to comprehend the High Priests whom he does not expresly mention And probably it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews that many of the Primitive Christian Writers distinguish'd the Clergy into two Ranks and to make them speak consistent with themselves we need only grant that two different Orders by reason of some general agreement between them are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use This one thing being consider'd may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology And it shews that if nothing else hinders Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church under the Name of Bishops that being a word which at that time was of a general signification yet some of them might be Supreme and others Subordinate to them He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters yet some of them might be Prelats and the rest of an inferior Rank and under their Authority But supposing what for my part I am inclin'd to believe that all the Bishops mention'd by Clemens were mere Presbyters I know not what service this can do you For he intimates that there were Officers distinct from them and superior to them And only to these Renowned Men as he calls them and the Apostles whom he joyns with them he ascribes the Power of Ordination which hath been the Prerogative of the Bishops ever since his days 'T is true it may seem that there was no Bishop at Corinth when he sent this Epistle thither which was before the Destruction of Jerusalem But if the See was vacant at that time it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd Certain it is that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession as you may learn from Hegesippus And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession Tertullian will lead you to it for he places at Corinth one of the Chairs of the Apostles It was in another of them that S. Clemens himself sate who is the Author of this Epistle He was a Bishop or an Apostle as he is styl'd by Clemens Alexandrinus He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles which was taken by Mabillon out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie and which amounts to the same thing he is reckon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops S. Irenaeus who liv'd near his time informs us that he was Bishop of Rome The same is attested by Tertullian and Origen by Eusebius and Epiphanius by Optatus and Jerom by Augustin and many others So that we have as great certainty of it as there is that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name And if there be no ground to doubt of it as I think there is not his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy as his own Example is for it there not being the least cause to believe that so Excellent a Person would have born an Office which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful CHAP. XI After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops IN what hath been already said of Episcopal Government I have for the most part limited my Discourse to the first Century and only touch'd on it incidentally as continued in succeeding times I come now more fully to shew that after the Apostles decease the Churches or Dioceses were govern'd by Single Persons who were then distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops This appears from many passages in the Epistles of S. Ignatius as also from the Fragments that remain of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth of Polycrates and others who flourish'd in the second Century In the third Origen acquaints us it was the custom to have no more than One Bishop of a Church and this he plainly intimates where he tells us expresly that in every Church there were Two For according to him one of them was visible and the other invisible One of them a Man and the other an assisting Angel 'T is true near the beginning of that Age Narcissus had Alexander for his Colleague in the Government of the Church of Jerusalem But as he was the first we meet with in Ecclesiastical History that after the Apostles days admitted of a Coadjutor so his Case was Extraordinary not only by reason of his extreme Old Age but also because as Eusebius informs us his breach of the Churches Rule was dispenc'd with by Divine Revelation The Rule was that of One Church or Diocese there might be no more than one Bishop On which principle Cyprian and Cornelius argued against the Novatians And the Council of Nice meant the same thing in prohibiting a plurality of Bishops in one City and did not thereby introduce an Innovation but confirm an useful part of the Ancient Discipline It was high time to do this for when Epiphanius speaking of Alexandria says that it never had two Bishops as other Cities he intimates that in the days of Alexander who was present in the Nicene Council some Cities in Egypt had a plurality of Bishops and if so it was a thing fit to be repress'd as being contrary to the Primitive Custom a Custom so avow'd and which had been so well establish'd that when the Roman Confessors abandon'd the Schismaticks by whose arts they had been deluded and made their submission to Cornelius when they acknowledged their errors before him with great humility they profess'd they could not charge themselves with the ignorance of this That as there is one God one Christ and one Holy Spirit so there ought to be but one Bishop of a Catholick Church Yet a doubt still remains on what account it was that other Cities differ'd from Alexandria in such a manner as Epiphanius suggests And some are of opinion that the reason of it was because some Catholick Bishops assum'd Coadjutors after the example of Narcissus But I rather think it proceeded from the Meletians of whom he discourses in this place and who with a mighty industry set up their Schismatical Bishops and Assemblies At Alexandria it seems they could not carry on their designs so successfully as in other parts of Egypt till as Epiphanius relates the matter they took their advantage of the death of Alexander and the absence of Achillas his Successon and then in opposition to him they made Theonas their Bishop and at Alexandria it self erected Altar against Altar But if you are not mistaken these Meletians reform'd a great abuse at Alexandria by that action For there you say the departure from the Primitive Institution of having divers Bishops of one City began as we are told by Danaeus who citeth Epiphanius and might have cited others Thousands doubtless Sir he might have cited to as much purpose that is to testifie such things as never enter'd
we may reckon the Apostles of the Churches mention'd by S. Paul 2. Cor. 8.23 For they are said to be the Glory of Christ which Character I suppose they did not beat because they were employ'd in going on Errands but as they were the Representatives of Christ in governing such parts of his Kingdom as were assign'd to their especial care The ground of this Interpretation I take from 1 Cor. 11.7 where we read that Man is the Image and Glory of God which words in the judgment of Theodoret are not to be understood with respect either to the Body of the Man or to his Soul but to the Dominion that he hath from God over the Creatures In the same Verse we read that the Woman is the Glory of the Man The Wife is the Glory of her Husband She is says Theodoret as it were the Image of that Image and as such she hath Power over the rest of the Family Thus when these Apostles are said to be the Glory of Christ this implies something of Jurisdiction which they receiv'd from him And when they are said to be the Apostles of the Churches the meaning is not that they were their Messengers but their Spiritual Pastors They were their Spiritual Rulers and our Lord's Vicegerents acting in his Name and by his Authority Agreeable to what has been said is this Observation of S. Jerom That in process of time besides those whom the Lord had chosen others were ordain'd Apostles as these words to the Philippians declare I suppos'd it necessary sayes S. Paul to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and Companion in labour and Fellow-souldier but your Apostle Phil. 2 25. But you wonder that after S. Jerom I should cite this place for a Proof that Epaphroditus was Bishop of Philippi and at first you could hardly believe that I was in earnest As if it were now such a fault to follow S. Jerom who when you have occasion to press him into your service is as Learned and Pious a Father as any the Churches ever own'd S. Jerom is not singular in what he says of Epaphroditus for Hilary tells us he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians which in his Language signifies that he was their Bishop And with him agrees Pacianus and Theodoret also whose Notions about the Primitive Government of the Church are usually very clear and coherent If you consult Writers of greatest fame amongst the Assertors of Presbyterian Parity you will find them granting that Epaphroditus was something more than a mere Messenger Blondel reckons him amongst the Chief Governors of Churches and for this he quotes Pacianus Jerom and Theodoret as I have done and if you can hardly believe him to be in earnest you may take the same exception against Walo Messalinus for says he Epaphroditus was call'd the Apostle of the Philippians as Paul was said to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision He mentions the contrary Opinion but then he adds To me it seems to have no appearance of truth since I know that the word Apostle is never us'd by S. Paul nor by any other Apostles and Evangelists but for a Sacred Ministery But this Observation of Walo you say will hold no water for you take it that John 13.16 in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a common promiscuous sense and render'd so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable instance against him That is you are now assur'd that whereas this Word is us'd about fourscore times in the New Testament in one of them it signifies any common Messenger And if you could demonstrate this as impregnably as you have asserted it with confidence it would be no great matter of triumph Yet this is more than I can grant you have perform'd For in the place you insist upon our Saviour speaks thus to his Disciples He that is sent or an Apostle is not greater than he that sent him As if he had said Ye my Apostles that I mean to settle Governours of the Church are not greater than I from whom you have your Commission and by whom you are constituted That is the Paraphrase of the Learned Dr. Hammond on those words of our Lord and as it is very agreeable to the Context so it shews to what little purpose you have employ'd this place of Scripture Nor have you any better success but less shew of reason where you tell me that notwithstanding Epaphroditus is in Greek call'd an Apostle yet it no more follows from thence that he was a Bishop than that Joseph the Mittendary as you call him in Epiphanius was on this account a Bishop for you might as well have urg'd that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles I think no man that reads the accounts of the Mittendary in Epiphanius and of Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians can form the same Notions of both for 't is manifest that one was an Officer under a Jewish Patriarch and the other a Christian Minister of great eminence The same general Title indeed was common to both but it was not so applied at the time about which we are in debate nor by those Writers from whose style and expressions the thing in controversie must be determin'd Jacobus Gothofredus who searched in to the Original of the Jewish Apostles of which Epiphanius speaks and was willing to carry it as high as possible could not find them mention'd by any Author before the fourth Century None of the Pen-men of the New Testament no Ecclesiastical Writer of the first Age calls any man an Apostle who was not a Pastor of the Christian Church and of an Order Superior to that of Presbyters And consequently he that was styled the Apostle of the Philippians was their Bishop By which word I always understand a Prelate when I give no intimation of the contrary or of leaving its signification undetermin'd You think the Connexion and Coherence carry it for your sense and that Epaphroditus was no more than a Mittendary because S. Paul says of him that he ministred to his wants But if Castellio has well expressed the sense of these words they will afford no such Inference as you have drawn from them but signifie that Epaphroditus was sent to supply the place of S. Paul at Philippi And much may be said for this Exposition but it is I confess out of the common road of Interpreters And to what you have objected I farther answer that Epaphroditus may be said to minister to the wants of S. Paul who received of him the things of the Philippians and yet it doth not appear from Scripture that they sent him much less is there any probability that if he was sent by them he was for that reason dignified with the
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
