would have had no reason had their Office been the same as he would have had no cause to make the difference he does between Jews and Christians had they been of the same Principles and Religion The next Witness I shall mention is Clemens Alexandrinus who mentions the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he calls the advances or progressions from one of these Offices to another imitations of the Angelical Glory But this you believe I mention'd for pomp rather than any cogency I thought was in it it being only a conceit or flourish of Rhetorick in that Father And you might as well have said that when he compares the visible Officers of the Church to the different Ranks of Angels it was a meer conceit or flourish of Rhetorick that there were such Officers or that there were Angels Certain it is from this place that Clemens makes the Dignity of a Bishop superior to that of a Presbyter as he does the Dignity of a Presbyter superior to that of a Deacon And in another place he shews that there were distinct Rules prescrib'd to each of them And I take this testimony of a person who flourish'd in the next Age after the Apostles to be very considerable But say you Tho in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet in his Stromata where he treats of Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but two the Presbyter and Deacon and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honour'd with the first Seat And how is it that he plainly intimates this Has he in any other part of his Writings given us any notice of such a Presbyter and his Seat No He hath not said a word about them Hath any other Writer in or near his time left us a description of them No they mention no such matter Could he not speak of Presbyters but one of them must needs be the President and Moderator in the Consistory That is not pretended How hath he then so plainly intimated that there was such a person No other way but by a profound silence about him And thus a man that speaks not a word or is asleep may plainly intimate what you please 'T is certain however that in the passage to which you refer me he speaks but of two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers yet he knew there were more and he mentions three not only in his Paedagogue but in his Stromata and his silence in one place cannot evacuate what he expresly declares in another Tertullian was Cotemporary with Clemens and he in his Treatise of Baptism tell us that the Chief Priest who is the Bishop hath the power of giving that Sacrament and after him the Presbyters and Deacons but not without the Authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being safe the peace is secur'd But Tertullian you tell me does more than seem to be on your side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quiquo Seniores c. That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them And here you take it for granted that these Seniores are mere Presbyters and yet you know this is a thing in question a thing that hath been deny'd by many not without good appearance of reason since the Titles of Ancients or Elders have sometimes been apply'd to Bishops as Blondel will inform you and that it is so here the words seem to import But about this I may have occasion to discourse in another place And at present I will suppose that the Seniors Tertullian speaks of were meer Presbyters and yet did preside I know not however why he should more than seem to be on your side but that great is the strength of Imagination For manifest it is from him as we have seen that the Bishop stood related to the Presbyters as their High Priest and without his licence or permission they could not baptize Notwithstanding therefore they might preside in particular Congregations or otherwise as his Assistants yet it was with dependance on him and subordination to him in the Administration of the Government To evade this you say That such a distinction of Officers according to Tertullian was rather a matter of Order for peace sake and the honour of the Church than by Divine Institution There was however such a distinction and as for the Original of it that is another Question which may also be resolv'd from this Father For he declares that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles and there is no doubt but one Motive of it was the welfare of the Church which without Peace and Order cannot be preserv'd Indeed if there had been no such Institution if the Honor of the Church were not to be regarded and if Peace which is so much recommended in the Gospel were an unnecessary thing then he would have allow'd that even Lay-men might baptize But now he charges them not to invade those things that belong to their Superiors nor to usurp the Episcopal Function Not long after Tertullian flourish'd Origen and he tells us in his Discourse of Prayer that the Obligation of a Deacon is distinct from that of a Presbyter but the greatest of all is that of a Bishop And says he in another place More is requir'd of me than of a Deacon more of a Deacon than a Lay-man But he that governs in Chief must give an account of the whole Church One passage more I shall add because it hath something in it that is peculiar and this is taken from his Commentaries on the Gospel according to S. Matthew wherein he shews how necessary it was for those to repress their arrogance who thought too highly of themselves for this cause especially that their Ancestors or Great Grand-fathers had been advanced to the Episcopal Throne or to the honour of Priests and Deacons And this carries back his Testimony much higher than his own time and lower than that I need not here descend CHAP. XIV After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy IF matters between us may be determin'd by the Writings of the Ancients as you have granted I think it sufficiently evident from what has been said that Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the best Ages after the decease of the Apostles And for the improvement of this Argument and to prevent evasions I observe That it is manifest from the Testimony of the Fathers 1. That after the Apostles days there was no space of time without Episcopacy Nor 2. Was there any Country without it where Christianity prevail'd 1. There was no space of time after the decease of the Apostles without Episcopacy There was no such Interval of forty years between that Period and the Constitution of Bishops as Blondel dreamt of nor had he any thing but meer conjectures to
Care You will not pretend I presume that there was any such person whilst the Apostles were alive for the Apostles you tell me constituted no Officers over whom they retain'd not a Jurisdiction And I give you the space of five hundred years after their days to find but one single Presbyterian or Independent Bishop in any sound part of the Catholick Church or any approved Instances of Ordinations perform'd by him But if you attempt this I am desirous you would only insist on good Authorities and not as I shall find you shortly on Legends and Romances CHAP. XV. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd I Shall despair of proving any matter of fact that was perform'd many Ages since if it be not manifest from the Testimonies which I have produc'd that the Government of the Primitive Church was Episcopal Yet for the contrary Opinion you pretend you have Vouchers and these Fathers too as Learned and Pious Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd And 't is very true you have drawn Quotations from some that were of great Eminence How pertinently you have done it I come now to enquire S. Cyprian is one of the Ancients to whom you appeal and he says The Deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Praepositi but the Apostles after his Ascension constituted Deacons for the service of themselves and of the Church And from hence you gather that the Praepositi here were only Presbyterial or Congregational Bishops because they are contradistinguish'd to Deacons That is because this Father makes no mention in this place of Presbyters that being nothing to his purpose the Bishops must be depress'd into their order But it is obvious and I wonder how it escap'd your notice that the Apostles themselves were the Bishops or Praepositi of which he speaks And now you may conclude if you please that the twelve Apostles were no more than fixed Pastors of so many single Congregations You likewise argue from S. Cyprian that however he had the Title of Bishop yet he consider'd himself only as first Presbyter for which you give this notable reason that his Name for a Bishop is always Praepositus in respect of the People and you add that he calls Presbyters Compresbyters but he no where calls Deacons Condeacons But you might as well say that S. Peter consider'd himself only as first Presbyter because he addresses his Exhortation to the Elders as being also an Elder Or that S. Basil was of no higher Order than that of Deacon because he styles Eustathius Elpidius and Sabinus Condeacons And the like may be said of other examples of the same nature for an account of which I refer you to Blondel and Mabillon I think it is observable that howsoever S. Cyprian calls Presbyters his Compresbyters yet he never calls them his Colleagues Nor did he think they might over-rule him by the number of voices But when some of them attempted to restore the Lapsi in his absence without regard to his Authority he express'd a just resentment of it He complain'd of this as a thing that was never done in the time of his Predecessors So that however he could at other times dissemble the Contempt that was cast upon his Office he did not think fit on this occasion to be silent or remiss but gave order that the rash and insolent offenders should be prohibited to exercise their Function 'T is true S. Cyprian says he resolv'd from the time that he was made Bishop not to act any thing without the Counsel and Consent of his Clergy and People But the reason of this was he treated the Lapsi with unusual Lenity so that he needed the Concurrence of others to support his Authority yet as he did not prescribe to others his own Rules of Discipline so neither did himself always take the same measures Sometimes he restor'd Offenders to the peace of the Church when the people were brought to consent to it but with difficulty sometimes when they oppos'd it He also requir'd his Presbyters and Deacons and People to receive amongst the Clergy Numidicus a Presbyter without consulting them before about this matter And he acquainted his Clergy and People that without their Suffrage Celerinus was constituted Reader and appointed that he should be joyn'd with Aurelius and that both should have their share of the monthly maintenance as Presbyters had At another time he thus express'd his thoughts to them about a breach of Discipline If there be any person said he either amongst our Presbyters or Deacons or amongst strangers so extravagant or rash that he shall dare before our sentence be given to communicate with the Lapsed let him be expell'd from our communion And not expecting the concurrence of any he depriv'd Philumenus Fortunatus and Favorinus of their monthly Dividend till their Cause should have a publick hearing Upon the whole we find that S. Cyprian was a person of an excellent temper and as he us'd such great condescension towards his Clergy and People as seems not to have been practis'd before nor is always necessary but was very fit for the time in which he liv'd so on the other hand he was not wanting to assert his own Authority and the Dignity of his Order For he tells us Christ says to his Apostle and consequently to all Bishops who succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me heareth him that sent me And he that rejecteth you rejecteth me and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me He adds that Schisms and Heresies arise from hence that the Bishop who is one and governs the Church is by the presumption of some despis'd And to those that forsook their Bishop and erected Altar against Altar he applies these words of Isaiah Wo unto ye Children that are Deserters saith the Lord. Ye have taken counsel but not of me Ye have made a Covenant but not by my Spirit to add sins to sins Another of the Ancients which you have quoted for the support of your Opinion is the Commentator on S. Paul's Epistles that bears the Name of Ambrose and from him you expect some assistance because he says that of a Bishop and Presbyter there is but one Ordination But his meaning is not as you suppose that their Consecration was the same but that they are both of the same Order by which he intends no more than that they agree in this that both are Priests He did not believe them to be of Equal Power however he comprehended them under one general denomination For says he the Bishop is the Chief and Every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop And what service this can do you I do not understand But the Bishop he tells us is the First Presbyter and this is a thing on which
