〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Sense clearly carries it there was not found any worthy of being a Bishop the place remained without one But where necessity required one and there were some found fit for that Office there some were ordained Bishops but for want of convenient number there could be no Presbyters found out to be Ordained and in such places they were contented with the Bishop and Deacons for without their Ministry the Bishop could not be So that according to Epiphanius there were three several states of Churches in the Apostles times first some Churches where there were onely Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop For if Epiphanius speaks not at first of places where Presbyters were without a Bishop he must be guilty of a vain and empty Tautology for he after tells us where the necessity of the Church required it a Bishop was made therefore before he speaks of places only where Presbyters and Deacons were and otherwise he would not answer Aerius about 1 Tim. 4. 14. which it is his design to do about The laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie He grants then that at first in some places there were only Presbyters and Deacons as when the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons where Bishops at that time of the Church were only Presbyters of which two orders Presbyters and Deacons there was an absolute necessity and the account he gives why they setled no higher order above them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles could not settle all things at first which words are to be read with a Parenthesis giving an account why sometimes only Bishops and Deacons were setled that is Presbyters so called But saith he where necessity called for a higher order of Bishops above Presbyters and any were found qualified for it there such were appointed and if by reason of the want of persons of sufficient abilities to be made Presbyters in those places there they were contented with such a superior Bishop and Deacons assisting of him Some Churches then according to his judgement had a company of Presbyters to rule them being assisted with Deacons others had only a single Bishop with Deacons and after when the numbers were increased and persons qualified were found there were both Bishops Presbyters and Deacons For the account which he gives of the former want of some Officers in some Churches is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Dr. well corrects it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Church not yet having all her offices filled things were fain to remain in that state For nothing can be compleated at first but in process of time every thing receives its due perfection So that Epiphanius doth not as it is thought by some say that in the first times of the Church there were none but Bishops and Deacons in all Churches but in some Churches there were Presbyters and Deacons in others Bishops and Deacons according to the state condition and necessity of the Churches Epiphanius then fully and clearly expresseth my opinion in reference to the Apostles not observing any one constant course in all Churches but setling sometimes many Presbyters with Deacons sometimes only one Pastor who is therefore called a Bishop with Deacons and so setling Officers according to the particular occasions of every Church The next considerable testimony to our purpose is that of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius concerning St. Iohn after his return out of the â—sle of Patmos to Ephesus upon the death of Domitian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went abroad upon invitation into the neighbour-provinces in some places constituting Bishops in some setting in order whole Churches in others choosing out one from among the rest of those who were designed by the spirit of God whom he set over the Church So Salmasius contends it must be translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 choosing one into the Clergy for those who were chosen Bishops are sald 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that choose are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence Salmasius gathers out of these words the very thing I am now upon In majoribus urbibus plures in minoribus pauciores Presbyteros ordinari solitos probabile est In pagis autem aut vicis vel pusillis oppidis quales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant Graeci unum aliquem Presbyterum per illa praecipuè tempora quibus non magnus erat numerus sidelium suffecisse verisimile est That the Apostles set a greater number of Presbyters in great Cities fewer in less and in small Villages but one when the number of Believers was but small We have yet one Author more who speaks fully to our purpose It is the author of the Commentaries under Ambrose his name who frequently asserts-this opinion I am now making good Upon the fourth of Ephesians he largely discourseth how things were setled at first by the Apostles by degrees in the Church of God evidently shewing that the Apostles did not at first observe any setled constant course but acted according to present conveniency as they saw good in order to the promoting and advancing the Churches Interest Post quam omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat Thereby declaring his opinion that while Churches were constituting no certain course was observed For as he goes on Primum enim omnes docebant omnes baptizabant quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio c. Ut ergo cresceret plebs multiplicaretur Omnibus inter initia concessum est Evangelizare baptizare scripturas in Ecclesia explanare At ubi omnia loca circumplexa est Ecclesia conventicula constituta sunt rectores caetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata ut nullus de Clero auderet qui ordinatus non esset prasumere ossicium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum coepit alio ordine providentiâ gubernari Ecclesia quia si omnes eadem possent irrationabile esset vulgaris res vilissima videretur c. Ideò non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia quia haec inter primordia sunt scripta Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. At first he saith All Church-Offices lay open to all persons and every one did preach and baptize upon all occasions but afterwards when Congregations were established and Churches setled then none undertook that office but those that were ordained to it Thence it is that the Apostles Writings are not suitable to the present state of the Church because they were penned in the time when things were not fully setled For he calls Timothy who was made a Presbyter by him Bishop
