Ye my Apostles that I mean to settle Governours of the Church are not greater than I from whom you have your Commission and by whom you are constituted That is the Paraphrase of the Learned Dr. Hammond on those words of our Lord and as it is very agreeable to the Context so it shews to what little purpose you have employ'd this place of Scripture Nor have you any better success but less shew of reason where you tell me that notwithstanding Epaphroditus is in Greek call'd an Apostle yet it no more follows from thence that he was a Bishop than that Joseph the Mittendary as you call him in Epiphanius was on this account a Bishop for you might as well have urg'd that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles I think no man that reads the accounts of the Mittendary in Epiphanius and of Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians can form the same Notions of both for 't is manifest that one was an Officer under a Jewish Patriarch and the other a Christian Minister of great eminence The same general Title indeed was common to both but it was not so applied at the time about which we are in debate nor by those Writers from whose style and expressions the thing in controversie must be determin'd Jacobus Gothofredus who searched in to the Original of the Jewish Apostles of which Epiphanius speaks and was willing to carry it as high as possible could not find them mention'd by any Author before the fourth Century None of the Pen-men of the New Testament no Ecclesiastical Writer of the first Age calls any man an Apostle who was not a Pastor of the Christian Church and of an Order Superior to that of Presbyters And consequently he that was styled the Apostle of the Philippians was their Bishop By which word I always understand a Prelate when I give no intimation of the contrary or of leaving its signification undetermin'd You think the Connexion and Coherence carry it for your sense and that Epaphroditus was no more than a Mittendary because S. Paul says of him that he ministred to his wants But if Castellio has well expressed the sense of these words they will afford no such Inference as you have drawn from them but signifie that Epaphroditus was sent to supply the place of S. Paul at Philippi And much may be said for this Exposition but it is I confess out of the common road of Interpreters And to what you have objected I farther answer that Epaphroditus may be said to minister to the wants of S. Paul who received of him the things of the Philippians and yet it doth not appear from Scripture that they sent him much less is there any probability that if he was sent by them he was for that reason dignified with the
Treatise he argues that Timothy was no Bishop because he was a Novice so he supposes he must needs be who was a young man Yet afterwards he expresly acknowledges that he was a Bishop but so that other Bishops were his Equals He had before told us that this same Novice was a Fellow-helper and Co-partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship and consequently in the judgment of all men if we may take his word for it of a degree superior to that of a Bishop Nevertheless within a few Pages after he makes him inferior to Presbyters because he was obliged to intreat them as Fathers and to pay them double honor and not to receive it from them And thus he snatches at any thing that may free him from a present inconvenience and at his pleasure Timothy must be such a Novice as is unfit to bear the Office of a Bishop at another time this is a depressing of him who was qualified for and exalted to a higher Dignity One while he must be superior then inferior and afterwards equal to the same Officers And this discovers such a flaw in the judgment of the Author to say no worse of him that I cannot but admire that some persons of greater sense seem to have the same good opinion of his Book which himself had whereas 't is a Rapsody of incoherent stuff and for the most part very trifling Yet he hits on some things that may deserve our notice and they shall not be neglected The common refuge of Dissenters that are concern'd for the Unbishoping of Timothy to speak in Mr. Prynne's Language is that he was an Extraordinary Officer and Evangelist He is expresly so styled says Mr. Prynne He is in direct terms call'd an Evangelist say the Assembly of Divines and that he was so says Smectymnuus is clear from the Letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4 5. Yet neither in this place nor in any other part of Scripture is that to be found which these men affirm with so much confidence 'T is true Timothy was admonish'd to do the work of an Evangelist but this he might and yet be no Evangelist Daniel did the work of the King and yet was no King The Levites did the work of all Israel yet were they not all Israel And Timothy who as M. Prynne says truly was a Partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship which virtually contains in it all other Ecclesiastical Offices might perform the work of other Ministers and not be of their Order nor come under their denomination This has been said upon a supposition that he was requir'd in this place to do the work of an Evangelist properly so called which I cannot grant For an Evangelist according to Eusebius was a person that preached the Gospel where it had not been receiv'd or to those who had not heard of it before And in this sense Timothy could not be an Evangelist to the Church of Ephesus which he was obliged to instruct and govern and when he was so it had flourished for many years I conclude therefore that the word Evangelist in this Verse ought to be taken in a larger sense and then to do the work of an Evangelist will signifie in general to preach the Word as it is expressed v. 2. And if this Interpretation which has been embraced by many Learned Men be admitted it leaves no ground for the Exception that hath been under consideration But Timothy and Titus you say were Co-founders of Churches with the Apostle Paul and from hence arose their Visitorial Power which consequently was peculiar and extraordinary That is you have assum'd a liberty of bestowing on persons what Titles you please and then you draw from them such Inferences as you think expedient This you call Arch-work whose strength you say lies in the combination A Church as we have seen had been founded at Ephesus several years before the Government of it was committed to Timothy and how he could be a Co-founder I do not understand I suppose he neither laid the Old Foundation over again nor raz'd it that he might lay another If you call him a Co-founder of that Church only because by his preaching he increas'd the number of Believers the Presbyters that were before his coming were for the same reason Co-founders also for doubtless they were employ'd in the same work But that they and others of the same Rank by converting Infidels and adding them to the Church started up into an higher Order than that of which they were before is what I think was never yet heard of in the Christian World Philip the Evangelist laid the Foundation of a Church at Samaria but by doing this he gained no new Jurisdiction he did not obtain by it the Power of Imposition of Hands which the Apostles had nor any Authority over Presbyters but remain'd a Deacon as he was before If Frumentius had not been ordain'd a Bishop his planting Churches amongst the Indians or more properly the Ethiopians could not have made him one Nor did his diligence in that work render his Office incommunicable But the Authority he had to constitute and govern Priests and Deacons was convey'd to others after his death and as Ludolphus will inform you he had Successors in Ethiopia to this very Age. Let us now suppose that Timothy had founded the Church of Ephesus it doth not follow as we have seen that his Authority was Extraordinary Yet in your opinion he could not be a Bishop unless his Office had related to a Church already planted for that you make the condition of Episcopal Charge But how groundless this Conceit is may appear from what has been said and particularly from that known Passage of Clemens Romanus where he says expresly that the Apostles ordain'd some to be Bishops of those that afterwards should believe What Bishops he speaks of is not here the Question They were such as you approve and they were constituted Bishops of those who at that time were Unbelievers But that Bishops who have Commission to preach the Gospel have Power to preach it to Believers only or if they preach it to Infidels that for that purpose they should either forfeit their former Office or need another is so absurd that to mention it is a sufficient Confutation of it Another of the Objections which you advance against the Episcopacy of Timothy is that he is not styled a Bishop in Scripture On this Mr. Prynne also insists and calls it an infallible Argument Yet what he pronounces so like an Oracle signifies no more than if one should attempt to prove that Presbyters neither are nor ought to be called Ministers because in Scripture they are never mention'd under that Title or that Baptism and the Supper of the Lord neither are nor may be called Sacraments because that Name is not ascribed to them in any part of Scripture The truth is if we
being under his Jurisdiction He was requir'd to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on the disobedient and set things in order in many Churches His Office therefore or Power was Episcopal To prove this I have not urged any thing from the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus and therefore I am not concern'd at your exception against it or to enquire into its Authority What is manifest from the Epistle it self and confirm'd by the Testimony of the Fathers is sufficient for my purpose That however there were many Churches in Crete yet they were govern'd by a single Person as their Chief Pastor or Bishop What you object against his Episcopacy from the multitude of Cities in Crete looks like one of the Efforts of Mr. Prynne and is so confus'd that I can make no coherent sense of it You suppose that every Church or Congregation must have a Bishop for which you give no other reason but that some are confident of it and I confess if matters between us had been to be determin'd by confidence you had often put me to a loss Yet here I do not see what service it can do you For I would demand whether the Bishop you assign to every Congregation was a mere Presbyter or a Prelate If you say the first what is it to the purpose unless you could prove that he was not subject to another Pastor who had the Charge of many Congregations If the last what is become of the Cause for which you contend If Titus say you was a Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops that is of Prelatical Bishops as your words import and consequently if they express your thoughts you must believe that at that time there were such Bishops And now methinks our Controversie appears a little oddly For the Tables are turn'd and you are got on the side of Prelacy You contend that the Cretian Elders were Prelatical Bishops when I cannot allow that they were more than Presbyters I cannot be convinc'd but that Titus being left in Crete was the only Bishop in the modern sense of the word of all the Churches there Nor do I see any reason why this should be thought inconsistent with an Episcopal Function Theodoret had eight hundred Parishes under his Care yet this did not cause a Nullity in his Ordination And however there were many Cities in Scythia yet anciently one Bishop had the Charge of them all without any loss of his Episcopal Office Inconveniences indeed may arise from such large extent of Dioceses but this was not the case when as Rabanus Maurus tells us Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles or when Titus remain'd in Crete For then 't is certain there were many Churches under his Care and Administration and by what Title soever he was distinguish'd it is not material as to the Nature and Ends of Government But if he was Bishop of so many Churches you would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where he resided To which I can say nothing but that it seems probable he visited all the Churches of his Diocese and resided chiefly in the Metropolis If this satisfies not your pang of longing as I have no ability so I have no inclinati to gratifie it any farther For could I name with the greatest certainty the City where he commonly dwelt you might also enquire what part of that City or what Street he inhabited and propose many other Questions of the like importance to which I am not prepar'd to give any Reply It is sufficient that he was a Pastor of many Churches and had Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons For if this be true it strikes at the Root of the Presbyterian and Independent Opinions about Church-Government And I know not what can be said in Vindication of them unless it be that he was an Extraordinary Officer This you insist on and to prove it you tell me he was an Evangelist But the Scripture says of him no such thing From the Scripture indeed we learn that Philip was an Evangelist and yet he wanted Power either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd or to Ordain Officers by Imposition of Hands But Titus could perform the last of these which was the greater and consequently he was something more than an Evangelist and could be no less than an Apostle or a Bishop But that he may be reckon'd amongst the Pastors Extraordinary you likewise urge That he was only left in Crete as the Deputy or the Delegate of the Apostle and that but for a time till he should have established Churches in every City and Organiz'd them with Elders which having done you say 't is very probable that he return'd again to S. Paul to give an Account of that Affair and then you think his Commission expir'd Not that you have read any such thing of him in Scripture But since he was oblig'd to act as the Apostle had appointed from hence you collect that his Deputation was but Temporary And you might as well have concluded that since it was the Duty of Presbyters and Deacons to walk as the same Apostle appointed or according to the Rules he gave for their Conversation their Offices also were Temporary and design'd for no long continuance You think his Case differ'd from theirs in this that he was employ'd in frequent Travels but in answer to that I need only tell you That his Journeys to Jerusalem to Macedonia and to Corinth were undertaken and finished before he was left in Crete That he died there as we are inform'd by Paulinus and Sophronius and that the Government of the Church has been Episcopal in that Island ever since his days When I had proceeded thus far I had the satisfaction to peruse some Printed Papers of an Eminent Person wherein amongst other things he treats of this subject and I was glad to find that I had not differ'd from the Sentiments of so great a Man which he hath express'd in these words We are not to suppose says he that the Power of Titus extended not to a Jurisdiction over Elders when he had ordain'd them For if any of those whom he had ordain'd as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to wine can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercis'd ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual Vse did thereby suppose the same kind
have the same particular perfections or defects the same ornaments of mind or stains and blemishes I cannot imagine I am sure no such thing is reveal'd in Scripture nor hath it any probability Yet I deny not that amongst the things that are written to the Angels there are some instructions mingled in which others are immediatly concern'd and to whom they are addressed And from hence Smectymnuus and the Assembly of Divines argue that every Angel must be understood collectively But they might have consider'd that sometimes in the Holy Scripture discourses begun with one are diverted to many and with many to one and that without any artificial transition For example S. Paul in the fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Philippians ver 3. writes thus I intreat thee Yoke fellow And he concludes his second Epistle to Timothy with these words The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit Grace be with you And one might as well infer from hence that the Philippians were a single person and Timothy a multitude as conclude from the like instance that every Angel of the several Asiatick Churches was a Presbytery We have seen that these Angels were men and not Celestial Spirits We have also seen that they were seven individual Pastours and not so many Collective Bodies I farther add that they were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Ministers within their own Precincts and that constantly as Bishops of their respective Churches 1. These Angels were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Ministers in their several Churches This is granted by Beza and some other learned Presbyterians and the thing is manifest For if all the Presbyters in these Churches had been Angels alike or without any difference in Dignity or Order doubtless they would have born the same Title and then to have directed an Epistle to any of them under the name of Angel would have been to as little purpose as to have dispatched away another Letter with no other Inscription but this To a Senatour of Rome in both which cases no particular person would have thought himself concern'd 2. These Angels receiv'd not their Office with condition that they should resign it before death or shortly be degraded from it but they constantly retain'd their praeeminence The Christians did not distinguish their Ordinary Officers as some Antiquaries observe the Heathens did their Priests into such as were Temporary and such as were Perpetual or for Life For none of them were Temporary but they were all obliged constantly to remain in their Station unless any of them were Deposed for their Offences or advanced into a higher Order The Dignity therefore or Authority of these Angels was not limited to a certain number of days or years but was communicated to them with a design that it should be continued in their persons And that it was so may be gather'd also from hence that there were Duties prescrib'd in the Epistles that were directed to them which could not be perform'd but in their constant exercise of the same Function This is different from the account which is given of them by Beza for having suppos'd they were no more than Presidents of the Presbyteries without Authority over them he goes on to suppose that the Office of Presidents was Ambulatory passing from one Presbyter to another in a circular motion He tragically complains that it became fixed For from hence he says The Oligarchical Tyranny the Top of which is the Antichristian Beast had its original to the destruction not of the Church only but of the World Here is a heavy Charge you see at which however one need not be concern'd for the load falls on a Chimera of his own His Presidents I mean that had no Being in or near the time he speaks of Yet if they had any existence before their late establishment he produces nothing to prove that they took their turns in this manner he describes but groundless Conjectures He was under such fear that Presidents or First Presbyters might grow up into Bishops or Oligarchical Tyrants that he would allow them no long continuance in their Station For 't is probable he thinks that their Administration expir'd every week And since he would have it so he should have inform'd us whether all that is said to have been done by the Angels which with him are First Presbyters or all that is prescrib'd to them was or could be perform'd within the compass of a week and if not how it was applicable to them when they had shifted their places and were not consider'd under their former Title Or rather whether the Epistles were not addressed to the Angels for the time being and if so how it came to pass that the same actions are ascrib'd to all that were successively placed in the same Chair If he had consider'd these things he had never troubled the world with his absurd conceit of Circular Presidents or weekly Moderators 3. These Angels were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches For if they were distinguished from all other Ministers in their several Dioceses by their Eminence and that Constantly we have reason to think it was rather after the manner of Prelates who are acknowledged by the Adversaries of Episcopacy to have govern'd the Church in the following and succeeding Ages than as meer Presidents in Beza's sense of which there are no examples within a thousand years Mr. Prynne's attempt to Vnbishop them answers the rest of his performances He says as many of his Brethren have also done that Ordinary Presbyters are Angels and this he proves from Rev. 1. 20. the sense of which is the thing in question and in his usual way of Rhetorick he condemns the contrary Opinion as a Crazy conceit of a proud Episcopal brain He hath advanced another assertion which is a little surprizing and in which I presume You will hardly concur with him He tells us 'T is evident beyond contradiction that the Angels of God are all equal in Order Power Dignity Office Degree Ministry And this he says is an unanswerable evidence of the equality of Ministers by Divine institution He also informs us that Angels being ministring Spirits have no need of Lordships Mannors or Possessions and hence he takes occasion to express his indignation against the Prelates for their Palaces Mannors Lordships Possessions Miters Rochets Vestments His Book abounds with such stuff as this which moves one to pity rather than expose his weakness Yet it was fit some notice should be taken of it for the sake of those that to the prejudice of the truth still have his person in admiration But I return to the Proposition from which he diverted me and which I think may be thus confirm'd 1. If these Pastours that are called Angels were only so styled as they were Presidents of the several Presbyteries then were they the Angels of the Presbyteries but not of the Churches which is directly contrary to what is
