man and will bring good tidings D. Well let us hear him I. Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 3. cap. 3. says Habemus annumerare qui ab Apostolis usque ad nos instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum c. that is we can reckon on who have been Bishops in the several Churches and who their successors from the Apostles even to our own times and because he sayeth it were longsome to go through all he mentions the succession in the Church of Rome until he come down to Eleutherius who was his own Contemporary And this he doth to prove the falshood of Hereticks their Doctrine because not agreeing with the Doctrine of the Bishops who from the Apostles downward had been in the Church And in that same place he speaketh of Polycarp who says he had conversed with them who saw the Lord and was by the Apostles made Bishop of Smyrna and that when himself was young he had seen Polycarp for saith he he lived long Now hence we may observe 1. that Polycarp contemporary with the Apostles was even such a Bishop as Eleutherius of Rome who lived in the time of Irenaeus for Irenaeus makes no difference and no doubt Eleutherius was such a Bishop as Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lions in France which I suppose few will question 2. That as some have observed Polycarp behoved to be the very same Angel of Smyrna who was written to Rev. 2.8 for Irenaeus saith Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves who all lived before John and he surviving the rest wrot at Christs command these Epistles to the seven Angels so that Polycarp must be that Angel of Smyrna to whom John wrot for Polycarp lived till Iraeneus his time who says when himself was a child he saw this old Bishop for says he Polycarp lived long and continued in Smyrna until his last and died a martyre Usher in his Orig. of Bishops pag. 60. reckons his martyrdome to have been seventy four years after Johns writing that Epistle to him and that he continued Bishop there until his death is collected from Euseb lib. 4. cap. 15. 3. We see clearly though there were in the Church of Rome many Presbyters or Ministers yet without taking notice of them Irenaeneus only names one at a time who was more eminent than the rest and after he is gone nameth another who succeeded him Now if all comes only to this that these whom he nameth had no more but the same authority and succession with the rest of the Presbyters Why are these we contend for singled out and named and not the other Presbyters as well as they Why are the Presbyters or Ministers passed over in silence and only Linus and Cletus and Soter c. taken notice of in their several successions one after another No doubt because they were the Bishops and had an authoritative inspection above the rest as hath been shewed already in Timothy and Titus and in the seven Angels Revel 2.3 and from the Epistles of Ignatius and other instances And to say they only are named for the more expedit reckoning is gratis dictum and as good as to say nothing and whereas some object that writers differ about the line of succession among these Primitive Bishops therefore it may be doubted there was any such thing as Bishops or a succession of one Bishop after another at all The King answers at the Isle of Wight this will no more follow than that because Chronologers differ about the line of ancient Kings in such a Kingdom therefore there was no Kingly power nor Kings there at all 4. Observe that Irenaeus saith these these ancient Bishops succeeded one another by Apostolical institution Qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt saith he usque ad nos Episcopi 5. This Valentinus against whom Irenaeus writes was a Presbyter and turned Heretick because he came short of a Bishoprick Tertul. adversus Valent. cap. 4. See also Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 43 44. and to add a word of Irenaeus himself he was Bishop of Lions in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 5. cap. 23. But after the Latine 21. Paroeciarum per Galliam quas Irenaeus moderatus est Hence it is clear he was their Bishop or Arch-bishop as some think for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified as much as a Diocess now See Can. Apost Can. 14. Concil Antioch 9.14 Concil Ancyr Cap. 13 18. D. Against what you speak of Irenaeus calling him a Bishop and an Arch-bishop I have this to say that the Gallican Church in their letter to Eleutherius calls Irenaeus Presbyter and so doth Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 4. I. Peter calleth himself a Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And yet we know he was more Irenaeus himself in his writings calls Bishops Presbyters Victor who succeeded to Eleutherius in Rome is called Presbyter Euseb lib. 5. cap. 4. and yet without all contradiction he was a Bishop and a great one too when he would have extended his Jurisdiction not only over his own but over the Asian Churches also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21 23 25. Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus freely confesseth pag. 265. Romani Pontifices vocantur Presbyteri etiam postquam Episcopatus apicem supra presbyteros consequuti sunt singuli in toto orbe Episcopi But hardly will you find the name of Bishop any wherein those times given to a single Presbyter D. What more can you say for Bishops out of the ancient Fathers I. I could produce you Testimonies from Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was contemporary with Irenaeus but something of him I spoke before and from Clemens Alexandrinus and other Fathers who lived in the second age And from Tertullian about the year of Christ two hundred who shews de prescript cap. 36. That the Apostolical Chairs at Corinth Philippi Thessalonica were possest not by a Presbytrie but by single persons Also cap. 11. and de baptismo cap. 7. Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est c. That is the Bishop hath the power of giving baptism then the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority c. I might produce much more from those first times in favours of Bishops Eusebius the ancientest Church historian now extant all along maketh it his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the Churches of these first times Rome Alexandria Antioch c. from the Apostles downward unto his own time in every of which Churches none that hath any skill can deny that there were sundry Presbyters or Ministers at the same time and yet without noticing these he sets down the line of Bishops one after another in these several Churches And for the time that followed after Tertullian it 's undenyable by you all there were Bishops in the Church and
the Fathers who followed were not only most of them Bishops themselves but looked upon Episcopacy as descending unto them from the Apostles as can be made out from their Writings D. You know Jerome who lived toward the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century saith Episcapocy was not from the beginning in the Christian Church Epist ad Euag. which is the 85. Manifestissime comprabatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factumest ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet That is It 's most manifest that Bishop and Presbyter are the same and that afterward one was chosen and set over the rest it was done in remedy of Schism c. I. Jerom's meaning is that in the very first beginnings of the New Testament times it was so while the Apostles were yet alive and did by their own presence and industrie supplie the room of Bishops but as their presence began to sail by death or even sooner as their other great business called them elsewhere upon the dayly increase and enlargement of the Church then to prevent Schism that arose from equality there were Bishops set over Presbyters And that Jerome must be understood speaking so early of the Church appeareth from what immediatly followeth in that same Epistle Nam sayes he Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclium Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi Archidiaconum That is at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist downward to Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwise elected one from among themselves whom they placed in a higher degree and called him Bishop even as an Army would chuse a General or Deacons an Archdeacon Now Mark is reckoned to have died before either Peter or Paul and even from him downward Jerome saith there were Bishops in that Church It is strange to see how warily and defectively Smectimnuus cites these words of Jerome quite beside Jerom's intent to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning and to show how they vvere brought in by Presbyters Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles ovvn times we agree that so it was but because they for Smectimnuus is a Name composed of sundry Authors would fain have Jerome to be meant speaking of Bishops coming into Alexandria not until the Apostles were gone therefore they leave out his first words a Marco Evangelista they take what they think may seem to make for them and leave out what is directly against them which is scarce fair dealing But Calvine Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. citeth this passage intirely and from it concludes that Jerome maketh Bishops ancient enough Also you may observe how the learned M. Durham on Revel pag. 225. making use of this passage of Jerome that you do to prove that Bishops were of later date than the Apostles Yet he mentioneth not Jerom's words Alexandriae a Marco c. in which Jerome clearly makes the Original of Bishops in that Church as high as Mark which passage either destroyeth the gloss you would put upon Jerom's former words if in them you think the Father speaks of bringing in Bishops into the Church not till after the Apostles times as Mr. Durham saith expresly or else you would make Jerome contradict himself 2. Mr. Durham as he takes no notice of the Succession of Bishops at Alexandria from Mark downward so neither of the first Simile which Jerome makes use of viz. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat But only of the second Simile of Deacons making an Arch-deacon for helping them saith he in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business which shews what kind of Precedency this is he attributeth to the Bishop even such as he would allow to a Deacon who is advanced to some Peculiar Care by others for some special end Thus Mr. Durham as he is very loath to bring in Bishops till after the Apostles times so after they are brought in he would have their power as insignificant as may be but taketh no notice of Jerome his comparing the Bishop to an Emperour or General of an Army who hath not only a Precedency but without all controversie a Superiority of power and command D. Jerome on Tit. 1. is very express that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu Studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur That is Presbyter and Bishop are the same and before through Satans instigation there were divisions and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by Presbyters in common but afterward when every one thought those to be his whom he had baptized it was declared through the whole world that one should be set above the rest and on him all the care of the Church devolved and the seeds of Schisms rooted out I. Some think Jerome in that place speaketh of the power Bishops in his time had come to beyond what the first Bishops had That at the first Presbyters had a hand in Government but afterward Omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertinebat The whole care of the Church was put over upon the Bishop alone But if you think Jerome there speaks of the first Introduction of Bishops unto the Church then I say he must be meant speaking of the Apostles own times D. What reason have you to think so I. First because Jerom's words import this while he says that the thing which gave occasion to the introducing of Bishops was the divisions that arose among Christians and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo c. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptized Now thus we read it was among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. And though Jerome on Tit. 1. take occasion from the Community of Name that the Apostle there uses while he calls the Presbyter Bishop ver 5. and 7. compared together to shew that at first there were no Bishops above Presbyters yet this will not necessarily infer that there was no distinction of Office betwixt Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostle wrot to Titus or that Jerome thought there was no such distinction then But that as the names were then promiscuously used by the Apostle so sometimes there was no distinction of the Offices till necessity introduced it which change Jerome takes
a Bishop is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop but he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters And Chrysostome saith That betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter there is little difference Yet both these Fathers you see acknowledge that a difference there is and they were both Bishops themselves Their opinion might be that Bishop and Presbyter differ gradu non ordine that they might be both one Order and differ only in Degree Which is still a debate in the Schools So may be said of the rest cited by Medina 4. That these Fathers were for a difference even by Divine or Apostolick warrant will appear from other places in their writings D. What For a Divine Right Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith that after distinction was made in the Church betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet was it never accounted by antiquity to be jure divino by Divine Right I. I shew you the contrary from Irenaeus Tertullian and others yea and from Jerome himself Now for those other Fathers First hear Ambrose in his Comment on 1 Cor. 12.28 Quosdam posuit apostolos he saith ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro Act. 1. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And on vers 29. Nurquid omnes apostoli verum est saith he quia in ecclesia unus est Episcopus Also on Phil. 1.1 Rather then he will allow by Bishops in that place single Presbyters to be meant he expounds those Bishops not of such as resided at Philippi because saith he in one Church there could be but one Bishop but of Bishops and Deacons who were with Paul when he wrot that Epistle as I told you before So on 1 Tim. 3. Timotheus Episcopus erat And for Augustine on Psalm 45.16 by Fathers he means the Apostles and by the Sons the Bishops who he saith succeeded to the Apostles And contra Cresconium lib. 2. Cap. 37. Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam primus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit i. e. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem And Epist 122. he saith divina voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae Speaking of the Angels Revel 2.3 and contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 51. Quid tibi fecit ecclesiae Romanae cathedra in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet i. e. What ill hath the Chair of Rome so he calls the Episcopal Authority done to thee in which Peter once did sit and in which Anastasius now sitteth From these and the like passages in Augustine we maâ— know what his meaning is when writiâ—g to Jerome he saith Qâ—anquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit Espiscopatus Presbyterio major sit there he speaks of the use of these words what it was at that time in respect of former times Honorum vocabula clearly shews this Then hear Chrysostome on 1 Tim. 4.14 Cum impositione manuum presbyterii Non de presbyteris loquitur sed de Episcopis neque enim presbyteri Episcopum Timotheum ordinabant i. e. That place speaketh not of Presbyters but of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordain Timothy who was a Bishop Sundry Testimonies might be produced out of other Fathers deducing the original of Bishops from the Apostles or higher Cyprian is full to this purpose Epist 27. ad Lapsos he saith that Episcopacy is founded divina lege by the Divine Law and Epist 68. he calleth it Traditio divina observatio Apostolica and for this adduceth Act. 1.15 Quando in ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur i. e. Peter there speaks to the people of ordaining a Bishop in the room of Judas See also Epist 69. Epist 42. and Epist 10 11 12. c D. What antiquity saith moveth 〈◊〉 not nor resolve I in this matter to be concluded by Fathers or Councils who werâ— fallible or by Apostolical Traditions There were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as the millenary opinion and giving the communion to Infants I. Yet you can grip very closs to the least shadow in antiquity which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversie and can manage it to your best