last Period All the hesitancy is about the first and yet upon a deliberate reflexion the matter will be beyond dispute This is made up of three Centuries the first of which must necessarily be resigned to the Apostles and their Delegates who undoubtedly did exercise an Episcopall Authority as we have before demonstrated S. John the last of them who lived to the end of it and wrote his Revelation about the ninety seventh Year describes the Churches of Asia every one with his tutelary Angel to superintend and govern all as well Teachers as People and left them in Trajans time under this imparity As for the third Century we have undoubted instances of a like inequality In the Church of Alexandria Hierom. in Apol ad Ruff. Ep. 79. Pam. Epist 38. ad Caldon c. Demetrius the Bishop excommunicated Origen a Presbyter In the Church of Carthage Cyprian passed the same censure upon Felicissimus His taking up a resolution not to act without the counsel of his Presbyters was but a voluntary and prudent accommodation to some circumstances which were peculiar to him in his Election and no prejudice to his Hierarchicall Power which he abundantly asserts to be vested in him by a Divine Institution In the Church of Antioch Eus H. E. l. 7. c. 22. the deportment of the Bishops towards Paulus Samosatenus in suppressing his Heresie is an evident demonstration of the existence of such Persons at that time In the Church of Rome Eus c. 6. c. 35. Novatianus a Presbyter his procuring three Bishops to consecrate him that he might be in a capacity upon equall terms to enter the lists with Cornelius assures us that they had then a Consecration distinct from the Ordination of Elders Dionysius's confining the Presbyters to particular Congregations Platin. in vita Dionys and setting out the just limits of their Parishes can evince no less then a Superiority over them In the last part of the second Century he that reads the contest betwixt Victor and the Asian Bishops about the celebration of Easter the interposals of Polycrates B. of Ephesus Eus H. l. 5. c. 23 24. and Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in order to the making a composure must do a great deal of violence to his own understanding before he will be able to perswade himself that there was not at that time such an order of Men very well known in the World This is so evident that Blondell himself doth freely acknowledge an Episcopall Power to be lodged in a single Person about the fortieth year of the second Century So that granting that the Apostles and their Suffraganes did retain the Regiment of the Church in their own hands during the first which cannot be denied by any who impartially peruse the records of the New Testament the question which hath given so much Molestation to the Christian World will be reduced to this state Whether the Church for the space of sixteen hundred years and upwards hath been without the Apostolicall or Episcopall Government for the space of Forty onely Should we grant that which can never be proved namely that the Stream of Apostolicall Authority did like the river Guadian in Spain conceal it self and run under ground for this little time this would no more be an argument to induce us to believe that the use of it is to be superseded then it was to the Israelites that the Regall power was to be laid aside because of the interregnums which did frequently put a demurr upon the succession But secondly it doth not appear that there hath been any such interregnum in the Church and Kingdom of Christ Notwithstanding the obscurities of the History of that time yet there are catalogues extant of the chiefest Cities as Jerusalem Antioch Alexandria Rome wherein are named the single Persons as distinct from and superior to Presbyters who were interested in the Power of Inspection during the space which is spoken of and if it was thus in the greater Cities it is not hard to divine how it was in the less The Unity of the Church includes a Uniformity of Government The first who leads the Van in the catalogue is either an Apostle or Evangelist as S. Peter in that of Antioch S. Mark in that of Alexandria who undoubtedly were vested in an Episcopall Jurisdiction Those who conclude it are acknowledged by all to have the same Power why it should be denied to those in the middle no good reason can be produced they being represented as having an equall share in the Succession which cannot be except they were in the fruition of the same Power A succession but not in the same thing is like a Resurrection but not of the same Body which is no resurrection at all Let us suppose amongst the nine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens one of them the first Year to be vested in a Superiority over his Colleagues as an Apostle or an Evangelist was over the Elders and the next the constitution to be metamorphized into a Parity and to continue for forty Years as Blondell conceives the Ecclesiasticall equality did and then after the expiration of that Term the former imparity to be introduced again It would be an incongruity scarcely to be paralleled to represent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the second Year as a Successor to him of the first he enjoying nothing of his Power