said of them in the Holy Scripture 2. They are said to be the seven Stars in Our Lords Right Hand ver 16. which signifies that they had such Dignity and Power as were not ascrib'd to any other Officers in their respective Churches and if so there is no question but our Saviour approv'd their Function and would support those that were so near him in the discharge of it 3. They were called Angels in allusion to the practice of the Jews who attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel For of him I suppose Solomon speaks where he says Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin neither say thou before the Angel it was an error Eccl. 5.6 I cannot think that Solomon here advis'd a person that had bound himself by a Vow not to make this speech before the Messiah or any Ministring Spirits as some Interpreters conceive or not to attempt to delude with words any invisible Beings It may seem he was in no danger of that But the Royal Preacher gives him caution that he should not satisfie himself if by his excuses he could impose on the High Priest who was obliged to take cognizance of his Vows but to remember that God would be an Avenger of the falshood that was acted before his Vicegerent however it was cover'd with the greatest art That Exposition and what I infer from it may be confirm'd from the 42 d. Chapter of Isaiah ver 19. where we find this expostulation Who is deaf as my Messenger But the the Original may well be rendred who is deaf as my Angel And this doubtless was not an Angel of Light nor can an inspir'd Prophet be thought so stupid as the person was against whom that complaint was made His Character is not so applicable to any as the High Priest whose duty indeed it was to understand the Will of God and instruct others but at that time it seems himself had great need of admonition which yet he was in no readiness to receive The like use of the word we meet with in Malac. 2.7 For I make no question but what the Prophet speaks there of the Priest is to be understood of the High Priest or that it is he who is styled the Angel of the Lord of Hosts at whose mouth the people were required to seek the Law And it may seem that the High Priests were not only called Angels whilst they were inabled as the Messengers of the Almighty to reveal his mind by Vrim and Thummim but after the period to which the Cessation of these Oracles is assign'd by Josephus himself For Diodorus Siculus speaking of the Jews and their High Priest says They esteem him an Angel to convey to them the commands of God And from what has been said I collect that there was an Analogy between the Jewish High Priest and every Angel of the Asiatick Churches that both of them were Governours in Chief and had their subordinate Officers and that the Presbyters and Deacons were subject to the one as the Priests and Levites were to the other But say you Should it be yielded that the Jews had any such practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High Priest what could this amount to in our case since every Bishop is not a High Priest in the sense of the Jews For in their sense there could be but one and then that one amongst the Christians must be a Pope And to the Pope you would do no small service if you may be permitted to make Inferences for him from this Analogy for you stretch it as far as he desires and beyond what is consistent with Scripture and the common sense of Christians in the best Ages with both which it agrees that there should be one Bishop in a Diocese resembling the High Priest within the bounds of his Jurisdiction Farther than this the similitude may not be extended unless it be said that as there is but one Catholick Church which is the Mystical Israel so Mystically there is but one Bishop For all the Bishops were anciently esteem'd as one and what was done by one in the due exercise of his Office was esteem'd the Act of the whole Colledge A Notion that supposes an equality of all Bishops in their Office and Authority and consequently is so far from affording any advantage to the Popes that it directly opposes their pretences and has sometimes been us'd to very good purpose to prevent their Usurpations and check their Ambition 4. The Epistles directed to these Angels are such as suppose them to have had Jurisdiction over all others both Ministers and People within their respective Dioceses And on this it is that I principally insist Our Lord says Arethas does by the Angel treat with the Church as if by the Master a person should discourse of one that is under his Government knowing that the Master is wont to esteem those things as his own which are done by his Scholars whether they were worthy of honour or reproach But he might have added that a Master could then only justly be charged with the irregularities of his Scholars when he had power but did not exercise it to prevent their miscarriages And how much this is the case here may partly appear from this concession of Blondel The actions of the Church says that learned Man whether they were glorious or infamous were imputed to the Angels as their Exarchs or Chief Governours They were therefore more than Moderators in a Presbytery and had full power to correct abuses And this is what may be illustrated from the following instance which I have chosen out of several that might be given The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is celebrated for his personal Virtues He dwelt where Satan's seat was and yet he held fast the name of Christ and denyed not the Faith in those days when Antipas the faithful Martyr was slain C. 2. v. 13. But some defect was imputed to him as a Governour I have a few things against thee saith the Lord because thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam c. So thou hast also them which hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which thing I hate ver 14 15. And from hence we may gather that it was in his power to suppress those pernicious Doctrines and Sects that disturb'd the Church and for this purpose the concurrence of any Coordinate Officers was not necessary He could not alledge that he wanted Authority or that others controul'd him in his proceedings against enormities But as it was laid to his charge alone that he had not stopt the mouths of Gainsayers so he alone was warn'd to repent for this want of Discipline lest the Lord should come quickly and fight against him with the sword of his mouth ver 16. Since therefore this Angel had full power of reforming Abuses since the defect of that Reformation is intirely imputed to him Since there is
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
into their thoughts Epiphanius knew very well that plurality of Bishops in one City proceeded commonly from Schism or Heresie and was far enough from taking that to be an Argument of the Purity of the Church which in the common sense of Christians both before and after his own time was esteem'd a Corruption Danaeus had a Conceit that when there was in a City a plurality of Bishops they differ'd in this from the Bishop of Alexandria that they were Presbyters and he a Prelate which sufficiently discovers the weakness of his judgment or something worse But he was willing we see it should be believ'd that the first Prelate was to be found at Alexandria that he might have occasion to tell the World that Prelacy and Monkery and other Plagues of the Church had their Original from the same place But that all Bishops were Equal or that they had the same Prelatical Authority I shall shew hereafter and I am no farther concern'd with it here than as it results from this Proposition That according to the Primitive Rule the Government of every Diocese was Monarchical And this I think is manifest from what has been said beyond all just exception CHAP. XII The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles WE have seen that in the second and other Centuries the Churches were govern'd by single persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops And in the next place I shall prove that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles Because this will confirm my Leading Proposition That the Apostles were Ordinary Pastors and prepare my way to consider how the Bishops stood related amongst themselves and to others and what regard is due to persons of their Character That the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles S. Augustin thought might be gather'd from the Prediction that was made to the Church by the Psalmist in these words In stead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children For of them he gives us the following Paraphrase The Apostles begat thee they are thy Fathers But could they remain with us always One of them said I desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you He said so indeed But how long could he continue here Could he live on Earth to this and future Ages or was the Church deserted when the Apostles were deceased God forbid Instead of the Fathers there are Children Bishops are constituted in room of the Apostles Do not therefore think thy self forsaken because thou seest not Peter or because thou seest not Paul or because thou seest not any of those from whom thou art descended since Fathers are risen out of thy own offspring The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms that goes under the Name of Jerom agrees with S. Augustin in that Exposition And S. Jerom himself who upbraids the Montanists for depressing the Bishop into the third Rank says in opposition to them With us the Bishops possess the place of the Apostles His sense of this he expresses more copiously in his Epistle to Evagrius for there he says Wherever there be a Bishop whether at Rome or Eugubium at Constantinople or Rhegium at Alexandria or Tanis he is of the same Merit and of the same Priesthood The power of Riches and meanness of Poverty may render one Bishop higher or lower than another That is with respect to things external or a priority of Order if that be the true reading which I follow But they are all the Apostles Successors Long before Jerom Firmilian was of the same judgment for speaking of the Bishops in general he tells us that they succeeded the Apostles And with him agrees Cyprian and Clarus à Muscula his Cotemporary Many others might be added but here I shall only mention S. Irenaeus who argues thus against the Hereticks in his time We can number those says he who by the Apostles were instituted Bishops in the Churches and their Successors to our own time and they taught us none of the dotages of these men But if the Apostles knew any hidden Mysteries which they secretly taught the perfect they would chiefly have imparted them to the persons to whom they committed the Churches For they desir'd that they should be very perfect and unblamable to whom they deliver'd their own Place of Government Thus that Excellent Father and his Testimony is the more considerable because of his great Antiquity For 't is probable he was born several years before the death of S. John and 't is certain he receiv'd instruction from some that had seen and heard the Apostles themselves To invalidate his Authority you tell me he is agreed by some to have affirm'd that our Lord Christ did undergo his passion in the fiftieth year of his age As if that might better be determin'd by their agreement about it than his own Writings in which we find no such thing He no where fixes the period of our Saviours Passion He no where assigns it to a certain year Yet I grant he was of opinion that our Saviour liv'd about fifty years if that passage be his wherein he treats of this matter But Antonius Pagi and other Learned Men conceive it has been corrupted it seeming incredible to them that Irenaeus should attribute to our Lord so many years in that very Chapter wherein he reckons no more than three Passovers which he celebrated after he enter'd upon the thirtieth year of his Age and declares He did eat the last of them the day before his suffering But there being no Copies to justifie that Charge of Corruption what I insist upon is That if Irenaeus was mistaken in the time of Christs Passion it does not follow that he was so in the thing which I have cited from him If he err'd concerning that Period about which all mankind have been in the dark he might notwithstanding be a credible Witness of such matters as could not well escape his notice and have nothing in them that is improbable Such was the severity of our Saviours Life and deportment that it may seem he appear'd more aged than he was For when the Jews said to him Thou art not yet fifty years old doubtless they thought he was near so much And it is easie then to conceive how the report might arise and be continued which Irenaeus follow'd But it was so far from becoming an universal Tradition that it was never embraced that we find by so much as two of the Fathers The Case is very different when he relates who succeeded the Apostles for of this lie could hardly be ignorant that lived so near them And the account he gives having been confirm'd by many others and having met with an universal approbation cannot be rejected by us with any shadow of reason But you say Admitting Irenaeus 's Authority to be unblemished and cite as one could wish it yet on this occasion it
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
support his Opinion which is oppos'd by the whole current of Antiquity His Friend Walo Messalinus was more cautious who acknowledges that the distinction of the Orders of Bishops and Presbyters was most Ancient and only requires that the Apostles times should be excepted and yet his demand is too extravagant For the Fathers generally believ'd that there was such a distinction in their days and that by their appointment in Churches of their own plantation This may appear from what has been said already and it may be farther confirm'd from Tertullian who thus upbraids the Hereticks with their Novelty and confutes their pretences to Tradition Let them declare says he the Originals of their Churches Let them shew an Order of their Bishops flowing by Succession in such a manner from the beginning that their first Bishop had an Apostle or an Apostolical Person who was conversant with the Apostles for his Ordainer and Predecessor And he adds that this the Apostolical Churches did And thus he thought to stop the mouths of Gain-sayers and triumphs much in his Argument But his attempt had been extremely vain if they might have return'd him this Answer Sir you are under a mistake or would impose on us The Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and had no Successors nor did they constitute any Bishops as you pretend The Bishops you speak of have deprav'd the Government of the Church They have advanced themselves upon the steps to corruption and contrary to the Divine Institution usurpt a power over their Brethren What reason have we then to believe that they hold fast that profession of faith which was once deliver'd to the Saints since they have so ambitiously trampled on their Equals and made no conscience to establish their own Greatness on the ruines of the Ancient Discipline 'T is our Glory that we have none of them and that we regard not their Authority Yet upon your grounds this they might have replied to the Confusion of that Learned Father had it then been believ'd that Episcopacy was an Innovation I know it has been objected that there are Intricacies and Inconsistences in the Catalogues of the Successions which the Fathers have left us But so there are in the Catalogues of the High Priests that are gâ—ven by Jewish and Christian Writers as Mr. Selden will inform you And also in the Catalogues of the Archontes who amongst the Athenians gave the Name and Title to the year as you may find if you compare many of their Names as they are express'd in the Marble Chronicle at Oxford with what is extant concerning them in the Books of the most famous Greeks and those Books one with another Yet no Body doubts but there was amongst the Israelites a Succession of High Priests from Aaron and amongst the Athenians a Succession of Archontes from Creon And we have no reason to question but there was such a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as the Fathers speak of notwithstanding in the Tables of their Succession which have been convey'd to us there be some variation The Words of King Charles l. are very apposite to my purpose For says that Judicious and Excellent Prince All Humane Histories are subject to such frailties There are differences in Historiographers in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian Persian and Macedonian Kings and of the Saxon Kings in England And we find more inextricable difficulties in the Fasti Consulares the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls notwithstanding their great care in keeping the publick Records and the exactness of the Roman Histories than are to be found in the Episcopal Catalogues c. Yet all men believe there were Kings in those Countreys and Consuls in Rome in those times So that the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops in respect of some uncertainty and differences which yet may be fairly reconcil'd tendeth rather to the Confirmation of the thing it self 2. Wherever Christianity prevail'd the Government of the Churches was Episcopal For as S. Irenaeus argued for the Christian Religion that the Churches amongst the Germans amongst the Hiberi and Celtae the Churches planted in the East in Egypt and Libya and in the Middle Region of the World or Palestine had not a Faith or Tradition different from one another but as one Sun gave light to all the World so did the same Truth shine every where Thus may we say of the Ecclesiastical Polity or Government in the first Ages after the Apostles It was every where the same It was the same as we have seen in Europe and in Asia and in Africa And distant as the Nations were in situation and different as they were in their Customs and Manners yet when Christianity was receiv'd amongst them it brought Episcopacy with it A plain Argument that both proceeded from the same Uniform Cause and that Prelacy was not esteem'd a mere prudential thing that might be rejected at pleasure In the passage that I last cited from Tertullian he manifestly shews that all Apostolical Churches were govern'd by a Succession of Bishops from the beginning And in this he follows Irenaeus who intimates that he could have set down such a Succession in the rest as he did in the Church of Rome but that he was unwilling to swell his Volume into too great a Bulk And in the following Age S. Cyprian says that Bishops were long since ordain'd through all Provinces and all Cities To the Testimony of the Fathers I shall add another of a Modern Writer but it relates to the practice of former times and is pertinent to my design The Author I mean is the celebrated Dr. Walton whose Edition of the Polyglott Bibles was not a little for the honour of our Church and Nation yet it rais'd the Envy of some and that drew from him these words It appears says he by these Ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cryed down in the Church of England as Popish Innovations viz. Episcopal Government Set Forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivals besides the Lord's Day were us'd as they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their Conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been Anciently us'd by those famous and flourishing Churches which never profess'd Subjection to the See of Rome This is that Cordolium of our Novelists the Practice of the Vniversal Church of Christ all the World over I have shew'd what was the Original of Prelacy or Episcopacy and how universally it did obtain But the Dissenters understanding by a Bishop such a Minister as may have no other Pastor above him nor any Presbyter under him I would demand Where there is any instance of him in the holy Scripture or whether the Primitive Fathers writ any thing of him In what Country did he live In what Nation under the Heavens did he exercise his Pastoral
