Bishops should be confin'd within their proper and certain bounds Yet when their circumstances resemble those of the Apostles and the great work is to convert Infidels to the Christian faith doubtless it is then fit that they should make freer Excursions And therefore the Great Council of Constantinople that so strictly limited Bishops within their own Dioceses excepted those from their general Rule who liv'd among the Heathens and gave them liberty to attempt their Conversion and that within the bounds of other Bishops as Balsamon and Zonaras explain the Canon And yet I cannot think that they to whom this Liberty was indulged were Bishops of a distinct Species when they only differ'd from others in a particular Circumstance Nor can I believe that they were Bishops at home and something else abroad or that they forfeited their Episcopal Character when they were making Converts or confirming them in a forein Province It is farther observable that the Canons by which Ecclesiastical Officers were restrain'd within certain Precincts being made in Times of Peace did not bind in Cases of Necessity On which account Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople determin'd that it was lawful to communicate with the Presbyters who were ordain'd at Rome and Naples and in Lombardy without the Acclamation or a Title And this he confirms from the Examples of Athanasius and Eusebius who when Arianism prevail'd confer'd Orders out of their own Dioceses A plain Argument that they had contracted no such Relation to a particular People but they remembred they were Bishops of the Catholick Church and thought they might on some occasions exercise their Episcopal Power in any part of it without a breach of Catholick Communion To conclude As the Office of Presbyters was the same when they were severally appropriated to distinct Congregations as it was when they had the Care or Government in common of many Congregations under the Presidence of the Bishop So is the Office of Bishops the same whether they are limited or not within certain Dioceses And to serve the Necessities of the Church some of them may be the more strictly confin'd and not suffer'd to pass their Line and others may be left to greater freedom in the exercise of their Function without any essential difference 2. It was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should constantly be engag'd in Travels S. Paul who was so abundant in his Labours remained two years at Ephesus and S. James resided much longer at Jerusalem as I shall shew in the following Chapter In the mean time let me tell you that all the Arguments by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers perform more than you would have them or nothing at all If they prove any thing it is that the Apostles could have no Successors in Teaching and Instructing the People which yet you say was a standing and perpetual part of their Office So that you must be content I think either to yield up the Cause or you will be concern'd as much as I to answer your own Objections CHAP. IV. S. James was an Apostle and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there AMongst the Arguments by which some would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers I find none more frequently produced than that which is taken from their unsetled condition And this you urge after the example of others but something you have in the management of it that is peculiar and must be ascrib'd to to your own invention Sure I am say you Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms the Office of the Apostles to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare But excuse me Sir if I tell you that sure I am you never saw any such Comment of Athanasius nor any such Translator as you have mention'd nor have they any Being but in your Imagination The use you make of the words you have cited is almost as surprising as the Quotation it self In the judgement say you of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers as if you had a mind to depress them now as much as you exalted them before I leave you to clear your self as well as you can and I come now to prove what I have already propos'd that it was not essential to the Office of an Apostle that he should be constantly engaged in Travels And this I think is very clear from the example of S. James the Just I know that many Learned Men have deny'd that this James was one of the Twelve which others notwithstanding of great Eminence have affirm'd But I have no need to be interessed in that Controversy I think it sufficient that he had both the Name and Authority of an Apostle And I shall shew that he was Bishop of Jerusalem and constantly resided there I join these things together because of their Affinity If I prove either of them it will be for my purpose if both the truth will be more confirm'd and they will give mutual light to one another That S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem appears from the Testimony of a whole Cloud of Witnesses amongst which Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus are the most commonly produced and chiefly depended on by the Assertors of Episcopacy as being the most Ancient and best qualified to gain an assent to their information S. Clemens flourished in the next Age after the Apostles and as Blondel says truly of him he was eminent for Holiness and all manner of Learning But Divine Learning was the highest in his esteem to acquire which he travel'd into many Countries and as himself acquaints us he had Masters to instruct him that were of several Nations One of them he tells us was of Coelosyria and another of Egypt the third he mentions was an Assyrian and the fourth a Hebrew And these having