represented as a Person of admirable Charity and a Worthy Pattern and great Blessing to his Flock Polycrates was another of his Successors and it were easie to reckon many more If therefore your Standard of Extraordinaries be true and of any use it must be granted that his Office was not of their number and that the Inferences you draw from his doing the work of an Evangelist and from your supposition of his being a Co-founder are groundless for 't is in vain to advance little Conjectures against plain Matter of Fact CHAP. VIII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus who was Bishop of Crete I Have said so much of Timothy that the less need be added concerning Titus who had been train'd up with him under the same Spiritual Father and was employ'd in the same manner They were both S. Paul's Fellow-Labourers and Partners in the Apostolate and they were left under the same Character and with the same Authority the one at Ephesus and the other in Crete Titus was left in Crete of which he was Bishop say the Fathers and one part of his Episcopal Power appears from the Commission he had to ordain Elders there in every City Tit. 1.5 But say you the word there which is render'd Ordain is the same that is us'd Acts 6.3 in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the people And one might well admire that the same word which is translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordain'd in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if it were a plain Text for sole Ordination So that here is a heavy Charge against the Translators and perhaps never was any more groundless For I pray Sir what did they mean either by appointing or ordaining but constituting And if all the Apostles constituted the Deacons which were chosen by the People will it follow from the signification of this word that Titus might not constitute Elders unless they were chosen by the People or that he could not do it unless he had Colleagues to assist him or was himself a multitude When the Lord in the Gospel is said to set a Ruler over his houshold must the interpretation of this expression be that he did it not without a previous Election in the Family and with the concurrence of his equals And when we read that Pharaoh made Joseph Governour over Egypt and all his house must the meaning of this be that Pharaoh and some Partners with him in the Thone did this but not without the common consent of their Subjects If these things be absurd you may at your leisure reflect on the Success of your Criticism and the Justice of your Censure We have seen what Right Titus had to constitute Elders And if it be absurd to imagine that all his Care of them was to be employ'd in examining and admitting them into Office and none afterwards it will follow that since the Rules for their Conversation are directed unto him he had over them an Episcopal Authority For as the Command that was given to the Master of a Family that his Children and Servants should keep the Sabbath was an Argument that they were under his Jurisdiction which rendred him accountable for them So when the Precepts by which Presbyters ought to govern their Actions were addressed to Titus this signifies that he had Power to see them executed and Offences against them prevented or punish'd Another Argument of his Episcopal Power may be taken from hence that he is required to rebuke the disobedient and refractory with all Authority That is says Beza with the highest Authority as an Ambassador of God and to let no man despise him which last advice confirms Beza's Exposition of the former and shews that if Titus would exercise the Authority he had That was sufficient to create a Reverence for him amongst all that were committed to his care But this I confess might seem very strange had his Orders or his Proceedings against Offenders been precarious or some Notions about the Pastors of the Church then prevail'd which of late have been entertain'd In the Imperial Law the following Precept is given to a Judge or President Observandum est jus reddenti ut se contemni non patiatur And it is suitable enough to the condition of a Magistrate But if it be said Of what use could it be to instruct a person to let no man despise him who had no coercive force to vindicate himself from Contempt if any were inclin'd to throw it on him To this I know no other answer can be given than that the Authority of Bishops however it was only Spiritual did in that Age strike such an awe upon the Minds of Christians that they were able to stop the Mouths of False Teachers without any external violence or deprive them of their followers if these had any true sense of Piety Their publick reproof of Scandalous Offenders was then very dreadful and when they expell'd them from the Church by their Censures this was justly esteem'd a sad presage of their future judgment Such Censures I suppose were meant by the Apostle where he instructs Titus to reject a Heretick after the first and second admonition On which words Dr. Hammond hath this Annotation which is not vulgar but in my opinion very rational The first and second admonition says he here refers to the method prescrib'd by Christ in proceeding against Christian Offenders Matth 18.15 but in some circumstances differs from it There is mention of a threefold admonition one by the injured person alone a second by two or three taken with him the third by the Church But here only a first and second admonition The cause of this difference is to be taken from the quality of the person to whom this Epistle is written Titus a Bishop whereas there the speech is address'd to every private Christian that is injured by any Here the first admonition of the Bishop carries an Authority along with it far above that of the private person and the two or three with him and so may well supply the place of both those and then the second here will be parallel to the third there and so after that is despis'd or proved uneffectual it is seasonable to proceed to Censures to excommunicate the contumacious Thus 2 Cor. 13.2 immediately after the second admonition deliver'd by S. Paul he tells the Offenders he will not spare and v. 10. he tells them that this admonition is that he may not proceed to excision or cutting off which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking away the word ordinarily used in the Canons for Excommunication The summ of what I have said of Titus is That he had Commission to constitute Officers and to govern with plenitude of Power Presbyters as well as others
will do me but small service for the force of the testimony which I cite from him depends on the word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as I understand it a Masterly Authority but Teaching and Doctrine for in this latter sense the word is often us'd by the Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as I may see lib. 1. Ep. 3. and in other places Yet in that very Epistle to which you refer me we may not understand by it Doctrine without Authority nor is it limited to any such sense amongst Ancient Writers In Suetonius in Ammianus Marcellinus in Sulpicius Severus and many others it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction It signifies Government in Apuleius and Casaubon observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Magisterium Sacerdotii are expressions equivalent From hence it appears that Locus Magisterii in Irenaeus may fitly be translated the place of Authority or Government And that it ought to be so will be manifest if it be consider'd that he thought it peculiar to the Bishops to succeed the Apostles in their own place or Office He could not think it peculiar to them to derive from the Apostles the meer power of preaching which was known to be common to other Ministers His words therefore can import no less than that the Bishops were constituted Supreme Pastors without that dependance on Presbyters which these had on them or that they were vested with such Authority over other Officers and Churches as the Apostles before enjoy'd and exercis'd And now it may be fit and it will be no difficult matter to answer your Objection which I omitted before against the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and which is to this effect The Prelates you conceive cannot be said to be the Apostles Successors because the Apostles in their life time could not constitute any Officers over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction nor convey to others the places which you suppose they still kept But if it be said they appointed that the Prelates should be inducted into those places after their decease you think there is no credible tradition transmitted to us of that matter But here is one thing you have forgotten that may deserve to be consider'd which is that unless all the Apostles had died together the Survivers might put others into the places of the deceas'd Accordingly tho Simeon was not nominated by S. James to be his Successor nor came into his place whilst he was alive yet after the death of that Apostle he was by others Constituted Bishop of Jerusalem It is farther observable that the Apostles before their decease were sometimes obliged to withdraw themselves from the Churches which they had planted and govern'd and thereupon they committed the Government of them to fit persons who may well be said to be their Successors in that Administration Especially since as I have prov'd the Apostles Communicated to them the same Authority that themselves had exercis'd Yet as Julius Capitolinus acquaints us that Lucius was as observant of Marcus who made him Partner of his Empire as a President was wont to be of the Emperor himself Thus Timothy and Titus and others of the same Rank who had been Ordain'd by the Apostles might still pay them such respect and deference as was due to persons of incomparable excellence and yet all be of the same Order The Apostles having Communicated their Episcopal Authority to some in their own time these transmitted it to others in the following Centuries and in this manner it has been conveyed to Bishops in all Ages The Bishops therefore may be said to succeed the Apostles and that not only in the Government of Churches which were of their Plantation but of others also in Countries to which they never arriv'd For since they had Commission to bring all Nations under the Discipline of Christ and govern them in his name a Right to that descends to their Spiritual Heirs and they may exercise it in all the parts of the World But notwithstanding your attempt to demonstrate that the Apostles could have no Successors you make no doubt to affirm that Presbyters succeed them in their ordinary work And about this I shall make some enquiry when I have first put you in mind that either you must suppose these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles in their discharge of that work and if so a subjection was consistent with a Succession to them or else they were not subject and then you must allow that the Apostles Constituted Officers over whom they retain'd no Jurisdiction Take it which way you please you are concern'd I think to reject or answer your own Argument To prove that Priests are Successors to the Apostles you quote a passage of Nilus as you call the Author of the Treatise de Primatu Papae which as Colomesius informs us was compos'd by Mark the Ephesian But to which of them soever it belongs it is not very material For neither of them flourish'd within a thousand years of the days of the Apostles and therefore come too late to determine what the belief of the Primitive Church was by their own Testimony Indeed if a Subordinate Officer may be said to succeed the Supreme for doing some things after his example by Authority deriv'd from him then may Priests be said to succeed the Apostles and so they are by some that use a great latitude of expression But the Ancients speaking exactly and telling us that the Bishops succeed the Apostles thereby intimated that they were both of the same Order or that both had the same Function For this they believ'd and urged when there was occasion Photius mentions it as a thing commonly acknowledg'd that both had the same Dignity of Place Clarus à Muscula acquaints us that both govern'd with the same Power S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs and that not only as Teachers but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches 'T is true the Bishops were not wont to assume to themselves the name of Apostles for a reason already given yet that it was sometimes ascrib'd to them appears from several instances It is also manifest that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici that their Office was call'd an Apostolate and that any Bishoprick especially if it was founded by an Apostle was called an Apostolick See For the Title of Apostolick that I may note this by the way was not appropriated to the See of Rome before the Eleventh Century says the Author of the Notes on Paulinus it was not before the thirteenth says Mabillon it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy CHAP. XIII The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors AS the Bishops were Successors
would have had no reason had their Office been the same as he would have had no cause to make the difference he does between Jews and Christians had they been of the same Principles and Religion The next Witness I shall mention is Clemens Alexandrinus who mentions the three Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he calls the advances or progressions from one of these Offices to another imitations of the Angelical Glory But this you believe I mention'd for pomp rather than any cogency I thought was in it it being only a conceit or flourish of Rhetorick in that Father And you might as well have said that when he compares the visible Officers of the Church to the different Ranks of Angels it was a meer conceit or flourish of Rhetorick that there were such Officers or that there were Angels Certain it is from this place that Clemens makes the Dignity of a Bishop superior to that of a Presbyter as he does the Dignity of a Presbyter superior to that of a Deacon And in another place he shews that there were distinct Rules prescrib'd to each of them And I take this testimony of a person who flourish'd in the next Age after the Apostles to be very considerable But say you Tho in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet in his Stromata where he treats of Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but two the Presbyter and Deacon and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honour'd with the first Seat And how is it that he plainly intimates this Has he in any other part of his Writings given us any notice of such a Presbyter and his Seat No He hath not said a word about them Hath any other Writer in or near his time left us a description of them No they mention no such matter Could he not speak of Presbyters but one of them must needs be the President and Moderator in the Consistory That is not pretended How hath he then so plainly intimated that there was such a person No other way but by a profound silence about him And thus a man that speaks not a word or is asleep may plainly intimate what you please 'T is certain however that in the passage to which you refer me he speaks but of two Ranks of Ecclesiastical Officers yet he knew there were more and he mentions three not only in his Paedagogue but in his Stromata and his silence in one place cannot evacuate what he expresly declares in another Tertullian was Cotemporary with Clemens and he in his Treatise of Baptism tell us that the Chief Priest who is the Bishop hath the power of giving that Sacrament and after him the Presbyters and Deacons but not without the Authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being safe the peace is secur'd But Tertullian you tell me does more than seem to be on your side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quiquo Seniores c. That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them And here you take it for granted that these Seniores are mere Presbyters and yet you know this is a thing in question a thing that hath been deny'd by many not without good appearance of reason since the Titles of Ancients or Elders have sometimes been apply'd to Bishops as Blondel will inform you and that it is so here the words seem to import But about this I may have occasion to discourse in another place And at present I will suppose that the Seniors Tertullian speaks of were meer Presbyters and yet did preside I know not however why he should more than seem to be on your side but that great is the strength of Imagination For manifest it is from him as we have seen that the Bishop stood related to the Presbyters as their High Priest and without his licence or permission they could not baptize Notwithstanding therefore they might preside in particular Congregations or otherwise as his Assistants yet it was with dependance on him and subordination to him in the Administration of the Government To evade this you say That such a distinction of Officers according to Tertullian was rather a matter of Order for peace sake and the honour of the Church than by Divine Institution There was however such a distinction and as for the Original of it that is another Question which may also be resolv'd from this Father For he declares that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles and there is no doubt but one Motive of it was the welfare of the Church which without Peace and Order cannot be preserv'd Indeed if there had been no such Institution if the Honor of the Church were not to be regarded and if Peace which is so much recommended in the Gospel were an unnecessary thing then he would have allow'd that even Lay-men might baptize But now he charges them not to invade those things that belong to their Superiors nor to usurp the Episcopal Function Not long after Tertullian flourish'd Origen and he tells us in his Discourse of Prayer that the Obligation of a Deacon is distinct from that of a Presbyter but the greatest of all is that of a Bishop And says he in another place More is requir'd of me than of a Deacon more of a Deacon than a Lay-man But he that governs in Chief must give an account of the whole Church One passage more I shall add because it hath something in it that is peculiar and this is taken from his Commentaries on the Gospel according to S. Matthew wherein he shews how necessary it was for those to repress their arrogance who thought too highly of themselves for this cause especially that their Ancestors or Great Grand-fathers had been advanced to the Episcopal Throne or to the honour of Priests and Deacons And this carries back his Testimony much higher than his own time and lower than that I need not here descend CHAP. XIV After the Apostles days there was no space of time nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd without Episcopacy IF matters between us may be determin'd by the Writings of the Ancients as you have granted I think it sufficiently evident from what has been said that Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the best Ages after the decease of the Apostles And for the improvement of this Argument and to prevent evasions I observe That it is manifest from the Testimony of the Fathers 1. That after the Apostles days there was no space of time without Episcopacy Nor 2. Was there any Country without it where Christianity prevail'd 1. There was no space of time after the decease of the Apostles without Episcopacy There was no such Interval of forty years between that Period and the Constitution of Bishops as Blondel dreamt of nor had he any thing but meer conjectures to
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
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
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
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
into their thoughts Epiphanius knew very well that plurality of Bishops in one City proceeded commonly from Schism or Heresie and was far enough from taking that to be an Argument of the Purity of the Church which in the common sense of Christians both before and after his own time was esteem'd a Corruption Danaeus had a Conceit that when there was in a City a plurality of Bishops they differ'd in this from the Bishop of Alexandria that they were Presbyters and he a Prelate which sufficiently discovers the weakness of his judgment or something worse But he was willing we see it should be believ'd that the first Prelate was to be found at Alexandria that he might have occasion to tell the World that Prelacy and Monkery and other Plagues of the Church had their Original from the same place But that all Bishops were Equal or that they had the same Prelatical Authority I shall shew hereafter and I am no farther concern'd with it here than as it results from this Proposition That according to the Primitive Rule the Government of every Diocese was Monarchical And this I think is manifest from what has been said beyond all just exception CHAP. XII The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles WE have seen that in the second and other Centuries the Churches were govern'd by single persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops And in the next place I shall prove that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles Because this will confirm my Leading Proposition That the Apostles were Ordinary Pastors and prepare my way to consider how the Bishops stood related amongst themselves and to others and what regard is due to persons of their Character That the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles S. Augustin thought might be gather'd from the Prediction that was made to the Church by the Psalmist in these words In stead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children For of them he gives us the following Paraphrase The Apostles begat thee they are thy Fathers But could they remain with us always One of them said I desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you He said so indeed But how long could he continue here Could he live on Earth to this and future Ages or was the Church deserted when the Apostles were deceased God forbid Instead of the Fathers there are Children Bishops are constituted in room of the Apostles Do not therefore think thy self forsaken because thou seest not Peter or because thou seest not Paul or because thou seest not any of those from whom thou art descended since Fathers are risen out of thy own offspring The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms that goes under the Name of Jerom agrees with S. Augustin in that Exposition And S. Jerom himself who upbraids the Montanists for depressing the Bishop into the third Rank says in opposition to them With us the Bishops possess the place of the Apostles His sense of this he expresses more copiously in his Epistle to Evagrius for there he says Wherever there be a Bishop whether at Rome or Eugubium at Constantinople or Rhegium at Alexandria or Tanis he is of the same Merit and of the same Priesthood The power of Riches and meanness of Poverty may render one Bishop higher or lower than another That is with respect to things external or a priority of Order if that be the true reading which I follow But they are all the Apostles Successors Long before Jerom Firmilian was of the same judgment for speaking of the Bishops in general he tells us that they succeeded the Apostles And with him agrees Cyprian and Clarus à Muscula his Cotemporary Many others might be added but here I shall only mention S. Irenaeus who argues thus against the Hereticks in his time We can number those says he who by the Apostles were instituted Bishops in the Churches and their Successors to our own time and they taught us none of the dotages of these men But if the Apostles knew any hidden Mysteries which they secretly taught the perfect they would chiefly have imparted them to the persons to whom they committed the Churches For they desir'd that they should be very perfect and unblamable to whom they deliver'd their own Place of Government Thus that Excellent Father and his Testimony is the more considerable because of his great Antiquity For 't is probable he was born several years before the death of S. John and 't is certain he receiv'd instruction from some that had seen and heard the Apostles themselves To invalidate his Authority you tell me he is agreed by some to have affirm'd that our Lord Christ did undergo his passion in the fiftieth year of his age As if that might better be determin'd by their agreement about it than his own Writings in which we find no such thing He no where fixes the period of our Saviours Passion He no where assigns it to a certain year Yet I grant he was of opinion that our Saviour liv'd about fifty years if that passage be his wherein he treats of this matter But Antonius Pagi and other Learned Men conceive it has been corrupted it seeming incredible to them that Irenaeus should attribute to our Lord so many years in that very Chapter wherein he reckons no more than three Passovers which he celebrated after he enter'd upon the thirtieth year of his Age and declares He did eat the last of them the day before his suffering But there being no Copies to justifie that Charge of Corruption what I insist upon is That if Irenaeus was mistaken in the time of Christs Passion it does not follow that he was so in the thing which I have cited from him If he err'd concerning that Period about which all mankind have been in the dark he might notwithstanding be a credible Witness of such matters as could not well escape his notice and have nothing in them that is improbable Such was the severity of our Saviours Life and deportment that it may seem he appear'd more aged than he was For when the Jews said to him Thou art not yet fifty years old doubtless they thought he was near so much And it is easie then to conceive how the report might arise and be continued which Irenaeus follow'd But it was so far from becoming an universal Tradition that it was never embraced that we find by so much as two of the Fathers The Case is very different when he relates who succeeded the Apostles for of this lie could hardly be ignorant that lived so near them And the account he gives having been confirm'd by many others and having met with an universal approbation cannot be rejected by us with any shadow of reason But you say Admitting Irenaeus 's Authority to be unblemished and cite as one could wish it yet on this occasion it
to the Apostles so after their example they stood related amongst themselves as Equals but to Presbyters as Superiors in Office and Authority 1. They stood related amongst themselves as Equals According to Cyprian every one of them in his own Diocese was a Judge in Christs stead And says that Father None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a Tyrannical terror compells his Collegues into a necessity of obedience This he spake in a Council at Carthage and with reflection probably on Stephen Bishop of Rome who injuriously invaded the Rights and Liberties of his Brethren 'T is true some Bishops were distinguish'd from others by a Primacy of Order and had the chief direction of Ecclesiastical Affairs When Synods were call'd they presided in them and for this they had the example of S. James in the Council of Jerusalem But their Primacy depended on the consent of other Bishops and was mutable It did not render them Judges of the rest within their several Provinces nor might they condemn any of them by their own Sentence without the Suffrages of their Collegues 2. In the purest Ages after the Apostles the Bishops stood related to Presbyters as Superiors And in this it is that our Controversie is chiefly concern'd I shall therefore prove it more largely and for this purpose I shall not only serve my self of such passages of Ancient Writers as describe the Office or Authority of Bishops but others also that only mention them as an Order distinct from Priests For if they were so there can be no question to which of them the Supremacy did belong I begin with the Testimony of S. Ignatius who says in his Epistle to the Philadelphians that he cried with a loud voice Attend to the Bishop and to the Presbytery and to the Deacons He instructs the Ephesians to respect the Bishop as the Lord that sent him And to the Smyrnaeans he declares that in things relating to the Church none ought to act without the Bishop that the Eucharist is then valid when it is perform'd under his Authority or by his permission without which he says it is not lawful to Baptize or celebrate the Feasts of Love So clearly does he assert the Prerogatives of Episcopacy What I have cited from Ignatius carries the greater weight with it because as Chrysostom informs us he was conversant with the Apostles and instructed by them He was a person of so much Sanctity and Zeal that he was willing to endure all the torments that the Devil could inflict that he might be with Christ and thought it more desirable to be torn in pieces by wild Beasts for his sake than to be Emperor of the World Having had the advantages of such an Education and being so wonderfully inflam'd with the love of Jesus he cannot be thought to have corrupted the Church nor had he time to accomplish it had he design'd a thing so detestable For he did not long survive S. John whose Disciple he was He suffer'd death under the Emperor Trajan as Simeon also did and probably both receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom the same year If an Author so Ancient and Venerable had only told us that the Government of the Church in his time was Episcopal this might have signified much But he does not only relate it as matter of Fact that there were Bishops He shews that Obedience was due to them as the Supreme Pastours and as the Representatives and Ambassadours of Christ And because it was suspected that his asserting their Authority had no higher cause than a prudential foresight of the Divisions which some were about to make he calls him to witness for whom he was in bonds that it proceeded from the Spirit of God And this Protestation being made at a time when miraculous inspirations were frequent there is not the least ground to question his veracity The truth is the Epistles of this Admirable man afford such plain evidence for Episcopacy that this has been the foundation of all the quarrels against them and particularly it was the cause as Grotius informs us why they were rejected by Blondel tho in the Florentino Copy they were free from those things for which they had before been suspected by the Learned The famous Isaac Vossius who publish'd them from that Copy tells us that every time he read them over they presented him with fresh Arguments of their Exellence and of their being Genuine and this will not appear strange to any person that peruses them with care and without prejudice But if you take them to be spurious you may try your skill in answering what has been said by Dr. Pearson and others in their vindication and if you succeed in that attempt I pray let us know what grounds of certainty you have that there are any Books of the Antiquity to which they pretend now extant in the Christian world To S. Ignatius may be added his Cotemporaries Philo and Agathopus or whoever were the Writers of the Acts of his Martyrdom They attended on him in his journey from Syria to Rome at which time they tell us the Churches and Cities of Asia did honour the Saint by their Bishops Priests and Deacons And they deserve the more credit as being Eye-witnesses of what they relate Not long after that time the Emperor Hadrian writ an Epistle to Servianus which was preserv'd by Phlegon and transcrib'd from him by Flavius Vopiscus and in that there occurs a passage from whence it is manifest that Bishops were then esteem'd of a different Rank from Presbyters and that the distinction between them was obvious to the very Heathen But you are much surpriz'd you say at my citation of this Epistle of Hadrian for certainly it appears by it that Hadrian had but little acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of men for he represents them as well as the other inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most injurious sort of men and particularly says that those that worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds that the very Patriarch coming into Egypt was constrain'd of some to worship Serapis and of some to worship Christ Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians or indeed more mistakingly c. These are your words and they seem an effect of the surprize you speak of rather than any sedate thoughts For to begin where you leave off that I may remove out of the way what is little to our purpose 1. You suppose that the Patriarch mention'd by Hadrian was a Christian Whereas there was not then in the World any Ecclesiastical Officer who did bear that title Eutychius indeed informs us that there were Patriarchs of Alexandria but this was an Argument of his ignorance unless the Apology which the Learned and
Noble Job Ludolfus makes for him may be admitted that he mention'd them under that denomination by way of anticipation This is the most plausible thing that can be said in his vindication But that he did not only speak properly but may as well be believ'd to have forgotten his own name as that of his Predecessors is a thought peculiar to your self It is not my business here to enquire into the Original of Patriarchs in the Christian Church It is sufficient for my purpose that they are not mention'd by any Author under that Title before Socrates who flourish'd in the fifth Century But the Jews had their Patriarchs much more early as Jacobus Gothofredus and other Learned Men have prov'd from unquestionable evidence and amongst these Jewish Patriarchs I reckon this in Vopiscus not only for the reason already given but because it is said that he was compell'd to worship Christ If he had been a Christian there had been no need of that compulsion neither can it be suppos'd that the Infidels would have attempted to force him to do what his avowed Principles obliged him to perform Indeed if some cruelty had been us'd to extort from him a denial of Christ this had been an argument that he made profession of Christianity to which he had no Title if without violence he could not be brought to confess our Saviour and adore him 2. You suppose the little knowledge Hadrian had of the Egyptian Christians confutes my Argument taken from his testimony by which I would prove that the Office of a Bishop in his time was distinct from that of a Presbyter whereas it gives it the greater force For the thing may well be thought to be the more evident in that it was taken notice of by a person who was so little acquainted with the Christian affairs in Egypt 3. You suppose that because Hadrian was under great mistakes concerning the Egyptian Christians and their Bishops this must render his testimony useless whereas it evidently proves what I design'd by it whether his description of them be true or false For whosoever gave him this relation it cannot be imagin'd that they invented a sort of Men that never were in being that they might have a subject for their accusation Nor is there any ground to believe that Hadrian or his Informers had the Spirit of Prophecy or discover'd by Divination that there would be such Officers in succeeding times as had not then been heard of and that they contriv'd to bring an odium upon the Prelates before they did exist But as we may collect from the Emperors words that whether the Christians were so fickle or not as he represents them yet there were Christians so we may conclude that whether the Bishops worshipped Serapis or not there were Bishops notwithstanding And this is all that I intended by this instance Yet I may further add that if the charge against these Bishops be false as you would have it it is more for my purpose than if it were true as it is far more desirable that persons of their Character should walk worthy of their vocation than dishonour it by their practices and be loaded with infamy and reproach In your endeavours therefore to vindicate their innocence you have taken care to confute your own Objection which is founded on the injustice of the accusation that the Emperor brings against them But if you had omitted this stroke you had lost a fair opportunity of being deliver'd of a quaint conceit which I have not met with in any other Author and I believe it to be new As for the Devotion you say of the Egyptian Bishops to Serapis you cannot imagine any occasion they should give which with any colour should render them suspected of Idolatry but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross and the reason why you are inclin'd to think so is because Pignorius in his Mensa Isiaca assures us that Serapis was anciently denoted by a Cross and you conceive that this might be the Hieroglyphick of the three headed Monster of which Chartarius gives the Icon since that was annected to the Image of Serapis Now Chartarius and his terrible Icon I never saw but am apt to think that the act of signing with the Cross which leaves no visible impression behind it hath no great resemblance of a three headed Monster And however Pignorius says that the Cross denotes Serapis I know not that he hath given us any assurance of it We find another interpretation put upon it in Suidas to whom you refer me and in Socrates who is cited by Pignorius for in both it is said to signifie the life to come Be it as it will The Egyptians must have been very foolish if they gather'd that the Bishops were Worshippers of Serapis from the use of that which was a Sign of Devotion and of their adherence to Christ in opposition to all Idolatry The Heathens could without any such ground cast reproach on the innocent and of this they made no difficulty The Apologists generally take notice how they accus'd the Christians of Atheism and Incest and devouring mans flesh when they were the holiest and the most vertuous persons in the world Eusebius acquaints us that they forged lies and calumnies against our Lord himself under the name of Pilat's Acts and no wonder that they treated the Servants no better than they did the Master of the Family But to give more colour to their slanders they compell'd some infamous persons to profess themselves Christians that they might load those that were so indeed with the blackest aspersions And if the Pastours of the Church fled from the rage of Persecution or hid themselves 't is easie to conceive that men extreamly malicious against them and their Religion might hite or force some Wretches to personate them in the worship of Serapis and we may be assur'd that any thing which tended to the dishonour of Christianity would gain an easie belief amongst the Adversaries But whether the Calumny was propagated this or some other way against the Bishops I am not much concern'd about it since we are agreed about their existence and their innocence But about their Character you have rais'd some doubt for in this Epistle you say there is only the name of Bishop or Presbyter without any specification of the Office signified by it either as to its nature or limits As if these things could not be known unless we had here met with their description or the Emperor could not write intelligibly unless he had left us a Clavis or Glossary to let us into his meaning I thought it had been sufficient for that purpose that he uses the word Bishop in such a sense as the other Writers of that Age generally did none of which apply it to any other person of their own time but the Prelate only Besides as I have shew'd he distinguishes the Bishop from the Presbyter for which he
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
Care You will not pretend I presume that there was any such person whilst the Apostles were alive for the Apostles you tell me constituted no Officers over whom they retain'd not a Jurisdiction And I give you the space of five hundred years after their days to find but one single Presbyterian or Independent Bishop in any sound part of the Catholick Church or any approved Instances of Ordinations perform'd by him But if you attempt this I am desirous you would only insist on good Authorities and not as I shall find you shortly on Legends and Romances CHAP. XV. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers and some Later Authors examin'd I Shall despair of proving any matter of fact that was perform'd many Ages since if it be not manifest from the Testimonies which I have produc'd that the Government of the Primitive Church was Episcopal Yet for the contrary Opinion you pretend you have Vouchers and these Fathers too as Learned and Pious Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd And 't is very true you have drawn Quotations from some that were of great Eminence How pertinently you have done it I come now to enquire S. Cyprian is one of the Ancients to whom you appeal and he says The Deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Praepositi but the Apostles after his Ascension constituted Deacons for the service of themselves and of the Church And from hence you gather that the Praepositi here were only Presbyterial or Congregational Bishops because they are contradistinguish'd to Deacons That is because this Father makes no mention in this place of Presbyters that being nothing to his purpose the Bishops must be depress'd into their order But it is obvious and I wonder how it escap'd your notice that the Apostles themselves were the Bishops or Praepositi of which he speaks And now you may conclude if you please that the twelve Apostles were no more than fixed Pastors of so many single Congregations You likewise argue from S. Cyprian that however he had the Title of Bishop yet he consider'd himself only as first Presbyter for which you give this notable reason that his Name for a Bishop is always Praepositus in respect of the People and you add that he calls Presbyters Compresbyters but he no where calls Deacons Condeacons But you might as well say that S. Peter consider'd himself only as first Presbyter because he addresses his Exhortation to the Elders as being also an Elder Or that S. Basil was of no higher Order than that of Deacon because he styles Eustathius Elpidius and Sabinus Condeacons And the like may be said of other examples of the same nature for an account of which I refer you to Blondel and Mabillon I think it is observable that howsoever S. Cyprian calls Presbyters his Compresbyters yet he never calls them his Colleagues Nor did he think they might over-rule him by the number of voices But when some of them attempted to restore the Lapsi in his absence without regard to his Authority he express'd a just resentment of it He complain'd of this as a thing that was never done in the time of his Predecessors So that however he could at other times dissemble the Contempt that was cast upon his Office he did not think fit on this occasion to be silent or remiss but gave order that the rash and insolent offenders should be prohibited to exercise their Function 'T is true S. Cyprian says he resolv'd from the time that he was made Bishop not to act any thing without the Counsel and Consent of his Clergy and People But the reason of this was he treated the Lapsi with unusual Lenity so that he needed the Concurrence of others to support his Authority yet as he did not prescribe to others his own Rules of Discipline so neither did himself always take the same measures Sometimes he restor'd Offenders to the peace of the Church when the people were brought to consent to it but with difficulty sometimes when they oppos'd it He also requir'd his Presbyters and Deacons and People to receive amongst the Clergy Numidicus a Presbyter without consulting them before about this matter And he acquainted his Clergy and People that without their Suffrage Celerinus was constituted Reader and appointed that he should be joyn'd with Aurelius and that both should have their share of the monthly maintenance as Presbyters had At another time he thus express'd his thoughts to them about a breach of Discipline If there be any person said he either amongst our Presbyters or Deacons or amongst strangers so extravagant or rash that he shall dare before our sentence be given to communicate with the Lapsed let him be expell'd from our communion And not expecting the concurrence of any he depriv'd Philumenus Fortunatus and Favorinus of their monthly Dividend till their Cause should have a publick hearing Upon the whole we find that S. Cyprian was a person of an excellent temper and as he us'd such great condescension towards his Clergy and People as seems not to have been practis'd before nor is always necessary but was very fit for the time in which he liv'd so on the other hand he was not wanting to assert his own Authority and the Dignity of his Order For he tells us Christ says to his Apostle and consequently to all Bishops who succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me heareth him that sent me And he that rejecteth you rejecteth me and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me He adds that Schisms and Heresies arise from hence that the Bishop who is one and governs the Church is by the presumption of some despis'd And to those that forsook their Bishop and erected Altar against Altar he applies these words of Isaiah Wo unto ye Children that are Deserters saith the Lord. Ye have taken counsel but not of me Ye have made a Covenant but not by my Spirit to add sins to sins Another of the Ancients which you have quoted for the support of your Opinion is the Commentator on S. Paul's Epistles that bears the Name of Ambrose and from him you expect some assistance because he says that of a Bishop and Presbyter there is but one Ordination But his meaning is not as you suppose that their Consecration was the same but that they are both of the same Order by which he intends no more than that they agree in this that both are Priests He did not believe them to be of Equal Power however he comprehended them under one general denomination For says he the Bishop is the Chief and Every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop And what service this can do you I do not understand But the Bishop he tells us is the First Presbyter and this is a thing on which
rightly believ'd to proceed from Apostolical Authority And that he did not believe Episcopacy was introduced into the Church after the Apostles decease appears from several instances and particularly from hence that he thought the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were their Bishops Thus far your Witnesses have appear'd against you and with them you have fitly join'd S. Chrysostom who says not as you pretend that there is no difference in a manner between Bishops and Priests but that the difference is not great Thereby intimating that some difference there was even in the Apostles days for of these he he speaks And in this he tells us they were distinguish'd that only the Bishops had the power of Ordination A thing so destructive of the cause for which you are concern'd that the Dissenters doubtless had rather see all the Volumes of Chrysostom in a flame than be concluded by his testimony After all you must depend I think on the testimony of such as Danaeus Buchanan Johannes Major and Hector Boethius and of what Authority these men are I come now to enquire If we may believe Danaeus say you Epiphanius himself was at last compell'd to confess that in the Age of the Apostles no such distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as I contend for was to be found To which I reply If we may believe Epiphanius himself he confess'd no such matter On the contrary when he had represented Aerius as the plague of mankind when he had expos'd and condemn'd his detestable ingratitude towards Eustathius and shew'd how he loaded his Benefactor with calumnies because he was advanced to a Bishoprick to which that modest Leveller aspir'd he then gives an account of this opinion of the Heretick That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter which he censures as extremely foolish and proceeds to the confutation of it That a Presbyter says he cannot be the same with a Bishop the sacred word of the Apostle declares For thus he writes to Timothy Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder but that he had Authority over him He admonishes him ver 19. Not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses But he did not give direction to any of the Presbyters not to receive an accusation against a Bishop not to rebuke a Bishop This then is a manifest Argument of the disparity of those Officers in the judgment of Epiphanius But if you can make him confess what he denies if you can make him approve what he confutes and bring him to an agreement with one whom he represents as a prodigious villain and a monster then you may believe Danaeus But his credit labours much at present and you have said nothing to relieve it It hath been little for the honour of the Presbyterian Government that the Father of it hath been thought to be Aerius But you think it is of more ancient and better extraction The Scots you say who receiv'd the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age had not any knowledge for many Ages after that appears of any but Presbyterian jurisdiction And for this you quote Buchanan who tell us that no Bishop ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Palladius his time and that the Church unto that time was govern'd by Monks without Bishops with less pride and outward pomp but greater simplicity and holiness And if his word may be taken for it this would be something to the purpose But Camden says that his History was condemn'd of falshood by the Parliament of Scotland and that Buchanan before his death bitterly accus'd himself of the Calumnies he had divulged So that however I have a great value for his wit and learning I think no great credit is due to his testimony since he wanted that veracity which is essential to a good Historian But here it seems we need not depend on his word alone for he is warranted by the Authority of Johannes Major whose words you set down and they are to the same effect as the former And really say you this testimony given by Johannes Major is very full And who would not now think that this Johannes Major was an Ancient Father that could give such a full and exact account of the Primitive times Yet did this man draw down his History of Great Britain as far as the Marriage of K. Henry VIII of England with the Princess Catherine of Aragon and dedicated it to K. James V. of Scotland He was alive says Labbe in the year 1520. And one that would undertake to declare what men were doing above a thousand years before he was born had need to vouch better Authority than his own to gain belief But John Major is not the only Evidence Buchanan might have cited Beda you tell me says that Palladius was sent unto the Scots who believ'd in Christ as their first Bishop How great an advantage is it to have the faculty of close reasoning Yet so dull am I that I do not perceive how the words of Bede prove those of Buchanan to be true For 1. Palladius might be sent into Scotland and yet not into the Country now call'd by that name and intended by Buchanan It might be into Ireland of which Beda himself says that it is properly the Country of the Scots and accordingly in Claudian the Scot is the Irish man And that Palladius was sent to the Irish Scots hath been prov'd by those great Antiquaries the Bishops of S. Asaph and Worcester to whom I refer you for satisfaction 2. The Christian faith hath no such dependance on Monkery but the Scots might believe though there had never been any Monks in the world And I take it to be manifest that there were none so early as you imagine Polydor Vergil ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died as he tells us in the year 361. Danaeus says that it began to be in request in Egypt after the year 300 and that it was later before it was receiv'd in Europe He attributes the invention of it to superstition and an idolatrous admiration of external things He compares the Monks to swarms of drones and says that in the year 500. they were dispers'd and multiplied like the Locusts in the Revelation upon the face of the whole Earth You see Sir what sentiments your friend Danaeus had of these men and of their institution and little did he think that the Church of Scotland was so happy in an excellent sort of Presbyterian Monks in the best and purest Ages S. Jerom himself who had such a zeal for the Monastick way of living that he was willing to say as much for the honour of it as he was able carries the original of it notwithstanding no higher than Antony or Paul the Thebaean But which of them soever was the Founder of it
is such a Society as should have its own Spiritual Officers chosen out of the rest of the faithful of any Nation and remaining distinct from them 2. That the Titles of Priests and Levites which have been so often attributed to the Officers of the Christian Church had not their Original from the meer fancies of the Ancient Fathers much less were they an invention of later times but are founded on an expression of the Holy Scripture 3. That amongst these Officers there should be such disparity as had been under the Law amongst the posterity of Levi. 2. You pretend to discover by what degrees Prelacy grew up to its present Grandeur And you tell me one need but some experience in the course of things and a little proportion of Mother wit to make a clear and distinct conception of what you have said on this Subject You believe that all Presbyters were equal by a Divine Institution Yet notwithstanding that appointment of Heaven it was requisit you say for orders sake that in every Assembly one should have the direction and 't is most probable the Eldest Presbyter had the first place and the first direction of matters Yet probable as it is if one should affirm that 't is a meer conjecture of Mother Wit you have said nothing that may be sufficient to confute him However this must be made the first prudential reason for a departure from a Divine Institution and the first step towards the degeneracy of succeeding times But this State of Affairs did not long continue Another prudential reason appears to justle out the former and introduces another step to corruption For it was found by experience you say that the eldest was not always the worthiest and fittest for the direction of matters A very notable discovery But it may seem a little strange that men inspir'd or but of ordinary capacity did not foresee this and that no care was taken to prevent the inconveniences of the last contrivance It also seems incredible that the old men should be so easily degraded from their accustomed precedence and suffer their juniors to be pearcht into their places They must be suppos'd to be persons of a very complaisant humour tho they had no great proportions of Mother-Wit seeing they would yield up their Title and Dignity of first Presbyters without the least murmur or complaint But that 's no matter Once upon a time all the world over it came to pass that the place devolv'd not by seniority but was confer'd by Election made by all the Presbyters and not unlikely but with Prayer and imposition of Hands Things very piously reckon'd amongst the means of depraving the Institution of Christ And now the first Presbyter by this new Ordination begins to look pretty like a Bishop yet he had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is by all Protestants allow'd to Peter in that of the Apostles But one step more brings him to the Episcopal Throne For the best men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions liable to rust and canker There was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own times and those that follow'd after improv'd upon the example And so the first Presbyter soon became advanced into another order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters A great and sudden change And the thing was managed with so much fineness that it was conceal'd many hundred years above a thousand and it may seem strange that it should be discover'd at last not from any Ancient writings or credible informations but by experience in the course of things and some proportions of Mother-Wit Authors indeed you quote and several Arguments you have by which you would prove that corruptions were introduced into the Church in such a manner as you have describ'd but you had much better have left us to depend wholly on your own word than at all have produced them Since they can only serve to expose the weakness of your Cause One of those Arguments you ground on 1 Tim. 5.17 where S. Paul says Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine From hence you gather that there was a distinction of Elders and that some of them being better at Ruling and some at Preaching they exercis'd themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrine And you farther conclude that there was always a first Presbyter and make no question but he was of the number of those that labour'd in the Word And I make no question but here you have put together several things that might better have been omitted For you suppose that the Elders who labour'd in the Word and Doctrine were excell'd by others in Ruling whereas all that the Apostle mentions in this place are such as Rule well And then to those that you conceive were better at Preaching than at Ruling you attribute the praeeminence in Ruling or that chief direction of matters in the Consistories which belongs to the place of Presidents And this I think is sufficiently absurd But what is worst of all is you make a Text of Scripture a foundation of one of the steps to Corruption An instance of some that were better at Ruling than at Preaching you think you have found in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians and if you had the matter is not great since all that you would infer from thence is that others were prefer'd before them who were not so well qualified as themselves for the Administration of the Government I am willing however to see the exercise of your Critical faculty You think then that they who are said by Clemens to have Politiz'd well were the Presbyters that Ruled rather than Preach'd well But you might have found that in another place this Father tells us that Peter and Paul Politiz'd divinely if I may borrow your expression and doubtless did not mean thereby to distinguish them from Preaching Apostles You might also have found that when he upbraids some for not Politizing as they ought he meant not to reflect on them as Bad Governours but in general as persons that did not walk worthy of Christ These things so plainly shew your mistake that you will not I believe review your Criticism with any great satisfaction For an example of one that was better at Preaching than at Ruling and was a first Presbyter you produce the President mention'd by Justin Martyr And 't is true that Preaching was the work of that President for so it appears from Justin And it is as true that he govern'd in chief For he was a Bishop as Grotius will inform you whose Learning you with so much reason admire But of what use this can be to you unless it be to overthrow what you would establish by
it I do not understand You have some other quotations from the Fathers which I need not here examine having done it already But I proceed to shew that it is altogether improbable that the Pastours of the Church who came next after the Apostles should conspire to deprave a Divine Institution And this I think will appear if it be consider'd 1. That they were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue 2. If they had not been such they could not so suddenly have agreed in the same design to corrupt the Church as you contend in the same manner 1. They were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account what care S. John took of the Churches after his return from Patmos and that he admitted such into the Clergy as were design'd or distinguish'd by the Holy Ghost And as I noted before Irenaeus says the Apostles were desirous that they should be very perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left to be their Successors to whom they committed their own place of Government And can we imagine that such persons as these conspir'd to deprave an Institution of Christ When they daily expos'd their lives to danger when they despis'd the Vngulae and Catastae the rage of Savage Boasts and more Savage Men when a firm adherence to their Religion expos'd them to the Scourge or the Cross the Axe or the Fire and when they express'd such a chearful readiness to embrace the sorest evils that could be inflicted on them and death it self under the most dreadful Circumstances rather than deny their Master were they then contriving to ruin his Discipline or Caballing to make themselves great Or if the mystery of iniquity did so generally work in the Prelates who are suppos'd to have usurpt Authority over their Brethren was there not an honest Presbyter in the world to put them in mind of their Duty or to admonish them to keep their Station Was there not one upon earth that would oppose their Innovations or plainly tell them that by the appointment of Heaven all Presbyters are equal If the Presbyters had no regard for their own Authority had they no concern for their Masters glory Had they no remembrance of what the Apostles taught or of the Instructions for the Government of the Church which they had given Did they not only quietly see the degeneracy spread apace but help it forward by relinquishing the Trust and Authority committed to them by the Holy Ghost We have no reason certainly to suspect any such matters of them but if we had I should dread the Consequences of it 2. If the Bishops who liv'd in the next Age to that of the Apostles had not been persons of so much Perfection and Virtue yet they could not so suddenly have agreed to corrupt the Church in the same manner Arnobius disputing against the Gentiles says in vindication of the History of Christianity If that be false whence comes it to pass that the whole World was in so short a time fill'd with this Religion or how came Nations so distant to receive it with one consent And in like manner I may demand If Prelacy be a defection from an Institution of Christ or his Apostles how came it to gain so early an admission amongst persons of so many different Countries and Languages How came it so suddenly to be establish'd in all the Churches upon the face of the Earth You say that Ecclesiastical Prelates arose at best by occasion and prudentially upon the increase of Believers But how did they every where meet with the like occasions How came all the Churches in the World to act by the same Prudential Rules If you can shew how all the Bishops upon Earth agreed to exalt themselves above their Brethren and how the Presbyters every where so suddenly consented in their submission to them you are the man of the world fittest to write a Commentary on the Philosophy of Epicurus and to prove that his Atoms by their accidental concourse perform'd all the feats and wonders that have been attributed to them That I have not been singular in matching such improbabilities may appear from the words of Mr. Chillingworth which I shall here set down When I shall see says he all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep and awake into Monarchies Then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles Doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a Scene in a Masque and transform'd into Episcopacy In the mean time continues my Author whilst these things remain thus incredible and in human reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally receiv'd in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick CHAP. XVII Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated IT is certain that the Testimony of the Fathers cannot be admitted to determine the Controversie between us but with the ruine of your Cause it being altogether inconsistent with your Opinion That Episcopacy was not of a Divine or Apostolical Appointment but introduced prudentially and gradually advanced upon the steps to Corruption Even of that select Company who as you say were as Pious and Learned Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd and to whom you profess'd your adherence there was not a man who did not believe that Bishops were constituted by Christ himself or his Apostles or by both You have one Refuge however yet remaining which is to reject those as incompetent Witnesses who upon examination appear against you And accordingly you tell me That the Fathers wrote things they saw not and fram'd matters according to their own conceits and many of them were tainted with partial humours You farther add That the Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops which Eusebius has given us are only Conjectural and Traditionary words fitly join'd together That himself tells us there was a great Chasm in Ecclesiastical History for the three first Centuries Ay that in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul c. But the sum of what Eusebius does indeed say in that
place of those that were the Disciples of the Apostles and succeeded them in the Government of the Churches is only this That it is hard to determine how many and who they were yet from the words of S. Paul the Names of some of them may be gather'd He does not say that he could give an account of none that were constituted Governours of the Apostolick Churches except those that were mention'd by that Apostle Nor does he say as you would have him that he found the Names of some in Scripture and tack'd Bishopricks to them from his own fancy On the contrary he acquaints us in the Chapter to which you refer me That Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens where he did not establish him by way of Collection and Inference Nor does he pretend to ground the relation he hath left us of him on the words either of S. Paul or S. Luke or on his own invention But he had it from Dionysius of Corinth whom he calls a most Ancient Writer and that with good reason for he flourish'd about the middle of the second Century From an Epistle of the same Dionysius of Corinth he was inform'd that Publius succeeded the Areopagite in the Government of the Church of Athens and suffer'd Martyrdom and that Quadratus succeeded Publius And this is that Quadratus who was a Disciple of the Apostles and who declar'd in his Apology for the Christians which he presented to the Emperor Hadrian that he had seen many that had been cur'd and rais'd from Death by our Lord himself And that a Person of such Eminence should be Bishop of Athens after such Predecessors as he had is more for the advantage of Episcopacy than all the Quotations are against it that have been heaped up by Blondel in his Laborious Collections and I am persuaded that if an instance so early and so well attested could have been produced in favour of a Presbyterian Parity it had long since made a mighty noise and alarm'd the World 'T is true Eusebius is the first that left us a Body of Ecclesiastical History But he did not frame it out of his own Conjectures Himself hath given us an account of the helps he had from others that were before him and Valesius will present you at one view with a Catalogue of Books and Records out of which he drew Materials for his Work that are very considerable They are not so many indeed as one might have desir'd yet as King Charles the First observes with his usual exactness of Judgment Even the Darkness of the Primitive Times affords a very strong Argument for Episcopacy which from the History of them obscure as they were receives so full and clear a proof as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like Against Tertullian you object that many Fob Traditions past for current in his time An Exception that would destroy the Credit of all the Books that ever were written if it were of force against any For Fob Traditions as you call them have pass'd for current amongst some in every Age since the days of Adam But Tertullian himself you think was one that transmitted such Traditions to Posterity and particularly you are offended at him for reporting that the Apostles had Chairs in particular Churches And yet you are not sure that this ought to be laid to his Charge Only you tell me his words at first sight may seem to sound that way A notable way of confuting the Fathers grounded on the sense of one of them and that not certain neither but taken from his words as at first sight they seem to sound One might have expected that you should have spent a thought or two more about them before you pass'd your Censure on them or reckon'd the Author amongst the Fabulous Writers and made him an instance of the Partiality or Impostures of the Ancients For my part I think he meant by Chairs what you so quickly apprehended at the first glance and that Bishops sate in the Material Seats of the Apostles in the Administration of the Government And yet I see nothing in this that is incredible It is neither contrary to the Faith of History nor without Example in it Nor is it improbable that before Adoration was pay'd to Reliques the Chairs of the Apostles should be preserv'd about a hundred years Sure I am that he might better judge of such a matter of Fact than we can at this time And I know not why this word may not as well be accepted when he discourses of these Chairs as when he adds That the Authentick Letters of the Apostles were read in the Apostolick Churches But whatever he meant by the Chairs 't is plain enough he thought the Bishops were the Successors of the Apostles in particular Dioceses or Churches And if you can no more believe this than the Story of the Cells of the Seventy Interpreters though Justin Martyr affirms that he saw the Ruines of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandria I cannot help it Nor do I think it necessary to enter into a dispute about the truth or falshood of Justin's Relation But since that which he says of those Cells depends on the Credit of some unknown Alexandrians since they were reported to have been built in the Pharos only and that about four hundred years before he writ his Paraenesis to the Greeks And since the Tradition which he hath convey'd to us about them was not universally receiv'd but was with some disdain rejected by S. Jerom the most Learned Critick of his Age it was not in any of these respects parallel to the Account which I have given from Tertullian and others concerning the Original of Bishops nor is there any such Connexion between them as that they must stand or fall together There is such clear evidence that the Churches were govern'd by Bishops in the beginning of the Second Century that it hath extorted a Confession from the most Learned Adversaries And if we had never been told that they were constituted by the Apostles or Apostolical Persons or deriv'd their Power by Succession from them the thing had notwithstanding been probable But there is not the least reason to doubt of it when we find it so universally believ'd by the Ancient Church and particularly when Tertullian asserts it in such a manner as he does and urges it with so much assurance against the Hereticks For if he had no grounds for it I should not say that he was tainted with partial humours and framed matters according to his own conceit but that he was void of common sense and as extravagant as a Protestant would be at this day if to confute the Exceptions of Papists against the meanness of some of the first Reformers he should affirm with great confidence and insist on it as a thing too notorious to be deny'd that Calvin succeeded Peter de la
Baume in the Bishoprick of Geneva and that Luther and Melancthon were Spiritual Princes of the Empire and Electors of Germany We are now almost at twice the distance from the beginning of Luther's Reformation as Tertullian was from the days of the Apostles And we are more remote from the coming of King James the First to the Crown of England than Irenaeus was from the death of S. John when he argued against the Valentinians from the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles in the Government of the Churches And what he said of it must then have appear'd either so palpably false that it would have expos'd him and his Cause to derision or so evidently true that your Exceptions against it would at that time have been to the same effect as if a Dissenter should now declare That the Conformists had in this last Age introduced several Corruptions into the Church and Episcopacy amongst the rest That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth all the Ministers in the Kingdom were equal but after her decease the Defection began and was afterwards gradually carried on till the Prelats arriv'd at their present Greatness That one need but some Experience in the use of things and a little proportion of mother wit to discover this and to make a clear and distinct conception of it That however the Bishops might pretend that they had Predecessors in the last Century and produce for it the Testimony of many Authors yet those Authors were tainted with partial humours and there were Fob Traditions passed for current in their time so that we are under no obligation to believe them And now Sir I leave you to judge whether a person that should discourse seriously in such a manner were fit to be argued with or to be managed another way according to the Rules of Art You have another Bold Stroke yet remaining which is that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought you see deserves but little more credit as being but little better ascertain'd than the Catalogues of the British Kings deduced from Brute And this falls heavy upon S. Jerom as well as others for he approv'd such Catalogues and hath helpt to convey them to Posterity When you press'd him into your service you made honourable mention of him under the Titles of Pious and Learned of which he must make a forfeiture when he stands in your way and though he only confirms by his own suffrage what was generally believ'd in former Ages yet in that câ—…se for ought you see his word deserves little more Credit than the most absurd or groundless Fables For such are the Stories of Brute and the Kings of his Line They have no foundation in any Ancient History or Authentick Records but about two thousand years after the time of Brute's reputed Landing at Totness they were first publish'd to the World He that gave the first reputation to them was Geoffrey of Monmouth who is call'd by one of our Antiquaries the English Homer and the Father of Lies And as for his Brutus some have observ'd as Mr. Camden acquaints us that he was never hoard of till in a Barbarous Age one Hunibald a foolish Writer feign'd that Francion a Son of Priamus was the Founder of the French Nation But then a report was rais'd that our Country-men were descended from the Trojans and our Princes from this Brutus who was said to be the Son of Sylvius and Grand-Son of Aeneas and 't is no wonder that in the times of the thickest ignorance a fiction so agreeable was entertain'd and propagated amongst our Ancestors who disdain'd that their Neighbours should excel them in extraction whom they equal'd in courage And now if any shall affirm that as much or near as much may be said against the Testimonies of the Fathers asserting the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles I must beg your excuse if I tell him in the words of a late Author for whom I know you have some fondness that he has not wip'd his eyes but is moist with prejudice and passion It is not any want of clearness or strength in the Testimony which the Fathers give concerning the Original of Episcopacy that drew from you the odious Reflections which you cast on them but the force there is in it to demonstrate that the Strokes and Lineaments of your Scheme of Church-Government are meerly the work of Fancy and that you have employ'd your Pen in the service of a bad Cause This appears from what has been said already and I shall here add nothing more to confirm it but one Instance which I think I may safely oppose against all that ever was written for the Presbyterian Equality of Ministers from the days of Aerius to this very moment The Instance I intend is that of Polycarp who is not only said to have been Bishop of Smyrna by Polycrates and Tertullian who flourish'd not long after him and by Eusebius Jerom Socrates Sozomen Victor Capuanus Suidas and many others who liv'd at a greater distance from him but by such as knew him and could not be ignorant of his Character There were many that had the advantage of his Ministry Many that had liv'd under his Government in the Church of Smyrna and were Eye-witnesses of his Martyrdom who expresly declare that he was their Bishop This they do in an Epistle which is yet extant and which the famous Joseph Scaliger Critical as he was so highly approv'd and valu'd that he reckons it amongst the Noblest Monuments of Christian Antiquity and professes that he could not read it without something of Extasie S. Irenaeus who was his Scholar informs us likewise that he was Bishop of Smyrna And the same is attested by S. Ignatius who was not only his Contemporary but his Friend as also by Philo and Agathopus who acquaint us further that Ignatius on whom they attended being in his way to Rome where he was about to be torn in pieces by Wild Beasts for the Christian Faith paid a Visit to Polycarp at Smyrna and that both these Excellent Men had been train'd up under the same Master and were the Disciples of S. John But if S. Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna he was not the only Minister there for he begins his Epistle to the Philippians thus Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him And from these Presbyters he had no reason to distinguish himself as he does if both of them had born the same Office But in what manner he stood related to them may appear from hence that there was not one of all the Ancients I have cited to prove that he was a Bishop who meant not that he was a Prelate And if enquiry be made how he obtain'd his Office from Tertullian and Jerom and many others we learn that it was convey'd to him by S. John But S. John it seems was not alone in that
Action for Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp was not only taught by the Apostles but constituted by them Bishop of Smyrna And his words deserve the greater credit because he was a Hearer of Polycarp in his younger years and understood doubtless what place he had in the Church and the manner of his Advancement to it I need make no Inferences from this Example because it is so obvious that it destroys your Hypothesis CHAP. XVIII The Testimony of the Fathers is necessary for the ascertaining to us the Canon of the Holy Scripture It is as Cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy THere are some that will hardly hear with patience any Arguments that are drawn from the Authority of the Fathers because as they conceive or pretend it favours the Papists A thing very acceptable to the Papists could it be prov'd But we do them too much honour if we believe that the Ancient Tradition is on their side when some of the most Learned amongst them dare lay no claim to it for the support of those Doctrines wherein they differ from us and many of their greatest Bigots have found themselves so press'd by it that they have appeal'd from it to their Oracle for the time Being the Pope I mean to whom Cornelius Mussus one of their number profess'd that he attributed more credit than to a thousand Austins Jeroms and Gregories and so ends the noise of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent It is not my business here to attempt a Vindication of the Fathers any farther than it answers my present design and I shall only observe that they that despise them most are sometimes forced to serve themselves of their Authority For example Gittichius says that his Friends who had read their Books found them plunged into the profoundest ignorance hardly understanding so much as one Article of the Christian Faith but like blind men moving irregularly and with a trembling pace And such confidence he had that the Censures which his party had pass'd on them were just or rather too modest that he declares The Truth of the Christian Religion was wholly lost a little after the death of the Apostles and commends Flaccius Illyricus for comparing the Disputations of the Fathers to a Fight of Drunkards at a Feast who are not solicitous to betake themselves to their Swords but supply the want of Weapons with Dishes or Trenchers with Bread or any thing that comes to hand Yet his Friends sometimes make use of the Testimony of those whom he so impudently charges with Apostasie and Folly and whom they are wont to reproach and they depend on it in matters of great importance They prove from thence in the Racovian Catechism that our Lord rose from the dead as the Scriptures relate and that the several Books of the New Testament were written by the Persons whose Names they bear herein following the Example of their Master Socinus who argues from the unanimous consent of the Primitive Christians that the four Gospels the Acts of the Apostles c. were written by those to whom they are attributed and for this he refers us to Eusebius At other times he treated the Ancients with great contempt because they stood in the way of this Animal of Glory when he was resolv'd to make himself the Head of a Sect yet he plainly shews that for the vindication of the Authority of the Holy Scripture an assent is necessary and due to their Suffrage And others who ascribe very little to that Suffrage cannot but perceive if they will attentively consider it that when there is a dispute about some passages or parts of the Holy Scripture whether they are genuine or not one would render himself extreamly ridiculous that should reject the Testimony of the Fathers as useless on this occasion and go about to determine the Controversie and to convince gainsayers by his own Instinct or the dictates of a private Spirit But if immediately after the Apostles decease there was a general departure from that Rule of Government which they appointed if all the Primitive Bishops were Usurpers of the Rights of those whom Heaven had made their Equals and all the Presbyters upon Earth did tamely abandon that Power which God had given them and all the Christians in the World with one Consent approv'd and promoted the evil designs of the former and the treachery of the last and if we must believe that the Primitive Writers conspir'd to put a Cheat upon us in the Representations they have made of the Affairs of the Church I would then be inform'd what assurance we can have that they have convey'd to us the true Canon of Scripture For it may seem that if they were Men so extreamly Corrupt they deserv'd no great Credit in any thing and might be suspected to have made as bold with the Oracles of God as they had done with his Institution of Church-Government I make no doubt to affirm that the Testimony of the Fathers is at least as cogent for the Divine Original of Episcopacy as it is when they ascertain to us the Canon of Scripture which yet is like to suffer nothing by this comparison For if we reject them as false Witnesses when they inform us that Bishops were appointed by the Apostles we must not only believe as I have intimated already that the Pastors of the Church notwithstanding their great distance from one another and their different Customs and Interests generally hit at the same time upon the same Project to destroy that Ecclesiastical Polity which had Christ for its Founder but that every where they had the same fatal Success We must also believe that however Government is a very nice thing and is not usually changed without fears and jealousies and mighty clamours and however the alterations of the Forms of Government are so easily observed yet did the Rising Prelates give so dextrous and nimble a Turn to the Government of the Church over all the World that that there was not the least notice taken of it or else we must believe that they destroy'd all the Records of that Transaction so that no Monuments remain of their Ambition And this we must also believe against the declarations of those that were conversant with the Apostles and their immediate Successors against the informations of Martyrs and Confessors in the best and purest times and against the common faith of Christians for above a thousand years after the death of our Saviour Being thus Credulous we shall much resemble one Vilgardus of Ravenna mention'd by Glaber Rodulphus who asserted that all the sayings of the Poets ought in every point to be believ'd And when we are arriv'd at that pitch of sense no body I suppose will be much concern'd at what we contradict or care to dispute with us who are only fit for the Entertainments of Inchanted Castles Thus Sir I have consider'd your Objections against that Authority which I still think our Saviour
is notorious He gives an account of the last words of Peter and of his decease to James who died before him the space of several years We have seen under what Character S. James remain'd at Jerusalem and we may conclude that this Office was not Personal but continued after his death if it be evident that Simeon or Simon as he is sometimes call'd was his Successor And this is what is affirm'd by the Ancients generally and the notice of what they declare might be the better convey'd to them because Simeon lived to so great an Age that his Martyrdom falls within the Compass of the second Century Eusebius and Abulpharagius assign it to the tenth year of Trajan which was the one hundred and seventh year of our Lord. But a Learned Man of our own ascribes it to the one hundred and sixteenth year of Christ and for this he produces some probable Reasons which have met with good reception Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer and he testifies amongst many others that after the death of James Simeon was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem A Truth that in the Ages which afforded the best Judges of it met with an universal approbation This being clear I know not what better Form of Government we can have than that which was established at Jerusalem in the first Christian Church that ever was and of which some of the Kindred of our Saviour had the Administration I know not what more excellent Model can be contriv'd if this gives no satisfaction CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance I Have consider'd the Arguments by which you would demonstrate that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and in examining the last of them which I mention'd I proceeded farther than was necessary because I was willing to lay some things together that relate to the same subject It was my business to shew that a setled Residence in a Place was consistent with the Office of an Apostle and this I have not only done but also prov'd that S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that Simeon was his Successor and if so this does not only answer whatever you produce for your Opinion but is a direct Argument for Episcopacy It also shews that the Apostolate differs not in substance from Episcopacy and that it was design'd for continuance A Truth which I shall confirm 1. From the Nature of that Office or Authority which was confer'd on the Apostles 2. From the Necessity of the Continuance of some things which depend on a Succession to them 3. From the Promise which was annexed to their Commission 4. From the Actual Communication of their Office to others and the Preservation of it after their Decease 1. This Office or Authority which was of Divine Institution was never abrogated by any Divine Precept It was neither appropriated to the Apostles nor can Time render it useless or unfit It is therefore such as ought to be preserv'd in all Ages We may well think that they who were conversant with Christ himself and had receiv'd their Commission immediately from him have afforded us the best Pattern of Government that ever was and it seems very improbable that our Lord should shew us in their example the most excellent way of managing Ecclesiastical Affairs and put us under an obligation to reject it without telling us so or that such a disparity of Officers as had his approbation but never was oppos'd by him should now become Antichristian They say that Empires are best preserv'd by such means as they were founded and if the Apostles thought a disparity of Officers necessary when they were employ'd in converting the Gentiles I think 't is still requisite for the Government of them now that they are converted for their Conversion did prepare them for more Instruction it obliged them to an attendance at Religious Assemblies it made them subject to Discipline who were not so before And when the Work increases I think the Labourers ought not to be diminished nor their Ranks broken We may rather suppose that when whole Kingdoms embraced the Christian Faith disorders would be increas'd And when the first Apostles were departed who could convey Diseases and Death in their Censures whenever that Miraculous Power ceas'd it was requisite that some should retain all the Authority they had which was communicable that by the Dignity of their Office they might keep up a Reverence of Discipline and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church 2. There is a Necessity of the Continuation of some things which might depend on a Succession to the Apostles and cannot be preserv'd without it Amongst them I reckon the Administration of the Sacraments and the reason of it will be manifest when I have examin'd by what Right it is that you assign that Administration to Presbyters as a standing part of their Work I therefore demand in the first place From whence it is that they have Right to Baptize If it be from any Declaration that is made to them in Scripture let it be shew'd if from any Command let it be produc'd if from Example I pray inform me where any of their Order did Baptize I think upon enquiry it will be found that none in Scripture are said to Baptize but such as you call Extraordinary Officers and if they were so as many of their Actions as were peculiar to them may not be drawn into precedent It follows therefore from your Principles either that Baptism must be laid aside or else the Laity may confer it and they that have taken it out of their hands have done it in their wrong and that ever since the days of the Apostles Concerning the Lord's Supper you are like to be as much or more at a loss for you tell me that these words Do this in remembrance of me were said to the Apostles not as they were Ministers but as Communicants you mean private Christians And if so I would demand what grounds you have from Scripture for assigning to any Ecclesiastical Officers the Administration of this Sacrament or how with Consistence to your own Principles you can free them from Usurpation The reason for which you think those words of Christ were not said to the Apostles as Ministers but as private Christians is that otherwise there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity at which I suppose some of them who talk much of Religion would not be offended But if there be nothing else on which their Right to the Communion is founded without any injury to them this matter may be thus adjusted The Apostles as receiving the Communion might be the Representatives of the Faithful and of Ministers only in receiving the Command of Christ to do as he had shew'd them that is to bless and give to others the Sacramental Elements of Bread and Wine And such I affirm they were and such