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
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
it I do not understand You have some other quotations from the Fathers which I need not here examine having done it already But I proceed to shew that it is altogether improbable that the Pastours of the Church who came next after the Apostles should conspire to deprave a Divine Institution And this I think will appear if it be consider'd 1. That they were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue 2. If they had not been such they could not so suddenly have agreed in the same design to corrupt the Church as you contend in the same manner 1. They were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account what care S. John took of the Churches after his return from Patmos and that he admitted such into the Clergy as were design'd or distinguish'd by the Holy Ghost And as I noted before Irenaeus says the Apostles were desirous that they should be very perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left to be their Successors to whom they committed their own place of Government And can we imagine that such persons as these conspir'd to deprave an Institution of Christ When they daily expos'd their lives to danger when they despis'd the Vngulae and Catastae the rage of Savage Boasts and more Savage Men when a firm adherence to their Religion expos'd them to the Scourge or the Cross the Axe or the Fire and when they express'd such a chearful readiness to embrace the sorest evils that could be inflicted on them and death it self under the most dreadful Circumstances rather than deny their Master were they then contriving to ruin his Discipline or Caballing to make themselves great Or if the mystery of iniquity did so generally work in the Prelates who are suppos'd to have usurpt Authority over their Brethren was there not an honest Presbyter in the world to put them in mind of their Duty or to admonish them to keep their Station Was there not one upon earth that would oppose their Innovations or plainly tell them that by the appointment of Heaven all Presbyters are equal If the Presbyters had no regard for their own Authority had they no concern for their Masters glory Had they no remembrance of what the Apostles taught or of the Instructions for the Government of the Church which they had given Did they not only quietly see the degeneracy spread apace but help it forward by relinquishing the Trust and Authority committed to them by the Holy Ghost We have no reason certainly to suspect any such matters of them but if we had I should dread the Consequences of it 2. If the Bishops who liv'd in the next Age to that of the Apostles had not been persons of so much Perfection and Virtue yet they could not so suddenly have agreed to corrupt the Church in the same manner Arnobius disputing against the Gentiles says in vindication of the History of Christianity If that be false whence comes it to pass that the whole World was in so short a time fill'd with this Religion or how came Nations so distant to receive it with one consent And in like manner I may demand If Prelacy be a defection from an Institution of Christ or his Apostles how came it to gain so early an admission amongst persons of so many different Countries and Languages How came it so suddenly to be establish'd in all the Churches upon the face of the Earth You say that Ecclesiastical Prelates arose at best by occasion and prudentially upon the increase of Believers But how did they every where meet with the like occasions How came all the Churches in the World to act by the same Prudential Rules If you can shew how all the Bishops upon Earth agreed to exalt themselves above their Brethren and how the Presbyters every where so suddenly consented in their submission to them you are the man of the world fittest to write a Commentary on the Philosophy of Epicurus and to prove that his Atoms by their accidental concourse perform'd all the feats and wonders that have been attributed to them That I have not been singular in matching such improbabilities may appear from the words of Mr. Chillingworth which I shall here set down When I shall see says he all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep and awake into Monarchies Then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles Doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a Scene in a Masque and transform'd into Episcopacy In the mean time continues my Author whilst these things remain thus incredible and in human reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally receiv'd in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick CHAP. XVII Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated IT is certain that the Testimony of the Fathers cannot be admitted to determine the Controversie between us but with the ruine of your Cause it being altogether inconsistent with your Opinion That Episcopacy was not of a Divine or Apostolical Appointment but introduced prudentially and gradually advanced upon the steps to Corruption Even of that select Company who as you say were as Pious and Learned Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd and to whom you profess'd your adherence there was not a man who did not believe that Bishops were constituted by Christ himself or his Apostles or by both You have one Refuge however yet remaining which is to reject those as incompetent Witnesses who upon examination appear against you And accordingly you tell me That the Fathers wrote things they saw not and fram'd matters according to their own conceits and many of them were tainted with partial humours You farther add That the Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops which Eusebius has given us are only Conjectural and Traditionary words fitly join'd together That himself tells us there was a great Chasm in Ecclesiastical History for the three first Centuries Ay that in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul c. But the sum of what Eusebius does indeed say in that
these to the People And thus when the abolishing of the Episcopal Government with all its dependences Root and Branch was in agitation Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes objected against the Bishops That by their Power over other Ministers who had an influence upon the People they might mould them both according to their own wills and having put out our eyes says he as the Philistins did Sampson 's they may afterwards make us grind and reduce us to what slavery they please A dreadful thing indeed had there been any foundation for the apprehension of it But if such Fantômes as may at any time be rais'd by Art or the Strength of Imagination and have nothing in them of Substance or Reality be sufficient to disquiet us we are like to enjoy but little rest And to come nearer to the purpose If a meer possibility of doing hurt be so dangerous and formidable to Princes This would be enough to create in them frightful Idea's of their Guards and their Armies and of all that are about them and render them at last like Pashur a Terror to themselves He could not but see that a meer Capacity in the Clergy of conveying Malignity was not sufficient to make them Enemies to the State and he pretends that they have been actually guilty of a most notorious defection from their Duty to the Civil Magistrate and that it has been found by Experience not only that there never was but that there never can be in the World a thing more dangerous to any Government than the National Hierarchy An Accusation that sounds very harsh and runs high not against a few single persons only but a considerable Society But he hath not told us in what Instance they were liable to it or when it was they became so criminal It is certain that in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth they could not deserve so hateful a Character For Jealous as She was of her Glory She could not find that it was eclips'd by them But She did perceive how necessary it was to check and repress the Attempts against them and was sensible as Mr. Camden acquaints us that her own Authority was struck at through the sides of the Bishops As this Admirable Princess penetrated into the Secrets of Foreign Courts so She perfectly understood the Interests of her own Kingdoms And if any would know what She thought of some fiery Zealots of those Times who spent their Heats in opposing Episcopacy and the Liturgy it may be seen in Serjeant Puckering's Speech recorded by Sr. William Dugdale for it is made by Her Command Her Successor King James could never discover that nothing could be more dangerous to him than the National Hierarchy He always believ'd that Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and as he found it establish'd here to his great satisfaction so he never saw cause to repent of his defence of it and the Privileges annex'd to it How well he approv'd the Constitution of the Church of England may appear from hence that in his Speech in the Star-Chamber he affirm'd That of any Church that ever he read or knew of present or past he thought in his Conscience This was the most pure and nearest the Primitive and Apostolical Church in Doctrine and Discipline and the sureliest founded on the Word of God of any Church in Christendom At the same time he complain'd of the Contempt that was cast on a Church so Reform'd and the Governours thereof and looking on it as a sign of Impending Judgments he says God will not bless us and our Laws if we do not reverence and obey Gods Law which cannot be except the Interpreters of it be respected and reverenced Such a regard He had for them from a Principle of Religion and their Fidelity to Him was answerable to it and contributed not a little to the Safety of his Person the Support of the Throne and the Welfare of the Nation But as for the many Dangers to which he was expos'd they arose from other Quarters They either proceeded from the Conspiracies of Papists whose Principles he examin'd and confuted that neither the Subversion of States nor the Murthers of Kings should have free passage in the World for want of timely Advertisement or from the Practices of another sort of persons whom he calls the very Pests in the Church and Common-wealth and by whom as he declares to all Christian Monarchs Free Princes and States he was persecuted not from his Birth only but four Months before his Birth In the Reign of King Charles the First the Clergy were not wanting in their demonstrations of Loyalty as we all know and they felt Yet I grant that some had discours'd before his Majesty that Episcopacy as claim'd and exercis'd within this Realm was not a little derogatory to the Regal Authority as well in the Point of Supremacy as Prerogative in the one by claiming the Function as by a Divine Right in the other by exercising the Jurisdiction in their own Names But on that occasion He told Dr. Sanderson that he did not believe the Church-Government as by Law establish'd was in either of the aforesaid respects or any other way prejudicial to his Crown Nevertheless he requir'd that Learned Man from whom I borrow'd this Relation to draw up an Answer to those two Objections for the satisfaction of others which he did accordingly And I shall only crave leave to transcribe from him the following words which he uses near the Conclusion of his Treatise By this time says he I doubt not all that are not wilfully blind do see and understand by sad experience that it had been far better both with King and Kingdom than now it is or is like to be in haste if the Enemies of Episcopacy had meant no worse to the King and his Crown than the Bishops and those that favour'd them did I shall not further exercise your patience in going about to prove that the Clergy were faithful to the Crown in the Reign of King Charles the Second You may well enough remember what King James the Second acknowledged that the Church of England had been eminently Loyal in the defence of his Father and support of his Brother in the worst of Times But that our Church-men have since revolted from their Principles which were then said to be for Monarchy I do not understand Nor was our Author willing in plain terms to inform us when it was that they became such Examples of Malignity lest the Calumny might easily be detected Yet Obscure as he is he hath left us a Key to his meaning for he intimates that they have been found to be dangerous by fresh experience when they were not in the Measures and Interests of the Government respecting doubtless the late Times before the great Revolution And so the Secret comes out which was at the bottom and rais'd his Indignation In the Opinion you see of this Gentleman the Clergy were
to be acquainted with those Gentlemen to whom he dedicates his Book But if I am not mistaken in their Character they are of more Judgment than to believe that if others were as Candid as themselves this Idea which he so much magnifies would be of Infinite Advantage They will rather perceive that it would not otherwise put an end to the Fatal Controversies that have perplext the Church than Poison would cure Diseases that is by the death of the Patients For 't is evident that the design of it is to abrogate the Authority which Christ bestow'd on his Ecclesiastical Officers and consequently our Author instead of Intitling his Book The Nature of Church-Government Freely Discussed might more fitly have call'd it A Treatise of Church-Anarchy or Church-Confusion I know not whether the Applause of his Performances be continued to him in his own Person which he first receiv'd by Proxy from the neighbouring Dissenters But sure I am that he contradicts the avowed Principles of their Party and the sense of their Writers He contends that the Pastors of the Church have no Authority but what they derive from the State He makes Church-Government a meer Prudential Thing and Alterable in the Form of it according to the various Forms of the Civil Government and argues that it ought to take its Model from the appointment of the Civil Magistrate Whereas their other Writers tell us That a Spiritual Extraction of a Legitimate Ecclesiastical Power cannot be made from a Secular Root That the Introduction of Humane Authority into the Rule of the Church of Christ in any kind destroyeth the Nature of it That there is but one Form of Government laid down in the Word and that Unchangeable and that to think Church-Government must be fram'd according to the Common-wealth or Civil Government is as if one should fashion his House according to his Hangings But that his Friends may not resent the matter too highly when they find how they have been impos'd on by him I can assure them that in contradicting their Authors he uses them no worse than he does himself For having formerly concluded from 2 Thess 2.15 that it was the duty of Christians to preserve the same Government in the Churches after the Apostles days that was appointed and practis'd in them he now comes to prove that let the Government in those days be what it will it is but a Prudential and Ambulatory Thing and lyable to Changes according to the difference of Times and Occasions And that his Friends may not for the future expect to find him any more fix'd or steady he professes in his Epistle Dedicatory that he hath nothing of fondness in him for any Opinions He hath as little fondness in him for the Authority of the Apostles as he hath for his own Opinions For however he takes Diocesan Prelacy to be a Degeneracy or Defection from an Apostolical Constitution yet he boasts of his Vindication of it upon Prudential grounds He represents Episcopacy as a Corruption and yet he supposes that it is of Divine Right when it is by Law established The truth is he hath confusedly jumbl'd together the Notions of the Dissenters and the Principles of Hobbes and Erastus and with this odd kind of mixture he thinks himself sufficiently qualified to heal the Breaches of Christendom Before him one Peter Cornelius Van Zurick-zee set up for a Reconciler General and his Project for Union was that in every City and in every County there should be appointed a General Meeting-place in which the Christians of all Persuasions should be requir'd to assemble together that they might hear the Scriptures read and afterwards talk about them and give their Interpretations of them according to their various Sentiments Of this Device he had such a conceit that leaving his Family and Native Country he cross'd the Seas that he might reveal it in England expecting that here it would receive a kind entertainment and from hence break forth as a Light into all other Countries and Nations But whether this Man or the Free Discusser hath furnish'd us with a better Plan of an Universal Peace or whether Prudential Reason hath been more happy than a Freak of Enthusiasm in proposing a Method of Union or Scheme of Ecclesiastical Polity I leave you to determine In the mean time I am of opinion that the way of governing Churches which is agreeable to the will of God was not to be invented or first discover'd fifteen or sixteen hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour I suppose a thing of such use must needs have been known to the Primitive Christians And they generally believ'd 1. That our Saviour Christ who was the Founder of Church-Government bestow'd on his Officers such Authority as qualified them for the Administration of it 2. That this Government was Episcopal from the beginning On these two things I have chiefly insisted in this Discourse but far more copiously on the last against which I met with the greatest opposition By which opposition I do not only mean That which hath been made by my Adversary for I have considerd the utmost that I could find objected on That side And upon the whole I am satisfied that it requires no great Abilities to defend Episcopacy and that it proceeds from the Goodness of the Cause that the more Learned the Opposers of it are the more ready have they been to let fall such things as may serve for the Vindication of it and answer their own Objections This was the Case of Blondel and Salmasius but more particularly of the last who hath so many things that favour my Hypothesis that of all Modern Authors none has been more useful to me than Walo Messalinus But all the assistance I have receiv'd from him has been only to confirm the Notions which I had before grounded on the Holy Scriptures the Testimony of the Ancients from which I have prov'd That Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and that meer Presbyters were generally subordinate to Superior Pastors in the Apostles days and afterwards in the best and purest Ages And if so there can be no doubt concerning the succeeding Times or of the Truth of what was affirm'd by the Lord Falkland in a warm Speech which he made against some of the Bishops that the Order of the Bishops hath always remain'd in the Churches from Christ to Calvin What I have said on this subject fastens an Imputation of Novelty on the Dissenters but I cannot help it and they have no reason to be offended at it For their own Friends the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches who met at the Savoy confess that it is true in respect of the publick and open profession either of Presbytery or Independency this Nation hath been a stranger to each way it 's possible ever since it hath been Christian And I will adventure to add that the Nation may be
