subject to them This did very much compense the defects of other Church-men who though not so well qualified to govern yet being willing to obey and able to follow Directions they might by that means become very useful in the Gospel Now there are two things that must be annexed to that superiour inspection without which we cannot imagine that it could be managed or have force the one is that all to be ordained should receive their orders from such Bishops Otherwise obedience could not be expected from them nor could the superiour be any way accountable for them if he did not convey their Authority to them It was also necessary that in all matters of indifference the superiour Governour or Bishop must be looked on as having Authority to rule and command and so the inferiour judge himself bound to obey And indeed if in those days of persecution when the Church had no assistance but all possible opposition from the civil powers there had not been very positive rules of obedience and order left by the Apostles it had not been possible for them to have been kept in any order or under any Government But the rules of superiority and subjection were without doubt formally left by the Apostles Thence it was that the whole Precinct of a Bishop's charge was called his Parish in which he had the care of Souls and for his assistance did chuse out and ordain some of the more eminent and ancient Christians to assist him in teaching the flock and administring Sacraments who were in all things directed by him and upon his death one of these was presented by the Election of the Clergy and people to the superiour Bishop of the Province who did ordain him Now though the writings of the first Ages are for the greater part lost yet there are abundant evidences to shew this Authority was set up by the Apostles I need not take pains to prove it against this Authour for he acknowledges it But because some may perhaps read this Letter that have not studied this point in the larger and more learned works of the Asserters of this order I shall say as much on this subject as I think may very justly and reasonably satisfie any Man and shall wave St. Ignatius his Epistles though the Authority of those is made good with the astonishing labours of the Incomparably Learned Bishop of Chester But being to give a short hint of the uncontested authorities that may be brought to prove this I shall begin with Ireneus to whom we may very well give credit in a matter of Fact he knew St. Polycarp and was instructed by him and he tells us that He was constituted by the Apostles Bishop in the Church of Smyrna So that we find from him that St. Polycarp was ordained by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna Now that great Saint and Martyr must have taken his Notion of a Bishop from no other original but that which he saw in his first Instructor and yet we clearly see he judged the Bishop was more than the President for he reckoning the Tradition of the Faith counts it by the Bishops that had been in Rome from the Apostles days from whence it appears he considered them as the chief depositaries of the Faith And in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he condemned his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for observing Easter on the 14. day of the Moon he lays the whole blame of it upon Victor though Damasus tells us it was done upon a Consultation Victor held about it with his Presbyters and Deacons Now the blame was not to be laid on Victor if it had not been the received practice of the Church at that time for the Bishops to have the jurisdiction chiefly in their hands So that we clearly see what Ireneus understood a Bishop to be and if that had not been consonant to what he knew in St. Polycarp who had instructed him we cannot in reason imagine he would have consented to such a tyrannical excess of power Tertullian reckons the Origine of the Bishop's power from the Apostles from whom they derived their succession The same Writer also tells us that neither Priests nor Deacons had right to baptize but upon a power from the Bishop He also says they received the Sacrament from no hands but their Presidents or Bishops Firmilian that was St. Cyprian's contemporary tells us the Bishops whom he there calls Majores natu and from the other parts of that Epistle it is plain he means Bishops did preside in the Church and had the power of Baptizing Confirming and ordaining and even Ierome himself tells us that neither Priest nor Deacon had a right to Baptize without the Bishop's command And St. Denis of Alexandria who was undisputed one of the greatest Persons in his Age in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome tells him that upon the difficulty was raised how to deal with those that died before they had compleated their penitence He had given a command that the peace of the Church should be given them Where it is clear the Authority of commanding and not only presiding rested with the Bishop And in fine when the Christian Church came out of the fire of persecution she decreed in the Council of Nice that the ancient Customes should be in force concerning the power of Metropolitans and Patriarchs we must acknowledge there were many very ancient men in that Council so that they who were within 200. years of the Apostolick time and among whom we may reckon many that were 