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions as he did by the story if the Souldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all those uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge antiquity is as to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times If we should onely speak of the Fabulous Legends of the first Planters of Churches in these Western parts we need no further evidence of the great defect of antiquity as to persons Not to goe out of our own Nation Whence come the stories of Peter Iames Paul Simon Aristobulus besides Ioseph of Arimathea and his company all being Preachers of the Gospel and planters of Churches here but onely from the great defect in Antiquity as to the Records of persons imployed in the several places for preaching the Gospell Thus much to shew the defectiveness as to the Records of antiquity and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the Apostles took in Setling and Governing Churches by them Planted The next thing shewing the incompetency of the Records of the Church for deciding the certain Form of Church-Government in the Apostles times is the ambiguity of the Testimony given by those Records A Testimony sufficient todecide a Controversie must be plain and evident and must speak full and home to the Case under debate Now if I make it appear that antiquity doth not so nothing then can be evident from thence but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before The matter in Controversie is whether any in a Superiour Order to Presbyters were instituted by the Apostles themselves for the Regulating of the Churches by them planted For the proving of which three things are the most insisted on First the Personal succession of some persons to the Apostles in Churches by them planted Secondly the appropriating the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Bishops in a Superiour Order to Presbyters after the Apostles decease Thirdly the Churches owning the Order of Episcopacy as of Divine Institution If now we can make these three things evident First That personall Succession might be without such superiority of Order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the Distinction between them was introduced and Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiasticall and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more I shall suppose enough done to invalidate the Testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand First Then for the matter of Succession in Apostolical Churches I shall lay down these four things to evince that the argument drawn from thence cannot fully clear the certain course which the Apostles took in setling the Government of Churches First That the Succession might be onely as to different Degree and not as to a different Order where the Succession is clear nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this For bare Succession implies no more then that there was one in those Churches succeeding the Apostles from whom afterwards the succession was derived Now then supposing onely at present that it was the Custome in all the Churches at that time to be ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of Power and among these one to sit as the Nasi in the Sanhedrin having a priority of Order above the rest in place without any superiory of Power over his Colleagues will not the matter of Succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this Succession of Persons was the thing inquired for and not a Succession of Power if therefore those that would prove a Succession of Apostolical Power can onely produce a List and Catalogue of names in Apostolical Churches without any evidence of what power they had they apparently fail of proving the thing in question which is not whether there might not be found out a List of persons in many Churches derived from the Apostles times but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves that power which the Apostles had over many Churches while they lived Now this the meer Succession will never prove which will best appear by some Parallel instances At Athens after they grew weary of their ten yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people chose nine every year to Govern the affairs of the Common-wealth These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of State which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes Plutarch and others tell us Now although they enjoyed this equality of power yet One of them had greater Dignity then the rest and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency and his name was onely set in the publike Records of that year and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the year was reckoned from him as Pausanias and Iulius Pollux inform us Here we see now the Sccession clear in one single person and yet no superiority of power in him over his Colleagues The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaej at Sparta the number of the Ephori was alwayes five from their first institution by Lycurgus and not nine as the Greek Etymologist imagines these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them but among these to give name to the year they made choice of one who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here too â—s the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens and him they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch tells us Where we have the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power which is used by Iustin Martyr of the President of assemblies among the Christians Now from hence we may evidently see that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest in the successions in Apostolicall Churches cannot inforce any superiority of power in the persons so named above others supposed to be as joynt Governours of the Churches with them I dispute not whether it were so or no whether according to Blondel the Succession was from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether by choice as at Alexandria but I onely now shew that this argument from Succession is weak and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
is expresly and fully the judgement of that most Reverend and Learned man Th. Beza as he declares it himself Essentialefuit in eo de quo hic agimus quod ex Dei Ordinatione perpetud necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit cum eo quod ipsi divinitus attributum est jure Accidentale autem fuit quod Presbyteri in hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii aliis per vices initio succedebant qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modus paulatim postea visus est mutandus ut unus quispiam judicio caeterorum compresbyterorum delectus Presbyterio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esset permaneret It will be worth our while truly to state the Question of Church Government between the Church of England and that of Geneva in the time of Queen Elizabeth and thereby we shall see how small the difference was between them That the Churches in the Primitive times did take in the Christians in whole Cities and adjoyning Territories is acknowledged on both sides Calvin and Beza being both express