you much insist as if it afforded some great advantage to your Cause Whereas the Fathers who us'd that expression which you so well approve had no such Notion of a First Presbyter as you have entertain'd but made the same distinction between him and his Clergy as there was between the High Priest and the other Priests that were under his Authority Another thing for which you cite this Commentator is the information he gives us that the Eldest was always the First Presbyter till the inconveniences of that course occasion'd the change which he says was made by a Council But to this I know not how to assent because it appears from Scripture and the Writings of the most Primitive Fathers that they who in the early times of Christianity were advanced to the Charge of Bishops were commonly qualified for it and distinguish'd by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost or their own personal worth and there is no probability that a meer number of years was then held sufficient to recommend a person to the highest Office in the Christian Church Yet if there was sometime such preference given to seniority and such a change made in some particular Country as the Author mentions I am not concern'd about it But if you think the Ancient Custom he speaks of was universal and that a departure from it over the World was decreed by a General Council I would gladly know where it was assembled Blondel thinks the alteration was introduced by the Council of Nice and for this he directs us to the fourth Canon of that Council in which there is not a word of this matter nor are there any footsteps of it in Antiquity But whatever was the ground of advancing persons to the Office of Bishops manifest it is that this Commentator believ'd the Office it self was of Divine Institution and superior to that of Presbyters For he declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and that the Apostles in general were Bishops He affirms that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were Bishops also And in the Bishop says he all Orders are contain'd because he is the Prince or Chief of the Priests And yet this is one of the Fathers by whose Testimony you are content matters between us should be determin'd Another of them is S. Jerom who informs us I confess that originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the common Counsel of Priests But it must be consider'd that according to him the Churches were only under that Administration till by the instigation of the Devil divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas And it may seem not a little for the advantage of Episcopacy if as he intimates it was the best means of extirpating Schism when a Presbyterian parity was found insufficient for that purpose and if it was therefore establish'd over the world by universal Decree and that whilst many of the Apostles were alive Blondel I know assigns a later date to that Decree and would have us believe that it was not made before the year 140. But I am much more inclin'd to think that it was never made at all than that this project was first set on foot to remove the seeds or beginnings of Schisms almost a hundred years after they were sown at Corinth or after it was there said among the people I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas Blondel saw this absurdity and to avoid it he falls into another He would persuade us that the Schisms here mention'd are such as did not disturb the Church till a long time after the decease of Paul and Apollos and Cephas and did not arise amongst the Corinthians but others that imitated their example But by this exposition he does not only force the words of the Author from their plain literal meaning without any necessity but also makes him contradict his own avowed sense say in effect that Episcopacy was not instituted before the year 140 notwithstanding in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and other parts of his works he hath left us an account of several Bishops distinct from Presbyters that were ordain'd by the Apostles themselves 'T is true S. Jerom sometimes in his heats of which the cause is sufficiently known let fall such words as seem inconsistent with the Rights of Episcopacy yet if those words had been assaulted by his Adversaries he would not have been at a loss but had made provision for a vindication of himself or a safe retreat either by other expressions or the secret meaning of the same He may seem to oppose the subordination of Presbyters to the Bishop as an innovation or a departure from a former institution of Government yet he allows as we have seen that this departure was made about the time that S. Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians He intimates that it was necessary and in his Treatise against the Luciferians he declares that the welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Bishop to whom says he if there be not granted a certain peerless Authority there will be as many Schisms as there are Priests He may seem to believe that Bishops were not Constituted by any Divine order or disposal and perhaps he thought that they were not appointed by any Precept of Christ himself yet he denies not that they were Ordained by those that had Commission from him and acted in his Name and by his Power He may seem to be of Opinion that the Episcopal Praeeminence or Jurisdiction was at first a meer prudential Contrivance and afterwards confirm'd by Custom Yet in the production of it he ascribes no more to Prudence than the laying hold on a sad occasion when it was offer'd for its establishment And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition and this he grounds on Scripture That we may know says he that the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple That may the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Church And this is as much as I demand Another of your Authors is S. Augustin who acquaints us indeed that the Titles of Bishop and Presbyter were distinguish'd by Custom But it does not follow that there was not the same disparity of Officers when those words were of promiscuous use as there was afterwards when they were limited in their signification If this gives you not satisfaction Grotius will tell you what is agreeable to that which has been said already That when the Fathers speak of Custom they do not exclude an Apostolical Institution Nay S. Augustin says that what hath been always held by the whole Church and was not appointed by Councils is most
to be acquainted with those Gentlemen to whom he dedicates his Book But if I am not mistaken in their Character they are of more Judgment than to believe that if others were as Candid as themselves this Idea which he so much magnifies would be of Infinite Advantage They will rather perceive that it would not otherwise put an end to the Fatal Controversies that have perplext the Church than Poison would cure Diseases that is by the death of the Patients For 't is evident that the design of it is to abrogate the Authority which Christ bestow'd on his Ecclesiastical Officers and consequently our Author instead of Intitling his Book The Nature of Church-Government Freely Discussed might more fitly have call'd it A Treatise of Church-Anarchy or Church-Confusion I know not whether the Applause of his Performances be continued to him in his own Person which he first receiv'd by Proxy from the neighbouring Dissenters But sure I am that he contradicts the avowed Principles of their Party and the sense of their Writers He contends that the Pastors of the Church have no Authority but what they derive from the State He makes Church-Government a meer Prudential Thing and Alterable in the Form of it according to the various Forms of the Civil Government and argues that it ought to take its Model from the appointment of the Civil Magistrate Whereas their other Writers tell us That a Spiritual Extraction of a Legitimate Ecclesiastical Power cannot be made from a Secular Root That the Introduction of Humane Authority into the Rule of the Church of Christ in any kind destroyeth the Nature of it That there is but one Form of Government laid down in the Word and that Unchangeable and that to think Church-Government must be fram'd according to the Common-wealth or Civil Government is as if one should fashion his House according to his Hangings But that his Friends may not resent the matter too highly when they find how they have been impos'd on by him I can assure them that in contradicting their Authors he uses them no worse than he does himself For having formerly concluded from 2 Thess 2.15 that it was the duty of Christians to preserve the same Government in the Churches after the Apostles days that was appointed and practis'd in them he now comes to prove that let the Government in those days be what it will it is but a Prudential and Ambulatory Thing and lyable to Changes according to the difference of Times and Occasions And that his Friends may not for the future expect to find him any more fix'd or steady he professes in his Epistle Dedicatory that he hath nothing of fondness in him for any Opinions He hath as little fondness in him for the Authority of the Apostles as he hath for his own Opinions For however he takes Diocesan Prelacy to be a Degeneracy or Defection from an Apostolical Constitution yet he boasts of his Vindication of it upon Prudential grounds He represents Episcopacy as a Corruption and yet he supposes that it is of Divine Right when it is by Law established The truth is he hath confusedly jumbl'd together the Notions of the Dissenters and the Principles of Hobbes and Erastus and with this odd kind of mixture he thinks himself sufficiently qualified to heal the Breaches of Christendom Before him one Peter Cornelius Van Zurick-zee set up for a Reconciler General and his Project for Union was that in every City and in every County there should be appointed a General Meeting-place in which the Christians of all Persuasions should be requir'd to assemble together that they might hear the Scriptures read and afterwards talk about them and give their Interpretations of them according to their various Sentiments Of this Device he had such a conceit that leaving his Family and Native Country he cross'd the Seas that he might reveal it in England expecting that here it would receive a kind entertainment and from hence break forth as a Light into all other Countries and Nations But whether this Man or the Free Discusser hath furnish'd us with a better Plan of an Universal Peace or whether Prudential Reason hath been more happy than a Freak of Enthusiasm in proposing a Method of Union or Scheme of Ecclesiastical Polity I leave you to determine In the mean time I am of opinion that the way of governing Churches which is agreeable to the will of God was not to be invented or first discover'd fifteen or sixteen hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour I suppose a thing of such use must needs have been known to the Primitive Christians And they generally believ'd 1. That our Saviour Christ who was the Founder of Church-Government bestow'd on his Officers such Authority as qualified them for the Administration of it 2. That this Government was Episcopal from the beginning On these two things I