preserv'd the Doctrines and Institutions of the Apostles pure which they receiv'd from Peter and James from John and Paul as Children from their Parents communicated them to him and others in his time We have therefore reason to think that he was not deceiv'd nor design'd to impose on Posterity when he left us this relation for which I now make use of his Name That although our Lord had prefer'd Peter and James and John before the rest of the Apostles yet they did not contend about Honour but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem Jerusalem was the principal Place wherein our Saviour himself exercis'd his Office and taught personally when he was upon Earth It was the Metropolis of the Jews who afforded Converts to the Christian Faith before Salvation was brought to the Idolatrous Gentiles The Church of Jerusalem therefore was justly styl'd by the Council of Constantinople the Mother of Churches and it consisted of a
enough in my Concessions I. I grant that originally there were but twelve Apostles and I doubt not but as S. Barnabas intimates they were so many in allusion to the twelve Tribes of Israel But it does not follow from hence that the Office of the Apostles was limited to that Number or to their Persons On the contrary I shall prove in another place that it was actually communicated to others yet I deny not but the Name of the Twelve was continued for as it was assign'd to the Apostles with regard to their first Institution when Judas was fall'n and there remain'd only Eleven so it was also when many more were admitted into the Sacred College And thus says Peter du Moulin The Regions of Decapolis and Pentapolis kept up their Names when some of their old Cities were destroy'd or when new ones were built within their Precincts and Neapolis which signifies a New City is still so call'd notwithstanding its great Antiquity II. I grant That the first Apostles saw the Lord but this was no part of their Office only it made them fit to be the first Witnesses of Christianity Because says Paulinus they were to be sent into the World for the Information of all Nations it was requisite they should receive the Faith they were to preach not only with their ears but with their eys that what they had more firmly learned they might more constantly teach But we cannot infer from hence that none might succeed them in teaching and governing Their Conversation with Christ in the Flesh was a great Privilege to which at this time none can justly pretend But what qualified them for the Mission by which they were enabled to constitute subordinate Officers did not hinder them certainly from appointing others to preside over them as themselves had done III. I grant That the Apostles had their Commission immediately from our Saviour But notwithstanding this Privilege others might as well succeed them in the Authority they had to govern the Churches as Princes might sit on the Throne of David who were not advanced to it in a manner so Extraordinary by the particular Appointment and express Declaration of the Almighty as himself had been Noah his Sons receiv'd Power by an express Revelation over the beasts of the earth and over the fowl of the air over every thing that moved upon the earth and over the fishes of the sea and liberty to eat of every living thing as of the green herb Yet they transmitted that Power and Liberty to their Posterity who have not such an intercourse with Heaven as themselves had Thus the first Apostles who were sent immediately by Christ himself might convey their Authority to others who had not that advantage And 't is manifest that their Office was actually delegated to Matthias to whom our Lord did not immediately speak the words of their Commission IV. I grant That the Apostles were in some sense the Foundation on which the Christian Church was built for so we learn from S. Paul Eph. 2.20 But this does not demonstrate that they were an Extraordinary part of the Building Some think they were said to be the Foundation because they first published the Gospel So the Socinians interpret that Expression and they infer from thence as you have also done that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers But if for that reason they were so in any thing it was in teaching and consequently That was an Extraordinary Part of their work which you say was standing and perpetual Casaubon observes in one of his Exercitations on the Annals of Baronius that when the word Rock is used Metaphorically in Scripture it is with allusion to some Properties of a Rock and denotes Firmness and Stability or the like And says this Learned Man a Rock and Foundation are put for the same thing and differ not in Reality but in Notion only This is what you will be oblig'd to confute if you still adhere to your Opinion for in vain do you argue that the Apostles must needs have had Extraordinary Authority because they had the honour to be a Foundadation of the Catholick Church if no Authority be signified by that expression The Apostles were vested with Authority by their Commission before they planted Churches and therefore did not derive it from that work But if we think that because they formed those Societies their Authority must needs have been Extraordinary and Incommunicable we may as well conclude that Romulus was no King because at Rome he laid the Foundation of the Regal Government which work was not repeated by those that succeeded him in the Throne For my part I know no necessity that they who constitute Churches should be of a distinct Order from those that afterwards preside over them Frumentius was as much a Bishop when he travell'd from one place to another in India after his return thither to plant Churches as any that