in it and the Constitution of the Church of Geneva speaks as much Vnicuique civitati saith Calvin erat attributa certa regio quae Presbyteros inde sumeret velut corpori Ecclesiae illius accenserentur In oppido cujusque Dioeceseos saith Beza praecipuo primus Presbyter c. in quotidianâ communi jurisdictione praeerat caeteris tum urbanis tum aliis ejus regionis compresbyteris i. e. toti Dioecesi That the Government of the City did take in the City and Territories is likewise acknowledged by them That for more convenient order there was one to preside over the Ecclesiastical Senate is confessed as essential by Beza and Calvin acknowledgeth that even in Apostolical times non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praeâ—sset There was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church but that some one was over the rest in authority and counsell Wherein then lay the difference For we have already seen that our Great Divines then did not look upon their form of Government as necessary but only lawfull and Calvin and Beza would not be thought to prescribe their form to other Churches All the difference then was not Whether their form of Government was founded on Divine Right not Whether Episcopacy in the Church was lawfull or no not Whether Diocesan Churches were unlawfull or Whether every Congregation should have an Ecclesiastical Senate But Whether it were more agreeable to the Primitive form that the President of the Ecclesiastical Senate should have only an order among or a degree above the Senate its self But chiefly it was Whether in the present state of the Reformed Churches it were more convenient wholly to lay aside the form of Government by Bishops which had been so much abused in the Roman Church and to reduce all Ministers of the Gospel to an equality with only a Presidency of order thereby to free themselves from the imputation of Ambition and to prevent it in others or else it were more prudent only to retrench the abuses of Episcopacy under the Papacy and to reduce it to that form wherein it was practiced in the Church before the tyranny and Usurpation of the Roman Bishop had ingrossed all Ecclesiastical power into his own hands The former part was embraced generally by the Reformed Churches the latter by our Church of England so that the Question was not about Divine Right but about a matter of prudence not What form was setled by a Law of Christ but what form was suitable to the present state of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore we see none of these forraign Divines did charge the Government of this Church with unlawfulness but inconveniency as it was a step to pride and ambition and an occasion whereby men might do the Church injury by the excess of their power if they were not men of an excellent temper and moderation Thence that prediction of Padre Paule that the Church of England would then find the inconveniency of Episcopacy when a high-spirited Bishop should once come to rule that Church and so Beza when he had freed the Bishops of the Reformation from that imputation of Lording it over their Brethren which he had charged the Roman Bishops with yet he adds that he would beg them rather to lay down their power then to transmit that power to those after them hanc ipsorum moderationem aequitatem minimè forsan sequuturis Who it may be were not like to succeed them in their meekness and moderation What just reason there was for such fears or may be still let those judge who are fittest to do it those I mean who have the power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular power It was not then any unlawfulness in the Government of Episcopacy its self but its lyableness to abuses which made the Reformed Churches reduce Modern Episcopacy into a meer Presidency of Order which was not so lyable to the same inconveniences A clear evidence that they judged not the Government unlawfull is their often profession of a ready and chearfull obedience to Bishops if they would embrace the Gospel and stand up in defence of the true Doctrine For which we have the testimony of George Prince of Anhalt in the Preface to his Sermon about false Prophets speaking of Bishops and Arch-Bishops Utinam sicut nomina gerunt titulos ita se reipsa praestarent Episcopos Ecclesia Utinam Evangelio docerent consona ipsoque Ecclesias fideliter regerent O quam libenter quantaque cum cordis laetitia pro Episcopis ipsos habere revereri morem gerere debitam jurisdictionem ordinationem eis tribuere eaque sine recusatione frui vellemus id quod nos semper D. Lutherus etiam saepissime tam ore quam scriptis imo in concione publica in Cathedrali Templâ— Marsburgensi contestati promisimusâ— He professeth it to be both his own judgement and Luthers that if Bishops would but teach and rule their Churches according to the Word of God they would obey them with all chearfulness and joy of heart To the same purpose Melancthon writing to Camerarius By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical Polity if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawful for us so to do yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion The same is professed by Calvin and that according to his temper in a higher manner Verum autem nobis si contribuant Hierarchiam in qua emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua si fraternam charitatem inter se colant
non alio modo quam ejus veritate colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatemur si qui erunt qui eam non reverenter sumnia cum obedientia observent If Bishops would but submit themselves to Christ those that would not then submit themselves to them he thinks there is no Anathema of which they are not worthy Iacobus Heerbrandus Divinity Professor at Tubinge professeth it to be the most found constitution of Church-government wherein every Diocess had its Bishop and every Province an Arch-bishop Saluberrimum esset si singulae Provinciae suos Episcopos Episcopi suos Archiepiscopos haberent Hemingius acknowledgeth a disparity among Church Officers and accounts it a piece of barbarism to remove it Quanquam enim potestas omnium eadem est ministrorum quantum ad spiritualem jurisdictionem attiâ—et tamen dispares dignitatis ordines gradus sunt idque partim Jure divino partim Ecclesia approbatione But he qualifies what he had said of Ius divinum by his following words Ecclesia cui Dominus potestatem dedit in aedificationem ordinem ministrorum instituit pro commodo suo ut omnia sint rite ordinata ad instaurationem corporis Christi Hinc Ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum fecit alios Patriarchas alios Chorepiscopos alios Pastores Catechetas and afterwards Inter ministros agnoscit etiam Ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis ordines pro diversitate donorum laborum magnitudine ac vocationum diversitate ac judicat Barbaricum esse de Ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle Three things he placeth a superiority of