the Bishops thereof to the number of twenty seven had been ordained in the City it self but that it seems proving a false Allegation he has given us no reason to believe him in his Tradition An Inference much like this that supposing two persons to contend for their rights and the Advocate of one of them shall in his plea alledge a false prescription his Adversary should thence conclude upon him that he had no reason to believe that there was any such Person in the world as his Client For this is the case The matter of the dispute was where the Bishops of Ephesus ought to be ordained according to the Canons At Ephesus says Leontius by constant Prescription No says the Council for many of them have been ordained at Constantinople Now is it not awkerd to infer from thence that the Council denies the certainty of the Succession it self when as the debate was grounded upon the supposition of it It being granted on both sidesas a thing undoubted that there was a succession of Bishops at Ephesus and the Controversie was only about the accustomed place of their Consecration Now from the variety of that to conclude that it is uncertain whether there were any such thing as Bishops at all is such a forced Argument as proves nothing but that we have a very great mind to our Conclusion I might proceed to the Succession in other Churches of which we have certain Records but I will not engage my self in too many particular Historical Disputes where I know it is easie if men will not be ingenuous to perplex any matter with little critical scruples and difficulties and therefore I will cast the whole of this Controversie upon this one Principle That though the Records of the Church were as defective as is pretended yet seeing all that are preserved make only for Episcopacy and that our Adversaries are notable to trace out one against it that is evidence more than enough of its universal practice and if that will not serve the turn it is to no purpose to trouble our selves on either side with any proof that may be had from the Testimony of Antiquity for if upon that account we have not any it is not possible either for them or us to have it in this or any other Controversie whatsoever Thirdly The Succession so much pleaded for by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a Succession of Persons in Apostolical Power but a Succession in Apostolical Doctrine Whether any Persons succeeded in Apostolical Power has been already considered and therefore all that is here requisite to be enquired into is by what Persons the Apostolical Doctrine was conveyed And if it be pleaded by the Writers of the Church to have been done by Bishops as the Apostles Successours that proves the Succession of Persons as well as Doctrines But seeing this is to be done as our Adversaries instruct us by a view of the places produced to that purpose let us view them too The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientes usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see that whatever the Argument of Irenaeus was his design was to prove that the succession of the Apostles was conveyed down by the hands of the Bishops that were Successours to them in their several Sees So that it is evident that he designed to prove the Succession of the Doctrine by the Succession of the Doctors and therefore if he does not prove it he does more he supposes it and by the undoubted evidence of it demonstrates the truth of the Doctrine in that those Persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern the Churches have conveyed the Apostles Doctrine down to us by their Successors And what fuller Testimony can there be of a Personal Succession of Bishops to the Apostles And yet Irenaeus does more than this he derives the Personal Succession from the Apostles down to his own time and they all succeeded the Apostles as they succeeded one another and as Linus was their Successour so was Eleutherius who sate at the same time that Irenaeus wrote and therefore if Linus was Successour to the Apostles so was Eleutherius and if Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome so was Linus So that it was one and the same thing to succeed in the Bishoprick and the Apostolical Authority And to the same purpose is the passage of Tertullian Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut apostolicis viris habuerit Authorem Antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Joanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique â—aeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant The whole design of which passage is to prescribe against the Hereticks by the Authority of the Apostolical Successours and that being expresly appropriated to single Bishops I hope I need not now dispute whether they succeeded them only in Degree and not Order or in Order only and not Jurisdiction all that I desire from this Testimony is that they succeeded them in their several Churches for though he instances only in the Church of Rome yet he declares himself able and ready to give the same account of all other Churches and by vertue of that warranted the truth of their Doctrine Than which I must confess I cannot understand what more can be desired to justifie their Succession in the Apostolical Authority Especially from Tertullian who was neither Thomist nor Scotist and so was utterly unacquainted with those fine distinctions of Degree Order and Jurisdiction but spoke like a plain and a blunt African when he called the Bishops in their several Diocesses the Apostles Successours And so all the Writers of the same Age understood by a Bishop one superiour to subject Presbyters for whatever was the signification of the word in the Apostles time it was now determined to this Order and so used in vulgar speech so that when we meet with it in their Writings we must understand it in the common sense And therefore by a Bishop we must mean the same thing from the Apostles downward and a Bishop in their time was superiour to Presbyters and the Apostles are granted to have been superiour to the other Pastors of the Church so that the Succession from first to last continued in superiority of Jurisdiction And now when this Succession is