have chiefly insisted in this Discourse but far more copiously on the last against which I met with the greatest opposition By which opposition I do not only mean That which hath been made by my Adversary for I have considerd the utmost that I could find objected on That side And upon the whole I am satisfied that it requires no great Abilities to defend Episcopacy and that it proceeds from the Goodness of the Cause that the more Learned the Opposers of it are the more ready have they been to let fall such things as may serve for the Vindication of it and answer their own Objections This was the Case of Blondel and Salmasius but more particularly of the last who hath so many things that favour my Hypothesis that of all Modern Authors none has been more useful to me than Walo Messalinus But all the assistance I have receiv'd from him has been only to confirm the Notions which I had before grounded on the Holy Scriptures the Testimony of the Ancients from which I have prov'd That Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and that meer Presbyters were generally subordinate to Superior Pastors in the Apostles days and afterwards in the best and purest Ages And if so there can be no doubt concerning the succeeding Times or of the Truth of what was affirm'd by the Lord Falkland in a warm Speech which he made against some of the Bishops that the Order of the Bishops hath always remain'd in the Churches from Christ to Calvin What I have said on this subject fastens an Imputation of Novelty on the Dissenters but I cannot help it and they have no reason to be offended at it For their own Friends the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches who met at the Savoy confess that it is true in respect of the publick and open profession either of Presbytery or Independency this Nation hath been a stranger to each way it 's possible ever since it hath been Christian And I will adventure to add that the Nation may be
and Astonishment like the Inchanters of Egypt when they beheld the Finger of God But neither was it afterwards always requisite that there should be just seven Deacons however some religiously adher'd to that number nor was it necessary that they should always be adorn'd with Gifts that were Extraordinary and Miraculous for otherwise when Miracles ceas'd their Office must have ceas'd with them The Circumstances of the first Presbyters were also Extraordinary They were qualified for their Ordination with Extraordinary Gifts and Directions were given about it by Extraordinary Indications They could pray with the Spirit and preach by Inspiration They could speak Languages which they had never learn'd and perform other things as Miraculous Yet when all those Extraordinaries ceas'd the Order and Mission of Presbyters did not so but still remain'd and ought to remain to the end of the World From these Instances it is manifest that some things might be requisite for the beginning of an Office and for some that were vested with it a repetition of which is not always necessary for its preservation nor for all that are advanced to it However therefore the Apostles had some Prerogatives to which none at this time have any just pretence however it was very fit that they that were the first Planters of the Gospel should be able to recommend their Doctrine which was then new to the World with Miracles which we may call the Seals of that Commission which they receiv'd from Christ yet the Authority they had as Supreme Visible Pastors of the Church might descend to others who have no need of new Seals or Credentials for what may be sufficiently confirm'd by the same Let us now suppose if you please that the Apostles did more Miracles than any others or that the working of some was peculiar to them yet if Miracles as such hinder not a Succession to them the number and quality of their Miracles cannot do it without some declaration that they were intended for that purpose They may rather seem to concur with other things in signifying the pleasure of the Almighty to preserve that Office or Order which he so highly approv'd and which he had established in so wonderful a manner VI. I grant that the Charge of the Apostles was of great extent yet this hinders not but that they might have Successors in their Office or Authority They had a large Sphere of Action when they were sent to disciple all Nations But then no Apostle had sole Commission to do this Neither were the Apostles wont to act as in a Common Council by Majority of Voices but dispers'd themselves that they might better propagate the Doctrine of Christ They did not all travel together into the same Country but some went into Asia some into Scythia and others into other Nations says Didymus as they were directed by the Holy Spirit The Armenian Historian in Galanus tells us that having received the Holy Ghost they divided the Countries by Lot But certain it is that some of them were more especially engaged to plant Christianity amongst the Gentiles some amongst those of the Circumcision Some in this Nation and some in that No single Person had the whole work of preaching the Gospel committed solely to him For as there ought to be no Oecumenical Bishop so there was no Oecumenical Apostle who had Jurisdiction over the rest It is also manifest that all the Bishops in the second and other Centuries had Power to govern all the Churches that were planted by all the Apostles and to propagate Christianity far and near so that the Charge of both in general was of equal extent And if the multitude of Pastors as well as of other Christians increasing particular Bishops were concluded within a narrower compass than the Apostles had been such Disproportion of Dioceses does not necessarily hinder the Title of Succession of one from another as may appear by the following Instances The Kings of Judah are mentioned in Scripture as sitting on the Throne of David when ten Tribes pay'd them no Obedience So that however they had not his Dominions intire it was enough to preserve their Succession to him in Royal Authority that they retained it in such parts of them as remain'd under their subjection Eutropius says of Severus that he left his Sons Bassianus and Geta his Successors And Constantine he tells us left his three Sons his Successors none of which singly could have all the Dominions of their Father in which the other Brothers had their share And not to mention other Examples I find in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius the Great Men who divided amongst them the Empire of Alexander twice styled his Successors and once the Successors by way of Eminence yet no one of them had either the personal Courage and Conduct or all the Dominions of that Mighty Conqueror Perhaps it will be said that this is a mere Dispute about Words for that is the Reflection which a Learned Foreiner was pleas'd to cast on it when it had been managed by an incomparable hand But when Salmasius whom others have followed argues against the Succession to the Apostles from his own mistake of a Word to give its true Interpretation and to confute that which is erroneous is the best way I think to shew the weakness of his reasoning VII I grant That other Pastors of the Church are commonly under an Obligation to a more constant Residence in some particular Places than the Apostles were yet this hinders not the Bishops from succeeding the Apostles in their Office or Authority For 1. It is not Essential to the Office of a Bishop that he reside in a Place as a Local Pastor of a particular Church nor is it always necessary as you suggest that he should be ordain'd to a certain People They that with us are advanc'd to the Episcopal Chair are constituted Bishops in the Church of God But that they are limited to a certain Diocese proceeds from such Rules of Government as are not always of necessary Obligation The Council of Chalcedon declar'd that none should be ordain'd at large yet this Rule says Grotius was not of Divine and Perpetual but Positive Right and it may admit of many Exceptions Before that Council S. Paulinus was ordained Absolutely in Sacerdotiam tantùm Domini non in locum Ecclesiae dedicatus as himself speaks in an Epistle to Severus And when S. Jerom was made a Presbyter he had no peculiar Church or Title assign'd to him And to come nearer to the matter Photius tells us that Caius who flourished in the beginning of the Third Century was constituted Bishop of the Gentiles that is of the Heathen at large that by his Labours amongst them he might draw them to the Christian Faith Indeed where Ecclesiastical Government is setled and Christianity flourishes however persecuted by the Civil Power it is requisite for the most part that the Jurisdiction of
of Grotius on Matth. 28.20 seem highly rational From hence says he it very manifestly appears it was the mind of Christ that the Apostles should commit to others and they again to other faithful persons that Charge of Government which was committed to them For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World and the Apostles could not live so long Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office And this Sir is the Testimony of that Learned Man who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge and exact Criticism may signifie something with you to use your own words and if he was not much mistaken this Text of Scripture by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers overthrows what you design by it and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment 4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve and it was preserved after their decease It was therefore design'd for Continuance and ought to remain in all Ages This Consequence I take for granted and the Assertions from whence it is drawn I shall clear in their proper places At present I only observe that if they are true they will much confirm what went before For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had it will be manifest that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church was none of them That could not be limited to them which was convey'd to others What was communicated was certainly communicable CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve I Shew'd before that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number and that it actually was so is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles and that not only in Title but in Power also For the first of these declares that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection when a Controversie happen'd between them it might easily have been ended by that Authority which one of them might have exercis'd and the other ought to have obey'd but they debated the matter on equal terms and neither of them gave place to the other The result was when the Contention between them grew sharp they departed asunder and took different courses But at another time they agreed and went together to Jerusalem and then James and Peter and John who seem'd to be Pillars paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues They gave to both the right hand of fellowship and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen as the other three did among those of the Circumcision You think however that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order and that he had his Apostleship from the Church For this you quote Acts 11.22 where you tell me the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him But you might as well have said that when the Brethren sent away Paul they did not barely dismiss him but made him an Apostle And at the same rate you may carry on the work of Criticism farther and declare that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants to free Paul and Silas when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour all these that were sent were transform'd into so many Apostles That Barnabas was as you imagine subordinate to any other Apostles is altogether improbable For S. Paul speaks of him as a Person in the same Station with himself where he says Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas and I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working 