Dignity in Excellency of gifts Greatness of labours difference of calling And the truth is the two former ought to be the measure of dignity in the Church the Eminency of mens abilities and the abundance of their labours above others The necessity of a Superintendent or an Inspector over other Ministers is largely discovered by Zepper de Politeid Ecclesiastica who likewise agrees with the former Divines in his judgement of the first institution of Episcopacy Eadem officia in primitiva etiam Ecclesia post Apostolorum tempora in usu manserunt paucis quibusdam gradibus pro illorum temporum necessitate additis qui tamen nihil fere à mente D. Pauli verbi divini alienum habuerunt Whereby he both assert it to be in the power of the Church to add distinct degrees from what were in the Primitive Church and that such so added are no wayes repugnant to the Word of God According to this judgement of their Divines is the practice of the forraign Protestant Churches In Sweden there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops and so in Denmark though not with so great authority in Holstein Pomeren Mecklenburgh Brunswicke Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburgh East Frieseland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany and the Protestant Imperial Cities Church government is in the hands of Super-intendents In the Palatinate they had Inspectores and Praepositi over which was the Ecclesiastical Consistory of three Clergy men and three Counsellors of State with their President and so they have their Praepositos in Wetteraw Hessen and Anhalt In Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia they have their Seniores enjoying the same power with anclent Bishops So that we see all these Reformed Churches and Divines although they acknowledge no such thing as a divine Right of Episcopacy but stiffely maintain Ieromes opinion of the primitive equality of Gospel Ministers yet they are so far from accounting it unlawfull to have some Church Officers acting in a higher degree above others that they themselves embrace it under different names and titles in order to the Peace Unity and Government of their several Churches Whereby they give us an evident demonstration that they looked not upon the primitive form to be immutable but that the orders and degrees of Ministers is only a Prudential thing and left in the liberty of every particular Church to be determined according to their tendency to preserve the peace and settlement of a Church We come in the last place to those who hold Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet not unalterably binding all Churches and places but that those Churches who are without it are truly constituted Churches and Ministers are lawfully ordained by meer Presbyters This is largely proved by Mr. Francis Mason in his excellent Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas to which I refer the Reader Only I shall shew out of him how the State of the Question about the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is formed First If by jure divino you mean that which is according to Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture Secondly If by jure divino you mean the Ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods Spirit even by the Spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by jure divino you understand a Law and Commandment of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino Whereby we see this learned and moderate man was far from unchurching all who wanted Bishops and absolutely declares that though he look on Episcopacy as an Apostolical Institution yet that no unalterable Divine Right is founded thereupon So before him the both learned and pious Bishop G. Downham explains himself concerning the Right of Episcopacy in these remarkable words Though in respect of the first Institution there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine Ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from God in which sense and no other I do hold the Episcopal function to be a divine Ordinance I mean in respect of of the first Institution yet in respect of perpetuity difference by some is made between those things which be divini and those which be Apostolici juris the former in their understanding being perpetually generally and immutably necessary the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainly iâ— that the Episcopal Government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical Government that in respect of the first Institution it is a divine Ordinance but that it should be such a divine Ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily observed so as no other form of Government may in no case be admitted I did not take upon me to maintain With more to the same purpose in several places of that defence And from hence it is acknowledged by the stoutest Champions for Episcopacy before these late unhappy divisions that ordination performed by Presbyters in cases
any such produced and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature To this I say that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution but onely to apply one to particular Cases because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding which it doth not in its own Nature do Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed which in its self is of an indifferent Nature and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind for what is not in its own Nature moral binds only by vertue of a command which command must be made known by the Will of Christ so that we may understand its Obligatory nature So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church 2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government are equally applyable to several Forms All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government may be referred to these three heads Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government such as require a right management of their Office and such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to Timothy and Titus prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker c. All these and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned are equally required as necessary in a Bishop whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters or else only for a single Presbyter however that be if he hath a hand in Church-government he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul do equally respect and concern them whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in which must now be examined The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God c. that thou keep this commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered For first it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith others of the precept of Love others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle which I confesse implies in it as being one great part of the