so expresly derived down by single Persons and when the truth of the Apostolical Doctrine is vouched by the certainty of this Succession it is a very cold answer to tell us that the Fathers talk only of a succession of Doctrines and not of Persons Fourthly This Personal Succession so much spoken of is sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came in use between Bishops and them I pray by whom Why by Irenaeus But does Irenaeus when he speaks of the Bishops and Presbyters of his own time confound their names and offices or any other Author of the same Age Nay do they not carefully distinguish them from each other though when they speak of things as done in the Apostles times they may speak in the language of those times The names therefore of Bishop and Presbyter being not then distinguished it was but proper for them to express things as they were then expressed So that though Irenaeus never would stile a Bishop of his own time by the name of Presbyter but ever carefully distinguished the two Orders yet when he speaks of the Bishops of the first time it is neither wonder nor impropriety if he call them Presbyters for I will yield so far to our Adversaries that they were so called till the death of the Apostles and then succeeding into their Power it was but fit that they should be distinguished by some proper name from the inferiour Clergy And there lies the root of all our Adversaries pretences that they will have the Office of a Bishop to have been born at the same time with the distinction of the Name Which if we will not grant them as without a manifest affront to the Apostles we cannot their whole Cause sinks to nothing For that is the only proof alledged in behalf of the sententia Hieronymi that the Offices were not distinguisht before the names But of that in its due place already at present I challenge them to produce any one Author that treating of things after the separation of the words was made ever calls a Bishop a Presbyter or a Presbyter a Bishop And in that I am very much their friend for if they can it utterly overthrows their main Argument that Bishops and Presbyters were the same in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of their names in that we find them promiscuously used after the distinction But that by the word Presbyteri Irenaeus does not mean a simple Presbyter is plain from the words themselves in which he prescribes against the novelties of the Hereticks by the undoubted antiquity of the Churches Tradition which he says was conveyed by the Apostles themselves to the Ancients who succeeded them in their Episcopacy so that by his Presbyteri he means as he explains himself such of the Ancients qui Episcopatus successionem habent ab Apostolis i. e. the Ancient Bishops This is all that I meet with material upon this Head for when they go about to prove by the Authority of Ignatius himself that Episcopacy is not a Divine but an Ecclesiastical Constitution they are to be given up for pleasant men that will attempt any Paradox in pursuit of the Cause And it exceeds even the rashness of Blondel himself who that as he speaks his St. Jerom might not stand alone like a Sparrow upon the house top has after his rate of inferring fetched in all the Fathers to bear him company except only Ignatius whom it seems he despaired of making ever to chirp pro sententiâ Hieronymi but now it seems at last that the holy Martyr himself might not be made the solitary Sparrow by being deserted by all the Fathers he is brought over to the Party but with such manifest force to himself as plainly shews him to be no Volunteer in the Cause Thus when he commends the Deacon Sotion for being subject to the Bishop ut gratiae Dei and to the Presbytery ut legi Jesu Christi By the Law of Jesus Christ we are taught to understand divine Institution but by the grace of God only humane Prudence though that too was directed to it by the special favour or Providence of God as the only means of preserving peace and unity in the Church Be it so the grace of God no doubt is as firm a ground of Divine Institution as the Law of Christ so that if Episcopacy was established by Gods special favour we are as well content with it as if it had come by the Grace of Christ. Neither does this Interpretation derogate any thing from the Episcopal Order but very much from our blessed Saviours Wisdom viz. that when he had established Presbyteries in his Church for the Government of it that establishment was found so ineffectual for its end that Almighty God was afterward constrained for preventing of Schisms and preserving of Unity in the Church in a special manner to inspire the Governours of it in after-ages to set up the Form of Episcopal Government And yet that was no less disparagement to himself than his Son for seeing what our Saviour did in the establishment of his Church he did by the Counsel of his Father if its Institution proved defective for its end it was an equal over-sight of both and the After-game of Episcopacy was only to supply a defect that they did not fore-see but were taught by Experience A very honourable representation this of the Wisdom of the Divine Providence However take it which way we will we cannot desire a plainer acknowledgment of Divine Institution for so it come from God it matters not which way he was pleased to convey it to us And now have we not reason to wonder when we see men attempt to bring this holy Martyr off with such slights so expresly against his own declared Opinion who every where grounds his Exhortation of Obedience to the Bishop upon the command of God and adds even in the words following the forecited passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet not to him but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Christ who is the Bishop of us all and therefore for the honour of him that requires it it is our bounden duty to be obedient without hypocrisie What can be plainer than that the power of the Bishop stands wholly upon the command of God So again in the Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us take care not to oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more For every one that the Master of the Family puts into the Stewardship we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is manifest that we ought to reverence the Bishop as we would our Lord. And therefore it is a great over-sight to affirm that there is not one Testimony in all Ignatius Epistles that proves the least semblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy when