advantage but when you say that you resolve not to be concluded by antiquity herein by this you clearly confess that antiquity pincheth you sore and you are like to be born down by the stream of it Tertullian saith Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio id quod ab Apostolis id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerat sacro sanctum As for these corruptions you name which early crept into the Church they were not so generally and universally received as Episcopacy was nor could they ever so clearly deduce their Original from the Apostles D. Notwithstanding all you say to make Bishops as ancient as the Apostles yet the authority of those great protestant Divines who have opposed Episcopacy prevails much with one to suspect Bishops cannot lay claim so high I Suffer not your judgement to be captivated by the Name or Authority of any man without proof I fear there be too much implicite faith among us which we condemn in Papists and besides may be the opposition of the most knowing and learned Protestants to Episcopacy is not so great as you imagine D. What think you of Calvin is not he much against Episcopacy in his Writings as he was also in his practise when he lived a Minister at Geneve in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren there where Presbyterian parity as it had been in purest primitive times was again revived I. Before you take the Government of Geneve to be a reviving of primitive parity as you say It is fit you first solidly answer all I have produced to shew that from the Apostles dounward there were always Bishops over Ministers or Presbyters even in the purest times I will not insist to shew you that when Geneve reformed Religion she had no purpose to put away Episcopacy if it could have been preserved You may read Durel's view of Government from pag. 151. to 161. who will inform you in this Nor will I debate whither Calvin lived in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren only hear what Mason apologizing for the Government of Geneve defence of ordin pag. 175. speaking of Calvin and Beza saith They being chosen to a place of eminency and endued with Jurisdiction they having preeminence in every action and consequently in Ordination none can with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal Office This he speaketh of them in respect of the rest of the Ministers at Geneve And B. Andrews Resp 3. ad Molineum speaking of Calvin and Beza says Quid attinet abolere nomen retinere rem Nam illorum uterque dum vixerunt quid erant
must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers might ordain a Supeâ—ior cxtraordinary Officer which is absurd D. Have you any proof more for bishops out of the New Testament I. The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. chap. 2. and 3. were Bishops for it is undenyable there were many Ministers for example at Ephesus Act. 20.27 28. Yet Revel 2. When that Church is written to which was long after Pauls exhortation Act. 20. and the Church was on the growing hand yet I say we find but one Angel among all these Ministers and he alone spoken to and commended for what was praise-worthy in that Church and blam'd for what was faulty as he who had the chief hand in that Churches affairs So may be said of the rest the Epistle always directed to the Angel and he commended for what was right and discommended for what was wrong seing by his place and authority he ought to have seen to the preventing or reforming of those things D. The word Angel Rev. 2. and 3. denoteth not one single person but is taken collectively for all the Ministers that were in each of these Churches I. I know that is the answer usually given but have oft wondered at it No doubt this Scripture pincheth sore when ye flee to such a shift Scultetus a learned Protestant in his observations upon Titus hath these words doctissimi quique interpretes per septem ecclesiarum angelos intenpretantur septem ecclesiarum Episcopos neque enim aliter possunt vim nisi textui facere velint that is the most learned Interpreters all expound the Angels of the seven Churches to be the Bishops of those Churches neither can they expound the words otherwise unless they offer violence to the text D. But Rev. 2.24 Christ by John speaks to moe then one for it is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vobis Hence it is clear to me that by the Angel of that Church he meant all the ministers I. Will you be content to stand to Beza's exposition of the place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to you the President and to the company of ministers and to the rest of the people You see the word Angel in his opinion is still to be taken for a single person and that in this place moe then the Angel are spoken unto This is as some think an Apostrophe which is an ordinary Figure in speech when the speaker turns his discourse to some other than he had at first been speaking to but that which I think should put it out of question is the Light we have from antiquity declaring to us that these Angels were single persons and condescending upon some of their Names for I suppose the practise opinions and assertions of such as followed hard after these Angels should by any rational man be acquiesced in as a sufficient commentary on this and the like Scriptures that speak of Church Governours D. Well What say they I. I told you before that Polycrates who was Bishop of Ephesus and born near to the Apostles times speaks of seven of his predecessors who had been Bishops there before him and Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon speaks of twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus successively