or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the forty first to him of the fortieth hē enjoying a Power paramount which the other was never acquainted with This would be as inconvenient as if we should make a list of the Kings of Rome and after Tarquinius Superbus place Junius Brutus who was next to him in power but of a very different nature the Government being changed and the Community now under Consuls It is true there may be catalogues of single Persons succeeding one another in a Priority of Order as well as of Power but this is nothing to our present case Here are lists before us and all in them represented to be upon equall terms as having a fruition of the same Immunities and the first and last are confessed to have a Superiority of Power over their Colleagues from whence a computation may be easily made what we may conclude concerning the rest Those who say though the Apostles stand at the head of the Catalogues yet they are not included in them contradict the sense of primitive Antiquity which accounts all in the lists to be Successours to the Apostles A Successour a Predecessour being relatives which go always together if the Successour be in the roll the Predecessour must necessarily be so It will not be easie to disappoint the prevalency of this argument if the Catalogues may be admitted as Authentick and why they should not I see no just reason The variations in them are not uncapable of a reconciliation and they argue strongly that they are not the fictions of a private Invention Forgeries use
encouragement to encounter those difficulties which the exercise of their Authority might expose them to he assures them by promise of a propitious influence not onely to be communicated to themselves but those who should succeed them even to the end of the World Lo I am with you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the days of your life and with you in your Successours when there shall be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transmigration of your power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to the end of the world That this Phrase is of no inferior an importance is manifest Mat. 13.39 46 48. In the words there is an accommodation to the manner of Speaking amongst the Jews which divide the time from the Creation to the finall Period of the mundane System into two Ages the first extending to the Coming of the Messias the second to the Dissolution of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the first Period the Messias being in our Nature when the words were spoken therefore they must by an unevitable consequence import the last To this S. Paul is very agreeable Eph. 4.11 where he asserts that the Apostles were given for the perfecting of the Saints Ver. 12 13. till all be brought into the unity of the Faith This is the end of this most transcendent Gift which hath not yet obtained a full accomplishment and therefore if the means must continue till the end be obtained the Apostolicall Function is not yet arrived at its finall Period If it be objected that this argument will conclude as well for the duration of Prophets and Evangelists which are mentioned in the same Verse we may reply with security enough that there is no inconvenience if it do so By Prophets we are not obliged from any thing in the Text to understand any other Persons then such as had an excellent skill to preach the Gospel out of the Books of the Old Testament such as Judas and Silas were When the gift of Prophecy is mentioned 1 Cor. 13.2 the understanding of mysteries namely Evangelical Doctrines locked up in the figures of the Law and the predictions of the Prophets is immediately added as an exegesis of it The Evangelists are such as had a profound insight into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gospel as contained in the writings of the New Testament and could with singular dexterity open and explain its true importance It is observable that this word was not in use till a considerable part of the New Testament was penned In the first Epistle to the Corinthians which hath an early date when S. Paul reckons first Apostles secondly Prophets and the method which he useth in his Epistle to the Ephesians seems to engage him to give the third Place to Evangelists yet he passeth them by in silence the Church at that time being a stranger to the denomination Both these as they stood in relation to Government were of the same order namely Suffragans to the holy Apostles the Prophets are joyned with them Eph. 2.20 We read of their imposition of hands in an Apostolicall manner Acts 13.3 Timothy who is enjoined to do the work of an Evangelist did cooperate with S. Paul and minister to him in his Ecclesiasticall concerns This being premised I see no reason why such persons may not still be continued Bishops are Successors in ordinary to the Apostles their Suffragans to the Prophets and Evangelists It is to be noted that as the Apostles are joined with these two in the same Verse so these are with Pastours and Teachers that is Elders which were set over particular Congregations and Deacons as Theophylact asserts which did occasionally teach and help the Elders in their Ministeriall Function In Ep. ad Eph. c. 4.11 and therefore are said to be