80. years of Age or near it could not esteem any thing Ancient that had not been derived from the Apostolical institution I shall not insist on any thing that was decreed afterwards where we may suspect power and cunning might have gone a great way to have east the Church into such a mould as might best agree with the constitutions of the Empire There might be also other Political reasons to have made the Bishops after that time aspire to Power and Precedence But I have only vouched the Writers of the former Ages witnesses in a matter of Fact wherein we have no just cause to suspect them to depose to us what was the successive Government of the Church from the Apostles days Upon all which I desire that you and every honest man will in your Consciences consider a few particulars 1. Whatever we find generally received in those Ages about a thing that was visible and in which none could mistake we may safely think it came from the Apostles days We may indeed imagine that when some of the Apostles to gain upon the Jews did observe the Christian Easter on the 14. day of the Moon others might have mistaken this compliance as if the Apostles had judged that the 14. was the right day We may also reasonably enough think that when they heard St. Iohn mention the
thousand years that were represented to him in his Visions they might have thought that had a literal meaning But in a matter of Government we cannot fancy how such mistakes could have been taken up 2. In things that were external and related to Government there were many concerned and so an innovation could not be easily brought about The people all looked on and were obliged to know to whom they owed obedience in things sacred the Clergy we may reasonably think were not so meek as to have submitted to any unwarranted Authority over them And if they had known they were equal to their Bishōps in order we cannot think but either out of a just zeal for asserting their freedom or out of an indignation at the miscarriages and insolence of some Bishops or out of an unwillingness to submit and obey which is natural to most people they had asserted their equality 3. Where different Churches among whom we see no commerce especially in the times of persecution do agree in any constitution we must suppose that came to them from some persons from whom they received common instruction This is an argument thought very convincing against Atheists when we show many things wherein all mankind agree which we cannot imagine how it should have been brought about if they had not common Parents who had derived these things to all their Posterity So how can it be imagined that from the Churches of Armenia and Persia in the East to those of Spain in the West from the African Churches in the South to our Brittish Churches in the North that had little or no correspondence together this constitution of the Church should have been Universally received and submitted to This was when no General Council could meet to appoint it and there was no Secular Prince to set it forward upon any Political account Now it cannot be imagined how this could have been brought about if their common Spiritual Fathers the Apostles had not agreed upon it when they first scattered to go over the World For we have no reason to think they did ever meet all together again 4. No Men do an ill thing or desire a change but upon some advantage or at least the Prospect and Hope of it And if the worst of men are to be measured by this I except Hectors in vice what must we judge of those whom we ought justly to pronounce the best of Men. Their being Bishops exposed them to the sharpest fury of their Persecutors they were but poor and mean excepting the Bishops of the great Cities they commonly were begun with in every new storm that was raised against the Church their labours were great for the care of the flock lay on them and they were unwearied in the discharge of their Pastoral care Can we think any Man would be fond of such a station to that degree as to violate the institution of Christ to arrive at it But with what face can any man suspect those Ages of such foul dealing upon whom the impressions of the lowliness of their Great Master were so deep and who were daily looking for a Cross and some cruel death with what assurance could they have prepared for such trials if out of pride and ambition they had been invading the rights of the other Churches and aspiring to an unjust domination over their Brethren 5. Suppose we could be prevailed on to think the whole Church was so abandoned the Bishops to their pride and the Priests to an heedless simplicity yet how can we reasonably think none of her enemies were so sharp-sighted as to discern and object this to them they had malice enough and if the Orders of Bishop and Presbyter were one at first but afterwards the Episcopal ambition had subdued the Priests under them some memory of it had been certainly preserved otherwise how should St. Ierome and the pretended Ambrose be supposed to have heard of it But if any such thing had been known is it possible to imagine that among all the Hereticks and Schismaticks that were in those Ages none should have charged it on the Church but on the contrary all of them had Bishops of their own and in the end when one arose that did condemn the order he had very few to follow him nor did his own party