from Timothy We find the Bishops of those seven Churches of Asia present at the first Council of Nice and designed by their several Churches Ephesus Smyrna c. and subscribing the Acts of the Council with the rest of the Bishops Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesias tells us that Polycarp who had been John's disciple was by him made Bishop of Smyrna so Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. So Tertullian praescrip cap. 23. And Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. contra Valentin sayes Polycarp was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna and that he saw Polycarp when he himself was a child for says he Polycarp lived long Now should not these testimonies think you have weight with any man that 's free of prejudice And further among Ignatius his Epistles who was contemporary with the Apostle John we find one written to this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the very same Angel to whom John writeth Rev. 2. D. I think indeed much of these testimonies especially of that of Irenaeus who says he saw Polycarp and so knew the better that he was a Bishop And I have heard that Irenaeus himself was a Bishop too but for Ignatius his testimony I am not much moved with it because I hear say that these Epistles of his are forged and counterfit I. Of these Epistles we may have occasion to speak afterward but if you will be at the pains to see what the most part by far and with all the most learned of Protestant Writers and Interpreters think of these Angels you shall find Beza Diodat Marlorat Bullinger Gualter Piscator Sibelius Pareus Aretius Fulk Our own Countreyman Napier of Marchistoun Cartwright the learned Reynolds in his conference with Hart yea and Blondel in the preface to his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi all expounding the Angel in each of these Churches to be a single person So true is it what I told you Scultetus observes doctissimi quique interpretes per septem Ecclesiarum Angelos interpretantur septem Ecclesiarum Episcopos D. Beza and may be others of these Divines though they interpret the Angel to be a single person yet they never thought that person to be a Bishop but meerly a Moderator and President among the rest of his brethren I. He could be no less than bishop because the Epistle is still directed to him though it 's true the whole Church be concerned in what is written yet I say the Angel is chiefly commended or discommended according as matters were right or wrong which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business and so he chiefly capable of what Christ by John says to him And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus above inferiour Ministers may oblige us to think no less can be allowed to the Angels And further most of the Divines I have named do say that these Angels were Episcopi Bishops And Beza himself de Minist Grad doth in effect cap. 13. give to the Angels an Episcopal power for he saith Horum authoritas in Ecclesiae regimine fuit eminentior that is their authority in governing the Church was more eminent than the rest's I might also shew you how Mr. Mede is misunderstood as if in his Key of the Revelation he did teach that the word Angel is commonly through the Revelation taken collectively that is not to signifie one person you may see the contrary in his Key Apocal. 9.14 and 14.6 7. And he sayeth the twenty four Elders about the Throne do represent the Bishops and Prelats of the Churches You may also see Brightman on cap. 7 8. and ordinarily through the Revelation he expounds the word Angel of some single person I shall produce one place more from the New Testament
shall be the more cleared in my doubts of these Epistles if you can produce any other convincing Testimonies from Prime Antiquity in favours of Bishops I. I offer to your consideration what Pius Bishop of Rome about the year 146. writing to Justus newly elected Bishop of Vienna in the room of Verus sayeth Veri loco a fratribus constitutum collobio Episcoporum It 's thought this was the Bishop's Habit then in use vestitum te Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi observent That is Let the Ministers and Deacons reverence and obey thee not as one greater but as the Servant of Christ This passage is found in his Epistles in Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 3. Fol. 15. Now by Presbyters in that place as all along in Antiquity are meant these whom we call Ministers which I suppose will not be denyed for both the Apostles in their Writings and all Antiquity that followed call them so and yet we see these Presbyters at Vienna had Justus a Bishop over them and that Verus another Bishop had been there before Justus D. It seems Bishops were not then acknowledged superiour to Presbyters or Ministers since it 's said Presbyteri te non ut majorem observent that is let not the Ministers reverence thee as one greater than they I. By that same reason you should make the Bishop no greater then the Deacons neither since it 's said also Te Diaconi non ut majorem observent that is let not the Deacons reverence thee as one greater than themselves Yea you will make him inferiour to both for it is added Sed ut Ministrum Christi that is as Christs Minister Pius there exhorteth Justus to humility a very necessar and seasonable counsel for these who are promoted to higher dignity above others and therefore biddeth him carry rather like a Servant then a Superiour I told you before that humility and imparity consist well In the next place hear what Hegesippus sayeth who lived in the time of Hadrian the Emperour before the year 140. a renouned Historian the ancientest of