who was Bishop of Ephesus p. 104 Chap. 8. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus who was Bishop of Crete p. 132 Chap. 9. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches p. 144 Chap. 10. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the first Century consider'd p. 164 Chap. 11. After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops p. 172 Chap. 12. The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles p. 178 Chap. 13. The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors p. 190 Chap. 14. After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy p. 207 Chap. 15. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd p. 215 Chap. 16. Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment p. 236 Chap. 17. Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated p. 250 Chap. 18. The Testimony of the Fathers is necessary for the ascertaining to us the Canon of the Holy Scripture It is as Cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy p. 264 A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Samuel Smith at the Prince's Arms in S. Paul's Church-Yard London 1692. AN Enquiry after Happiness in several Parts by the Author of Practical Christianity Vol. 1. Of the Possibility of Obtaining Happiness The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged in Octavo 1692. Price 3 s. 6. d. Of the True Notion of Humane Life or a Second Part of the Enquiry after Happiness in Octavo 1690. Price 2 s. 6 d. The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation In Two Parts viz. The Heavenly Bodies Elements Meteors Fossils Vegetables Animals Beasts Birds Fishes and Insects more particularly in the Body of the Earth its Figure Motion and Consistency and in the Admirable Structure of the Bodies of Man and other Animals as also in their Generation c. By John Ray Fellow of the Royal Society The Second Edition very much Enlarged Printed in Octavo Price 3 s. Miscellaneous Discourses concerning the Dissolution and Changes of the World wherein the Primitive Chaos and Creation the General Deluge Fountains Formed Stones Sea-Shells found in the Earth Subterraneous Trees Mountains Earthquakes Vulcano's the Universal Conflagration and Future State are largly Discussed and Examined By John Ray Fellow of the Royal Society in Octavo 1692. Price 2 s. 6 d. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Roman Emperour concerning himself Treating of a Natural Man's Happiness Wherein it consisteth and of the Means to attain unto it Translated out of the Original Greek with Notes By Meric Casaubon D. D. The Fifth Edition to which is added The Life of Antoninus with some Select Remarks upon the whole by Monsieur and Madam Dacier never before in English in Octavo 1692. Price 5 s. A TREATISE OF Church-Government Address'd to the AUTHOR of the LETTERS Concerning the same Subject CHAP. I. Jesus Christ the Founder of Church Government The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted To them he gave no Temporal Authority yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual SIR SINCE you have been pleas'd to declare to the World what expectation you had that I would give you a Scheme of my thoughts concerning Church-Government your Readers have occasion enough to enquire how you could meet with disappointment when you had the Papers before you wherein I had largely handled that Subject and whilst you pretend to have drawn the things from thence which you endeavour to confute and not from your own Invention The truth is this Address would have been unnecessary had you fully related my sense of the matters in debate between us as you found it express'd in my private Letters But the representations you have made of it are so very defective that I think my self obliged to communicate to publick view the Principles on which I proceeded with a Vindication of them And I begin with what is evident enough That our Saviour Christ who is Head of the Church was the Founder of Ecclesiastical Government and consequently it proceeded from a Divine Institution The Original of this Government being known we may the more easily gain a true Idea of its Nature for that may best be discern'd when we consider it in the greatest Purity as it came out of the hands of our Lord and was exercis'd by his Apostles who were the first Ministers that he ordain'd And upon enquiry we shall find That to qualifie them for the administration of it he gave them no Temporal Jurisdiction and yet did communicate to them Spiritual Authority That amongst themselves they stood related as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors And on these things all that I have to say of Church-Government will depend An easie Enquiry will inform us that our Saviour gave his Apostles no Temporal Jurisdiction For it is plain that he did not send them to exercise any such Dominion as was possess'd by the Kings of the Earth or the Lords of the Gentiles Nor did he any where disingage them from Subjection to the Civil Magistrate He gave them Commission to combate nothing but Ignorance and Vice and when he call'd them to resist unto blood it was that of themselves and not of other men And according to the Instructions they receiv'd they taught and practis'd Submission to Secular Princes not only for Wrath but Conscience sake and in all their Conduct nothing appear'd that might give any just occasion of Jealousie to the State or create Disturbance to the Empire Our Saviour said indeed that when he was lifted up from the Earth he would draw all men unto him But these words signifying what death he should die are far enough from the sense which Jacobus de Terano puts upon them For that wretched Paraphrast introduces our Lord speaking after this manner I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the World and take them from Cesar and from Kings and Princes by my Souldiers the Apostles With such prodigious flattery says Marquardus Freherus from whom I borrow'd that Observation the Books of Augustinus de Ancona and other Papal Parasites are stuft and with such Ornaments are the Decretal Epistles embellished To these he might have added the Annals of Baronius who amongst other things that occur in them of like nature grounds the Doctrine of deposing Princes on that expression Arise Peter kill and eat And accordingly that Doctrine prevail'd by killing and devouring It made its impressions with Blood and Violence but not without the assistance of
mention he makes of his power to use sharpness if his directions were not observ'd and his challenging obedience from them to whom he ow'd obedience could not but be very surprizing and his threatning that he would come with his Rod if they did not prevent it by their Reformation and that then he would not spare must needs have appear'd very strange language to his good Masters the Corinthians Another Argument by which you pursue the design of the Leviathan in opposing Ecclesiastical Authority is taken from the inconsistence you conceive it hath with the Civil Government if it be not deriv'd from it You conclude there can be no Jurisdiction at all unless it be in the Magistrate or proceeds from him because as you tell me in one Kingdom there can be but one spring or fountain of it But if this be at all pertinent and by Jurisdiction you do not only mean that which is Secular your Objection makes as much against the Ruling Power of the Apostles as of other Spiritual Pastors Yet is this some of that stuff which you so highly extol and I suppose that in your Epistle Dedicatory you had it particularly in your eye where you say that were your Idea of Church-Government receiv'd by all others with the same degree of candour as you assure your self it shall by your Noble Friends it would be of infinite advantage to end those fatal controversies that for many Ages have perplexed and in this last almost destroy'd the Church What your Noble Friends think of your performance I cannot tell For my own part I am not surpriz'd to find you ascribing Infinite Advantage to the Exploits of your own Pen nor convinced but that if your Principles about Ecclesiastical Polity were generally embraced they might be of more pernicious consequence than the Collection which as Lactantius informs us Vlpian made of the impious Rescripts of Princes that he might shew what punishments should be inflicted on those who professed themselves Worshippers of God The Justice of this Charge will be manifest from hence that the Church cannot subsist without Government nor Government without Authority If therefore as you contend there be no Ecclesiastical Government or Authority but what proceeds from the Magistrate this would put it into the power of a Julian to destroy the Church by dissolving that Government and abrogating that Authority And to this he might be the more inclin'd did he believe that the Hierarchy could not be tolerated with safety to himself or were so dangerous a thing as you have represented it Had the Apostles you say own'd any pretensions of a design to erect a National much more an Vniversal Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church or had they done any thing to occasion a just suspicion of such a Design it would have much obstructed the true design and end of their Mission which was the planting and spreading Christianity For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own defence and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives and Rights must have always oppos'd it That is they would have been obliged to restrain the Apostles or oppose their Attempts if they acted by other Principles or advanced other Notions than you have embraced And this may a little discover the tendency of your Letters of Church-Government There can be no question amongst those that believe the Gospel but that our Saviour might have established an Vniversal Hierarchy Nor can there be any doubt but if he enjoin'd his Apostles to erect an external form of Church-government it had been their duty to obey his Command And what must then the Kings and Rulers of the Earth have done If you have stated the Case right they might lawfully have taken counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed They might and ought to have resisted his Design and Constitution or in your words They must in their own defence and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives have always oppos'd it A passage which one would think you should hardly reflect on without something of Confusion It will deserve the severer Censure if it be true that such a Hierarchy as you condemn was indeed erected and that by the appointment of Christ himself And this I take to be certain For the Apostles to whom he committed the Government of all the Church Militant were not invisible Rulers nor were the people under their charge invisible Subjects They admitted not persons into the Christian Society by any secret Rite but by Baptism Nor did they expel them from it by any hidden practice but in a publick manner The Faithful were united to them and other Pastors ordain'd by them as also amongst themselves not only in Love or Charity as they were to all Mankind but in that mutual relation which they had as visible Members of the same Body and as such they were obliged to meet and communicate in the Assemblies that were held for the putting up of solemn Prayers and Praises to Heaven for the Celebration of the Eucharist and other external Acts of Worship And whosoever had Right to Communion in one of those Assemblies he had so in all provided his demand of it was no way irregular And whosoever was expell'd for his Offences from one particular Church he was virtually excluded from the Communion of all other Churches He could not rescind the Sentence against himself by shifting of places Nor could he be kept bound and loos'd on Earth unless he might have been absolv'd and condemn'd in Heaven at the same time After the Apostles days an universal and external Form of Church-Government was kept up and appear'd in great vigor notwithstanding the disturbance it receiv'd from without You your self confess that the Notion of Catholick Vnity then obtain'd which was not understood you say to be internal and spiritual but to consist in something external relating unto Order and Discipline as being an Vnity that was to be maintain'd by Communicatory and other Letters and by Orders and that was intended to support the Notion of but one Bishoprick in the Church and that every Bishop participated of that one Bishoprick in solidum A Notion that was of great use to make the Discipline and Power the more pointed for if but one Church then to be cast out of any part of the Church was indeed to be ejected out of the whole and if but one Bishoprick to be participated by all the Bishops what was done by one was done by all All did censure if one did The Expulsion made by one Bishop out of any Church was in effect an Expulsion from all Churches and so a cutting off entirely from Christianity and all Communion of Saints Yet useful as you think this Notion was and early as it obtain'd you take it to be intolerable The Authority which you acknowledge S. Cyprian approv'd and which was exercis'd by him and other excellent Men in his
enough in my Concessions I. I grant that originally there were but twelve Apostles and I doubt not but as S. Barnabas intimates they were so many in allusion to the twelve Tribes of Israel But it does not follow from hence that the Office of the Apostles was limited to that Number or to their Persons On the contrary I shall prove in another place that it was actually communicated to others yet I deny not but the Name of the Twelve was continued for as it was assign'd to the Apostles with regard to their first Institution when Judas was fall'n and there remain'd only Eleven so it was also when many more were admitted into the Sacred College And thus says Peter du Moulin The Regions of Decapolis and Pentapolis kept up their Names when some of their old Cities were destroy'd or when new ones were built within their Precincts and Neapolis which signifies a New City is still so call'd notwithstanding its great Antiquity II. I grant That the first Apostles saw the Lord but this was no part of their Office only it made them fit to be the first Witnesses of Christianity Because says Paulinus they were to be sent into the World for the Information of all Nations it was requisite they should receive the Faith they were to preach not only with their ears but with their eys that what they had more firmly learned they might more constantly teach But we cannot infer from hence that none might succeed them in teaching and governing Their Conversation with Christ in the Flesh was a great Privilege to which at this time none can justly pretend But what qualified them for the Mission by which they were enabled to constitute subordinate Officers did not hinder them certainly from appointing others to preside over them as themselves had done III. I grant That the Apostles had their Commission immediately from our Saviour But notwithstanding this Privilege others might as well succeed them in the Authority they had to govern the Churches as Princes might sit on the Throne of David who were not advanced to it in a manner so Extraordinary by the particular Appointment and express Declaration of the Almighty as himself had been Noah his Sons receiv'd Power by an express Revelation over the beasts of the earth and over the fowl of the air over every thing that moved upon the earth and over the fishes of the sea and liberty to eat of every living thing as of the green herb Yet they transmitted that Power and Liberty to their Posterity who have not such an intercourse with Heaven as themselves had Thus the first Apostles who were sent immediately by Christ himself might convey their Authority to others who had not that advantage And 't is manifest that their Office was actually delegated to Matthias to whom our Lord did not immediately speak the words of their Commission IV. I grant That the Apostles were in some sense the Foundation on which the Christian Church was built for so we learn from S. Paul Eph. 2.20 But this does not demonstrate that they were an Extraordinary part of the Building Some think they were said to be the Foundation because they first published the Gospel So the Socinians interpret that Expression and they infer from thence as you have also done that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers But if for that reason they were so in any thing it was in teaching and consequently That was an Extraordinary Part of their work which you say was standing and perpetual Casaubon observes in one of his Exercitations on the Annals of Baronius that when the word Rock is used Metaphorically in Scripture it is with allusion to some Properties of a Rock and denotes Firmness and Stability or the like And says this Learned Man a Rock and Foundation are put for the same thing and differ not in Reality but in Notion only This is what you will be oblig'd to confute if you still adhere to your Opinion for in vain do you argue that the Apostles must needs have had Extraordinary Authority because they had the honour to be a Foundadation of the Catholick Church if no Authority be signified by that expression The Apostles were vested with Authority by their Commission before they planted Churches and therefore did not derive it from that work But if we think that because they formed those Societies their Authority must needs have been Extraordinary and Incommunicable we may as well conclude that Romulus was no King because at Rome he laid the Foundation of the Regal Government which work was not repeated by those that succeeded him in the Throne For my part I know no necessity that they who constitute Churches should be of a distinct Order from those that afterwards preside over them Frumentius was as much a Bishop when he travell'd from one place to another in India after his return thither to plant Churches as any that govern'd them in succeeding times and they that were ordain'd Bishops by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe did not forfeit their Character whatever that was or acquire any Extraordinary Authority if they were employ'd to convert those that were committed to their Charge But you tell me that whilst the Founder of a College lives it is the duty of the founded on emergent difficulties to have recourse to him and take his directions but he dying his Authority dies with him And it may be so and it may be otherwise You your self cannot be ignorant I am sure how usual it hath been for Founders to appoint Visitors of their Colleges and how permanent their Power has been in our Universities So that this Argument if one may call it so may easily be turn'd against you But Founders you say as such as have no Successors This is profound and it signifies that none came after them to lay the very same Foundations which they had finished before If such arguing as this silences all disputes and puts an end to the fatal Controversies which you truly say have almost destroy'd the Church it must be when the contending Parties are become very weary of their strife and are mightily inclin'd to an Accommodation V. I grant That the Apostles had Power to work Miracles for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrine But this hinders not a Succession to them in that Authority which is not miraculous but may be continued in all Ages There was something Extraordinary in the manner of discharging the Apostolical Office but it does not follow from hence that the Office itself was so or ought to be laid aside Otherwise for the same reason we must lay aside Baptism Imposition of Hands Praying and Preaching because all these things were attended with something Extraordinary and Miraculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says S. Chrysostom There was nothing that was merely humane or common in that Age of Wonders But Miracles are said to be the