the Arians receive this at his hands Therefore we have all reason to conclude that there was no such change made after the Apostles days for St. Ierome himself acknowledges the Apostles set this order up though he seems to insinuate it was not in the beginning of their planting the Church And it is very clear that Pseudo Ambrose gives us his own imaginations for Canonical Histories So from all these things put together I dare appeal to any man to say upon his Conscience if he is not perswaded the Episcopal Authority over the flock and the Clergy is clearly derived from the Apostles All this I have said more fully than perhaps seemed at first view needful but when I consider that though this Authour does confess the Episcopal Function to be of Apostolical institution yet over his whole Discourse there are many things said that do very much detract from that very acknowledgement which the force and evidence of truth drew from him in the beginning of that Chapter So that some suspect these words were only set down that upon such an introduction he might seem a friend and so wound both more securely and more mortally since also many who read and magnifie that discourse do with open mouth declame against this order I hope none will judge it impertinent if I have taken some pains to lay such things before them as may give new and fresh impressions of the Divine and Apostolical Origine of this holy Office All that remains yet to be considered is what answers to make to the Objections that Authour lays in our way His first objection is from the silence of the Scriptures to which the answer will be easily gathered from what has been said for if what I do suggest about the sence of Deacons in St. Paul's Epistles be true then the case is most clear but besides that there are manifest hints of a disparity or superiority in Scripture and these are expounded by so authentical and clear a Tradition that we are not more sure of the Change of the Iewish Sabbath into the Christian Lords day or of the Baptism of Infants or of the Canon of the Scripture than we are of this Apostolical institution It was necessary that all super natural revealed truths should have been clearly and fully expressed in Scripture and none of these left to the mistakes and misrepresentation of every Age but for matters of Government it was enough if general rules were given which the platform of the Churches then gathered did so explain that we have no reason to have scruples about it though a full and formal account of it be not left us The second objection is
Authour will not allow of this and yet it is visible that it arises naturally out of what he has set down But suppose he could avoid that what does all he has said contribute to the re-uniting our Dissenters and us again somewhat he may say as to the foreign Churches and yet I hope to shew that may be done another way A little may be also said to such as were ordained before by Priests in the time of the late Usurpation who are now but a small number and yet even these by his Principles did a very ill thing who out of no necessity but in a wanton sedition against their Bishops threw them off by the strength and force of a prevailing Army And if such Persons ought not to be marked by some censure or at least not admitted to any sacred Employments till they have been sensible of their fault and repent of it I leave it to every body to consider But for the rest of our Dividers as long as the Bishops have such an Authority over their Priests by what Title or conveyance soever they possess it it is all one to them And indeed the weaker their Title is they will think they have the stronger Plea So that this Notion were it ever so true cannot go a great way towards the settling matters among us but on the contrary will rather widen the breach I go next to examine his opinion in it self that there are many contradictions in his Discourse is apparent For if Bishops have Authority to ordain to exhort to rebuke to judge and censure as they find cause and if this Authority was given by the Apostles Is not here a distinct Order all Ecclesiastical Functions are but so many Commissions from God of which the conveyers were the Apostles for what is the order of Priesthood but a Commission from God which was first issued out by the Apostles giving such Persons authority to Preach and to administer Sacraments and can any think that the Apostles could have given any such Commissions but 1. They must have had the direction of the Holy Ghost that assisted them in all they went about 2. They must have conferred such a measure of the Holy Ghost as was necessary for the discharge of such a Commission for they that conferred the Holy Ghost on all they laid their hands on would have done it much more on those they did commissionate for so high a trust 3. This must have been done by imposition of hands so we find they laid hands on Paul and Barnabas when they were sent to the Gentiles though they were endued with extraordinary power before and were Apostles according to what St. Paul says of himself in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians God had also by name marked them out for that service yet hands were laid on them and so they were sent out by the Holy Ghost 4. If these Persons commissionated with such Authority were empowered by the Apostles then all the rest of the