any that wrot the Church-history of the New Testament next to Luke who wrot the Acts of the Apostles Jerome as the Magdeburgenses and Rivet report sayes Hegesippus actus omnes a Christi passione ad sua tempora complexus est in sua historia He was more ancient than that Hegesippus who wrot de excidio Hierosolymae nothing of his History is now extant except a few fragments cited by Eusebius who lib. 4. cap. 21. brings him in giving this account Se plurimos Episcopos cum Romam peregre proficisceretur convenisse eandem apud omnes doctrinam deprehendisse That is when he went to Rome he met with many Bishops and found they all held the same Doctrine and a little after he mentions Primus Bishop of Corinth and afterward Romae haesisse usque ad Anicetum Aniceto successisse Soterem isti Eleutherium in singulis successionibus civitatibus ita habet sicut lex dominus praedicant that is He stayed at Rome till the time Anicetus was made Bishop to whom Soter succeeded and to him Eleutherius and that in all the successions and Cities matters were constitute as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord Christ did Preach Then speaking of the Church of Jerusalem he says after James sirnamed Justus suffered Martyrdom his Uncle Simeon was made bishop whom all preferred because he was Domini Consobrinus a cousin of Christs Further he shews that Thebulis turned heretick because he missed a Bishoprick Quoniam non fuit Episcopus constitutus and that till then the Church of Jerusalem was called a Virgine because it had not been corrupted with any false Doctrine From which Testimonies of Hegesippus we may gather 1. That he speaks of Bishops in all these Churches which he mentions 2. In every Church he speaks but of one Bishop at a time to whom when he is gone another succeedeth Yet I hope it will not be denyed by you that there were sundry Ministers or Presbyters in any one of these Churches at one and the same time 3. That the succession of Bishops was by election and not by Seniority as the instance of Simeon chosen after James at Jerusalem clears 4. That some were then ambitious of a Bishoprick as he reporteth of Thebulis which also was Diotrephes his fault And Lastly All this so shortly after the Apostles times that none have any reason to doubt of Hegesippus his certain knowledge what had been the Government of the Church from the Apostles times to his own time more than we can doubt what hath been the Government of the Church among our selves for fourty years bygone For Hegesippus lived next after the first succession of the Apostles as Vsher in his Original of Bishops pag. 62. gathers out of Eusebius D I would hear what you can say more out of prime Antiquity I. I offer to your consideration what Dionysius who was Bishop of Corinth about the year 170. says in his Epistle to the Church of Athens Euseb lib. 4. cap. 22. he mentioneth Quadratus their former Bishop and Publius Bishop and Martyre before him and then Dionysius the Areopagite their first Bishop of whom we read Act. 17. Then in his Epistle to the Church of Gortyna in Crete together with the rest of the Churches there he commends Philip their Bishop Vsher thinks Philip was Arch-Bishop in Crete Orig. of Bishops pag. 73. for Philip is called Bishop not only of Gortyna but also of the rest of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Crete Paraecia signified then a whole Diocess as can easily be made out from antiquity and we find was afterward also Metropolis and the Bishop the Metropolitan of the whole Island Concil Chalcedon Act. 6. Concil Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5. and 5. general Concil In which places the Metropolitan of Gortyna is found subscribing and this authority of his over whole Crete Eusebius deriveth from the times of Titus Dionysius writes also to the Gnosians and exhorteth their Bishop Pinetus ne grave servandae castitatis onus necessario fratribus imponat that is that he would not lay upon his brethren the heavy burden of an unmarried life Where by the brethren he must mean the Ministers under Pinetus his Jurisdiction For you can not think that by the Brethren Dionysius meant private Christians or that Pinetus did press private Christians to such a life It appears then that Pinetus was above the rest of the brethren that is of the Ministers and that with a power to enjoyn as is clear from Dionysius his counsel to him not to make use of his power in that particular Hear next what Irenaeus Bishop of Lions sayeth to this point he was a Bishop pious and peaceable and so answerable to his name and lived about the year 180. You need not fear he will deceive you but may say of him as David of Ahimaaz he is a good
make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
The said Authors of Jus Divinum Minist Angli Pag. 64. say that Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. were in many things deceived themselves and the cause of deceiving others Answ 1. They are hard put to it when they seek to relieve themselves by discrediting these ancients 2. Suppone it were granted that Eusebius was in some things deceived must he therefore all along be deceived when he speaks of Bishops superior to Presbyters He makes it a great part of his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the most famous Primitive Churches and to say that in all this he was deceived is Gratis dictum said but not proved 3. It 's strange if also Irenaeus was deceied who flourished above a hundred years before Eusebius and had seen Polycarp who was the Apostle John's contemporary and disciple Who can believe he could be ignorant what the Government of the Church had been from the Apostles downward living so near