1 Cor. 9.5 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority that belonged to the Apostleship for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions Besides Paul and Barnabas there were many others that were not of the Twelve and yet did bear the Title of Apostles and of what account they were in the Church Theodoret informs us He observes that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops and then such as are now call'd Bishops were styled Apostles but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles and on others who sometimes had it the Name of Bishop was impos'd To the same effect is that passage which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose wherein he shews that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles by which says Salmasius he means others besides the Twelve finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided That of Presbyters they left to others and that of Bishops was appropriated to them who had the Power of Ordination so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right This place is quoted several times by Salmasius but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish is very obvious for it plainly intimates that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church only with this difference The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts and were call'd Apostles but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title thought fit to decline it and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops Yet both were of the same Order and govern'd with the same Authority This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth with disservice to his Cause For in his Dissertation against Petavius he proves that there were many Secondary Apostles as we call them for distinction sake which were the Disciples of the First And these he tells us govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power and in the same manner as the First had done He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters that Bishops had in succeeding times So that according to him there were always Prelates since the days of Christ differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages but not in Authority Amongst the Prelates of the first Century I think
we may reckon the Apostles of the Churches mention'd by S. Paul 2. Cor. 8.23 For they are said to be the Glory of Christ which Character I suppose they did not beat because they were employ'd in going on Errands but as they were the Representatives of Christ in governing such parts of his Kingdom as were assign'd to their especial care The ground of this Interpretation I take from 1 Cor. 11.7 where we read that Man is the Image and Glory of God which words in the judgment of Theodoret are not to be understood with respect either to the Body of the Man or to his Soul but to the Dominion that he hath from God over the Creatures In the same Verse we read that the Woman is the Glory of the Man The Wife is the Glory of her Husband She is says Theodoret as it were the Image of that Image and as such she hath Power over the rest of the Family Thus when these Apostles are said to be the Glory of Christ this implies something of Jurisdiction which they receiv'd from him And when they are said to be the Apostles of the Churches the meaning is not that they were their Messengers but their Spiritual Pastors They were their Spiritual Rulers and our Lord's Vicegerents acting in his Name and by his Authority Agreeable to what has been said is this Observation of S. Jerom That in process of time besides those whom the Lord had chosen others were ordain'd Apostles as these words to the Philippians declare I suppos'd it necessary sayes S. Paul to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and Companion in labour and Fellow-souldier but your Apostle Phil. 2 25. But you wonder that after S. Jerom I should cite this place for a Proof that Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi and at first you could hardly believe that I was in earnest As if it were now such a fault to follow S. Jerom who when you have occasion to press him into your service is as Learned and Pious a Father as any the Churches ever own'd S. Jerom is not singular in what he says of Epaphroditus for Hilary tells us he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians which in his Language signifies that he was their Bishop And with him agrees Pacianus and Theodoret also whose Notions about the Primitive Government of the Church are usually very clear and coherent If you consult Writers of greatest fame amongst the Assertors of Presbyterian Parity you will find them granting that Epaphroditus was something more than a mere Messenger Blondel reckons him amongst the Chief Governors of Churches and for this he quotes Pacianus Jerom and Theodoret as I have done and if you can hardly believe him to be in earnest you may take the same exception against Walo Messalinus for says he Epaphroditus was call'd the Apostle of the Philippians as Paul was said to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision He mentions the contrary Opinion but then he adds To me it seems to have no appearance of truth since I know that the word Apostle is never us'd by S. Paul nor by any other Apostles and Evangelists but for a Sacred Ministery But this Observation of Walo you say will hold no water for you take it that John 13.16 in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a common promiscuous sense and render'd so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable instance against him That is you are now assur'd that whereas this Word is us'd about fourscore times in the New Testament in one of them it signifies any common Messenger And if you could demonstrate this as impregnably as you have asserted it with confidence it would be no great matter of triumph Yet this is more than I can grant you have perform'd For in the place you insist upon our Saviour speaks thus to his Disciples He that is sent or an Apostle is not greater than he that sent him As if he had said Ye my Apostles that I mean to settle Governours of the Church are not greater than I from whom you have your Commission and by whom you are constituted That is the Paraphrase of the Learned Dr. Hammond on those words of our Lord and as it is very agreeable to the Context so it shews to what little purpose you have employ'd this place of Scripture Nor have you any better success but less shew of reason where you tell me that notwithstanding Epaphroditus is in Greek call'd an Apostle yet it no more follows from thence that he was a Bishop than that Joseph the Mittendary as you call him in Epiphanius was on this account a Bishop for you might as well have urg'd that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles I think no man that reads the accounts of the Mittendary in Epiphanius and of Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians can form the same Notions of both for 't is manifest that one was an Officer under a Jewish Patriarch and the other a Christian Minister of great eminence The same general Title indeed was common to both but it was not so applied at the time about which we are in debate nor by those Writers from whose style and expressions the thing in controversie must be determin'd Jacobus Gothofredus who searched in to the Original of the Jewish Apostles of which Epiphanius speaks and was willing to carry it as high as possible could not find them mention'd by any Author before the fourth Century None of the Pen-men of the New Testament no Ecclesiastical Writer of the first Age calls any man an Apostle who was not a Pastor of the Christian Church and of an Order Superior to that of Presbyters And consequently he that was styled the Apostle of the Philippians was their Bishop By which word I always understand a Prelate when I give no intimation of the contrary or of leaving its signification undetermin'd You think the Connexion and Coherence carry it for your sense and that Epaphroditus was no more than a Mittendary because S. Paul says of him that he ministred to his wants But if Castellio has well expressed the sense of these words they will afford no such Inference as you have drawn from them but signifie that Epaphroditus was sent to supply the place of S. Paul at Philippi And much may be said for this Exposition but it is I confess out of the common road of Interpreters And to what you have objected I farther answer that Epaphroditus may be said to minister to the wants of S. Paul who received of him the things of the Philippians and yet it doth not appear from Scripture that they sent him much less is there any probability that if he was sent by them he was for that reason dignified with the
highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church There is another reason for that Title for S. Paul calls him his Brother in such a manner as he does no man who was not his Colleague He also calls him his Companion in labour and his Fellow souldier not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions from place to place but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry I make no question but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow And the word so translated in Nonnus signifies an Equal In the Glossary of Philoxenus and in the Vulgar Latin 't is render'd by Compar And by Compar says Reinesius is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition and he shews that so it is us'd in Plautus This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3 compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function and if so he was not only in Name but in Reality an Apostle I am not ignorant that in this Explication I dissent from a Learned Author who thinks it sounds too harsh that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission But it should be consider'd that the sense of words of such especially as are Terms of Art often varies from their original signification so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation as are not consistent with their use And certain it is that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent They that are styled by Clemens Romanus the Apostles of us are not such as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans in whose Name he writes or from the Corinthians to whom he directs his Epistle but from Christ The Apostle of the Gentiles had not his Commission from them The Apostles and Angels of the Churches which I take to be of the same Order were not their Messengers but their principal Governors So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians should be call'd their Apostle 'T is true S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi But these in the Syriack Version as Mr. Selden tells us in the Arabick of Erpenius are said to be Presbyters And that they were no more than Presbyters we are agreed Many of the Fathers particularly Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and Oecumenius had the same opinion of them for which they give this reason that of one City there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop And for such a Bishop we need not here be at a loss having consider'd under what Character it was that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians CHAP. VII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy who was Bishop of Ephesus WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve I come now to shew that there were others of the same Order or to whom the same Authority was convey'd who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles Such are Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches to which more may be added but on these I chiefly insist That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence that he had full Power of Ordination This appears from the advice that was given him to lay hands suddenly on no man That is not to admit any into a Sacred Function without a due examination For so I interpret the words with Theodoret Photius and several others both Ancient and Modern Writers Some Learned Men I know put another sense on them and by