given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same end is prefixed for all of them namely the edifying the Body of Christ Ver. 12. and the same term of time set out for their duration till all come into the unity of the Faith Therefore if Pastours and Teachers are to continue in the Church we have reason to believe the same concerning Prophets and Evangelists The thing may remain although there be an innovation in the Names The first Epistle to Timothy is very consonant to what hath been asserted After the prescribing Rules C. 6. v. 14. how to regulate his deportment in the Church of God and in particular with what prudence to exercise his Superiority over an Elder he leaves this injunction with him I charge thee to keep the Commandment untill the appearing of the Lord Jesus The mortality of Timothy rendring it impossible to do this in his own person it is necessarily imployed that there shall be a succession of some with the like Authority even to the second Coming of Christ By the Commandment we must not understand onely what is expressed in the precedent Verse concerning fighting the good fight but the systeme of rules delivered in the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signanter must import what is principally commanded in it That is principally enjoyned which hath the most immediate connexion with the end for which it was written The end of the penning of it was to instruct Timothy how to behave himself in the Church therefore the precepts in the body of the Epistle in particular those which relate to an Elder having the most direct aspect upon this end must necessarily be contained in the command which Timothy is charged to keep By the appearing of the Lord Jesus we are not obliged to understand Timothy's decease The time of death is never so stiled by S. Paul or any other in any part of Holy Writ and it is not safe and becoming to attribute to the Apostle a manner of speaking which neither he nor any before him did ever use Whereas the last coming of Christ is frequently stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Context which is no bad Interpreter 2 Tim. 4.1 Tit. 2.13 doth determine it to this sence in this place for it imports such an appearance as the blessed and onely Potentate shall shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tempore quod ipse novit namely at the Day of Judgement the knowledge of which He hath entirely reserved to himself All this can amount to no less then a Declaration of the Divine Pleasure that the Apostolicall Government and Inspection should still be continued in the Christian Community 3. As a further Evidence we have the practice of the universall Church which if after our most diligent inquiry into the Holy Scriptures the sense of any branch of the Divine Will remains ambiguous is the best Interpreter we know of The Church may be considered in a twofold State either under persecution before the conversion of the Emperours to the Faith of Christ or else in her prosperity after Constantine the Great had obtained the throne There are none who doubt whether an Apostolicall imparity prevailed under the
to be too harmonious and uniform in every punctilio They were collected by a skilfull hand Euseb who had great advantages to possess himself with the true sense of the Monuments of Antiquity His acknowledgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was not easie to make some of them L. 3. c. 4. is no discredit to their Authority The difficulty in demonstrating some propositions in Euclide is no just exception against their certainty The Infallible Oracles are not without their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 3. c. 3. They were so clear in Irenaeus's time that he asserts he was able to number the very Persons which did lineally descend from the Apostles and in Tertullians that he challengeth the Hereticks to shew the like successions If they had been of a dubious Authority it had not been agreeable to the prudence of those learned Fathers to value the cause which they undertook to maintain so much upon their account as it is plain they did to all who peruse their writings It might be added as no prejudice to their Reputation that they were begun by the Apostles themselves as is evident by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians P. 57. Pat. jun. In order to the quieting those tumults which did occasion his writing he tells them that the Apostles did understand by our Lord Jesus that there would be a contention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the name or dignity of Episcopacy and therefore having a perfect foresight did constitute Bishops and gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a roll or catalogue of some approved Persons to succeed and execute their Office after their decease This testimony as it assures us that the Catalogues we treat of were begun by the Apostles so likewise that Bishops in Clemens's time who lived within the intervall under debate were such as are properly so stiled to wit Persons vested in a Superiority over Elders We never read of rolls or catalogues of meer Presbyters as lineally deduced from the Apostles considered in that state in which they died L. 3. c. 2. Indeed Irenaeus mentions the successions