and Astonishment like the Inchanters of Egypt when they beheld the Finger of God But neither was it afterwards always requisite that there should be just seven Deacons however some religiously adher'd to that number nor was it necessary that they should always be adorn'd with Gifts that were Extraordinary and Miraculous for otherwise when Miracles ceas'd their Office must have ceas'd with them The Circumstances of the first Presbyters were also Extraordinary They were qualified for their Ordination with Extraordinary Gifts and Directions were given about it by Extraordinary Indications They could pray with the Spirit and preach by Inspiration They could speak Languages which they had never learn'd and perform other things as Miraculous Yet when all those Extraordinaries ceas'd the Order and Mission of Presbyters did not so but still remain'd and ought to remain to the end of the World From these Instances it is manifest that some things might be requisite for the beginning of an Office and for some that were vested with it a repetition of which is not always necessary for its preservation nor for all that are advanced to it However therefore the Apostles had some Prerogatives to which none at this time have any just pretence however it was very fit that they that were the first Planters of the Gospel should be able to recommend their Doctrine which was then new to the World with Miracles which we may call the Seals of that Commission which they receiv'd from Christ yet the Authority they had as Supreme Visible Pastors of the Church might descend to others who have no need of new Seals or Credentials for what may be sufficiently confirm'd by the same Let us now suppose if you please that the Apostles did more Miracles than any others or that the working of some was peculiar to them yet if Miracles as such hinder not a Succession to them the number and quality of their Miracles cannot do it without some declaration that they were intended for that purpose They may rather seem to concur with other things in signifying the pleasure of the Almighty to preserve that Office or Order which he so highly approv'd and which he had established in so wonderful a manner VI. I grant that the Charge of the Apostles was of great extent yet this hinders not but that they might have Successors in their Office or Authority They had a large Sphere of Action when they were sent to disciple all Nations But then no Apostle had sole Commission to do this Neither were the Apostles wont to act as in a Common Council by Majority of Voices but dispers'd themselves that they might better propagate the Doctrine of Christ They did not all travel together into the same Country but some went into Asia some into Scythia and others into other Nations says Didymus as they were directed by the Holy Spirit The Armenian Historian in Galanus tells us that having received the Holy Ghost they divided the Countries by Lot But certain it is that some of them were more especially engaged to plant Christianity amongst the Gentiles some amongst those of the Circumcision Some in this Nation and some in that No single Person had the whole work of preaching the Gospel committed solely to him For as there ought to be no Oecumenical Bishop so there was no Oecumenical Apostle who had Jurisdiction over the rest It is also manifest that all the Bishops in the second and other Centuries had Power to govern all the Churches that were planted by all the Apostles and to propagate Christianity far and near so that the Charge of both in general was of equal extent And if the multitude of Pastors as well as of other Christians increasing particular Bishops were concluded within a narrower compass than the Apostles had been such Disproportion of Dioceses does not necessarily hinder the Title of Succession of one from another as may appear by the following Instances The Kings of Judah are mentioned in Scripture as sitting on the Throne of David when ten Tribes pay'd them no Obedience So that however they had not his Dominions intire it was enough to preserve their Succession to him in Royal Authority that they retained it in such parts of them as remain'd under their subjection Eutropius says of Severus that he left his Sons Bassianus and Geta his Successors And Constantine he tells us left his three Sons his Successors none of which singly could have all the Dominions of their Father in which the other Brothers had their share And not to mention other Examples I find in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius the Great Men who divided amongst them the Empire of Alexander twice styled his Successors and once the Successors by way of Eminence yet no one of them had either the personal Courage and Conduct or all the Dominions of that Mighty Conqueror Perhaps it will be said that this is a mere Dispute about Words for that is the Reflection which a Learned Foreiner was pleas'd to cast on it when it had been managed by an incomparable hand But when Salmasius whom others have followed argues against the Succession to the Apostles from his own mistake of a Word to give its true Interpretation and to confute that which is erroneous is the best way I think to shew the weakness of his reasoning VII I grant That other Pastors of the Church are commonly under an Obligation to a more constant Residence in some particular Places than the Apostles were yet this hinders not the Bishops from succeeding the Apostles in their Office or Authority For 1. It is not Essential to the Office of a Bishop that he reside in a Place as a Local Pastor of a particular Church nor is it always necessary as you suggest that he should be ordain'd to a certain People They that with us are advanc'd to the Episcopal Chair are constituted Bishops in the Church of God But that they are limited to a certain Diocese proceeds from such Rules of Government as are not always of necessary Obligation The Council of Chalcedon declar'd that none should be ordain'd at large yet this Rule says Grotius was not of Divine and Perpetual but Positive Right and it may admit of many Exceptions Before that Council S. Paulinus was ordained Absolutely in Sacerdotiam tantùm Domini non in locum Ecclesiae dedicatus as himself speaks in an Epistle to Severus And when S. Jerom was made a Presbyter he had no peculiar Church or Title assign'd to him And to come nearer to the matter Photius tells us that Caius who flourished in the beginning of the Third Century was constituted Bishop of the Gentiles that is of the Heathen at large that by his Labours amongst them he might draw them to the Christian Faith Indeed where Ecclesiastical Government is setled and Christianity flourishes however persecuted by the Civil Power it is requisite for the most part that the Jurisdiction of
vast number of Believers And these are things that may put such Marks of Dignity on the Person that presides in it that the Chief Apostles had reason to think it would not have been a diminution but an honour rather to any of them to have been in his Station This may be sufficient to clear the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus as recorded by Eusebius to whom I refer'd you and I am not concern'd to enquire Whether the relation of it which you produce from Theodorus Metochita and others and which you say carries with it it s own Confutation be so absurd as you imagine Yet I cannot but observe that when I offer what you despair of opposing with success you think it enough to find out something else which in your judgment carries with it its own Confutation A Politick device I confess but no great Argument of your Ingenuity Hegesippus flourish'd in the same Age with Clemens but something more early and living so near the Apostles time he made use of that advantage in his Enquiries into the things that were done in them amongst which he acquaints us this was one That S. James took on him the Government of the Church of Jerusalem Hegesippus does not only relate this of him but he gives us a copious Account of his Life and Martyrdom yet this I confess would signifie but little were he as Joseph Scaliger represents him a trifling and a fabulous Writer But that he was unjustly censur'd by that celebrated Critick has been shew'd by Petavius and Valesius and to what they have said more might be added for his Vindication if it would not occasion too large a Digression or were it necessary to insist so much on the Authority of one for the Confirmation of a thing which may be sufficiently prov'd by the Suffrage of many others That S. James was Bishop or had the Charge of the Church of Jerusalem hath been generally believ'd by the Christians of different Nations and Languages The memory of it hath been preserv'd by the Ethiopians in their Diptychs by the Coptites in their Fasti and by the Syrians in their Menology It hath been receiv'd and related as an undoubted truth by Hippolytus and Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem and another Cyril of Scythopolis by Epiphanius and Chrysostom by Augustin and Fulgentius by Nicephorus and Photius by Oecumenius and Nilus And it was also mention'd as a thing universally acknowledged by the Sixth General Council and Blondel himself confesses that it was asserted by all the Fathers This Testimony in which they are so unanimous will appear the more considerable if it agree exactly with the Circumstances of S. James as they are represented in the Holy Scripture And that it does so will be manifest by comparing it with several places of the New Testament wherein he is mention'd For instance we read that when Peter had escap'd out of Prison he said to those that were surpriz'd and astonish'd at his presence Go and shew these things to James and to the Brethren In which words he passes by all Ecclesiastical Officers except James without any particular notice And this I take to be an Indication that however there might be others at Jerusalem that were subordinate to him there remain'd none with him that were his Equals When Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter other Disciples saw he none but James the Lord's Brother And this is that James says S. Jerom who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem a Person of great Sanctity and of such Reputation that the People would press and throng that they might touch but the Skirt of his Garment That Father also gives this reason why S. Paul did not see other Apostles it was he tells us because they were dispersed abroad to preach the Gospel but he resided where his peculiar Charge was Fourteen years after this or rather as some think after his Conversion S. Paul went up again to Jerusalem and there he found James and reckons him with Cephas and John who seem'd to be Pillars and were Chief Apostles hereby paying respect in the Opinion of Bede to the Dignity of his Chair And 't is observable that however Peter was one of the Number yet to James he gives the first place because says Anselm at Jerusalem where he was Bishop he had the Primacy But this you will not admit for that preference you say might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother As if John was not also the Lord's Brother who is mention'd after Peter or James had but lately contracted this relation I think this variation in the Order of Names from the usual Method must suppose a Change in the Affairs of the Apostles and import something peculiar to S. James which did not always belong to him but now gave him the pre-eminence in this place What that was we have seen already and Mr. Calvin saw it and does not speak of it as a thing improbable for says he When the question is concerning dignity it is wonderful that James should be prefer'd before Peter Perhaps it was because he was Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem The good man would not speak more plainly out of tenderness to his own Discipline At the Council of Jerusalem S. James makes a greater Figure than any of the rest of the Apostles and speaks with an Air of Authority as President of the Synod He was Bishop of Jerusalem says Chrysostom and to him was the chief Place assign'd And from hence it was that others having given their sense of things in debate S. James passes the final Sentence whereupon says Hesychius How shall I celebrate the Servant and Brother of Christ the Supreme Governour of the New Jerusalem the Prince of Priests the Chief of the Apostles the most resplendent amongst the Lamps and most illustrious amongst the Stars Peter preaches but James decrees His words are but few but comprehend the greatness of the question My sentence is says he that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God And thus says the Commentator on his Acts he spake the word and it was done His Suffrage passed into the form of a Law and was deliver'd to the Church Indeed if S. James had usurpt a Jurisdiction over his Collegues this had been criminal But I have ascrib'd to him no other Pre-eminence but what we may well suppose was granted to him by the rest of the Apostles that the proceedings in the Assembly might be the more regular It was agreeable to the Nature of a Synod not that he that presided in it should determine the thing in controversie by his sole Power but with the consent of the other members of it This is what S. James did after the full hearing of the matter and the manner of his giving
is notorious He gives an account of the last words of Peter and of his decease to James who died before him the space of several years We have seen under what Character S. James remain'd at Jerusalem and we may conclude that this Office was not Personal but continued after his death if it be evident that Simeon or Simon as he is sometimes call'd was his Successor And this is what is affirm'd by the Ancients generally and the notice of what they declare might be the better convey'd to them because Simeon lived to so great an Age that his Martyrdom falls within the Compass of the second Century Eusebius and Abulpharagius assign it to the tenth year of Trajan which was the one hundred and seventh year of our Lord. But a Learned Man of our own ascribes it to the one hundred and sixteenth year of Christ and for this he produces some probable Reasons which have met with good reception Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer and he testifies amongst many others that after the death of James Simeon was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem A Truth that in the Ages which afforded the best Judges of it met with an universal approbation This being clear I know not what better Form of Government we can have than that which was established at Jerusalem in the first Christian Church that ever was and of which some of the Kindred of our Saviour had the Administration I know not what more excellent Model can be contriv'd if this gives no satisfaction CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance I Have consider'd the Arguments by which you would demonstrate that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and in examining the last of them which I mention'd I proceeded farther than was necessary because I was willing to lay some things together that relate to the same subject It was my business to shew that a setled Residence in a Place was consistent with the Office of an Apostle and this I have not only done but also prov'd that S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that Simeon was his Successor and if so this does not only answer whatever you produce for your Opinion but is a direct Argument for Episcopacy It also shews that the Apostolate differs not in substance from Episcopacy and that it was design'd for continuance A Truth which I shall confirm 1. From the Nature of that Office or Authority which was confer'd on the Apostles 2. From the Necessity of the Continuance of some things which depend on a Succession to them 3. From the Promise which was annexed to their Commission 4. From the Actual Communication of their Office to others and the Preservation of it after their Decease 1. This Office or Authority which was of Divine Institution was never abrogated by any Divine Precept It was neither appropriated to the Apostles nor can Time render it useless or unfit It is therefore such as ought to be preserv'd in all Ages We may well think that they who were conversant with Christ himself and had receiv'd their Commission immediately from him have afforded us the best Pattern of Government that ever was and it seems very improbable that our Lord should shew us in their example the most excellent way of managing Ecclesiastical Affairs and put us under an obligation to reject it without telling us so or that such a disparity of Officers as had his approbation but never was oppos'd by him should now become Antichristian They say that Empires are best preserv'd by such means as they were founded and if the Apostles thought a disparity of Officers necessary when they were employ'd in converting the Gentiles I think 't is still requisite for the Government of them now that they are converted for their Conversion did prepare them for more Instruction it obliged them to an attendance at Religious Assemblies it made them subject to Discipline who were not so before And when the Work increases I think the Labourers ought not to be diminished nor their Ranks broken We may rather suppose that when whole Kingdoms embraced the Christian Faith disorders would be increas'd And when the first Apostles were departed who could convey Diseases and Death in their Censures whenever that Miraculous Power ceas'd it was requisite that some should retain all the Authority they had which was communicable that by the Dignity of their Office they might keep up a Reverence of Discipline and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church 2. There is a Necessity of the Continuation of some things which might depend on a Succession to the Apostles and cannot be preserv'd without it Amongst them I reckon the Administration of the Sacraments and the reason of it will be manifest when I have examin'd by what Right it is that you assign that Administration to Presbyters as a standing part of their Work I therefore demand in the first place From whence it is that they have Right to Baptize If it be from any Declaration that is made to them in Scripture let it be shew'd if from any Command let it be produc'd if from Example I pray inform me where any of their Order did Baptize I think upon enquiry it will be found that none in Scripture are said to Baptize but such as you call Extraordinary Officers and if they were so as many of their Actions as were peculiar to them may not be drawn into precedent It follows therefore from your Principles either that Baptism must be laid aside or else the Laity may confer it and they that have taken it out of their hands have done it in their wrong and that ever since the days of the Apostles Concerning the Lord's Supper you are like to be as much or more at a loss for you tell me that these words Do this in remembrance of me were said to the Apostles not as they were Ministers but as Communicants you mean private Christians And if so I would demand what grounds you have from Scripture for assigning to any Ecclesiastical Officers the Administration of this Sacrament or how with Consistence to your own Principles you can free them from Usurpation The reason for which you think those words of Christ were not said to the Apostles as Ministers but as private Christians is that otherwise there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity at which I suppose some of them who talk much of Religion would not be offended But if there be nothing else on which their Right to the Communion is founded without any injury to them this matter may be thus adjusted The Apostles as receiving the Communion might be the Representatives of the Faithful and of Ministers only in receiving the Command of Christ to do as he had shew'd them that is to bless and give to others the Sacramental Elements of Bread and Wine And such I affirm they were and such
highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church There is another reason for that Title for S. Paul calls him his Brother in such a manner as he does no man who was not his Colleague He also calls him his Companion in labour and his Fellow souldier not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions from place to place but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry I make no question but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow And the word so translated in Nonnus signifies an Equal In the Glossary of Philoxenus and in the Vulgar Latin 't is render'd by Compar And by Compar says Reinesius is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition and he shews that so it is us'd in Plautus This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3 compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function and if so he was not only in Name but in Reality an Apostle I am not ignorant that in this Explication I dissent from a Learned Author who thinks it sounds too harsh that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission But it should be consider'd that the sense of words of such especially as are Terms of Art often varies from their original signification so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation as are not consistent with their use And certain it is that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent They that are styled by Clemens Romanus the Apostles of us are not such as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans in whose Name he writes or from the Corinthians to whom he directs his Epistle but from Christ The Apostle of the Gentiles had not his Commission from them The Apostles and Angels of the Churches which I take to be of the same Order were not their Messengers but their principal Governors So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians should be call'd their Apostle 'T is true S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi But these in the Syriack Version as Mr. Selden tells us in the Arabick of Erpenius are said to be Presbyters And that they were no more than Presbyters we are agreed Many of the Fathers particularly Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and Oecumenius had the same opinion of them for which they give this reason that of one City there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop And for such a Bishop we need not here be at a loss having consider'd under what Character it was that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians CHAP. VII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy who was Bishop of Ephesus WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve I come now to shew that there were others of the same Order or to whom the same Authority was convey'd who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles Such are Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches to which more may be added but on these I chiefly insist That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence that he had full Power of Ordination This appears from the advice that was given him to lay hands suddenly on no man That is not to admit any into a Sacred Function without a due examination For so I interpret the words with Theodoret Photius and several others both Ancient and Modern Writers Some Learned Men I know put another sense on them and by laying on of hands understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures But I cannot find in Scripture that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers He speaks of the double honour or maintenance which is due to those that rule well and shews the reason of it He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any lest by his Precipitance he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry and partake with them in their sins And from hence we may learn what high trust was impos'd in him For in the Church committed to his Care the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices was wholly committed to him and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications There were many Presbyters where he resided yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government is manifest from hence that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you receive not an Accusation but it was said to him Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5.19 Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge For as Morinus observes from hence we may gather that three things belong'd to Timothy in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it and prescribe the Form of it He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate and hear them pleaded and he might determine them by passing Sentence Presbyters therefore as well as others being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority And this the Apostle intimates where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons 1 Tim. 5.21 We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority or that if they were rebuk'd by him before all they might make the following Reply We believe our Doctrine to be true or know our Actions just but if not we are not accountable to you for them for you Sir and we stand upon the same level if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures you take too much upon you and usurp a Power to which you have no Right Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded that Answer they might have given him or they might have appeal'd from him to their own Colleagues in the Consistory or to their own private Congregations But that no such thing could be done is evident because it would have rendred the
Apostles Instructions useless and impertinent He had not only Power to correct and punish Miscarriages He was also oblig'd to give suitable encouragement to the industrious Let the Elders that rule well says the Apostle be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 I know that the meaning of these words has been mightily controverted by dissenting Parties and that they have been made a foundation by some for the establishment of such a sort of Officers as before the last Age were never heard of in the Christian World But though they yield no such Consequence as these men would draw from them yet in my opinion they may give some light to the matters before us and afford us a Pattern of what was practis'd in the Primitive times For 1. All Presbyters were not then usually employ'd in labouring in the Word and Doctrine as will be manifest to any that will but consult what Mr. Le Moyne has written on this Subject and the Authorities mention'd by him But there was no reason to fear that the people should want Instruction when the Bishop who preach'd himself had many Presbyters under him and employ'd some in teaching some in administring the Sacraments some in visiting the Sick and comforting the Weak and Afflicted some in enquiring into Scandals and assisting in the Affairs of Government And the Inconveniencies that might arise from Emulation if every one had been Judge in his own Cause were best avoided by the Authority of the Bishop who assign'd Work and Encouragement to them suitable to their several Capacities 2. In the Primitive Times the Bishop was intrusted with the Goods of the Church and out of the Contributions that were made to him he appointed subordinate Officers to supply the Wants of private Christians He was also obliged to make provision out of the same for his Clergy And for this Timothy was a Precedent whose duty it was to take care that the Labourer should have his Reward and that the Elders who rul'd well should receive double honour or a double portion out of the Publick Stock They depended on him therefore for their maintenance as well as in the exercise of their Function But that the force of what I have argued from the Pre-eminence and Power of Timothy may the better appear I am desirous his Case may be compar'd with the following Instance in which we are alike disinteressed Nicocles was advis'd by Isocrates to confer Honors on the most deserving and to commit the management of Affairs to Men of worth as knowing that the Miscarriages of those that were in such a station would be imputed to him He was also advis'd to take cognizance of Complaints and to judge indifferently according to the Merits of the Cause between contending Parties And this was enough to satisfie any one that had never heard the Name of Nicocles and knew nothing of his Character that he had the Administration of Government and that the persons about whom he receiv'd this counsel were his Subjects In like manner when we reflect on the direction that was given to Timothy concerning the Ordination of Ministers and the danger he incurr'd if he did not observe it when we also consider how he was requir'd to proceed if an Action were brought before him against a Presbyter and what Care he was oblig'd to take of the Elders that ruled well we have reason to conclude that they were not his Equals but under his Inspection and Authority That Timothy had Episcopal Authority is manifest I think from what has been said and that he was Bishop of Ephesus appears from hence that there he resided that he might exercise his Apostolical Power in such manner as we have seen and that he might charge some who were persons doubtless that had Right to preach the Gospel to teach no other Doctrine The Apostle intended not as M. Daille observes that he should act feebly with those that were so bold as to corrupt a thing so important He does not say that he should pray or exhort them or that he should remonstrate to them or simply that he should conjure them not to depart from the truth He uses a term that implies more vigour and requires him to denounce to them that they teach no other Doctrine than the Apostles did For to denounce is to act with Authority in the Name and instead of another whose Person one sustains or whose Minister he is and with a Menace of Punishment to the disobedient And from hence says our Author it appears that Timothy was left by S. Paul in the Church of Ephesus with Authority to govern it and to censure and depose even Preachers themselves And if so I think we may safely conclude that they were under his Jurisdiction notwithstanding any thing this Learned Man added for the service of his Hypothesis What I have said of the Office of Timothy fully agrees with the Sentiments of the Ancients For by some of them he is styl'd an Apostle by some a Bishop and both meant the same thing Others speak more plainly and say that he was Bishop of Ephesus and of this Belief generally were the Fathers Nevertheless against that which they so universally receiv'd you produce several Objections and refer me for more to Mr. Prynne whose Treatise intitled The Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus c. came lately to my hands and now I am able to tell you that he is a very promising Author He pretends that he has refuted the Arguments for Episcopacy taken from the examples of Timothy and Titus in an irrefragable manner and that he hath shaken the rotten pillars and undermin'd the sandy foundations of the high towring Hierarchy and left it without any divine prop to support it longer This work he dedicates to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York proposing to them two things one of which he modestly leaves to their choice 1. He challenges them to give him a speedy solid satisfactory answer which must be pretty difficult if as he tells them he had made it manifest that their founding their Prelacy on a Divine Right on which grounds only they were willing to continue in their station was a mere absurd ridiculous fiction 2. In defect of this he requires them to relinquish their places and not any more to advance themselves above their Fellow-Ministers And for this demand there might have been some reason had he demonstrated every thing of which he boasts so confidently with as much certainty as he hath from abundance of Quotations and Examples both foreign and domestick that Bishops may dye of the Plague as well as other Folk notwithstanding their Rochets Miters Crofiers to the confusion of those arrogant Prelates that think otherwise But I was soon convinced that no great matter was to be expected from him for not far from the beginning of his
must always use the words of Scripture and no other in treating of Religious or Ecclesiastical Affairs all Translations of it ought to be rejected It should be read to the People only in the Original and Sermons should be made to them in Greek and Hebrew which I suppose would not be much for their Edification You farther urge that Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus because the stay he made there was only upon the desire of the Apostle and did not arise from the duty of his place But what if he first took on him the peculiar Charge of the Church of Ephesus immediately after S. Paul besought him to remain there could he not be a Bishop of it unless he was under an antecedent obligation to that Residence or if he did it before which is improbable might he not be exhorted to the performance of a thing which was incumbent on him by his Office The Apostle you know beseeches the Romans to present their Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God He beseeches the Corinthians to speak the same thing He beseeches the Thessalonians to walk worthy of God and Buodias and Syntiche to be of the same mind in the Lord And from these instances it is manifest that things may be duties on another account when he makes them the matter of his Exhortation You fancy however that Timothy could be no standing Officer at Ephesus because as you tell me his stay and business there are limited to the Apostles return for which you quote 1 Tim. 1.3 compar'd with Chap. 3. v. 14.15 Chap. 4. v. 13. And this gives me occasion to shew 1. That where S. Paul acquaints Timothy with his hopes to see him at Ephesus he speaks as under some uncertainty for being acted by the Holy Ghost says Theoophylact he knew not whither that would carry him Theodoret observes that however the Spirit reveal'd to the Divine Prophets and Apostles whatever was expedient yet did they not foresee all things And it was as consistent with the Dignity of S. Paul not certainly to foresee whether he should visit Timothy or not as to be doubtful concerning the time of his coming when he had this in his hopes These things says he write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the house of God Some necessary cause might detain him besides his expectation and it doth not appear that he took any Journey to Ephesus after the writing of this Epistle 2. When he says Till I come give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine This does not signifie that if he did come to Timothy his attendance on these things must then cease or his work be at an end But the Apostle might think by such an admonition to excite his diligence when he was absent from him or else he might hereby intimate that when he saw him he would communicate to him farther Instructions 3. When the second Epistle was sent to Timothy he was neither remov'd from his Authority nor the place where he resided when the first was written For in several passages of both Epistles the same Rules of Discipline are given him He is advis'd in both to avoid the same Errors and Miscarriages and warn'd against the same persons Hymeneus and Alexander are mention'd in both under marks of Infamy and this last is that Alexander who was drawn out by the multitude when the Tumult was at Ephesus Acts 19.33 'T is likewise observable that in the second Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 19. the Apostle salutes Prisca and Aquila whom he left formerly at Ephesus Acts 18.19 He also salutes the houshold of Onesiphorus who ministred unto him whilst he was at Ephesus as Timothy knew very well 2. Tim. 1.18 Yet says Smectymnuus to whom you refer me Paul was so far from setling Timothy at Ephesus that he rather continually sent him up and down for which they quote 1 Thess 3.1 2. Acts 18.5 19.22 20.4 You also tell me that we find Timothy as an Itinerant Officer often going from place to place upon occasion and from hence you would infer that he was not a Bishop But there is no sufficient ground for any such Consequence as may appear if it be consider'd 1. That Presbyters and Deacons were sometimes engaged in Travels and that without any loss of their Character Philip was appointed at Jerusalem to serve tables yet he did not relinquish his Office but remain'd one of the Seven when he went down to Samaria and when he was at Caesarea And I know nothing in Scripture that confines Bishops perpetually within their own Dioceses or Limits their absence from them to a certain number of Days or Miles Ordinarily indeed they are obliged to reside where their peculiar Charge is yet great occasions and their care for the publick good may sometimes call them thence And diligent as they ought to be to instruct and govern that part of the Church which is assign'd to them they may not forget the relation they bear to the whole Primis Ecclesiae temporibus says a Learned Man omnes Episcopi praeter peculiarem curam propriae sibi Ecclesiae in solidum sibi commissam ut loquitur Cyprianus etiam universam suo quodam modo curabant These are the words of Casaubon and Alstedius was so affected with them that he hath transcribed them into his Supplement of Chamier's Panstratia and about two hundred lines more verbatim all very near together without any mention of the Author being willing it seems that they should pass for his own 2. The Journeys mention'd in the Smectymnuan Objection were taken before Timothy was requested to remain at Ephesus as may be gather'd from hence that S. Paul left him there when he went into Macedonia But this could not be the first time of his going thither for then Timothy was a Companion of his Travels and 't is probable that he had not been yet at Ephesus Neither was it the second time for he had then sent Timothy before him into Macedonia where afterwards they were both together Nor yet the third for then to avoid the Conspiracy of the Jews he return'd in great haste from Achaia to Macedonia and departing thence Timothy who waited for him at Troas attended on him to Jerusalem And from these reasons which I have briefly mention'd but which Bishop Pearson hath fully illustrated and confirm'd we may conclude that Timothy was not desir'd by S. Paul to remain at Ephesus before this Apostle was brought to Rome nor till after he had written his Epistles to the Romans Corinthians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians Philemon and the Hebrews What account therefore soever of the Travels of Timothy may be collected from any of those Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles it