Priests were bound to submit to that Authority and whatever power they might have pretended before that then since latter deeds do vacate and invalidate former ones that power being conferred on another who is acknowledged vested with the Authority the former must be supposed divested of it and bound to subject themselves to it Nor could they except in cases of simple necessity re-assume it without rejecting the Authority of the Apostles themselves according to that maxime of our Saviour's He that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me 5. Either the Apostles did declare this was only temporary that for the present exigency such extraordinary persons were vested with such Authority or that this constitution should continue still in the Church He cannot chuse the former for then that order must have determined with these mens lives in whose hands it was entrusted which is against what that Authour pleads for So that he must say they declared that such Commissions must continue to the end of the World otherwise there were no obligation lying on the Church to continue them which yet he acknowledges 6. After the Apostles were dead either these Commissions were to be renewed on the account of what the Apostles had appointed or only by a voluntary delegation of the Priests and People if the former then our Bishops at this day act by vertue of a Commission from the Apostles If the latter be true then 1. This delegation may be given or not as they please and so the order may vanish 2. They may limit or enlarge it as they please and so may very much change it 3. Those who are ordained Bishops without such Commissions cannot be Bishops at all For if that Power be only a Commission then it cannot be seated in any person that has got no such Commission therefore there being no such thing asked as a delegation of such Authority from the Priests for the Election of the Dean and Chapter relates only to the Person but not to the Power and Office none are now truly Bishops since they have no such Commissions nor does the Metropolitan and the other consecrating Bishops give any such Commissions but only ordain a Bishop to the Work and Office so committed to him by the imposition of their hands in which it is clear as also from the whole Office of the Consecration of Bishops that they suppose there is a standing Power and Authority in the Office and therefore do believe it does not depend upon any Commission they can give all they do being to ordain him to the Office to which the Authority is necessarily annexed So that it is clear that either we have no Bishops at all or the Commission for this Authority is annexed to the Office and the Church does not constitute the Office but only admit or ordain a person duly elected and qualified unto an Office already constituted From all these particulars which necessarily follow upon that Authour's Hypothesis I may well assume that by his principles Bishops were empowered for ordination and jurisdiction by the Apostles they being directed in it by the Holy Ghost and laying their hands on them and conferring the Holy Ghost by such imposition of hands upon which all the rest both Clergy and Laity were bound to submit to them and that the Apostles intended this order should be still continued in the Church So that all succeeding Bishops act by that Power then conveyed by the Apostles to the first Bishops and continued with their successors to the end of the World And if this does not state the distinct Office of Bishops and Priests let every Reader judge There is a different power lodged with the Bishops another Commission ratified by an imposition of hands which is to continue in a succession for ever So that that Hypothesis destroys it self establishing so many different things that contradict one another But before I go to answer his arguments I shall premise somewhat of the Office of Bishop
because he finds the Apostles gave but one ordination which he cannot conceive how it could confer two distinct orders or Characters This is founded on a great mistake for pray cannot the same great Seal that affixed to one Writing does only confer the honour of Barronage when affixed to another Writing confer the dignities of Duke Marquess Earl Viscount and Baron So it is plain the Apostles when they were to send out any with a sacred commission by the same outward rite they might have conferred whatever authority they intended to confer For they declaring on what errant and with what power they sent out a person and imposing hands upon him that imposition confirmed the mission and authority committed to such persons So there was no need of their ordaining Church men through several degrees but as they saw men qualified they did ordain them and I do not question but with the â—ame imposition of hands and the same prayers and words they might have ordained two persons at once the one a Bishop the other a Priest For we are not to consider in an ordination the outward rite and prayers only but the preceding declaration made and the publick intention of those that ordain It is true we find by the ancientest Ordinals we have that there were some differences used in the consecration of Bishops that were not used when a Priest was ordained which may be reasonably judged were very ancient they held the Book of the Gospels over his head and shoulders and all