Epistle Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office but granting that the command respects Timothy's Office yet I answer Secondly It manifestly appears to be something personal and not successive or at least nothing can be inferr'd for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it And therefore thirdly Christs appearing here is not meant of his second coming to judgement but it only imports the time of Timothy's decease So Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Estius understands it usque ad exitum vitae and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine Tun◠unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini cum venerit ei dies ut talis hinc exeat qualis judicandus est illo die And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and from him Theophylact observes to incite him the more both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings from the consideration of Christs appearance The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that Revel 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a Crown of life Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office whatever it is supposed to be Secondly The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right management of the work are equally applyable to either form Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers is equally a duty whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus or the adjacent Churches of Asia Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others or all joyning together in an equality So exhorting reproving preaching in season and out of season doing all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without rash censures and partiality watching over the flock as they that must give an account Laying hands suddenly on no man rebuking not an Elder but under two or three witnesses And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government There being no precept occurring in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over Neither doth the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists as some pretend or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops as others any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed or no nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment Which would seem to be a strange omission were either of these two forms so necessary taken exclusively of the other as both parties seem to affirm For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner
from Philo Iudaeus Iosephus Appian Lucian and others But Secondly granting it used in the primary signification of the word yet it cannot be applied to the people but to Paul and Barnabas for it is not said that the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Paul and Barnabas did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now where ever that word is used in its first signification it is implyed to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may import no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out Which is onely a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent or one part for the whole action and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose Fourthly It seems strangely improbable that the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequenâ— to their ordination So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue The second thing we consider is The persons authorized to do it whom we consider under a double respect before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves and after First Before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty then the general rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Maimonides affirms To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said that in times of old every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples to which purpose many instances are there brought But it is generally agreed among them that in the time of Hillel this course was altered and they were restrained from their former liberty in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations or as they say out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a license obtained from him for that end and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin should be looked upon as null and void which is attested by the former Authors The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church for we may consider them in their first state and period as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common as Hierom tells us communi Presbyterorum conciâ—io Ecclesiâ— gubernabantur before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent in this instant doubtlesse the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists who are the hâ—ghest among the Papists for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy Yet Gratian himself confesseth Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant communia Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt distingui nomina officia Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom and the matter we are now upon in the first Primitive Church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order and not meeâ—ly from the power of jurisdiction It being likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters as to the power of order But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria of which Hierom speaks Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collâ—catum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent That learned Doctor who would perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person but the ordination was performed by other Bishops would do well first to tell us who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop of Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters especially while Aegypt remained but one Province under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis Secondly how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria for that which was common to all other Churches besides For the old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was Electio clericorum est consensus principis petitio plebis Thirdly this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted For first the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice as appears by his words Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters not to any Apostolical institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves Secondly it appears that by election he means conferring authority by the instances he brings to that purpose As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon who had no other power but what was meerly conâ—erred by the choice of the Coâ—ledge of Deacons To which we may add what Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria saith in
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos