Treatise he argues that Timothy was no Bishop because he was a Novice so he supposes he must needs be who was a young man Yet afterwards he expresly acknowledges that he was a Bishop but so that other Bishops were his Equals He had before told us that this same Novice was a Fellow-helper and Co-partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship and consequently in the judgment of all men if we may take his word for it of a degree superior to that of a Bishop Nevertheless within a few Pages after he makes him inferior to Presbyters because he was obliged to intreat them as Fathers and to pay them double honor and not to receive it from them And thus he snatches at any thing that may free him from a present inconvenience and at his pleasure Timothy must be such a Novice as is unfit to bear the Office of a Bishop at another time this is a depressing of him who was qualified for and exalted to a higher Dignity One while he must be superior then inferior and afterwards equal to the same Officers And this discovers such a flaw in the judgment of the Author to say no worse of him that I cannot but admire that some persons of greater sense seem to have the same good opinion of his Book which himself had whereas 't is a Rapsody of incoherent stuff and for the most part very trifling Yet he hits on some things that may deserve our notice and they shall not be neglected The common refuge of Dissenters that are concern'd for the Unbishoping of Timothy to speak in Mr. Prynne's Language is that he was an Extraordinary Officer and Evangelist He is expresly so styled says Mr. Prynne He is in direct terms call'd an Evangelist say the Assembly of Divines and that he was so says Smectymnuus is clear from the Letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4 5. Yet neither in this place nor in any other part of Scripture is that to be found which these men affirm with so much confidence 'T is true Timothy was admonish'd to do the work of an Evangelist but this he might and yet be no Evangelist Daniel did the work of the King and yet was no King The Levites did the work of all Israel yet were they not all Israel And Timothy who as M. Prynne says truly was a Partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship which virtually contains in it all other Ecclesiastical Offices might perform the work of other Ministers and not be of their Order nor come under their denomination This has been said upon a supposition that he was requir'd in this place to do the work of an Evangelist properly so called which I cannot grant For an Evangelist according to Eusebius was a person that preached the Gospel where it had not been receiv'd or to those who had not heard of it before And in this sense Timothy could not be an Evangelist to the Church of Ephesus which he was obliged to instruct and govern and when he was so it had flourished for many years I conclude therefore that the word Evangelist in this Verse ought to be taken in a larger sense and then to do the work of an Evangelist will signifie in general to preach the Word as it is expressed v. 2. And if this Interpretation which has been embraced by many Learned Men be admitted it leaves no ground for the Exception that hath been under consideration But Timothy and Titus you say were Co-founders of Churches with the Apostle Paul and from hence arose their Visitorial Power which consequently was peculiar and extraordinary That is you have assum'd a liberty of bestowing on persons what Titles you please and then you draw from them such Inferences as you think expedient This you call Arch-work whose strength you say lies in the combination A Church as we have seen had been founded at Ephesus several years before the Government of it was committed to Timothy and how he could be a Co-founder I do not understand I suppose he neither laid the Old Foundation over again nor raz'd it that he might lay another If you call him a Co-founder of that Church only because by his preaching he increas'd the number of Believers the Presbyters that were before his coming were for the same reason Co-founders also for doubtless they were employ'd in the same work But that they and others of the same Rank by converting Infidels and adding them to the Church started up into an higher Order than that of which they were before is what I think was never yet heard of in the Christian World Philip the Evangelist laid the Foundation of a Church at Samaria but by doing this he gained no new Jurisdiction he did not obtain by it the Power of Imposition of Hands which the Apostles had nor any Authority over Presbyters but remain'd a Deacon as he was before If Frumentius had not been ordain'd a Bishop his planting Churches amongst the Indians or more properly the Ethiopians could not have made him one Nor did his diligence in that work render his Office incommunicable But the Authority he had to constitute and govern Priests and Deacons was convey'd to others after his death and as Ludolphus will inform you he had Successors in Ethiopia to this very Age. Let us now suppose that Timothy had founded the Church of Ephesus it doth not follow as we have seen that his Authority was Extraordinary Yet in your opinion he could not be a Bishop unless his Office had related to a Church already planted for that you make the condition of Episcopal Charge But how groundless this Conceit is may appear from what has been said and particularly from that known Passage of Clemens Romanus where he says expresly that the Apostles ordain'd some to be Bishops of those that afterwards should believe What Bishops he speaks of is not here the Question They were such as you approve and they were constituted Bishops of those who at that time were Unbelievers But that Bishops who have Commission to preach the Gospel have Power to preach it to Believers only or if they preach it to Infidels that for that purpose they should either forfeit their former Office or need another is so absurd that to mention it is a sufficient Confutation of it Another of the Objections which you advance against the Episcopacy of Timothy is that he is not styled a Bishop in Scripture On this Mr. Prynne also insists and calls it an infallible Argument Yet what he pronounces so like an Oracle signifies no more than if one should attempt to prove that Presbyters neither are nor ought to be called Ministers because in Scripture they are never mention'd under that Title or that Baptism and the Supper of the Lord neither are nor may be called Sacraments because that Name is not ascribed to them in any part of Scripture The truth is if we
not the least appearance that he had any Collegues join'd in Commission with him whose Votes were necessary for the performance of what was expected from him and since he alone is represented as responsible for the miscarriages of the Christians at Pergamus 't is manifest that they were all under his Jurisdiction He might have Subordinate Officers but he had no Equals If the Angels of the Churches had such power as I have ascrib'd to them there is no ground to suspect that they unjustly usurp'd it For if it be a good Argument that the Text it self of the Old Testament had not been corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees when our Saviour and his Apostles were upon Earth that neither of them laid it to the charge of those wicked men we may conclude from the Epistles directed to these Angels that our Lord was not offended at the Station which they had in the Churches since he censures their faults and makes that no part of them But this is not all that may be said for it He plainly signifies his approbation of it both in condemning their former remisness and in exciting them to greater vigour in the exercise of their Office This agrees exactly with the Historical Accounts that we have of the first Age and particularly with what Clemens Alexandrinus relates of S. John who as he tells us visited the Regions adjacent to Ephesus partly that he might form Churches partly that he might add fit persons to the Clergy and partly that he might Ordain Bishops And if there be any doubt remaining of what Quality they were it may be resolv'd from hence that the Bishop of a City not far from Ephesus is said to be a person placed over All which Character could belong to a Prelate only And as it is probable that this Prelate was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna so it is manifest from the Transaction which I have mention'd that those of his Order were of Divine or Apostolical Appointment CHAP. X. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the first Century consider'd I Have shew'd that the Churches of Jerusalem and Philippi of Ephesus and Crete the Churches of Smyrna and Pergamus Thyatira and Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea were govern'd by Bishops in the first Century And one need but read the second and third Book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History or S. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers to find that Bishops then presided in the Churches of Antioch and Rome of Alexandria and Athens and to be inform'd who they were This may give us reason to think that all the Churches in the World were at that time under an Episcopal Administration especially if it appear that they were so in the following Age But before I come to make enquiry into that it may be requisite to remove out of the way some Objections that relate to the Apostles days 1. You argue from Acts 20.17 28. Titus 1.5 7. that mere Presbyters were Bishops And this I am ready to grant But then it must be acknowledged that the Presbyters mention'd in those places were subordinate to other Pastors and consequently a continuance of their Office supposes a continuance of such Superiors as they had to the end of the World Their Superiors were S. Paul and Titus and if there be any question whether the Name of Bishops may be ascribed to them it may be determin'd from what has been said already For if it belongs to the Apostles as I have prov'd from the words of S. Peter and some passages of the Ancients it may fitly be apply'd not only to the Twelve but to all their Colleagues But Episcopacy you tell me is a word of ample signification for 't is not only to be met with in Homer Plutarch Cicero but it is apply'd to God by Basil and to the Elders by Peter nothing therefore is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy And what then Did I ever affirm that it had but one sense in all the Books where it occurs whether they are Sacred or Profane Did I ever assert that none but Apostles were called Bishops and deduce from that Title an account of the special Nature of their Office If you can impute to me neither of these things you must be content to fight with your own shadow And I shall think it enough that the instances I have produced perform what I design'd by them They shew that in affirming the Apostles were Bishops and particularly that S. James was a Bishop whatever exceptions some have taken against it we speak the Language of the Scripture and the Fathers They also shew that if mere Presbyters were Bishops others had the same denomination who had Jurisdiction over them and answer the Objections against Prelacy that have been rais'd from Acts 20.17 28. and other places 2. You argue from Clemens Romanus that in the first Age there were but two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers because he mentions no more when he speaks of the Bishops and Deacons that were constituted by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe As if the whole Scheme of the Government which the Apostles established might be taken from that one Act or they had done nothing but what this Author left upon Record But as Epiphanius tells us All things could not be regulated by them on a sudden And the Churches of their Plantation afford us the best Pattern of Ecclesiastical Polity not as they were only in design or in their infancy but as they had receiv'd from their Founders their due lineaments and just proportions and were grown up to some perfection This might have been a sufficient Answer to what you have objected from the place before us had you demonstrated that when Clemens only mentions two Ranks of Ministers he meant to exclude a greater number But this you have not prov'd as one might have expected you should before you built so much upon it Because persons differing in Degree or Order sometimes come under the same denomination There were many that were said to be Rulers of the same Synagogue as some have gather'd from Mark 5.22 Yet one of those Rulers was the President There were many that at the same time were said to be Princes of Asia yet one of them was called The Asiarcha by way of Eminence and distinguish'd from the rest in Dignity and Power as Spanhemius and Harduinus collect from some Ancient Coins and from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna And as a Learned Man of our own observes Aaron and his Successor Eleazar are never styled High Priests in the Books of Moses but Priests only and yet the other Priests were subject to them when they had no distinct Title Clemens Romanus himself speaking of Abraham says that all the Priests and Levites were descended from him and in one of the Members of that Division he must be suppos'd
to be acquainted with those Gentlemen to whom he dedicates his Book But if I am not mistaken in their Character they are of more Judgment than to believe that if others were as Candid as themselves this Idea which he so much magnifies would be of Infinite Advantage They will rather perceive that it would not otherwise put an end to the Fatal Controversies that have perplext the Church than Poison would cure Diseases that is by the death of the Patients For 't is evident that the design of it is to abrogate the Authority which Christ bestow'd on his Ecclesiastical Officers and consequently our Author instead of Intitling his Book The Nature of Church-Government Freely Discussed might more fitly have call'd it A Treatise of Church-Anarchy or Church-Confusion I know not whether the Applause of his Performances be continued to him in his own Person which he first receiv'd by Proxy from the neighbouring Dissenters But sure I am that he contradicts the avowed Principles of their Party and the sense of their Writers He contends that the Pastors of the Church have no Authority but what they derive from the State He makes Church-Government a meer Prudential Thing and Alterable in the Form of it according to the various Forms of the Civil Government and argues that it ought to take its Model from the appointment of the Civil Magistrate Whereas their other Writers tell us That a Spiritual Extraction of a Legitimate Ecclesiastical Power cannot be made from a Secular Root That the Introduction of Humane Authority into the Rule of the Church of Christ in any kind destroyeth the Nature of it That there is but one Form of Government laid down in the Word and that Unchangeable and that to think Church-Government must be fram'd according to the Common-wealth or Civil Government is as if one should fashion his House according to his Hangings But that his Friends may not resent the matter too highly when they find how they have been impos'd on by him I can assure them that in contradicting their Authors he uses them no worse than he does himself For having formerly concluded from 2 Thess 2.15 that it was the duty of Christians to preserve the same Government in the Churches after the Apostles days that was appointed and practis'd in them he now comes to prove that let the Government in those days be what it will it is but a Prudential and Ambulatory Thing and lyable to Changes according to the difference of Times and Occasions And that his Friends may not for the future expect to find him any more fix'd or steady he professes in his Epistle Dedicatory that he hath nothing of fondness in him for any Opinions He hath as little fondness in him for the Authority of the Apostles as he hath for his own Opinions For however he takes Diocesan Prelacy to be a Degeneracy or Defection from an Apostolical Constitution yet he boasts of his Vindication of it upon Prudential grounds He represents Episcopacy as a Corruption and yet he supposes that it is of Divine Right when it is by Law established The truth is he hath confusedly jumbl'd together the Notions of the Dissenters and the Principles of Hobbes and Erastus and with this odd kind of mixture he thinks himself sufficiently qualified to heal the Breaches of Christendom Before him one Peter Cornelius Van Zurick-zee set up for a Reconciler General and his Project for Union was that in every City and in every County there should be appointed a General Meeting-place in which the Christians of all Persuasions should be requir'd to assemble together that they might hear the Scriptures read and afterwards talk about them and give their Interpretations of them according to their various Sentiments Of this Device he had such a conceit that leaving his Family and Native Country he cross'd the Seas that he might reveal it in England expecting that here it would receive a kind entertainment and from hence break forth as a Light into all other Countries and Nations But whether this Man or the Free Discusser hath furnish'd us with a better Plan of an Universal Peace or whether Prudential Reason hath been more happy than a Freak of Enthusiasm in proposing a Method of Union or Scheme of Ecclesiastical Polity I leave you to determine In the mean time I am of opinion that the way of governing Churches which is agreeable to the will of God was not to be invented or first discover'd fifteen or sixteen hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour I suppose a thing of such use must needs have been known to the Primitive Christians And they generally believ'd 1. That our Saviour Christ who was the Founder of Church-Government bestow'd on his Officers such Authority as qualified them for the Administration of it 2. That this Government was Episcopal from the beginning On these two things I have chiefly insisted in this Discourse but far more copiously on the last against which I met with the greatest opposition By which opposition I do not only mean That which hath been made by my Adversary for I have considerd the utmost that I could find objected on That side And upon the whole I am satisfied that it requires no great Abilities to defend Episcopacy and that it proceeds from the Goodness of the Cause that the more Learned the Opposers of it are the more ready have they been to let fall such things as may serve for the Vindication of it and answer their own Objections This was the Case of Blondel and Salmasius but more particularly of the last who hath so many things that favour my Hypothesis that of all Modern Authors none has been more useful to me than Walo Messalinus But all the assistance I have receiv'd from him has been only to confirm the Notions which I had before grounded on the Holy Scriptures the Testimony of the Ancients from which I have prov'd That Episcopacy was of Divine Institution and that meer Presbyters were generally subordinate to Superior Pastors in the Apostles days and afterwards in the best and purest Ages And if so there can be no doubt concerning the succeeding Times or of the Truth of what was affirm'd by the Lord Falkland in a warm Speech which he made against some of the Bishops that the Order of the Bishops hath always remain'd in the Churches from Christ to Calvin What I have said on this subject fastens an Imputation of Novelty on the Dissenters but I cannot help it and they have no reason to be offended at it For their own Friends the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches who met at the Savoy confess that it is true in respect of the publick and open profession either of Presbytery or Independency this Nation hath been a stranger to each way it 's possible ever since it hath been Christian And I will adventure to add that the Nation may be
and Astonishment like the Inchanters of Egypt when they beheld the Finger of God But neither was it afterwards always requisite that there should be just seven Deacons however some religiously adher'd to that number nor was it necessary that they should always be adorn'd with Gifts that were Extraordinary and Miraculous for otherwise when Miracles ceas'd their Office must have ceas'd with them The Circumstances of the first Presbyters were also Extraordinary They were qualified for their Ordination with Extraordinary Gifts and Directions were given about it by Extraordinary Indications They could pray with the Spirit and preach by Inspiration They could speak Languages which they had never learn'd and perform other things as Miraculous Yet when all those Extraordinaries ceas'd the Order and Mission of Presbyters did not so but still remain'd and ought to remain to the end of the World From these Instances it is manifest that some things might be requisite for the beginning of an Office and for some that were vested with it a repetition of which is not always necessary for its preservation nor for all that are advanced to it However therefore the Apostles had some Prerogatives to which none at this time have any just pretence however it was very fit that they that were the first Planters of the Gospel should be able to recommend their Doctrine which was then new to the World with Miracles which we may call the Seals of that Commission which they receiv'd from Christ yet the Authority they had as Supreme Visible Pastors of the Church might descend to others who have no need of new Seals or Credentials for what may be sufficiently confirm'd by the same Let us now suppose if you please that the Apostles did more Miracles than any others or that the working of some was peculiar to them yet if Miracles as such hinder not a Succession to them the number and quality of their Miracles cannot do it without some declaration that they were intended for that purpose They may rather seem to concur with other things in signifying the pleasure of the Almighty to preserve that Office or Order which he so highly approv'd and which he had established in so wonderful a manner VI. I grant that the Charge of the Apostles was of great extent yet this hinders not but that they might have Successors in their Office or Authority They had a large Sphere of Action when they were sent to disciple all Nations But then no Apostle had sole Commission to do this Neither were the Apostles wont to act as in a Common Council by Majority of Voices but dispers'd themselves that they might better propagate the Doctrine of Christ They did not all travel together into the same Country but some went into Asia some into Scythia and others into other Nations says Didymus as they were directed by the Holy Spirit The Armenian Historian in Galanus tells us that having received the Holy Ghost they divided the Countries by Lot But certain it is that some of them were more especially engaged to plant Christianity amongst the Gentiles some amongst those of the Circumcision Some in this Nation and some in that No single Person had the whole work of preaching the Gospel committed solely to him For as there ought to be no Oecumenical Bishop so there was no Oecumenical Apostle who had Jurisdiction over the rest It is also manifest that all the Bishops in the second and other Centuries had Power to govern all the Churches that were planted by all the Apostles and to propagate Christianity far and near so that the Charge of both in general was of equal extent And if the multitude of Pastors as well as of other Christians increasing particular Bishops were concluded within a narrower compass than the Apostles had been such Disproportion of Dioceses does not necessarily hinder the Title of Succession of one from another as may appear by the following Instances The Kings of Judah are mentioned in Scripture as sitting on the Throne of David when ten Tribes pay'd them no Obedience So that however they had not his Dominions intire it was enough to preserve their Succession to him in Royal Authority that they retained it in such parts of them as remain'd under their subjection Eutropius says of Severus that he left his Sons Bassianus and Geta his Successors And Constantine he tells us left his three Sons his Successors none of which singly could have all the Dominions of their Father in which the other Brothers had their share And not to mention other Examples I find in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius the Great Men who divided amongst them the Empire of Alexander twice styled his Successors and once the Successors by way of Eminence yet no one of them had either the personal Courage and Conduct or all the Dominions of that Mighty Conqueror Perhaps it will be said that this is a mere Dispute about Words for that is the Reflection which a Learned Foreiner was pleas'd to cast on it when it had been managed by an incomparable hand But when Salmasius whom others have followed argues against the Succession to the Apostles from his own mistake of a Word to give its true Interpretation and to confute that which is erroneous is the best way I think to shew the weakness of his reasoning VII I grant That other Pastors of the Church are commonly under an Obligation to a more constant Residence in some particular Places than the Apostles were yet this hinders not the Bishops from succeeding the Apostles in their Office or Authority For 1. It is not Essential to the Office of a Bishop that he reside in a Place as a Local Pastor of a particular Church nor is it always necessary as you suggest that he should be ordain'd to a certain People They that with us are advanc'd to the Episcopal Chair are constituted Bishops in the Church of God But that they are limited to a certain Diocese proceeds from such Rules of Government as are not always of necessary Obligation The Council of Chalcedon declar'd that none should be ordain'd at large yet this Rule says Grotius was not of Divine and Perpetual but Positive Right and it may admit of many Exceptions Before that Council S. Paulinus was ordained Absolutely in Sacerdotiam tantùm Domini non in locum Ecclesiae dedicatus as himself speaks in an Epistle to Severus And when S. Jerom was made a Presbyter he had no peculiar Church or Title assign'd to him And to come nearer to the matter Photius tells us that Caius who flourished in the beginning of the Third Century was constituted Bishop of the Gentiles that is of the Heathen at large that by his Labours amongst them he might draw them to the Christian Faith Indeed where Ecclesiastical Government is setled and Christianity flourishes however persecuted by the Civil Power it is requisite for the most part that the Jurisdiction of
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
of Grotius on Matth. 28.20 seem highly rational From hence says he it very manifestly appears it was the mind of Christ that the Apostles should commit to others and they again to other faithful persons that Charge of Government which was committed to them For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World and the Apostles could not live so long Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office And this Sir is the Testimony of that Learned Man who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge and exact Criticism may signifie something with you to use your own words and if he was not much mistaken this Text of Scripture by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers overthrows what you design by it and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment 4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve and it was preserved after their decease It was therefore design'd for Continuance and ought to remain in all Ages This Consequence I take for granted and the Assertions from whence it is drawn I shall clear in their proper places At present I only observe that if they are true they will much confirm what went before For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had it will be manifest that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church was none of them That could not be limited to them which was convey'd to others What was communicated was certainly communicable CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve I Shew'd before that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number and that it actually was so is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles and that not only in Title but in Power also For the first of these declares that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection when a Controversie happen'd between them it might easily have been ended by that Authority which one of them might have exercis'd and the other ought to have obey'd but they debated the matter on equal terms and neither of them gave place to the other The result was when the Contention between them grew sharp they departed asunder and took different courses But at another time they agreed and went together to Jerusalem and then James and Peter and John who seem'd to be Pillars paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues They gave to both the right hand of fellowship and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen as the other three did among those of the Circumcision You think however that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order and that he had his Apostleship from the Church For this you quote Acts 11.22 where you tell me the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him But you might as well have said that when the Brethren sent away Paul they did not barely dismiss him but made him an Apostle And at the same rate you may carry on the work of Criticism farther and declare that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants to free Paul and Silas when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour all these that were sent were transform'd into so many Apostles That Barnabas was as you imagine subordinate to any other Apostles is altogether improbable For S. Paul speaks of him as a Person in the same Station with himself where he says Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas and I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working 1 Cor. 9.5 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority that belonged to the Apostleship for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions Besides Paul and Barnabas there were many others that were not of the Twelve and yet did bear the Title of Apostles and of what account they were in the Church Theodoret informs us He observes that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops and then such as are now call'd Bishops were styled Apostles but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles and on others who sometimes had it the Name of Bishop was impos'd To the same effect is that passage which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose wherein he shews that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles by which says Salmasius he means others besides the Twelve finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided That of Presbyters they left to others and that of Bishops was appropriated to them who had the Power of Ordination so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right This place is quoted several times by Salmasius but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish is very obvious for it plainly intimates that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church only with this difference The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts and were call'd Apostles but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title thought fit to decline it and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops Yet both were of the same Order and govern'd with the same Authority This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth with disservice to his Cause For in his Dissertation against Petavius he proves that there were many Secondary Apostles as we call them for distinction sake which were the Disciples of the First And these he tells us govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power and in the same manner as the First had done He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters that Bishops had in succeeding times So that according to him there were always Prelates since the days of Christ differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages but not in Authority Amongst the Prelates of the first Century I think
highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church There is another reason for that Title for S. Paul calls him his Brother in such a manner as he does no man who was not his Colleague He also calls him his Companion in labour and his Fellow souldier not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions from place to place but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry I make no question but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow And the word so translated in Nonnus signifies an Equal In the Glossary of Philoxenus and in the Vulgar Latin 't is render'd by Compar And by Compar says Reinesius is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition and he shews that so it is us'd in Plautus This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3 compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function and if so he was not only in Name but in Reality an Apostle I am not ignorant that in this Explication I dissent from a Learned Author who thinks it sounds too harsh that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission But it should be consider'd that the sense of words of such especially as are Terms of Art often varies from their original signification so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation as are not consistent with their use And certain it is that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent They that are styled by Clemens Romanus the Apostles of us are not such as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans in whose Name he writes or from the Corinthians to whom he directs his Epistle but from Christ The Apostle of the Gentiles had not his Commission from them The Apostles and Angels of the Churches which I take to be of the same Order were not their Messengers but their principal Governors So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians should be call'd their Apostle 'T is true S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi But these in the Syriack Version as Mr. Selden tells us in the Arabick of Erpenius are said to be Presbyters And that they were no more than Presbyters we are agreed Many of the Fathers particularly Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and Oecumenius had the same opinion of them for which they give this reason that of one City there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop And for such a Bishop we need not here be at a loss having consider'd under what Character it was that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians CHAP. VII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy who was Bishop of Ephesus WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve I come now to shew that there were others of the same Order or to whom the same Authority was convey'd who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles Such are Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches to which more may be added but on these I chiefly insist That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence that he had full Power of Ordination This appears from the advice that was given him to lay hands suddenly on no man That is not to admit any into a Sacred Function without a due examination For so I interpret the words with Theodoret Photius and several others both Ancient and Modern Writers Some Learned Men I know put another sense on them and by laying on of hands understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures But I cannot find in Scripture that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers He speaks of the double honour or maintenance which is due to those that rule well and shews the reason of it He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any lest by his Precipitance he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry and partake with them in their sins And from hence we may learn what high trust was impos'd in him For in the Church committed to his Care the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices was wholly committed to him and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications There were many Presbyters where he resided yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government is manifest from hence that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you receive not an Accusation but it was said to him Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5.19 Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge For as Morinus observes from hence we may gather that three things belong'd to Timothy in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it and prescribe the Form of it He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate and hear them pleaded and he might determine them by passing Sentence Presbyters therefore as well as others being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority And this the Apostle intimates where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons 1 Tim. 5.21 We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority or that if they were rebuk'd by him before all they might make the following Reply We believe our Doctrine to be true or know our Actions just but if not we are not accountable to you for them for you Sir and we stand upon the same level if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures you take too much upon you and usurp a Power to which you have no Right Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded that Answer they might have given him or they might have appeal'd from him to their own Colleagues in the Consistory or to their own private Congregations But that no such thing could be done is evident because it would have rendred the
being under his Jurisdiction He was requir'd to inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on the disobedient and set things in order in many Churches His Office therefore or Power was Episcopal To prove this I have not urged any thing from the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus and therefore I am not concern'd at your exception against it or to enquire into its Authority What is manifest from the Epistle it self and confirm'd by the Testimony of the Fathers is sufficient for my purpose That however there were many Churches in Crete yet they were govern'd by a single Person as their Chief Pastor or Bishop What you object against his Episcopacy from the multitude of Cities in Crete looks like one of the Efforts of Mr. Prynne and is so confus'd that I can make no coherent sense of it You suppose that every Church or Congregation must have a Bishop for which you give no other reason but that some are confident of it and I confess if matters between us had been to be determin'd by confidence you had often put me to a loss Yet here I do not see what service it can do you For I would demand whether the Bishop you assign to every Congregation was a mere Presbyter or a Prelate If you say the first what is it to the purpose unless you could prove that he was not subject to another Pastor who had the Charge of many Congregations If the last what is become of the Cause for which you contend If Titus say you was a Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops that is of Prelatical Bishops as your words import and consequently if they express your thoughts you must believe that at that time there were such Bishops And now methinks our Controversie appears a little oddly For the Tables are turn'd and you are got on the side of Prelacy You contend that the Cretian Elders were Prelatical Bishops when I cannot allow that they were more than Presbyters I cannot be convinc'd but that Titus being left in Crete was the only Bishop in the modern sense of the word of all the Churches there Nor do I see any reason why this should be thought inconsistent with an Episcopal Function Theodoret had eight hundred Parishes under his Care yet this did not cause a Nullity in his Ordination And however there were many Cities in Scythia yet anciently one Bishop had the Charge of them all without any loss of his Episcopal Office Inconveniences indeed may arise from such large extent of Dioceses but this was not the case when as Rabanus Maurus tells us Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles or when Titus remain'd in Crete For then 't is certain there were many Churches under his Care and Administration and by what Title soever he was distinguish'd it is not material as to the Nature and Ends of Government But if he was Bishop of so many Churches you would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where he resided To which I can say nothing but that it seems probable he visited all the Churches of his Diocese and resided chiefly in the Metropolis If this satisfies not your pang of longing as I have no ability so I have no inclinati to gratifie it any farther For could I name with the greatest certainty the City where he commonly dwelt you might also enquire what part of that City or what Street he inhabited and propose many other Questions of the like importance to which I am not prepar'd to give any Reply It is sufficient that he was a Pastor of many Churches and had Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons For if this be true it strikes at the Root of the Presbyterian and Independent Opinions about Church-Government And I know not what can be said in Vindication of them unless it be that he was an Extraordinary Officer This you insist on and to prove it you tell me he was an Evangelist But the Scripture says of him no such thing From the Scripture indeed we learn that Philip was an Evangelist and yet he wanted Power either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd or to Ordain Officers by Imposition of Hands But Titus could perform the last of these which was the greater and consequently he was something more than an Evangelist and could be no less than an Apostle or a Bishop But that he may be reckon'd amongst the Pastors Extraordinary you likewise urge That he was only left in Crete as the Deputy or the Delegate of the Apostle and that but for a time till he should have established Churches in every City and Organiz'd them with Elders which having done you say 't is very probable that he return'd again to S. Paul to give an Account of that Affair and then you think his Commission expir'd Not that you have read any such thing of him in Scripture But since he was oblig'd to act as the Apostle had appointed from hence you collect that his Deputation was but Temporary And you might as well have concluded that since it was the Duty of Presbyters and Deacons to walk as the same Apostle appointed or according to the Rules he gave for their Conversation their Offices also were Temporary and design'd for no long continuance You think his Case differ'd from theirs in this that he was employ'd in frequent Travels but in answer to that I need only tell you That his Journeys to Jerusalem to Macedonia and to Corinth were undertaken and finished before he was left in Crete That he died there as we are inform'd by Paulinus and Sophronius and that the Government of the Church has been Episcopal in that Island ever since his days When I had proceeded thus far I had the satisfaction to peruse some Printed Papers of an Eminent Person wherein amongst other things he treats of this subject and I was glad to find that I had not differ'd from the Sentiments of so great a Man which he hath express'd in these words We are not to suppose says he that the Power of Titus extended not to a Jurisdiction over Elders when he had ordain'd them For if any of those whom he had ordain'd as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to wine can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercis'd ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual Vse did thereby suppose the same kind
support his Opinion which is oppos'd by the whole current of Antiquity His Friend Walo Messalinus was more cautious who acknowledges that the distinction of the Orders of Bishops and Presbyters was most Ancient and only requires that the Apostles times should be excepted and yet his demand is too extravagant For the Fathers generally believ'd that there was such a distinction in their days and that by their appointment in Churches of their own plantation This may appear from what has been said already and it may be farther confirm'd from Tertullian who thus upbraids the Hereticks with their Novelty and confutes their pretences to Tradition Let them declare says he the Originals of their Churches Let them shew an Order of their Bishops flowing by Succession in such a manner from the beginning that their first Bishop had an Apostle or an Apostolical Person who was conversant with the Apostles for his Ordainer and Predecessor And he adds that this the Apostolical Churches did And thus he thought to stop the mouths of Gain-sayers and triumphs much in his Argument But his attempt had been extremely vain if they might have return'd him this Answer Sir you are under a mistake or would impose on us The Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and had no Successors nor did they constitute any Bishops as you pretend The Bishops you speak of have deprav'd the Government of the Church They have advanced themselves upon the steps to corruption and contrary to the Divine Institution usurpt a power over their Brethren What reason have we then to believe that they hold fast that profession of faith which was once deliver'd to the Saints since they have so ambitiously trampled on their Equals and made no conscience to establish their own Greatness on the ruines of the Ancient Discipline 'T is our Glory that we have none of them and that we regard not their Authority Yet upon your grounds this they might have replied to the Confusion of that Learned Father had it then been believ'd that Episcopacy was an Innovation I know it has been objected that there are Intricacies and Inconsistences in the Catalogues of the Successions which the Fathers have left us But so there are in the Catalogues of the High Priests that are gâ—ven by Jewish and Christian Writers as Mr. Selden will inform you And also in the Catalogues of the Archontes who amongst the Athenians gave the Name and Title to the year as you may find if you compare many of their Names as they are express'd in the Marble Chronicle at Oxford with what is extant concerning them in the Books of the most famous Greeks and those Books one with another Yet no Body doubts but there was amongst the Israelites a Succession of High Priests from Aaron and amongst the Athenians a Succession of Archontes from Creon And we have no reason to question but there was such a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles as the Fathers speak of notwithstanding in the Tables of their Succession which have been convey'd to us there be some variation The Words of King Charles l. are very apposite to my purpose For says that Judicious and Excellent Prince All Humane Histories are subject to such frailties There are differences in Historiographers in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian Persian and Macedonian Kings and of the Saxon Kings in England And we find more inextricable difficulties in the Fasti Consulares the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls notwithstanding their great care in keeping the publick Records and the exactness of the Roman Histories than are to be found in the Episcopal Catalogues c. Yet all men believe there were Kings in those Countreys and Consuls in Rome in those times So that the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops in respect of some uncertainty and differences which yet may be fairly reconcil'd tendeth rather to the Confirmation of the thing it self 2. Wherever Christianity prevail'd the Government of the Churches was Episcopal For as S. Irenaeus argued for the Christian Religion that the Churches amongst the Germans amongst the Hiberi and Celtae the Churches planted in the East in Egypt and Libya and in the Middle Region of the World or Palestine had not a Faith or Tradition different from one another but as one Sun gave light to all the World so did the same Truth shine every where Thus may we say of the Ecclesiastical Polity or Government in the first Ages after the Apostles It was every where the same It was the same as we have seen in Europe and in Asia and in Africa And distant as the Nations were in situation and different as they were in their Customs and Manners yet when Christianity was receiv'd amongst them it brought Episcopacy with it A plain Argument that both proceeded from the same Uniform Cause and that Prelacy was not esteem'd a mere prudential thing that might be rejected at pleasure In the passage that I last cited from Tertullian he manifestly shews that all Apostolical Churches were govern'd by a Succession of Bishops from the beginning And in this he follows Irenaeus who intimates that he could have set down such a Succession in the rest as he did in the Church of Rome but that he was unwilling to swell his Volume into too great a Bulk And in the following Age S. Cyprian says that Bishops were long since ordain'd through all Provinces and all Cities To the Testimony of the Fathers I shall add another of a Modern Writer but it relates to the practice of former times and is pertinent to my design The Author I mean is the celebrated Dr. Walton whose Edition of the Polyglott Bibles was not a little for the honour of our Church and Nation yet it rais'd the Envy of some and that drew from him these words It appears says he by these Ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cryed down in the Church of England as Popish Innovations viz. Episcopal Government Set Forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivals besides the Lord's Day were us'd as they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their Conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been Anciently us'd by those famous and flourishing Churches which never profess'd Subjection to the See of Rome This is that Cordolium of our Novelists the Practice of the Vniversal Church of Christ all the World over I have shew'd what was the Original of Prelacy or Episcopacy and how universally it did obtain But the Dissenters understanding by a Bishop such a Minister as may have no other Pastor above him nor any Presbyter under him I would demand Where there is any instance of him in the holy Scripture or whether the Primitive Fathers writ any thing of him In what Country did he live In what Nation under the Heavens did he exercise his Pastoral