the Bishops laid their hands on him one pouring out the blessing And Denis the Areopagite tells us that besides the imposition of hands and laying the Book of the Gospels on his head and the prayer He was marked by the Sign of the Cross and faluted by the Bishop and all the holy order And in the ordination of a Priest the Bishop and the Priests with him only laid their hands on his head and blessed him By which simplicity of their forms we may on the way observe how unlike the Primitive Church was to the Roman Church that abounds in so many superstitious fopperies with which their Pontificall is full There was also provision made that none should be made a Bishop till he had passed thorough inferiour degrees not from any such subtleties as School-men have since devised but that none might arrive at the highest order of the Church till he gave a sufficient trial of his faith and manners by his deportment in all the inferiour steps in which they intended he should stay so long that all might be well satisfied about him And in or a little before St. Cyprian's time they appointed some inferiour steps which were not sacred orders nor pretended to be Apostolical but degrees of probation through which those who intended to serve the Church should pass before they were made Deacons And this furnishes me with a very considerable remark to shew the fidelity of those Ages in the accounts they give us of Apostolical institutions for they do every where tell us there were but three sacred orders Deacon Priest and Bishop and no where study to make us believe these other degrees of Porters Readers Acolyths Exoreists and Sub-Deacons were Apostolical Now if the Episcopal superiority and power was a device of that Age or of the former why should they not have called all Apostolical as well as some parts of it But it is plain they were careful and conscientious in delivering punctually to us what was Apostolical and what only Ecclesiastical His third objection is because the Apostles call themselves sometimes Presbyters and no where Bishops this sure if it prove any thing must prove more than that Writer intends even that Presbyters are above Bishops He should also have considered that the Apostles do call themselves much oftner Deacons than Presbyters So if this argument be of force then the Deacons must be likewise of the same order with the Bishops But the true account of this is that the name Presbyter was used for any ancient person of Authority and among the Christians it signified a Christian of a long standing So upon both these accounts the Apostles being then both ancient men and of great authority and those that were the first fruits of the World unto Christ might well be called Presbyters though not in that sence by which the following ages understood that term For I do not question but the names of Bishops and Priests were at first promiscuously used and continued so even to Ireneus his time who in his Letter to Victor calls the Bishops of Rome that were before him Presbyters but afterwards those two terms were appropriated to that sence we now understand them in Or if you will stand upon the Apostles being called Presbyters to prove an equality or superiority of Presbyter over the Bishop Let me desire you to observe that St. Peter who calls himself an Elder yet puts us in mind that Bishops are above Presbyters for he tells us in that same Epistle that Christ was the Bishop of our Souls and in that subordination I acknowledge the Apostles were but Priests which perhaps gave occasion to Ignatius to resemble the Bishop and Presbyters to Christ and his Apostles Besides it is as unreasonable to build any opinion concerning these orders upon such humble expressions of the Apostles as if because a Prince or a General will ordinarily call his Souldiers fellow Souldiers that therefore they and he are of the same order The fourth objection is because St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks only of Bishops and Deacons It is true in one place he does say that the Apostles did ordain the first fruits of their labours having first tryed them in the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons But if what was before observed about the use of the Term Deacon be well grounded then St. Clement's words may be also very justly understood of Bishops and Priests but because this has the prejudice of novelty against it let us look further into that Epistle and we shall find it no less clear by other expressions that there were different orders in the Church though in that place he comprehends them under that common name for he commends them because they were subject to their Governours and gave all decent honour to their Presbyters and again says Let us reverence our Governours and honour our Presbyters and clearly applies the subordination that was in the Temple of Ierusalem of High-Priest Priest Levite and Lay-man to the Ecclesiastical constitution as will appear to any that will consider that Epistle From which I conclude that though St. Clement did comprehend Bishops and Priests under the common name of Bishop yet he shews us evidently there were Governours in the Church that were superiour to the Presbyters and to whom there were higher degrees of honour due and particular Ministrations proper as were to the High-Priest The fifth objection is that Iustin Martyr calls the