laying on of hands understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures But I cannot find in Scripture that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers He speaks of the double honour or maintenance which is due to those that rule well and shews the reason of it He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any lest by his Precipitance he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry and partake with them in their sins And from hence we may learn what high trust was impos'd in him For in the Church committed to his Care the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices was wholly committed to him and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications There were many Presbyters where he resided yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government is manifest from hence that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you receive not an Accusation but it was said to him Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5.19 Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge For as Morinus observes from hence we may gather that three things belong'd to Timothy in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it and prescribe the Form of it He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate and hear them pleaded and he might determine them by passing Sentence Presbyters therefore as well as others being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority And this the Apostle intimates where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons 1 Tim. 5.21 We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority or that if they were rebuk'd by him before all they might make the following Reply We believe our Doctrine to be true or know our Actions just but if not we are not accountable to you for them for you Sir and we stand upon the same level if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures you take too much upon you and usurp a Power to which you have no Right Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded that Answer they might have given him or they might have appeal'd from him to their own Colleagues in the Consistory or to their own private Congregations But that no such thing could be done is evident because it would have rendred the
is consistent enough with his setled Residence in his Diocese when the Church of Ephesus was committed to his Administration I do not remember any other material Objection against what I have said concerning this subject So that I make no doubt still to affirm that Timothy was an Ordinary Pastor of the Church and thus much in effect is acknowledged by some Learned Presbyterians who say he was the first Presbyter or President of the Presbytery And if they would allow such Presidents as have the full Power of Ordination which he had Presidents with Authority equal to his and which as Cameron gathers from 1 Tim. 5.19 was greater than was consistent with the Office of other Presbyters Presidents that are so for life as Ludovicus Cappellus thinks they originally were Then if they please they may call them Presidents still and I shall not contend about the Name if we are agreed about the Thing But since you and many others have not made the Concessions I have mention'd I shall farther prove that the Office of Timothy was such as I have describ'd by the following Arguments 1. If it had been intended that the Authority committed to Timothy and others of his Rank should be temporary either this may appear from the nature of the thing or it might have been expected that we should have had some notice of it in the Scripture For if we may take the liberty without any grounds to fasten on it the Title of Temporary or Extraordinary we may by the same means soon put an end to any Constitutions whatsover But there is nothing in the nature of this Authority that may hinder its continuance nothing in the Scripture that declares it to be abrogated We may conclude therefore that as it is fit to be continued so it was design'd to be so in all succeeding times 2. We have no reason to believe that S. Paul would alter his own Constitutions without a cause or that without any necessity he would put the Government of a Church into a new Model and divert the Course of Discipline from that Channel in which it ought to run in all Ages If therefore he sent Timothy as an Extraordinary Commissioner to interpose in the Affairs of Ephesus we may suppose this to have been either 1. Because there was some Extraordinary Work which none but Extraordinary Officers could perform or 2. Because there were no Ministers at Ephesus or such only as were unfit for Government But neither of these can well be imagin'd Not the first for the Work was no other than what hath or might have been perform'd by Bishops ever since Not the second for there were Presbyters at Ephesus of eminent Gifts such as the Holy Ghost had made Overseers It seems improbable then that these were constituted Supreme Standing Rulers of the Church or that the Work for which they were so well qualified was so soon taken out of their hands Particularly it seems improbable either that they had the Power of Ordination or that it would have been transfer'd from them to a Stranger who came to visit them but was not of their number and that without any ground or reason given or any notice taken of them as concern'd in the matter Flaminius did a thing acceptable to the Greeks when he gave them permission to live after their own Laws But if he had afterwards sent amongst them some Governour with Power and Commission to over-rule and controul their Magistrates and to disturb that Polity which had been established by his Concession by such Changes and Turns of Affairs he would have introduc'd and encouraged great Irregularities and put his former Admirers upon upbraiding his Levity or questioning his Veracity And let us now suppose if you please that such Elders were constituted by S. Paul at Ephesus as were inabled and obliged to perform the highest Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority as Supreme Ordinary Pastors and were design'd also to be a Pattern for following Ages Let us farther suppose that an Officer Extraordinary had afterwards been left amongst them with Commission from that Apostle to alter the measures they had taken and to suspend the exercise of a principal part of their Function by taking it wholly to himself and that without any Miscarriage laid to their Charge you may easily perceive what Reflections this might have occasioned and that such Proceedings would have been so far from setting things in order that one has reason to think they would have put them into greater confusion 3. If such eminent Presbyters as were at Ephesus and a Church so flourishing as that of Ephesus was had a Governour put over them this ought not to be esteemed an extraordinary thing for doubtless other Presbyters and Churches whose Exigences were greater had so too And if such a Subordination of Officers was necessary when the Apostles were alive I cannot imagine why an end should afterwards be put to it when there was more occasion of it than ever Some of the most Learned Opposers of Episcopacy grant that Timothy and others of his Rank govern'd Churches with the same Plenitude of Power as Bishops afterwards did who as they say were rais'd in the second Century for the Cure of Schism But if in the common sense of Christians Prelacy was useful to that purpose as 't is supposed this must have obliged them to preserve it when it had been introduced amongst them by such as were directed by the Spirit of God and it could be no great Argument of their Wisdom if they laid aside that which was of Divine Original and were very shortly afterwards put upon contriving how to restore it by a Humane Invention 4. It seems very improbable that the Apostle should write two Epistles to Timothy only to direct him in the temporary Administration of the Affairs of a Place where he was only to make a transient Visit But if from the Examples we have of Presbyters and the Rules that are laid down for them in Scripture we may gather that such ought to be continued Then may we also conclude from the Example of Timothy from the Authority he had and the Rules that were given to him for the exercise of it and which are of perpetual use that the Office with which he was vested ought to be preserv'd in the Church till the end of the World 5. As we learn from the Scripture that Timothy resided at Ephesus so it may something confirm what I have said of his relation to that Place if there he ended his days And this is what is testified by Sophronius who tells us that there he gloriously suffer'd Martyrdom But more fully by an Ancient Writer in Photius who acquaints us that he was put to death at the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which he would have abrogated 6. After his death we find Onesimus in his Place who is said to be Bishop of Ephesus by Ignatius his Co-temporary and by whom he is
into their thoughts Epiphanius knew very well that plurality of Bishops in one City proceeded commonly from Schism or Heresie and was far enough from taking that to be an Argument of the Purity of the Church which in the common sense of Christians both before and after his own time was esteem'd a Corruption Danaeus had a Conceit that when there was in a City a plurality of Bishops they differ'd in this from the Bishop of Alexandria that they were Presbyters and he a Prelate which sufficiently discovers the weakness of his judgment or something worse But he was willing we see it should be believ'd that the first Prelate was to be found at Alexandria that he might have occasion to tell the World that Prelacy and Monkery and other Plagues of the Church had their Original from the same place But that all Bishops were Equal or that they had the same Prelatical Authority I shall shew hereafter and I am no farther concern'd with it here than as it results from this Proposition That according to the Primitive Rule the Government of every Diocese was Monarchical And this I think is manifest from what has been said beyond all just exception CHAP. XII The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles WE have seen that in the second and other Centuries the Churches were govern'd by single persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops And in the next place I shall prove that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles Because this will confirm my Leading Proposition That the Apostles were Ordinary Pastors and prepare my way to consider how the Bishops stood related amongst themselves and to others and what regard is due to persons of their Character That the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles S. Augustin thought might be gather'd from the Prediction that was made to the Church by the Psalmist in these words In stead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children For of them he gives us the following Paraphrase The Apostles begat thee they are thy Fathers But could they remain with us always One of them said I desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you He said so indeed But how long could he continue here Could he live on Earth to this and future Ages or was the Church deserted when the Apostles were deceased God forbid Instead of the Fathers there are Children Bishops are constituted in room of the Apostles Do not therefore think thy self forsaken because thou seest not Peter or because thou seest not Paul or because thou seest not any of those from whom thou art descended since Fathers are risen out of thy own offspring The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms that goes under the Name of Jerom agrees with S. Augustin in that Exposition And S. Jerom himself who upbraids the Montanists for depressing the Bishop into the third Rank says in opposition to them With us the Bishops possess the place of the Apostles His sense of this he expresses more copiously in his Epistle to Evagrius for there he says Wherever there be a Bishop whether at Rome or Eugubium at Constantinople or Rhegium at Alexandria or Tanis he is of the same