govern'd them in succeeding times and they that were ordain'd Bishops by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe did not forfeit their Character whatever that was or acquire any Extraordinary Authority if they were employ'd to convert those that were committed to their Charge But you tell me that whilst the Founder of a College lives it is the duty of the founded on emergent difficulties to have recourse to him and take his directions but he dying his Authority dies with him And it may be so and it may be otherwise You your self cannot be ignorant I am sure how usual it hath been for Founders to appoint Visitors of their Colleges and how permanent their Power has been in our Universities So that this Argument if one may call it so may easily be turn'd against you But Founders you say as such as have no Successors This is profound and it signifies that none came after them to lay the very same Foundations which they had finished before If such arguing as this silences all disputes and puts an end to the fatal Controversies which you truly say have almost destroy'd the Church it must be when the contending Parties are become very weary of their strife and are mightily inclin'd to an Accommodation V. I grant That the Apostles had Power to work Miracles for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrine But this hinders not a Succession to them in that Authority which is not miraculous but may be continued in all Ages There was something Extraordinary in the manner of discharging the Apostolical Office but it does not follow from hence that the Office itself was so or ought to be laid aside Otherwise for the same reason we must lay aside Baptism Imposition of Hands Praying and Preaching because all these things were attended with something Extraordinary and Miraculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says S. Chrysostom There was nothing that was merely humane or common in that Age of Wonders But Miracles are said to be the
judgment and the deference that was pay'd to the Sentence he pronounc'd are very remarkable for all did not only acquiesce in it so that the Debate ended but his words were put into the Decree which became obligatory to the Churches I find several Persons of the Roman Communion as much dissatisfied as your self with the place that hath been assigned to S. James in this Council There says Binius Peter rising up as the Head of the Apostles speaks first And says M. de Marca it is Peter that assembles the Council in which he gives the first or chief Sentence by defining the matter as the Emperor was wont to do in the Senate This sounds very great but hath nothing in it of truth Binnius himself affirms after Baronius that the Apostles who were dispers'd over the World were brought together by Divine Instinct or Revelation and this he proves from the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians And we read Acts 15.7 that there had been much disputing not without words I presume and then and not before Peter rose up and expressed his sense of the thing in question Yet if he had been the first Speaker neither will it be granted that this is sufficient to establish the Prerogatives which some have assign'd to him nor yet that the account he gave to the Synod of the Success of his preaching to the Gentiles and the expostulation with which he concludes it are any Arguments of his Supremacy Yes says Mr. Schelstrate When he had spoken the debate ceased All were silent and thereby gave a very manifest sign that they thought they must all acquiesce in his determination That is because 't is said that all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul V. 12. therefore S. Peter was the Supreme Judge of Controversies and the other Apostles had nothing to do but to approve the Sentence of their Head Certainly he had need to have a very favourable Judge to get this admitted for demonstration But any thing satisfies a willing mind and some have been content on any grounds to attribute to S. Peter what he never had that they may derive from him what was never in his possession But I return to S. James who after the Council was ended continued in his Diocese For S. Paul in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians v. 12. takes notice of some Jews that came from him to Antioch That is says S. Augustin they came from Judea for James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem Several years after this S. Paul return'd to Jerusalem and there he found S. James and his Presbyters together Acts 21.18 And this James as Chrysostom tells us was that great and admirable man who was Brother to our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem The last time he is mention'd in the Scripture is by S. Jude but from him I confess we can learn but little that may give any light to our affair For however in the Title prefixed to the Syriack Version of his Epistle published by Dr. Pocock he is styled the Brother of James the Bishop he is only said to be his Brother in the Text it self v. 1. Yet from hence we may gather that Jude knew him to be a Person of that Figure in the Church that the consideration of his Relation to him might gain Attention to his Doctrine and Instruction And I see no reason why he should not as well have call'd himself the Brother of Simeon as of James but that Simeon was not then in so eminent a Station How long it was that S. James govern'd the Church of Jerusalem we cannot learn from Scripture But S. Jerom says it was thirty years and he is followed amongst others by an Ancient Writer of Our Nation cited by Whelock in his Annotations on Bede's Ecclesiastical History It was not much less according to Eutychius to whom on other occasions you