in every Epistle he so plainly enforces his Exhortation of obedience to the Bishop purely by vertue of the command of Christ. And thus have I cleared the Records of the Church from the defect of ambiguity grounded upon those four pretences That the Succession might be only of a different degree That it is not clear and convincing in all places That where it is clearest it it meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of Persons And lastly That if it were of Persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops By which last we have already cleared the next thing objected to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter after the distinction between their Office was brought in by the Church which I have already shewn to be false and that if it were true it utterly destroys their Argument of the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of the names But because new Instances are here brought to prove the same thing we must follow And first as for the passages cited out of Clemens Romanus he is confessed to have written before the distinction of the names and therefore is here cited to no purpose But the great and only Testimony is that of the Gallican Church who in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome give Irenaeus the title of Presbyter though he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons And this looks very big if it were true but it is a meer Chronological Blunder of Blondel against the clearest Testimony of all Antiquity For first the Martyrs of Lyons in their Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia speaking of their Bishop Pothinus they give give him that Title but in this Epistle to Eleutherius they or as Blondel will have it the Church of Lyons give Irenaeus only the Title of Presbyter and both Eusebius and St. Jerom affirm that he was no more at the writing of it To all which Blondel objects that they both place the Martyrdom of Pothinus and his Frenchmen immediately after that of Polycarp and the Asiaticks which was in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius and therefore the other was about the same time so that when Irenaeus went to Rome with the Letter to Eleutherius which was in the seventeenth year of that Emperour he had been so long Bishop But to this it is easily answered that though the Relation of these two Martyrdoms immediately follow one another in Eusebius his Cronicon and St. Jeroms Translation yet it does not at all follow that they immediately followed in time Because these two Martyrdoms are all that they mention concerning the fourth Persecution which lasted the greatest part of the Reign of Marcus Aurelius so that though one were in the seventh the other might be in the seventeenth of that Emperour and therefore we ought to follow Eusebius his more accurate account in his History who there expresly places it in the seventeenth year and withal affirms that Irenaeus was then only Presbyter rather than from so weak a surmise from the nearness of the Stories in his Chronicon to bring confusion upon the whole History especially when it so fairly clears it self in that this Letter was directed to Eleutherius who succeeded in the Church of Rome in the sixteenth year of Marcus Aurelius and in the same year that he came to that See the Gallican Persecution began and therefore it was impossible that Irenaeus could be advanced to the Bishoprick before that time so that it is like the rest of Blondels stretches to infer from a remote guess that the Persecution was in the seventh year when it is evident from the clearest Story that it was not till the sixteenth or seventeeth And now this Chronological mistake being removed this Testimony is clearly evacuated and so this business is wholly ended The last thing alledged to prove the Ambiguity of the Testimony of the Ancients is that the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiastical But of this Argument I shall choose to discourse in the last place in answer to the sententiae Hieronymi because it is the only positive Argument that they produce in their own behalf And for that reason I refer it to the last place that when I have made it appear that they have nothing material to except against what they oppose I may then shew that they have as little to confirm what they assert and both together will prove more than enough to put an end to this controversie As for the other two things that remain to shew the incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity viz. its Partiality and Repugnancy little or no answer will serve their turn For as for the Partiality all the proof that is material to our Argument is that the Fathers judged the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times And very good reason too because they conformed the practice of their own times to that of the Apostles But if our Adversaries would infer that the Fathers had no other ground of judging of the Practice of the Apostles but meerly by the prejudice of their own customs it is only a precarious Assertion and a direct impeaching them of a more than vulgar folly and ignorance But the Fathers here glanced at are St. Chrysostom and the Greek Commentators that follow him Thus who can imagine any force in Chrysostoms Argument that the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his Argument that whatever was the practice of the Church in his days was so in Apostolical times But there is no need of that poor medium to enforce his Argument the force of it lies in the universal practice of the Church for it was never heard of that meer Presbyters took upon them the Power of Ordination and therefore the meer exercise of that Power is a manifest proof that those that had it were somewhat more than Presbyters and even St. Hierom himself who will have them sometime though when he knows not to have shared with the Bishop in all other parts and branches of Jurisdiction excepts the Power of Ordination as peculiar to the Episcopal Order And there lies the force of St. Chrysostoms Argument in the practice of the Church in all Ages not in in the custom of his own And when he is vindicated it is not to much purpose to add any thing of the Greek Commentators because they all follow him and though they may sometimes fall short in their reasonings yet it is manifest that they believed Episcopacy to have been received by the Catholick Tradition of the Church and that is all the deposition they are capable to give in this cause The last thing objected is the repugnancy of the Testimony and this is proved from