Merit and of the same Priesthood The power of Riches and meanness of Poverty may render one Bishop higher or lower than another That is with respect to things external or a priority of Order if that be the true reading which I follow But they are all the Apostles Successors Long before Jerom Firmilian was of the same judgment for speaking of the Bishops in general he tells us that they succeeded the Apostles And with him agrees Cyprian and Clarus à Muscula his Cotemporary Many others might be added but here I shall only mention S. Irenaeus who argues thus against the Hereticks in his time We can number those says he who by the Apostles were instituted Bishops in the Churches and their Successors to our own time and they taught us none of the dotages of these men But if the Apostles knew any hidden Mysteries which they secretly taught the perfect they would chiefly have imparted them to the persons to whom they committed the Churches For they desir'd that they should be very perfect and unblamable to whom they deliver'd their own Place of Government Thus that Excellent Father and his Testimony is the more considerable because of his great Antiquity For 't is probable he was born several years before the death of S. John and 't is certain he receiv'd instruction from some that had seen and heard the Apostles themselves To invalidate his Authority you tell me he is agreed by some to have affirm'd that our Lord Christ did undergo his passion in the fiftieth year of his age As if that might better be determin'd by their agreement about it than his own Writings in which we find no such thing He no where fixes the period of our Saviours Passion He no where assigns it to a certain year Yet I grant he was of opinion that our Saviour liv'd about fifty years if that passage be his wherein he treats of this matter But Antonius Pagi and other Learned Men conceive it has been corrupted it seeming incredible to them that Irenaeus should attribute to our Lord so many years in that very Chapter wherein he reckons no more than three Passovers which he celebrated after he enter'd upon the thirtieth year of his Age and declares He did eat the last of them the day before his suffering But there being no Copies to justifie that Charge of Corruption what I insist upon is That if Irenaeus was mistaken in the time of Christs Passion it does not follow that he was so in the thing which I have cited from him If he err'd concerning that Period about which all mankind have been in the dark he might notwithstanding be a credible Witness of such matters as could not well escape his notice and have nothing in them that is improbable Such was the severity of our Saviours Life and deportment that it may seem he appear'd more aged than he was For when the Jews said to him Thou art not yet fifty years old doubtless they thought he was near so much And it is easie then to conceive how the report might arise and be continued which Irenaeus follow'd But it was so far from becoming an universal Tradition that it was never embraced that we find by so much as two of the Fathers The Case is very different when he relates who succeeded the Apostles for of this lie could hardly be ignorant that lived so near them And the account he gives having been confirm'd by many others and having met with an universal approbation cannot be rejected by us with any shadow of reason But you say Admitting Irenaeus 's Authority to be unblemished and cite as one could wish it yet on this occasion it
will do me but small service for the force of the testimony which I cite from him depends on the word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as I understand it a Masterly Authority but Teaching and Doctrine for in this latter sense the word is often us'd by the Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as I may see lib. 1. Ep. 3. and in other places Yet in that very Epistle to which you refer me we may not understand by it Doctrine without Authority nor is it limited to any such sense amongst Ancient Writers In Suetonius in Ammianus Marcellinus in Sulpicius Severus and many others it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction It signifies Government in Apuleius and Casaubon observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magisterium Sacerdotii are expressions equivalent From hence it appears that Locus Magisterii in Irenaeus may fitly be translated the place of Authority or Government And that it ought to be so will be manifest if it be consider'd that he thought it peculiar to the Bishops to succeed the Apostles in their own place or Office He could not think it peculiar to them to derive from the Apostles the meer power of preaching which was known to be common to other Ministers His words therefore can import no less than that the Bishops were constituted Supreme Pastors without that dependance on Presbyters which these had on them or that they were vested with such Authority over other Officers and Churches as the Apostles before enjoy'd and exercis'd And now it may be fit and it will be no difficult matter to answer your Objection which I omitted before against the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and which is to this effect The Prelates you conceive cannot be said to be the Apostles Successors because the Apostles in their life time could not constitute any Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction nor convey to others the places which you suppose they still kept But if it be said they appointed that the Prelates should be inducted into those places after their decease you think there is no credible tradition transmitted to us of that matter But here is one thing you have forgotten that may deserve to be consider'd which is that unless all the Apostles had died together the Survivers might put others into the places of the deceas'd Accordingly tho Simeon was not nominated by S. James to be his Successor nor came into his place whilst he was alive yet after the death of that Apostle he was by others Constituted Bishop of Jerusalem It is farther observable that the Apostles before their decease were sometimes obliged to withdraw themselves from the Churches which they had planted and govern'd and thereupon they committed the Government of them to fit persons who may well be said to be their Successors in that Administration Especially since as I have prov'd the Apostles Communicated to them the same Authority that themselves had exercis'd Yet as Julius Capitolinus acquaints us that Lucius was as observant of Marcus who made him Partner of his Empire as a President was wont to be of the Emperor himself Thus Timothy and Titus and others of the same Rank who had been Ordain'd by the Apostles might still pay them such respect and deference as was due to persons of incomparable excellence and yet all be of the same Order The Apostles having Communicated their Episcopal Authority to some in their own time these transmitted it to others in the following Centuries and in this manner it has been conveyed to Bishops in all Ages The Bishops therefore may be said to succeed the Apostles and that not only in the Government of Churches which were of their Plantation but of others also in Countries to which they never arriv'd For since they had Commission to bring all Nations under the Discipline of Christ and govern them in his name a Right to that descends to their Spiritual Heirs and they may exercise it in all the parts of the World But notwithstanding your attempt to demonstrate that the Apostles could have no Successors you make no doubt to affirm that Presbyters succeed them in their ordinary work And about this I shall make some enquiry when I have first put you in mind that either you must suppose these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles in their discharge of that work and if so a subjection was consistent with a Succession to them or else they were not subject and then you must allow that the Apostles Constituted Officers over whom they retain'd no Jurisdiction Take it which way you please you are concern'd I think to reject or answer your own Argument To prove that Priests are Successors to the Apostles you quote a passage of Nilus as you call the Author of the Treatise de Primatu Papae which as Colomesius informs us was compos'd by Mark the Ephesian But to which of them soever it belongs it is not very material For neither of them flourish'd within a thousand years of the days of the Apostles and therefore come too late to determine what the belief of the Primitive Church was by their own Testimony Indeed if a Subordinate Officer may be said to succeed the Supreme for doing some things after his example by Authority deriv'd from him then may Priests be said to succeed the Apostles and so they are by some that use a great latitude of expression But the Ancients speaking exactly and telling us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles thereby intimated that they were both of the same Order or that both had the same Function For this they believ'd and urged when there was occasion Photius mentions it as a thing commonly acknowledg'd that both had the same Dignity of Place Clarus à Muscula acquaints us that both govern'd with the same Power S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs and that not only as Teachers but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches 'T is true the Bishops were not wont to assume to themselves the name of Apostles for a reason already given yet that it was sometimes ascrib'd to them appears from several instances It is also manifest that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici that their Office was call'd an Apostolate and that any Bishoprick especially if it was founded by an Apostle was called an Apostolick See For the Title of Apostolick that I may note this by the way was not appropriated to the See of Rome before the Eleventh Century says the Author of the Notes on Paulinus it was not before the thirteenth says Mabillon it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy CHAP. XIII The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors AS the Bishops were Successors
to the Apostles so after their example they stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to Presbyters as Superiors in Office and Authority 1. They stood related amongst themselves as Equals According to Cyprian every one of them in his own Diocese was a Judge in Christs stead And says that Father None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a Tyrannical terror compells his Collegues into a necessity of obedience This he spake in a Council at Carthage and with reflection probably on Stephen Bishop of Rome who injuriously invaded the Rights and Liberties of his Brethren 'T is true some Bishops were distinguish'd from others by a Primacy of Order and had the chief direction of Ecclesiastical Affairs When Synods were call'd they presided in them and for this they had the example of S. James in the Council of Jerusalem But their Primacy depended on the consent of other Bishops and was mutable It did not render them Judges of the rest within their several Provinces nor might they condemn any of them by their own Sentence without the Suffrages of their Collegues 2. In the purest Ages after the Apostles the Bishops stood related to Presbyters as Superiors And in this it is that our Controversie is chiefly concern'd I shall therefore prove it more largely and for this purpose I shall not only serve my self of such passages of Ancient Writers as describe the Office or Authority of Bishops but others also that only mention them as an Order distinct from Priests For if they were so there can be no question to which of them the Supremacy did belong I begin with the Testimony of S. Ignatius who says in his Epistle to the Philadelphians that he cried with a loud voice Attend to the Bishop and to the Presbytery and to the Deacons He instructs the Ephesians to respect the Bishop as the Lord that sent him And to the Smyrnaeans he declares that in things relating to the Church none ought to act without the Bishop that the Eucharist is then valid when it is perform'd under his Authority