pay respect For as he tells us James continued Bishop of Jerusalem twenty eight years and with him agrees Elmacinus as I find him quoted by Abraham Ecchellensis In these accounts there will be no real difference if it be allow'd that in the greater are reckon'd two parts of years as if they were entire and that both are omitted in the less During all his time after our Lord's Ascension we have no relation of his Travels but so frequently do we find him mention'd in Scripture as remaining at Jerusalem that Walo Messalinus thought that he did not remove a foot from thence It was perhaps by reason of his constant Residence there that the Jewish Rabbies became acquainted with his Miracles the memory of which they have preserv'd But certain it is that Josephus speaks of him as a Person that liv'd there under a very high Character He tells us that all good men and careful Observers of the Law were highly dissatisfied with the Proceedings of Ananus the High-Priest against him And he imputes the Calamities of the Jews and the destruction of their Temple to their killing this James the Just who as he says was the Brother of Jesus who is called Christ And from hence it appears that Jerusalem was the Scene of his Actions and of his Sufferings that there he had flourish'd in great Reputation and there was condemned and persecuted to death by the fury of his enemies But Josephus you tell me speaks not a word of his Dignity as a Prelate as if I or any body else had ever affirm'd that he did It is sufficient that what he says of James concurs with other things to prove that he did not travel about the World or that he was not an Itinerant Preacher and for this cause I produced his Testimony If after all this you say he was no standing Officer I desire to be inform'd what it is that constitutes a standing Officer or by what Marks he may be known If you say he was engaged in frequent Journies to plant the Gospel I pray oblige me with the History of his Travels If you say that however he was an Apostle his Jurisdiction was but equal to that of Presbyters I must leave you to combat your self who have ascrib'd to Apostles a Superior Authority One Evasion you have yet remaining which is that granting S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem it was in that sense only as he was Bishop of all the Churches in the World and for this you quote a passage of an Epistle suppos'd to have been written to him by Clement whose Name it bears But as the Words of this Epistle are set down in the Basil Edition the Author does not address himself to James as governing all the Churches in the World but to him as Bishop of Jerusalem and to all Churches where-ever they are Be it as it will No great regard I think is to be paid to an Impostor who amongst other Marks of Forgery hath this one that
you must acknowledge them to have been unless you will say that the Administration of the Eucharist by the Pastors of the Church hath no foundation in the Holy Scripture I see no way to avoid the difficulties with which you are intangled unless it be granted that the Apostles receiv'd Commission to administer both the Sacraments for not only themselves but others also And since a Right to that Commission cannot be convey'd but by Ordination and there can be no Power of Ordination unless it be deriv'd from the Apostles from hence I gather that in this which was a principal part of their Authority as well as in that of conferring Baptism and celebrating the Eucharist they ought to have Successors in all Ages 3. When our Lord before his Ascension gave his Commission to the Apostles he left them an assurance of his Presence with them in these words Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And from hence it appears that it is agreeable to our Saviour's intention that they should have Successors for as the Assembly of Divines say well This promise cannot be confin'd to their persons who did not live to the end of the world but reacheth all Ages and strongly argueth that the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ And if so let us see whether the words be capable of such a Paraphrase as this Hereafter there shall be another sort of Ministers far inferior to you not only in personal Gifts or inward and miraculous Qualifications but in Authority and these I will protect to the end of the world but you and your Function must shortly be extinct Now this is such an odd kind of Interpretation as I can by no means approve But since the Promise was made immediately to the Apostles one would think that it had a more especial regard to the preservation of their Order if it was also meant of any others Against this your exception is that by the End of the World some understand the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum and think they have good reason for so doing by comparing Matth. 28.20 with 24.3 14. But that expression is only used in the former of those Verses of Matth. 24. where the Disciples said to our Saviour What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the End of the World And here they seem to understand such an End as should be put to the World at our Lord 's personal and glorious Appearance and not that earlier Period of his coming in a Figure only to take vengeance on the Jewish Nation for this could hardly agree with the Idea they had of that state of things about which they made their enquiry However it be thrice do we meet with this Phrase in the thirteenth Chapter of the same Evangelist and as often it signifies the Consummation of all things at the day of Judgment For then it is that the Son will send forth his Angels to gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity and cast them in the furnace of fire And then shall the Righteous shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father that is when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father for then says the Apostle cometh the end But if it be said that the Predictions I have mention'd from Matth. 