of Office to continue for the sake whereof those excellent Epistles were written And we have no greater Assurance that these Epistles were by S. Paul than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the Care and Government of the Churches CHAP. IX Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches WHat Timothy was at Ephesus and Titus in Crete that were the Angels mention'd Revel 1.20 in their several Dioceses They govern'd the seven Churches of Asia with Apostolical or Episcopal Authority This is what you oppose and one might therefore have expected from you another Account of them to which you would adhere but you fix upon nothing a practice very common amongst many that are engaged with you in the same work who combine indeed in their attempts against the Truth but without any steady Principles and in great confusion Amongst the rest the Assembly of Divines tell us that these Titles of Angels are Mysterious and Metaphorical and that it cannot not be safe or solid to build on them the structure of Episcopacy And yet they are not of the mind of the old Alogians who derided the Revelation of S. John saying of what advantage is it that he talks of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets They affirm that this Book is of singular use to Christians to the end of the world They have also furnished us with Annotations on it such as they are and particularly without any he sitation they give their Interpretation of this expression which yet they would have us believe is so Mysterious and Obscure As for their Argument that Symbolical Theology is not Argumentative it is no farther to be admitted than as it signifies that Parables and Figures are not to be stretched beyond the plain intention of any Author But if no determinate sense can be gather'd from them this would make a great part of the Holy Scriptures useless to us and leave us mightily in the dark concerning the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which yet the Reformed think and that with good reason they clearly apprehend Yet after all we do not read of the Mystery of the Angels but of the Seven Stars of which the Angels are the explication and therefore must be suppos'd to be intelligible And indeed there seems to be no difficulty in this but what has been created by those that would amuse us with exceptions that they may find some way to escape You pretend not to have any certainty that the Title of these Angels was Metaphorical For what say you if by the Name of an Angel an Angel properly so call'd should be understood Should this be so then farewel to any ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And should it not be so you are not unprovided of other shifts but if they succeed no better than this the Diocesans are safe enough For to your Quaere 'tis easie to reply that these Angels of the Churches could not be Celestial Spirits unless we may believe that one of those Spirits was faln and summon'd to repentance that another of them had a name to live but was dead and that a third was wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked which I think is sufficiently absurd But the Revelation you tell me goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Which signifies nothing to the purpose unless you were able to shew that to charge the Blessed Angels with the sins of men and call them to Reformation of Life hath a Congruity with the Prophetick Scheme of Daniel or with the nature of those holy Beings who are so constant and chearful in their obedience to the Divine Will Walo Messalinus and some others affirm that these Angels were the Churches themselves and to comply with them we must believe that the Angels of the Churches were the Churches of the Churches which I think is no good sense Grotius reflecting on their Exposition does justly charge it with a manifest contradicting of the Holy Scripture which declares that The Candlesticks are the Churches and that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches But Whither says he may not men be drawn by an itch of contradiction when they dare confound those things which the Spirit of God does so plainly distinguish Yet I deny not that the Instructions which did immediatly relate to the Angels were communicated by the Spirit not only to them but to the Churches also it being fit that both should be made sensible how their Duty and Interest were combin'd and encourage one another in the performance of the things enjoin'd and in carrying on the work of Reformation with the greater vigour and application If these Angels were neither Celestial Spirits nor the Churches of Asia themselves it cannot be imagin'd that they were any thing else but the Pastors of those Churches Yet this being suppos'd some question has been made about their number which is omitted says Smectymnuus not without some mystery lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company This you call a Critical nicety But I take it to be a prophane abuse of the Holy Scripture under a pretence of discovering a Mystery 'T is said expresly in Scripture that the seven Stars are the Angels there were therefore just so many Angels as there were Stars The Churches also were seven and every Church had its distinct and peculiar Angel and if any notwithstanding this deny that the number of the Angels and Churches was equal they seem not in a capacity to be convinced of any thing by the clearest demonstration As for the conceit that every Angel was a Company it is inconsistent with the Scripture for the Angels are not called Constellations but seven Stars And says Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet if these words sometimes happen to be us'd promiscuously we ought not however to depart from their genuine and usual signification without necessity Such a necessity there is not here for an Angel no more properly signifies a Colledge of Angels than a man signifies a Troop or a Corporation Nor are the descriptions of the several Angels applicable to a multitude unless we will suppose that all the Elders of the respective Societies deserv'd the same particular reproof or commendation which hath not the least shadow of Truth We read indeed that the strong Cattel before whom Jacob placed his Rods generally brought forth the speckled or ringstraked and this we impute to a Miracle and question not the thing because it is related by Moses in the Book of Genesis But what should make all the Presbyters of each of the seven Churches
not the least appearance that he had any Collegues join'd in Commission with him whose Votes were necessary for the performance of what was expected from him and since he alone is represented as responsible for the miscarriages of the Christians at Pergamus 't is manifest that they were all under his Jurisdiction He might have Subordinate Officers but he had no Equals If the Angels of the Churches had such power as I have ascrib'd to them there is no ground to suspect that they unjustly usurp'd it For if it be a good Argument that the Text it self of the Old Testament had not been corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees when our Saviour and his Apostles were upon Earth that neither of them laid it to the charge of those wicked men we may conclude from the Epistles directed to these Angels that our Lord was not offended at the Station which they had in the Churches since he censures their faults and makes that no part of them But this is not all that may be said for it He plainly signifies his approbation of it both in condemning their former remisness and in exciting them to greater vigour in the exercise of their Office This agrees exactly with the Historical Accounts that we have of the first Age and particularly with what Clemens Alexandrinus relates of S. John who as he tells us visited the Regions adjacent to Ephesus partly that he might form Churches partly that he might add fit persons to the Clergy and partly that he might Ordain Bishops And if there be any doubt remaining of what Quality they were it may be resolv'd from hence that the Bishop of a City not far from Ephesus is said to be a person placed over All which Character could belong to a Prelate only And as it is probable that this Prelate was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna so it is manifest from the Transaction which I have mention'd that those of his Order were of Divine or Apostolical Appointment CHAP. X. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the first Century consider'd I Have shew'd that the Churches of Jerusalem and Philippi of Ephesus and Crete the Churches of Smyrna and Pergamus Thyatira and Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea were govern'd by Bishops in the first Century And one need but read the second and third Book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History or S. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers to find that Bishops then presided in the Churches of Antioch and Rome of Alexandria and Athens and to be inform'd who they were This may give us reason to think that all the Churches in the World were at that time under an Episcopal Administration especially if it appear that they were so in the following Age But before I come to make enquiry into that it may be requisite to remove out of the way some Objections that relate to the Apostles days 1. You argue from Acts 20.17 28. Titus 1.5 7. that mere Presbyters were Bishops And this I am ready to grant But then it must be acknowledged that the Presbyters mention'd in those places were subordinate to other Pastors and consequently a continuance of their Office supposes a continuance of such Superiors as they had to the end of the World Their Superiors were S. Paul and Titus and if there be any question whether the Name of Bishops may be ascribed to them it may be determin'd from what has been said already For if it belongs to the Apostles as I have prov'd from the words of S. Peter and some passages of the Ancients it may fitly be apply'd not only to the Twelve but to all their Colleagues But Episcopacy you tell me is a word of ample signification for 't is not only to be met with in Homer Plutarch Cicero but it is apply'd to God by Basil and to the Elders by Peter nothing therefore is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy And what then Did I ever affirm that it had but one sense in all the Books where it occurs whether they are Sacred or Profane Did I ever assert that none but Apostles were called Bishops and deduce from that Title an account of the special Nature of their Office If you can impute to me neither of these things you must be content to fight with your own shadow And I shall think it enough that the instances I have produced perform what I design'd by them They shew that in affirming the Apostles were Bishops and particularly that S. James was a Bishop whatever exceptions some have taken against it we speak the Language of the Scripture and the Fathers They also shew that if mere Presbyters were Bishops others had the same denomination who had Jurisdiction over them and answer the Objections against Prelacy that have been rais'd from Acts 20.17 28. and other places 2. You argue from Clemens Romanus that in the first Age there were but two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers because he mentions no more when he speaks of the Bishops and Deacons that were constituted by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe As if the whole Scheme of the Government which the Apostles established might be taken from that one Act or they had done nothing but what this Author left upon Record But as Epiphanius tells us All things could not be regulated by them on a sudden And the Churches of their Plantation afford us the best Pattern of Ecclesiastical Polity not as they were only in design or in their infancy but as they had receiv'd from their Founders their due lineaments and just proportions and were grown up to some perfection This might have been a sufficient Answer to what you have objected from the place before us had you demonstrated that when Clemens only mentions two Ranks of Ministers he meant to exclude a greater number But this you have not prov'd as one might have expected you should before you built so much upon it Because persons differing in Degree or Order sometimes come under the same denomination There were many that were said to be Rulers of the same Synagogue as some have gather'd from Mark 5.22 Yet one of those Rulers was the President There were many that at the same time were said to be Princes of Asia yet one of them was called The Asiarcha by way of Eminence and distinguish'd from the rest in Dignity and Power as Spanhemius and Harduinus collect from some Ancient Coins and from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna And as a Learned Man of our own observes Aaron and his Successor Eleazar are never styled High Priests in the Books of Moses but Priests only and yet the other Priests were subject to them when they had no distinct Title Clemens Romanus himself speaking of Abraham says that all the Priests and Levites were descended from him and in one of the Members of that Division he must be suppos'd
will do me but small service for the force of the testimony which I cite from him depends on the word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as I understand it a Masterly Authority but Teaching and Doctrine for in this latter sense the word is often us'd by the Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as I may see lib. 1. Ep. 3. and in other places Yet in that very Epistle to which you refer me we may not understand by it Doctrine without Authority nor is it limited to any such sense amongst Ancient Writers In Suetonius in Ammianus Marcellinus in Sulpicius Severus and many others it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction It signifies Government in Apuleius and Casaubon observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magisterium Sacerdotii are expressions equivalent From hence it appears that Locus Magisterii in Irenaeus may fitly be translated the place of Authority or Government And that it ought to be so will be manifest if it be consider'd that he thought it peculiar to the Bishops to succeed the Apostles in their own place or Office He could not think it peculiar to them to derive from the Apostles the meer power of preaching which was known to be common to other Ministers His words therefore can import no less than that the Bishops were constituted Supreme Pastors without that dependance on Presbyters which these had on them or that they were vested with such Authority over other Officers and Churches as the Apostles before enjoy'd and exercis'd And now it may be fit and it will be no difficult matter to answer your Objection which I omitted before against the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and which is to this effect The Prelates you conceive cannot be said to be the Apostles Successors because the Apostles in their life time could not constitute any Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction nor convey to others the places which you suppose they still kept But if it be said they appointed that the Prelates should be inducted into those places after their decease you think there is no credible tradition transmitted to us of that matter But here is one thing you have forgotten that may deserve to be consider'd which is that unless all the Apostles had died together the Survivers might put others into the places of the deceas'd Accordingly tho Simeon was not nominated by S. James to be his Successor nor came into his place whilst he was alive yet after the death of that Apostle he was by others Constituted Bishop of Jerusalem It is farther observable that the Apostles before their decease were sometimes obliged to withdraw themselves from the Churches which they had planted and govern'd and thereupon they committed the Government of them to fit persons who may well be said to be their Successors in that Administration Especially since as I have prov'd the Apostles Communicated to them the same Authority that themselves had exercis'd Yet as Julius Capitolinus acquaints us that Lucius was as observant of Marcus who made him Partner of his Empire as a President was wont to be of the Emperor himself Thus Timothy and Titus and others of the same Rank who had been Ordain'd by the Apostles might still pay them such respect and deference as was due to persons of incomparable excellence and yet all be of the same Order The Apostles having Communicated their Episcopal Authority to some in their own time these transmitted it to others in the following Centuries and in this manner it has been conveyed to Bishops in all Ages The Bishops therefore may be said to succeed the Apostles and that not only in the Government of Churches which were of their Plantation but of others also in Countries to which they never arriv'd For since they had Commission to bring all Nations under the Discipline of Christ and govern them in his name a Right to that descends to their Spiritual Heirs and they may exercise it in all the parts of the World But notwithstanding your attempt to demonstrate that the Apostles could have no Successors you make no doubt to affirm that Presbyters succeed them in their ordinary work And about this I shall make some enquiry when I have first put you in mind that either you must suppose these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles in their discharge of that work and if so a subjection was consistent with a Succession to them or else they were not subject and then you must allow that the Apostles Constituted Officers over whom they retain'd no Jurisdiction Take it which way you please you are concern'd I think to reject or answer your own Argument To prove that Priests are Successors to the Apostles you quote a passage of Nilus as you call the Author of the Treatise de Primatu Papae which as Colomesius informs us was compos'd by Mark the Ephesian But to which of them soever it belongs it is not very material For neither of them flourish'd within a thousand years of the days of the Apostles and therefore come too late to determine what the belief of the Primitive Church was by their own Testimony Indeed if a Subordinate Officer may be said to succeed the Supreme for doing some things after his example by Authority deriv'd from him then may Priests be said to succeed the Apostles and so they are by some that use a great latitude of expression But the Ancients speaking exactly and telling us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles thereby intimated that they were both of the same Order or that both had the same Function For this they believ'd and urged when there was occasion Photius mentions it as a thing commonly acknowledg'd that both had the same Dignity of Place Clarus à Muscula acquaints us that both govern'd with the same Power S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs and that not only as Teachers but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches 'T is true the Bishops were not wont to assume to themselves the name of Apostles for a reason already given yet that it was sometimes ascrib'd to them appears from several instances It is also manifest that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici that their Office was call'd an Apostolate and that any Bishoprick especially if it was founded by an Apostle was called an Apostolick See For the Title of Apostolick that I may note this by the way was not appropriated to the See of Rome before the Eleventh Century says the Author of the Notes on Paulinus it was not before the thirteenth says Mabillon it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy CHAP. XIII The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors AS the Bishops were Successors