you much insist as if it afforded some great advantage to your Cause Whereas the Fathers who us'd that expression which you so well approve had no such Notion of a First Presbyter as you have entertain'd but made the same distinction between him and his Clergy as there was between the High Priest and the other Priests that were under his Authority Another thing for which you cite this Commentator is the information he gives us that the Eldest was always the First Presbyter till the inconveniences of that course occasion'd the change which he says was made by a Council But to this I know not how to assent because it appears from Scripture and the Writings of the most Primitive Fathers that they who in the early times of Christianity were advanced to the Charge of Bishops were commonly qualified for it and distinguish'd by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost or their own personal worth and there is no probability that a meer number of years was then held sufficient to recommend a person to the highest Office in the Christian Church Yet if there was sometime such preference given to seniority and such a change made in some particular Country as the Author mentions I am not concern'd about it But if you think the Ancient Custom he speaks of was universal and that a departure from it over the World was decreed by a General Council I would gladly know where it was assembled Blondel thinks the alteration was introduced by the Council of Nice and for this he directs us to the fourth Canon of that Council in which there is not a word of this matter nor are there any footsteps of it in Antiquity But whatever was the ground of advancing persons to the Office of Bishops manifest it is that this Commentator believ'd the Office it self was of Divine Institution and superior to that of Presbyters For he declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and that the Apostles in general were Bishops He affirms that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were Bishops also And in the Bishop says he all Orders are contain'd because he is the Prince or Chief of the Priests And yet this is one of the Fathers by whose Testimony you are content matters between us should be determin'd Another of them is S. Jerom who informs us I confess that originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the common Counsel of Priests But it must be consider'd that according to him the Churches were only under that Administration till by the instigation of the Devil divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas And it may seem not a little for the advantage of Episcopacy if as he intimates it was the best means of extirpating Schism when a Presbyterian parity was found insufficient for that purpose and if it was therefore establish'd over the world by universal Decree and that whilst many of the Apostles were alive Blondel I know assigns a later date to that Decree and would have us believe that it was not made before the year 140. But I am much more inclin'd to think that it was never made at all than that this project was first set on foot to remove the seeds or beginnings of Schisms almost a hundred years after they were sown at Corinth or after it was there said among the people I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas Blondel saw this absurdity and to avoid it he falls into another He would persuade us that the Schisms here mention'd are such as did not disturb the Church till a long time after the decease of Paul and Apollos and Cephas and did not arise amongst the Corinthians but others that imitated their example But by this exposition he does not only force the words of the Author from their plain literal meaning without any necessity but also makes him contradict his own avowed sense say in effect that Episcopacy was not instituted before the year 140 notwithstanding in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and other parts of his works he hath left us an account of several Bishops distinct from Presbyters that were ordain'd by the Apostles themselves 'T is true S. Jerom sometimes in his heats of which the cause is sufficiently known let fall such words as seem inconsistent with the Rights of Episcopacy yet if those words had been assaulted by his Adversaries he would not have been at a loss but had made provision for a vindication of himself or a safe retreat either by other expressions or the secret meaning of the same He may seem to oppose the subordination of Presbyters to the Bishop as an innovation or a departure from a former institution of Government yet he allows as we have seen that this departure was made about the time that S. Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians He intimates that it was necessary and in his Treatise against the Luciferians he declares that the welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Bishop to whom says he if there be not granted a certain peerless Authority there will be as many Schisms as there are Priests He may seem to believe that Bishops were not Constituted by any Divine order or disposal and perhaps he thought that they were not appointed by any Precept of Christ himself yet he denies not that they were Ordained by those that had Commission from him and acted in his Name and by his Power He may seem to be of Opinion that the Episcopal Praeeminence or Jurisdiction was at first a meer prudential Contrivance and afterwards confirm'd by Custom Yet in the production of it he ascribes no more to Prudence than the laying hold on a sad occasion when it was offer'd for its establishment And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition and this he grounds on Scripture That we may know says he that the Apostolical Traditions were taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple That may the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Church And this is as much as I demand Another of your Authors is S. Augustin who acquaints us indeed that the Titles of Bishop and Presbyter were distinguish'd by Custom But it does not follow that there was not the same disparity of Officers when those words were of promiscuous use as there was afterwards when they were limited in their signification If this gives you not satisfaction Grotius will tell you what is agreeable to that which has been said already That when the Fathers speak of Custom they do not exclude an Apostolical Institution Nay S. Augustin says that what hath been always held by the whole Church and was not appointed by Councils is most