13. import no more than the Calamities that fell on the Jews and the refreshment that the Christians receiv'd above sixteen hundred years ago after this rate of expounding Scripture one may evacuate the clearest Prophecies of the future and glorious appearance of our Lord to render to every one according to his deeds The Exposition which you defend is not free from other inconveniences For it supposes that the continuance of Christ with his Apostles must be commensurate with the time of his long-sufferance towards his mortal enemies and then however he had already freed them from the Mosaical Yoke and intended to disperse them into remote Regions where they would be little concern'd with the Political Affairs and Government of Judea yet wherever they were they could have no assurance of the presence of our Lord with them any longer than he preserv'd his Crucifiers and so their hopes must live and dye with his Murderers 'T is true all the Apostles did not live till Titus executed on the Jews a most just Vengeance But then I would demand of you that limit the Advantage of our Saviour's Promise to the Persons of the Apostles and understand by it that extraordinary Assistance he gave them in the discharge of their Office how he continued with them that were deceas'd and whether their dust and ashes or their reliques perform'd the Work and Signs of Apostles till that Period which you call the end of the Mosaical Seculum But some lived after that time and I would be inform'd whether they were then abandon'd by our Lord If so what afflicting thoughts must it cost S. John who liv'd above thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem when his Master that lov'd him so well all that while deserted him or lest him without his usual Consolation But this inconvenience you think may be avoided by comparing Matth. 28.20 with Matth. 1.25 where we are inform'd that Joseph knew not Mary till she had brought forth her first born Son For as the meaning is not that he knew her afterwards so when our Saviour says that he would be with his Apostles to the end of the Jewish World this signifies indeed that he would be with them so long but does not imply that he would be with them no longer That is you had fixed a Period of Christ's Presence but finding your self pressed with the consequence of it you declare that there was no Period of it at all And his declaring that he would be with them to the End of the World was as if he had said he would be with them after the End of the World indefinitely I do not see how that instance from Matth. 1.25 supports this Exposition For neither doth this shew how our Saviour could be said to be with those that were deceas'd before the end of the Jewish Polity that is how he assisted them in the work of their Apostleship when that work was over and they were entred into their rest nor yet does it reach the Case of those that surviv'd For however it is enough for us to know that the Mother of our Lord remain'd a Virgin till the time of his Birth yet it was not enough for them to know that he would be with them till the Jews were destroy'd They had as much need of Comfort and Encouragement from his gracious Promise afterwards as they had before yet of this they must have been deprived had the End of the World beyond which that Promise was not extended signified the Ruine of their Nation Upon the whole these words
Apostles Instructions useless and impertinent He had not only Power to correct and punish Miscarriages He was also oblig'd to give suitable encouragement to the industrious Let the Elders that rule well says the Apostle be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 I know that the meaning of these words has been mightily controverted by dissenting Parties and that they have been made a foundation by some for the establishment of such a sort of Officers as before the last Age were never heard of in the Christian World But though they yield no such Consequence as these men would draw from them yet in my opinion they may give some light to the matters before us and afford us a Pattern of what was practis'd in the Primitive times For 1. All Presbyters were not then usually employ'd in labouring in the Word and Doctrine as will be manifest to any that will but consult what Mr. Le Moyne has written on this Subject and the Authorities mention'd by him But there was no reason to fear that the people should want Instruction when the Bishop who preach'd himself had many Presbyters under him and employ'd some in teaching some in administring the Sacraments some in visiting the Sick and comforting the Weak and Afflicted some in enquiring into Scandals and assisting in the Affairs of Government And the Inconveniencies that might arise from Emulation if every one had been Judge in his own Cause were best avoided by the Authority of the Bishop who assign'd Work and Encouragement to them suitable to their several Capacities 2. In the Primitive Times the Bishop was intrusted with the Goods of the Church and out of the Contributions that were made to him he appointed subordinate Officers to supply the Wants of private Christians He was also obliged to make provision out of the same for his Clergy And for this Timothy was a Precedent whose duty it was to take care that the Labourer should have his Reward and that the Elders who rul'd well should receive double honour or a double portion out of the Publick Stock They depended on him therefore for