or by his permission without which he says it is not lawful to Baptize or celebrate the Feasts of Love So clearly does he assert the Prerogatives of Episcopacy What I have cited from Ignatius carries the greater weight with it because as Chrysostom informs us he was conversant with the Apostles and instructed by them He was a person of so much Sanctity and Zeal that he was willing to endure all the torments that the Devil could inflict that he might be with Christ and thought it more desirable to be torn in pieces by wild Beasts for his sake than to be Emperor of the World Having had the advantages of such an Education and being so wonderfully inflam'd with the love of Jesus he cannot be thought to have corrupted the Church nor had he time to accomplish it had he design'd a thing so detestable For he did not long survive S. John whose Disciple he was He suffer'd death under the Emperor Trajan as Simeon also did and probably both receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom the same year If an Author so Ancient and Venerable had only told us that the Government of the Church in his time was Episcopal this might have signified much But he does not only relate it as matter of Fact that there were Bishops He shews that Obedience was due to them as the Supreme Pastours and as the Representatives and Ambassadours of Christ And because it was suspected that his asserting their Authority had no higher cause than a prudential foresight of the Divisions which some were about to make he calls him to witness for whom he was in bonds that it proceeded from the Spirit of God And this Protestation being made at a time when miraculous inspirations were frequent there is not the least ground to question his veracity The truth is the Epistles of this Admirable man afford such plain evidence for Episcopacy that this has been the foundation of all the quarrels against them and particularly it was the cause as Grotius informs us why they were rejected by Blondel tho in the Florentino Copy they were free from those things for which they had before been suspected by the Learned The famous Isaac Vossius who publish'd them from that Copy tells us that every time he read them over they presented him with fresh Arguments of their Exellence and of their being Genuine and this will not appear strange to any person that peruses them with care and without prejudice But if you take them to be spurious you may try your skill in answering what has been said by Dr. Pearson and others in their vindication and if you succeed in that attempt I pray let us know what grounds of certainty you have that there are any Books of the Antiquity to which they pretend now extant in the Christian world To S. Ignatius may be added his Cotemporaries Philo and Agathopus or whoever were the Writers of the Acts of his Martyrdom They attended on him in his journey from Syria to Rome at which time they tell us the Churches and Cities of Asia did honour the Saint by their Bishops Priests and Deacons And they deserve the more credit as being Eye-witnesses of what they relate Not long after that time the Emperor Hadrian writ an Epistle to Servianus which was preserv'd by Phlegon and transcrib'd from him by Flavius Vopiscus and in that there occurs a passage from whence it is manifest that Bishops were then esteem'd of a different Rank from Presbyters and that the distinction between them was obvious to the very Heathen But you are much surpriz'd you say at my citation of this Epistle of Hadrian for certainly it appears by it that Hadrian had but little acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of men for he represents them as well as the other inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most injurious sort of men and particularly says that those that worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds that the very Patriarch coming into Egypt was constrain'd of some to worship Serapis and of some to worship Christ Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians or indeed more mistakingly c. These are your words and they seem an effect of the surprize you speak of rather than any sedate thoughts For to begin where you leave off that I may remove out of the way what is little to our purpose 1. You suppose that the Patriarch mention'd by Hadrian was a Christian Whereas there was not then in the World any Ecclesiastical Officer who did bear that title Eutychius indeed informs us that there were Patriarchs of Alexandria but this was an Argument of his ignorance unless the Apology which the Learned and
support his Opinion which is oppos'd by the whole current of Antiquity His Friend Walo Messalinus was more cautious who acknowledges that the distinction of the Orders of Bishops and Presbyters was most Ancient and only requires that the Apostles times should be excepted and yet his demand is too extravagant For the Fathers generally believ'd that there was such a distinction in their days and that by their appointment in Churches of their own plantation This may appear from what has been said already and it may be farther confirm'd from Tertullian who thus upbraids the Hereticks with their Novelty and confutes their pretences to Tradition Let them declare says he the Originals of their Churches Let them shew an Order of their Bishops flowing by Succession in such a manner from the beginning that their first Bishop had an Apostle or an Apostolical Person who was conversant with the Apostles for his Ordainer and Predecessor And he adds that this the Apostolical Churches did And thus he thought to stop the mouths of Gain-sayers and triumphs much in his Argument But his attempt had been extremely vain if they might have return'd him this Answer Sir you are under a mistake or would impose on us The Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and had no Successors nor did they constitute any Bishops as you pretend The Bishops you speak of have deprav'd the Government of the Church They have advanced themselves upon the steps to corruption and contrary to the Divine Institution usurpt a power over their Brethren What reason have we then to believe that they hold fast that profession of faith which was once deliver'd to the Saints since they have so ambitiously trampled on their Equals and made no conscience to establish their own Greatness on the ruines of the Ancient Discipline 'T is our Glory that we have none of them and that we regard not their Authority Yet upon your grounds this they might have replied to the Confusion of that Learned Father had it then been believ'd that Episcopacy was an Innovation I know it has been objected that there are Intricacies and Inconsistences in the Catalogues of the Successions which the Fathers have left us But so there are in the Catalogues of the High Priests that are gâ—ven by Jewish and Christian Writers as Mr. Selden will inform you And also in the Catalogues of the Archontes who amongst the Athenians gave the Name and Title to the year as you may find if you compare many of their Names as they are express'd in the Marble Chronicle at Oxford with what is extant concerning them in the Books of the most famous Greeks and those Books one with another Yet no Body doubts but there was amongst the Israelites a Succession of High Priests from Aaron and amongst the Athenians a Succession of Archontes from Creon And we have no reason to question but there was such a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as the Fathers speak of notwithstanding in the Tables of their Succession which have been convey'd to us there be some variation The Words of King Charles l. are very apposite to my purpose For says that Judicious and Excellent Prince All Humane Histories are subject to such frailties There are differences in Historiographers in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian Persian and Macedonian Kings and of the Saxon Kings in England And we find more inextricable difficulties in the Fasti Consulares the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls notwithstanding their great care in keeping the publick Records and the exactness of the Roman Histories than are to be found in the Episcopal Catalogues c. Yet all men believe there were Kings in those Countreys and Consuls in Rome in those times So that the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops in respect of some uncertainty and differences which yet may be fairly reconcil'd tendeth rather to the Confirmation of the thing it self 2. Wherever Christianity prevail'd the Government of the Churches was Episcopal For as S. Irenaeus argued for the Christian Religion that the Churches amongst the Germans amongst the Hiberi and Celtae the Churches planted in the East in Egypt and Libya and in the Middle Region of the World or Palestine had not a Faith or Tradition different from one another but as one Sun gave light to all the World so did the same Truth shine every where Thus may we say of the Ecclesiastical Polity or Government in the first Ages after the Apostles It was every where the same It was the same as we have seen in Europe and in Asia and in Africa And distant as the Nations were in situation and different as they were in their Customs and Manners yet when Christianity was receiv'd amongst them it brought Episcopacy with it A plain Argument that both proceeded from the same Uniform Cause and that Prelacy was not esteem'd a mere prudential thing that might be rejected at pleasure In the passage that I last cited from Tertullian he manifestly shews that all Apostolical Churches were govern'd by a Succession of Bishops from the beginning And in this he follows Irenaeus who intimates that he could have set down such a Succession in the rest as he did in the Church of Rome but that he was unwilling to swell his Volume into too great a Bulk And in the following Age S. Cyprian says that Bishops were long since ordain'd through all Provinces and all Cities To the Testimony of the Fathers I shall add another of a Modern Writer but it relates to the practice of former times and is pertinent to my design The Author I mean is the celebrated Dr. Walton whose Edition of the Polyglott Bibles was not a little for the honour of our Church and Nation yet it rais'd the Envy of some and that drew from him these words It appears says he by these Ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cryed down in the Church of England as Popish Innovations viz. Episcopal Government Set Forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivals besides the Lord's Day were us'd as they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their Conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been Anciently us'd by those famous and flourishing Churches which never profess'd Subjection to the See of Rome This is that Cordolium of our Novelists the Practice of the Vniversal Church of Christ all the World over I have shew'd what was the Original of Prelacy or Episcopacy and how universally it did obtain But the Dissenters understanding by a Bishop such a Minister as may have no other Pastor above him nor any Presbyter under him I would demand Where there is any instance of him in the holy Scripture or whether the Primitive Fathers writ any thing of him In what Country did he live In what Nation under the Heavens did he exercise his Pastoral