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
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
it is not material since they were Cotemporaries and in the year 341. or thereabouts one of them receiv'd a visit from the other After their decease the Monks were despis'd in the West for the novelty of their Constitution and Jerom complains that in his time they were detested even at Rome it self So far is it from being true that they had then made their progress as far as Scotland and flourish'd there in great Reputation It was therefore boldly done of Hector Boethius to tell the World that his Countrymen about the year 263. as Blondel interprets his words began diligently to embrace the Christian Faith by the Conduct and persuasion of certain Monks Yet hardy as he was you have exceeded Hector himself For you say that the Scots had the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age which is much sooner than Hector allows and if your Argument from Beda perform what you design by it these Converted Scots must have some kind of Government amongst them and you undertake to shew from Buchanan that till the time of Palladius the Scottish Church was govern'd by Monks with more Holiness and Simplicity than it was afterwards by the Bishops And now I think it will follow from these things laid together that the Church of Scotland was very well govern'd by the Monks whilst some of the Apostles were alive and after their decease till the year of our Lord 430 And this makes more for the honour of Monkery than any thing else I have yet read You have likewise such an opinion of the Antiquity of the Culdees that you censure Bishop Spotswood for insinuating that in their time there were Bishops of his Order which he did you say that he might magnifie his Office A strange and unadvised Project That he should think to magnifie his Office by telling us there were Prelates in Scotland before the Culdees were extinct who were not in being till many Ages after the death of Palladius And are not mention'd by any Writer that liv'd within five hundred years of his time Hector Boethius whom you quote was alive in the year 1526. and yet he is the first as the Bishop of S. Asaph observes that found that the Monks were Culdees who are said by others as well as him and of like credit to have govern'd the Church of Scotland till the coming of Palladius He had no Records of the Primitive times to support his Narrative yet did not this abate the courage of Hector who knew how to supply that defect by a fertile invention He made a Bishop of S. Alban's Cloak and call'd it S. Amphibalus He placed it in the Isle of Man and there he put Culdees under it And at the same rate he might have Scotland converted when he would and by whom he pleas'd and bestow on them what Titles he thought convenient 'T is certain he was a very fabulous Writer and in your Letter of Feb. 9. your self represented him as a Romancer and his story of the Culdees you call'd Romancing yet now you depend on it as good substantial evidence and this shews to what wretched shifts you are driven rather than you will acknowledge that you have been mistaken CHAP. XVI Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment IF we may not believe the ridiculous Fable of the Scottish Monks you have not been able to prove that any part of the Christian world for many Ages after the decease of the Apostles was without Episcopal Government Yet as if the matter were clear on your side and past all doubt you take it for granted that Prelacy is a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution You pretend to have observ'd the Springs and Motions by which it was advanced and to discover on what grounds it was introduced and by what degrees it grew up to that Grandeur in which it now appears 1. You say the Defection began on Tabernacle Grounds and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick And a little before you tell me that when the Judaizing Opinion which prevail'd mightily even in the days of the Apostles had after their decease diffus'd and spread it self farther so that Christians came into the admiration of the Orders Beauty and Pomp of the Temple which was but a fixed Tabernacle and Christianity it self became consider'd as by some this day but as another kind of Judaism then Ministers were turned into Priests Deacons to Levites A wonderful transformation at such a time And it may seem very strange that the Christians should be much more charm'd with the Beauty and Pomp of the Temple when it was laid in ashes than they were when it stood in its Glory To deal plainly with you I take this to be very absurd and inconsistent with the best Records we have of the first Ages For it appears from them that the weak Brethren as they were call'd were most zealous at the first for the Mosaical Rites and that S. Paul himself did more in compliance with them and the Jews than all the Bishops in the world in the following Century The truth is when an end was put to the Jewish Polity the Judaizers made a Sect by themselves and the Pastours of the Church thought fit to bury the Mosaical Rites in the ruins of the Temple and vigorously asserted their freedom from them At least they let them fall by degrees And 't is observable that when the great Controversie was rais'd about the keeping of Easter however they that contended it ought to be observ'd exactly at the time of the Jewish Passover had more to say for themselves from Tradition yet the matter was carried and determin'd on the side of Christian Liberty But that Liberty doth not leave all things indifferent that were drawn by Analogy from the Jewish Laws or Customs For such things there are and some of them of perpetual use Amongst these I reckon Baptism and the Supper of the Lord The Ordination of Officers by imposition of hands The maintenance of those that Minister in things Sacred and the distribution of them into several Ranks All these Institutions had their Basis in the Jewish practices and with some variation from the Original were consecrated to serve the purposes of Christianity and that by unquestionable Authority By such Authority one is justified in ascribing to Ecclesiastical Officers the Title of Priests for it may seem that they were opposers of such as did bear it who are said by S. Jude to have perish'd in the gainsaying of Core ver 11. And manifest it is and it has been generally acknowledg'd that the Almighty speaks of the Professors of Christianity where he says I will take of them for Priests and for Levites Isai 66.21 And from hence we may gather 1. That the Christian Church
place of those that were the Disciples of the Apostles and succeeded them in the Government of the Churches is only this That it is hard to determine how many and who they were yet from the words of S. Paul the Names of some of them may be gather'd He does not say that he could give an account of none that were constituted Governours of the Apostolick Churches except those that were mention'd by that Apostle Nor does he say as you would have him that he found the Names of some in Scripture and tack'd Bishopricks to them from his own fancy On the contrary he acquaints us in the Chapter to which you refer me That Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens where he did not establish him by way of Collection and Inference Nor does he pretend to ground the relation he hath left us of him on the words either of S. Paul or S. Luke or on his own invention But he had it from Dionysius of Corinth whom he calls a most Ancient Writer and that with good reason for he flourish'd about the middle of the second Century From an Epistle of the same Dionysius of Corinth he was inform'd that Publius succeeded the Areopagite in the Government of the Church of Athens and suffer'd Martyrdom and that Quadratus succeeded Publius And this is that Quadratus who was a Disciple of the Apostles and who declar'd in his Apology for the Christians which he presented to the Emperor Hadrian that he had seen many that had been cur'd and rais'd from Death by our Lord himself And that a Person of such Eminence should be Bishop of Athens after such Predecessors as he had is more for the advantage of Episcopacy than all the Quotations are against it that have been heaped up by Blondel in his Laborious Collections and I am persuaded that if an instance so early and so well attested could have been produced in favour of a Presbyterian Parity it had long since made a mighty noise and alarm'd the World 'T is true Eusebius is the first that left us a Body of Ecclesiastical History But he did not frame it out of his own Conjectures Himself hath given us an account of the helps he had from others that were before him and Valesius will present you at one view with a Catalogue of Books and Records out of which he drew Materials for his Work that are very considerable They are not so many indeed as one might have desir'd yet as King Charles the First observes with his usual exactness of Judgment Even the Darkness of the Primitive Times affords a very strong Argument for Episcopacy which from the History of them obscure as they were receives so full and clear a proof as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like Against Tertullian you object that many Fob Traditions past for current in his time An Exception that would destroy the Credit of all the Books that ever were written if it were of force against any For Fob Traditions as you call them have pass'd for current amongst some in every Age since the days of Adam But Tertullian himself you think was one that transmitted such Traditions to Posterity and particularly you are offended at him for reporting that the Apostles had Chairs in particular Churches And yet you are not sure that this ought to be laid to his Charge Only you tell me his words at first sight may seem to sound that way A notable way of confuting the Fathers grounded on the sense of one of them and that not certain neither but taken from his words as at first sight they seem to sound One might have expected that you should have spent a thought or two more about them before you pass'd your Censure on them or reckon'd the Author amongst the Fabulous Writers and made him an instance of the Partiality or Impostures of the Ancients For my part I think he meant by Chairs what you so quickly apprehended at the first glance and that Bishops sate in the Material Seats of the Apostles in the Administration of the Government And yet I see nothing in this that is incredible It is neither contrary to the Faith of History nor without Example in it Nor is it improbable that before Adoration was pay'd to Reliques the Chairs of the Apostles should be preserv'd about a hundred years Sure I am that he might better judge of such a matter of Fact than we can at this time And I know not why this word may not as well be accepted when he discourses of these Chairs as when he adds That the Authentick Letters of the Apostles were read in the Apostolick Churches But whatever he meant by the Chairs 't is plain enough he thought the Bishops were the Successors of the Apostles in particular Dioceses or Churches And if you can no more believe this than the Story of the Cells of the Seventy Interpreters though Justin Martyr affirms that he saw the Ruines of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandria I cannot help it Nor do I think it necessary to enter into a dispute about the truth or falshood of Justin's Relation But since that which he says of those Cells depends on the Credit of some unknown Alexandrians since they were reported to have been built in the Pharos only and that about four hundred years before he writ his Paraenesis to the Greeks And since the Tradition which he hath convey'd to us about them was not universally receiv'd but was with some disdain rejected by S. Jerom the most Learned Critick of his Age it was not in any of these respects parallel to the Account which I have given from Tertullian and others concerning the Original of Bishops nor is there any such Connexion between them as that they must stand or fall together There is such clear evidence that the Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the beginning of the Second Century that it hath extorted a Confession from the most Learned Adversaries And if we had never been told that they were constituted by the Apostles or Apostolical Persons or deriv'd their Power by Succession from them the thing had notwithstanding been probable But there is not the least reason to doubt of it when we find it so universally believ'd by the Ancient Church and particularly when Tertullian asserts it in such a manner as he does and urges it with so much assurance against the Hereticks For if he had no grounds for it I should not say that he was tainted with partial humours and framed matters according to his own conceit but that he was void of common sense and as extravagant as a Protestant would be at this day if to confute the Exceptions of Papists against the meanness of some of the first Reformers he should affirm with great confidence and insist on it as a thing too notorious to be deny'd that Calvin succeeded Peter de la
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
Action for Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp was not only taught by the Apostles but constituted by them Bishop of Smyrna And his words deserve the greater credit because he was a Hearer of Polycarp in his younger years and understood doubtless what place he had in the Church and the manner of his Advancement to it I need make no Inferences from this Example because it is so obvious that it destroys your Hypothesis CHAP. XVIII The Testimony of the Fathers is necessary for the ascertaining to us the Canon of the Holy Scripture It is as Cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy THere are some that will hardly hear with patience any Arguments that are drawn from the Authority of the Fathers because as they conceive or pretend it favours the Papists A thing very acceptable to the Papists could it be prov'd But we do them too much honour if we believe that the Ancient Tradition is on their side when some of the most Learned amongst them dare lay no claim to it for the support of those Doctrines wherein they differ from us and many of their greatest Bigots have found themselves so press'd by it that they have appeal'd from it to their Oracle for the time Being the Pope I mean to whom Cornelius Mussus one of their number profess'd that he attributed more credit than to a thousand Austins Jeroms and Gregories and so ends the noise of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent It is not my business here to attempt a Vindication of the Fathers any farther than it answers my present design and I shall only observe that they that despise them most are sometimes forced to serve themselves of their Authority For example Gittichius says that his Friends who had read their Books found them plunged into the profoundest ignorance hardly understanding so much as one Article of the Christian Faith but like blind men moving irregularly and with a trembling pace And such confidence he had that the Censures which his party had pass'd on them were just or rather too modest that he declares The Truth of the Christian Religion was wholly lost a little after the death of the Apostles and commends Flaccius Illyricus for comparing the Disputations of the Fathers to a Fight of Drunkards at a Feast who are not solicitous to betake themselves to their Swords but supply the want of Weapons with Dishes or Trenchers with Bread or any thing that comes to hand Yet his Friends sometimes make use of the Testimony of those whom he so impudently charges with Apostasie and Folly and whom they are wont to reproach and they depend on it in matters of great importance They prove from thence in the Racovian Catechism that our Lord rose from the dead as the Scriptures relate and that the several Books of the New Testament were written by the Persons whose Names they bear herein following the Example of their Master Socinus who argues from the unanimous consent of the Primitive Christians that the four Gospels the Acts of the Apostles c. were written by those to whom they are attributed and for this he refers us to Eusebius At other times he treated the Ancients with great contempt because they stood in the way of this Animal of Glory when he was resolv'd to make himself the Head of a Sect yet he plainly shews that for the vindication of the Authority of the Holy Scripture an assent is necessary and due to their Suffrage And others who ascribe very little to that Suffrage cannot but perceive if they will attentively consider it that when there is a dispute about some passages or parts of the Holy Scripture whether they are genuine or not one would render himself extreamly ridiculous that should reject the Testimony of the Fathers as useless on this occasion and go about to determine the Controversie and to convince gainsayers by his own Instinct or the dictates of a private Spirit But if immediately after the Apostles decease there was a general departure from that Rule of Government which they appointed if all the Primitive Bishops were Usurpers of the Rights of those whom Heaven had made their Equals and all the Presbyters upon Earth did tamely abandon that Power which God had given them and all the Christians in the World with one Consent approv'd and promoted the evil designs of the former and the treachery of the last and if we must believe that the Primitive Writers conspir'd to put a Cheat upon us in the Representations they have made of the Affairs of the Church I would then be inform'd what assurance we can have that they have convey'd to us the true Canon of Scripture For it may seem that if they were Men so extreamly Corrupt they deserv'd no great Credit in any thing and might be suspected to have made as bold with the Oracles of God as they had done with his Institution of Church-Government I make no doubt to affirm that the Testimony of the Fathers is at least as cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy as it is when they ascertain to us the Canon of Scripture which yet is like to suffer nothing by this comparison For if we reject them as false Witnesses when they inform us that Bishops were appointed by the Apostles we must not only believe as I have intimated already that the Pastors of the Church notwithstanding their great distance from one another and their different Customs and Interests generally hit at the same time upon the same Project to destroy that Ecclesiastical Polity which had Christ for its Founder but that every where they had the same fatal Success We must also believe that however Government is a very nice thing and is not usually changed without fears and jealousies and mighty clamours and however the alterations of the Forms of Government are so easily observed yet did the Rising Prelates give so dextrous and nimble a Turn to the Government of the Church over all the World that that there was not the least notice taken of it or else we must believe that they destroy'd all the Records of that Transaction so that no Monuments remain of their Ambition And this we must also believe against the declarations of those that were conversant with the Apostles and their immediate Successors against the informations of Martyrs and Confessors in the best and purest times and against the common faith of Christians for above a thousand years after the death of our Saviour Being thus Credulous we shall much resemble one Vilgardus of Ravenna mention'd by Glaber Rodulphus who asserted that all the sayings of the Poets ought in every point to be believ'd And when we are arriv'd at that pitch of sense no body I suppose will be much concern'd at what we contradict or care to dispute with us who are only fit for the Entertainments of Inchanted Castles Thus Sir I have consider'd your Objections against that Authority which I still think our Saviour