their maintenance as well as in the exercise of their Function But that the force of what I have argued from the Pre-eminence and Power of Timothy may the better appear I am desirous his Case may be compar'd with the following Instance in which we are alike disinteressed Nicocles was advis'd by Isocrates to confer Honors on the most deserving and to commit the management of Affairs to Men of worth as knowing that the Miscarriages of those that were in such a station would be imputed to him He was also advis'd to take cognizance of Complaints and to judge indifferently according to the Merits of the Cause between contending Parties And this was enough to satisfie any one that had never heard the Name of Nicocles and knew nothing of his Character that he had the Administration of Government and that the persons about whom he receiv'd this counsel were his Subjects In like manner when we reflect on the direction that was given to Timothy concerning the Ordination of Ministers and the danger he incurr'd if he did not observe it when we also consider how he was requir'd to proceed if an Action were brought before him against a Presbyter and what Care he was oblig'd to take of the Elders that ruled well we have reason to conclude that they were not his Equals but under his Inspection and Authority That Timothy had Episcopal Authority is manifest I think from what has been said and that he was Bishop of Ephesus appears from hence that there he resided that he might exercise his Apostolical Power in such manner as we have seen and that he might charge some who were persons doubtless that had Right to preach the Gospel to teach no other Doctrine The Apostle intended not as M. Daille observes that he should act feebly with those that were so bold as to corrupt a thing so important He does not say that he should pray or exhort them or that he should remonstrate to them or simply that he should conjure them not to depart from the truth He uses a term that implies more vigour and requires him to denounce to them that they teach no other Doctrine than the Apostles did For to denounce is to act with Authority in the Name and instead of another whose Person one sustains or whose Minister he is and with a Menace of Punishment to the disobedient And from hence says our Author it appears that Timothy was left by S. Paul in the Church of Ephesus with Authority to govern it and to censure and depose even Preachers themselves And if so I think we may safely conclude that they were under his Jurisdiction notwithstanding any thing this Learned Man added for the service of his Hypothesis What I have said of the Office of Timothy fully agrees with the Sentiments of the Ancients For by some of them he is styl'd an Apostle by some a Bishop and both meant the same thing Others speak more plainly and say that he was Bishop of Ephesus and of this Belief generally were the Fathers Nevertheless against that which they so universally receiv'd you produce several Objections and refer me for more to Mr. Prynne whose Treatise intitled The Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus c. came lately to my hands and now I am able to tell you that he is a very promising Author He pretends that he has refuted the Arguments for Episcopacy taken from the examples of Timothy and Titus in an irrefragable manner and that he hath shaken the rotten pillars and undermin'd the sandy foundations of the high towring Hierarchy and left it without any divine prop to support it longer This work he dedicates to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York proposing to them two things one of which he modestly leaves to their choice 1. He challenges them to give him a speedy solid satisfactory answer which must be pretty difficult if as he tells them he had made it manifest that their founding their Prelacy on a Divine Right on which grounds only they were willing to continue in their station was a mere absurd ridiculous fiction 2. In defect of this he requires them to relinquish their places and not any more to advance themselves above their Fellow-Ministers And for this demand there might have been some reason had he demonstrated every thing of which he boasts so confidently with as much certainty as he hath from abundance of Quotations and Examples both foreign and domestick that Bishops may dye of the Plague as well as other Folk notwithstanding their Rochets Miters Crofiers to the confusion of those arrogant Prelates that think otherwise But I was soon convinced that no great matter was to be expected from him for not far from the beginning of his
to comprehend the High Priests whom he does not expresly mention And probably it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews that many of the Primitive Christian Writers distinguish'd the Clergy into two Ranks and to make them speak consistent with themselves we need only grant that two different Orders by reason of some general agreement between them are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use This one thing being consider'd may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology And it shews that if nothing else hinders Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church under the Name of Bishops that being a word which at that time was of a general signification yet some of them might be Supreme and others Subordinate to them He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters yet some of them might be Prelats and the rest of an inferior Rank and under their Authority But supposing what for my part I am inclin'd to believe that all the Bishops mention'd by Clemens were mere Presbyters I know not what service this can do you For he intimates that there were Officers distinct