it is not material since they were Cotemporaries and in the year 341. or thereabouts one of them receiv'd a visit from the other After their decease the Monks were despis'd in the West for the novelty of their Constitution and Jerom complains that in his time they were detested even at Rome it self So far is it from being true that they had then made their progress as far as Scotland and flourish'd there in great Reputation It was therefore boldly done of Hector Boethius to tell the World that his Countrymen about the year 263. as Blondel interprets his words began diligently to embrace the Christian Faith by the Conduct and persuasion of certain Monks Yet hardy as he was you have exceeded Hector himself For you say that the Scots had the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age which is much sooner than Hector allows and if your Argument from Beda perform what you design by it these Converted Scots must have some kind of Government amongst them and you undertake to shew from Buchanan that till the time of Palladius the Scottish Church was govern'd by Monks with more Holiness and Simplicity than it was afterwards by the Bishops And now I think it will follow from these things laid together that the Church of Scotland was very well govern'd by the Monks whilst some of the Apostles were alive and after their decease till the year of our Lord 430 And this makes more for the honour of Monkery than any thing else I have yet read You have likewise such an opinion of the Antiquity of the Culdees that you censure Bishop Spotswood for insinuating that in their time there were Bishops of his Order which he did you say that he might magnifie his Office A strange and unadvised Project That he should think to magnifie his Office by telling us there were Prelates in Scotland before the Culdees were extinct who were not in being till many Ages after the death of Palladius And are not mention'd by any Writer that liv'd within five hundred years of his time Hector Boethius whom you quote was alive in the year 1526. and yet he is the first as the Bishop of S. Asaph observes that found that the Monks were Culdees who are said by others as well as him and of like credit to have govern'd the Church of Scotland till the coming of Palladius He had no Records of the Primitive times to support his Narrative yet did not this abate the courage of Hector who knew how to supply that defect by a fertile invention He made a Bishop of S. Alban's Cloak and call'd it S. Amphibalus He placed it in the Isle of Man and there he put Culdees under it And at the same rate he might have Scotland converted when he would and by whom he pleas'd and bestow on them what Titles he thought convenient 'T is certain he was a very fabulous Writer and in your Letter of Feb. 9. your self represented him as a Romancer and his story of the Culdees you call'd Romancing yet now you depend on it as good substantial evidence and this shews to what wretched shifts you are driven rather than you will acknowledge that you have been mistaken CHAP. XVI Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment IF we may not believe the ridiculous Fable of the Scottish Monks you have not been able to prove that any part of the Christian world for many Ages after the decease of the Apostles was without Episcopal Government Yet as if the matter were clear on your side and past all doubt you take it for granted that Prelacy is a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution You pretend to have observ'd the Springs and Motions by which it was advanced and to discover on what grounds it was introduced and by what degrees it grew up to that Grandeur in which it now appears 1. You say the Defection began on Tabernacle Grounds and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick And a little before you tell me that when the Judaizing Opinion which prevail'd mightily even in the days of the Apostles had after their decease diffus'd and spread it self farther so that Christians came into the admiration of the Orders Beauty and Pomp of the Temple which was but a fixed Tabernacle and Christianity it self became consider'd as by some this day but as another kind of Judaism then Ministers were turned into Priests Deacons to Levites A wonderful transformation at such a time And it may seem very strange that the Christians should be much more charm'd with the Beauty and Pomp of the Temple when it was laid in ashes than they were when it stood in its Glory To deal plainly with you I take this to be very absurd and inconsistent with the best Records we have of the first Ages For it appears from them that the weak Brethren as they were call'd were most zealous at the first for the Mosaical Rites and that S. Paul himself did more in compliance with them and the Jews than all the Bishops in the world in the following Century The truth is when an end was put to the Jewish Polity the Judaizers made a Sect by themselves and the Pastours of the Church thought fit to bury the Mosaical Rites in the ruins of the Temple and vigorously asserted their freedom from them At least they let them fall by degrees And 't is observable that when the great Controversie was rais'd about the keeping of Easter however they that contended it ought to be observ'd exactly at the time of the Jewish Passover had more to say for themselves from Tradition yet the matter was carried and determin'd on the side of Christian Liberty But that Liberty doth not leave all things indifferent that were drawn by Analogy from the Jewish Laws or Customs For such things there are and some of them of perpetual use Amongst these I reckon Baptism and the Supper of the Lord The Ordination of Officers by imposition of hands The maintenance of those that Minister in things Sacred and the distribution of them into several Ranks All these Institutions had their Basis in the Jewish practices and with some variation from the Original were consecrated to serve the purposes of Christianity and that by unquestionable Authority By such Authority one is justified in ascribing to Ecclesiastical Officers the Title of Priests for it may seem that they were opposers of such as did bear it who are said by S. Jude to have perish'd in the gainsaying of Core ver 11. And manifest it is and it has been generally acknowledg'd that the Almighty speaks of the Professors of Christianity where he says I will take of them for Priests and for Levites Isai 66.21 And from hence we may gather 1. That the Christian Church
is such a Society as should have its own Spiritual Officers chosen out of the rest of the faithful of any Nation and remaining distinct from them 2. That the Titles of Priests and Levites which have been so often attributed to the Officers of the Christian Church had not their Original from the meer fancies of the Ancient Fathers much less were they an invention of later times but are founded on an expression of the Holy Scripture 3. That amongst these Officers there should be such disparity as had been under the Law amongst the posterity of Levi. 2. You pretend to discover by what degrees Prelacy grew up to its present Grandeur And you tell me one need but some experience in the course of things and a little proportion of Mother wit to make a clear and distinct conception of what you have said on this Subject You believe that all Presbyters were equal by a Divine Institution Yet notwithstanding that appointment of Heaven it was requisit you say for orders sake that in every Assembly one should have the direction and 't is most probable the Eldest Presbyter had the first place and the first direction of matters Yet probable as it is if one should affirm that 't is a meer conjecture of Mother Wit you have said nothing that may be sufficient to confute him However this must be made the first prudential reason for a departure from a Divine Institution and the first step towards the degeneracy of succeeding times But this State of Affairs did not long continue Another prudential reason appears to justle out the former and introduces another step to corruption For it was found by experience you say that the eldest was not always the worthiest and fittest for the direction of matters A very notable discovery But it may seem a little strange that men inspir'd or but of ordinary capacity did not foresee this and that no care was taken to prevent the inconveniences of the last contrivance It also seems incredible that the old men should be so easily degraded from their accustomed precedence and suffer their juniors to be pearcht into their places They must be suppos'd to be persons of a very complaisant humour tho they had no great proportions of Mother-Wit seeing they would yield up their Title and Dignity of first Presbyters without the least murmur or complaint But that 's no matter Once upon a time all the world over it came to pass that the place devolv'd not by seniority but was confer'd by Election made by all the Presbyters and not unlikely but with Prayer and imposition of Hands Things very piously reckon'd amongst the means of depraving the Institution of Christ And now the first Presbyter by this new Ordination begins to look pretty like a Bishop yet he had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is by all Protestants allow'd to Peter in that of the Apostles But one step more brings him to the Episcopal Throne For the best men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions liable to rust and canker There was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own times and those that follow'd after improv'd upon the example And so the first Presbyter soon became advanced into another order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters A great and sudden change And the thing was managed with so much fineness that it was conceal'd many hundred years above a thousand and it may seem strange that it should be discover'd at last not from any Ancient writings or credible informations but by experience in the course of things and some proportions of Mother-Wit Authors indeed you quote and several Arguments you have by which you would prove that corruptions were introduced into the Church in such a manner as you have describ'd but you had much better have left us to depend wholly on your own word than at all have produced them Since they can only serve to expose the weakness of your Cause One of those Arguments you ground on 1 Tim. 5.17 where S. Paul says Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine From hence you gather that there was a distinction of Elders and that some of them being better at Ruling and some at Preaching they exercis'd themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrine And you farther conclude that there was always a first Presbyter and make no question but he was of the number of those that labour'd in the Word And I make no question but here you have put together several things that might better have been omitted For you suppose that the Elders who labour'd in the Word and Doctrine were excell'd by others in Ruling whereas all that the Apostle mentions in this place are such as Rule well And then to those that you conceive were better at Preaching than at Ruling you attribute the praeeminence in Ruling or that chief direction of matters in the Consistories which belongs to the place of Presidents And this I think is sufficiently absurd But what is worst of all is you make a Text of Scripture a foundation of one of the steps to Corruption An instance of some that were better at Ruling than at Preaching you think you have found in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians and if you had the matter is not great since all that you would infer from thence is that others were prefer'd before them who were not so well qualified as themselves for the Administration of the Government I am willing however to see the exercise of your Critical faculty You think then that they who are said by Clemens to have Politiz'd well were the Presbyters that Ruled rather than Preach'd well But you might have found that in another place this Father tells us that Peter and Paul Politiz'd divinely if I may borrow your expression and doubtless did not mean thereby to distinguish them from Preaching Apostles You might also have found that when he upbraids some for not Politizing as they ought he meant not to reflect on them as Bad Governours but in general as persons that did not walk worthy of Christ These things so plainly shew your mistake that you will not I believe review your Criticism with any great satisfaction For an example of one that was better at Preaching than at Ruling and was a first Presbyter you produce the President mention'd by Justin Martyr And 't is true that Preaching was the work of that President for so it appears from Justin And it is as true that he govern'd in chief For he was a Bishop as Grotius will inform you whose Learning you with so much reason admire But of what use this can be to you unless it be to overthrow what you would establish by