to their times 4. Is it not much more probable that Jerome might be deceived if we understand him to speak of the introducing of Bishops after the Apostles times Certainly it is more like he might be mistaken than either Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived long before him They say further that Irenaeus by Bishops meant no more but Presbyters Pag. 114 115. And Pag. 65. that the Fathers and Councils spake of Church-Officers of former times according to the Stile of their own times And again when pressed with the Catologues of Bishops out of Irenaeus and others they say that these Bishops were only the first ordained Presbyters and therefore this first ordained Presbyter is named and the rest passed by for the more expedit reckoning and the Line of Succession only drawn from the first ordained Minister Some of these answers are inconsistent For 1. They say Eusebius and Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops and next they say that by the Bishops Irenaeus only meant Presbyters Now how unsatisfactory these answers and the like are the impartial Reader may judge Only heaâ— what Bucer says De animarum cura inter scripta Anglicana Pag. 280. Where after he hath related Jerom's words which seem to make Bishops of later date than the Apostles he saith Credibile non est diu neque etiam in cunctis Ecclesiis ita observatum esse Nam apud patres Hieronymo â—etustiores clara habemus testimonia quod etiam Apostolorum temporibus unus e Presbyteris electus atque ordinatus est qui caeteris omnibus praevit Ministerium Episcopale praecipue in summo gradu gessit Where he shews that even from the Apostles downward there was in the chief Churches always a Bishop over Presbyters And so he goeth on to shew that James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that the like Order was keeped in other Churches Quantum ex omnibus historiis Ecclesiasticis cognoscere possumus and cites Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius to prove this All more ancient than Jerome D. I confess you have cleared me of sundry doubts I had anent Bishops I thought little or nothing could be said for them but that they were a meer groundless and godless usurpation in the Church for we have been taught to cry them down by all means yet there is one thing ought I think barr them to the door of this Church for ever and that is the Covenants by which we are sworn against them But since I can stay no longer with you at this time I am content to hear what you can say to this at next meeting I. Much more might be said for Bishops Yet there is enough said if you be free of prejudice And since you can stay no longer I shall be willing to commune with you anent the Obligation of the Covenant against Bishops at another time and so I bid you farewel If Blondel when he says pag. 53. Egâ— sane hanc politiae formam ab initio observatam libere concederem sed mutabilem tamen c. Speak of a primitive parity yet saith that form was mutable Prefat ad apolog pag. 59. Hieronymus hanc formam i. e. Episcopacy non modo non improbavit sed pro pacis bono semper admisit And in that same place vindicats Jerome from Aerianism And in that same place he says Episcopacy is forma regiminis non per se mala damnabilis sed adnatis sensim corruptelis viz. under poprie vitiatae and denys not but that protestanti sola corruptelarum resectione contenti esse poterant vitiatam deplorabant And more to this purpose he thought therefore Episcopacy in it self lawful Cassand Consult Artic. 14. Illi certe merito reprehendendi sunt qui odio abusuum in his ordinibus dignitatibus universum hunc ordinem quem Hierarchicon appellant ut nervum Antichristi sublatum volunt Nec minus illi accusandi qui inani titulo inflati eoque ad dominatum quendam vel etiam ad cupiditatem avaritiam abutentes neglecto quod Ecclesiae debent officio hominibus etiam non malis huic Ecclesiastico ordini detrahendi ab eo deficiendi occasionem dederunt THE SECOND DIALOGUE Anent the Obligation of the Covenants against Episcopacy Doub HAving some spare time I am come to spend it with you as I promised at our last parting I told you then that Bishops are abjured in the Covenant so that none may with a good conscience either submit to 〈…〉 them and we look upon all these 〈◊〉 â—â—sters that preach under them as perjured persons I. Ye use indeed upon all occasions to be liberal enough in charging Ministers and many others in the time with Perjury and this ye do with the greatest freedome and confidence imaginable but it is sooner said than prov'd Ye would act more Christian like if ye were more sparing in judging another mans Servants who stand or fall to their own Master Ye use to impute unto us acting against our own Light also I pray learn to be more Charitable D. You know there were Covenants sworn wherein Bishops are abjured and we all stand bound against them I. All bound There are many both people and Ministers at this day who never took the Covenant and think you them bound against Bishops D. Yes I think they are For the Covenant bindeth all not only those who took it but their Posterity also I. That is a strange fancy Casuists say Juramentum est vinculum personale i. e. an Oath is a personal tye that only bindeth him that took it And so consonant to this the Covenant sayeth We every one for our selves and not for our selves and our posterity I suppone the Father who was in his judgement against Bishops did take the Covenant his Son who groweth up afterward is in his judgement for Bishops It seemeth very hard that the Son should be by the Father's Oath prelimited in his judgement about a disputable point or else obliged to act contrary to his judgement Is not this