from them and superior to them And only to these Renowned Men as he calls them and the Apostles whom he joyns with them he ascribes the Power of Ordination which hath been the Prerogative of the Bishops ever since his days 'T is true it may seem that there was no Bishop at Corinth when he sent this Epistle thither which was before the Destruction of Jerusalem But if the See was vacant at that time it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd Certain it is that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession as you may learn from Hegesippus And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession Tertullian will lead you to it for he places at Corinth one of the Chairs of the Apostles It was in another of them that S. Clemens himself sate who is the Author of this Epistle He was a Bishop or an Apostle as he is styl'd by Clemens Alexandrinus He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles which was taken by Mabillon out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie and which amounts to the same thing he is reckon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops S. Irenaeus who liv'd near his time informs us that he was Bishop of Rome The same is attested by Tertullian and Origen by Eusebius and Epiphanius by Optatus and Jerom by Augustin and many others So that we have as great certainty of it as there is that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name And if there be no ground to doubt of it as I think there is not his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy as his own Example is for it there not being the least cause to believe that so Excellent a Person would have born an Office which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful CHAP. XI After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops IN what hath been already said of Episcopal Government I have for the most part limited my Discourse to the first Century and only touch'd on it incidentally as continued in succeeding times I come now more fully to shew that after the Apostles decease the Churches or Dioceses were govern'd by Single Persons who were then distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops This appears from many passages in the Epistles of S. Ignatius as also from the Fragments that remain of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth of Polycrates and others who flourish'd in the second Century In the third Origen acquaints us it was the custom to have no more than One Bishop of a Church and this he plainly intimates where he tells us expresly that in every Church there were Two For according to him one of them was visible and the other invisible One of them a Man and the other an assisting Angel 'T is true near the beginning of that Age Narcissus had Alexander for his Colleague in the Government of the Church of Jerusalem But as he was the first we meet with in Ecclesiastical History that after the Apostles days admitted of a Coadjutor so his Case was Extraordinary not only by reason of his extreme Old Age but also because as Eusebius informs us his breach of the Churches Rule was dispenc'd with by Divine Revelation The Rule was that of One Church or Diocese there might be no more than one Bishop On which principle Cyprian and Cornelius argued against the Novatians And the Council of Nice meant the same thing in prohibiting a plurality of Bishops in one City and did not thereby introduce an Innovation but confirm an useful part of the Ancient Discipline It was high time to do this for when Epiphanius speaking of Alexandria says that it never had two Bishops as other Cities he intimates that in the days of Alexander who was present in the Nicene Council some Cities in Egypt had a plurality of Bishops and if so it was a thing fit to be repress'd as being contrary to the Primitive Custom a Custom so avow'd and which had been so well establish'd that when the Roman Confessors abandon'd the Schismaticks by whose arts they had been deluded and made their submission to Cornelius when they acknowledged their errors before him with great humility they profess'd they could not charge themselves with the ignorance of this That as there is one God one Christ and one Holy Spirit so there ought to be but one Bishop of a Catholick Church Yet a doubt still remains on what account it was that other Cities differ'd from Alexandria in such a manner as Epiphanius suggests And some are of opinion that the reason of it was because some Catholick Bishops assum'd Coadjutors after the example of Narcissus But I rather think it proceeded from the Meletians of whom he discourses in this place and who with a mighty industry set up their Schismatical Bishops and Assemblies At Alexandria it seems they could not carry on their designs so successfully as in other parts of Egypt till as Epiphanius relates the matter they took their advantage of the death of Alexander and the absence of Achillas his Successon and then in opposition to him they made Theonas their Bishop and at Alexandria it self erected Altar against Altar But if you are not mistaken these Meletians reform'd a great abuse at Alexandria by that action For there you say the departure from the Primitive Institution of having divers Bishops of one City began as we are told by Danaeus who citeth Epiphanius and might have cited others Thousands doubtless Sir he might have cited to as much purpose that is to testifie such things as never enter'd
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
it I do not understand You have some other quotations from the Fathers which I need not here examine having done it already But I proceed to shew that it is altogether improbable that the Pastours of the Church who came next after the Apostles should conspire to deprave a Divine Institution And this I think will appear if it be consider'd 1. That they were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue 2. If they had not been such they could not so suddenly have agreed in the same design to corrupt the Church as you contend in the same manner 1. They were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account what care S. John took of the Churches after his return from Patmos and that he admitted such into the Clergy as were design'd or distinguish'd by the Holy Ghost And as I noted before Irenaeus says the Apostles were desirous that they should be very perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left to be their Successors to whom they committed their own place of Government And can we imagine that such persons as these conspir'd to deprave an Institution of Christ When they daily expos'd their lives to danger when they despis'd the Vngulae and Catastae the rage of Savage Boasts and more Savage Men when a firm adherence to their Religion expos'd them to the Scourge or the Cross the Axe or the Fire and when they express'd such a chearful readiness to embrace the sorest evils that could be inflicted on them and death it self under the most dreadful Circumstances rather than deny their Master were they then contriving to ruin his Discipline or Caballing to make themselves great Or if the mystery of iniquity did so generally work in the Prelates who are suppos'd to have usurpt Authority over their Brethren was there not an honest Presbyter in the world to put them in mind of their Duty or to admonish them to keep their Station Was there not one upon earth that would oppose their Innovations or plainly tell them that by the appointment of Heaven all Presbyters are equal If the Presbyters had no regard for their own Authority had they no concern for their Masters glory Had they no remembrance of what the Apostles taught or of the Instructions for the Government of the Church which they had given Did they not only quietly see the degeneracy spread apace but help it forward by relinquishing the Trust and Authority committed to them by the Holy Ghost We have no reason certainly to suspect any such matters of them but if we had I should dread the Consequences of it 2. If the Bishops who liv'd in the next Age to that of the Apostles had not been persons of so much Perfection and Virtue yet they could not so suddenly have agreed to corrupt the Church in the same manner Arnobius disputing against the Gentiles says in vindication of the History of Christianity If that be false whence comes it to pass that the whole World was in so short a time fill'd with this Religion or how came Nations so distant to receive it with one consent And in like manner I may demand If Prelacy be a defection from an Institution of Christ or his Apostles how came it to gain so early an admission amongst persons of so many different Countries and Languages How came it so suddenly to be establish'd in all the Churches upon the face of the Earth You say that Ecclesiastical Prelates arose at best by occasion and prudentially upon the increase of Believers But how did they every where meet with the like occasions How came all the Churches in the World to act by the same Prudential Rules If you can shew how all the Bishops upon Earth agreed to exalt themselves above their Brethren and how the Presbyters every where so suddenly consented in their submission to them you are the man of the world fittest to write a Commentary on the Philosophy of Epicurus and to prove that his Atoms by their accidental concourse perform'd all the feats and wonders that have been attributed to them That I have not been singular in matching such improbabilities may appear from the words of Mr. Chillingworth which I shall here set down When I shall see says he all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep and awake into Monarchies Then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles Doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a Scene in a Masque and transform'd into Episcopacy In the mean time continues my Author whilst these things remain thus incredible and in human reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally receiv'd in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick CHAP. XVII Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated IT is certain that the Testimony of the Fathers cannot be admitted to determine the Controversie between us but with the ruine of your Cause it being altogether inconsistent with your Opinion That Episcopacy was not of a Divine or Apostolical Appointment but introduced prudentially and gradually advanced upon the steps to Corruption Even of that select Company who as you say were as Pious and Learned Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd and to whom you profess'd your adherence there was not a man who did not believe that Bishops were constituted by Christ himself or his Apostles or by both You have one Refuge however yet remaining which is to reject those as incompetent Witnesses who upon examination appear against you And accordingly you tell me That the Fathers wrote things they saw not and fram'd matters according to their own conceits and many of them were tainted with partial humours You farther add That the Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops which Eusebius has given us are only Conjectural and Traditionary words fitly join'd together That himself tells us there was a great Chasm in Ecclesiastical History for the three first Centuries Ay that in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul c. But the sum of what Eusebius does indeed say in that