of Presbyters L. 4. c. 44. but he who will give himself leasure to ponder the Context will easily discern that he means no others then Bishops the promiscuous use of those words being not totally laid aside in his time If it should be granted that he understands such as are now usually known by that Name no prejudice would redound to our assertion The Apostles may be considered in a twofold capacity either as they were before the Resurrection when they were ordained to Preach but not to Rule or after when they were invested with their Episcopall Power If Presbyters be represented as Successours to the Apostles in any ancient Record the Apostles are considered in the first capacity and not in the last which Clemens speaks of Epist ad Mag. This is fully expressed by Ignatius who asserts that the Bishop succeeds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of Christ who is God the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Bench of the Apostles namely as they were when Christ was their Bishop upon earth and they as Presbyters subject to his appointments as their proper directory It is an ungrounded presumption that Clemens by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understands nothing but an Elder P. 54 55. because when he mentions the custom of the Apostles which was to set apart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first fruits he names onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the product of their Ordination These two words comprehend all who were concerned in the Primitive Government The Apostles and Elders were Bishops the Elders over the Laity the Apostles over the Laity and Elders too The Evangelists and those who did minister to the Elders were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first to the primary Apostles and are in the modern stile called suffragan Bishops Stat. 26 Hen. 8.14 the second to the Presbyters they upon all occasions helping them as the Evangelists did the Apostles If the Canons of the Apostles or Ignatius might be permitted to speak in this case a sudden period would be put to this Controverisie And truely why a liberty of Speech should be denied to the first seeing they say nothing in this particular but what is incorporated into the Canons of Oecumenicall Synods and was the practice of all subsequent Ages or to the Second after so perspicuous and learned a vindication Vindic. Epist S. Igna. as hath been lately made of his Authority I see no reason at all S. Jerom In Epist ad Tit. whom Blondell professeth to follow if throughly considered will be found to have no favourable aspect upon his opinion All that he speaks amounts to no more then this The Apostles and their Delegates during their abode in the world did hold the Government of the Church in their own hands These in every City constituted Elders which were promiscuously called by the name of Presbyters and Bishops to rule in a Subordination to themselves As the primary Apostles and those who were ordained by their Hands to succeed them began to wear off there sprang up a Schism among the People not much unlike unto that which disquieted the Church when S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians every one adhering to him as his Apostle or primary Bishop by whom he had been baptized Unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat The controversie was not whether one should have the Power over them the practice of the Apostles in ordaining single Persons to succeed them was so evidentiall and fresh in their memories that there could be no hesitancy in that particular but who was to be the Person In order to the healing this Schism toto orbe decretum est it was universally decreed whereas before Presbyters did communi consilio in a subordination to the Apostles govern the Church that now One should be chosen out of their own number and have a Superintendency over the rest as the Apostles and their Delegates use to have This is the sum of what Jerome doth design The Person thus set over had not onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a Primacy of Jurisdiction For before this change in the College of the Presbyters there must necessarily be One who in the absence of the Apostles had jus primae Cathedrae This is essentiall to all regular Conventions no Order can be maintained without it therefore by this new Decree something being conferred which none of the Presbyters did enjoy before it can be nothing but primatus jurisdictionis This Constitution was made long before the fortieth year of the second Century Epist 85. Evagrio S. Jerome calls it an Apostolicall tradition which cannot be true in any proper sense except it began in the age in which the Apostles lived and as an evidence of his mind that he did not speak improperly
Places where there was no Oecumenicall Council to command it no secular Power to enforce it no want of Pride and Ambition to controul it had it not been commended to their reception and made currant by a Divine Signature No arbitrary contrivance checked with difficulties and destitute of all externall advantages to promote the Propagation of it even found so sudden uniform and generall an Establishment Had it been a Usurpation upon the rights and immunities of Presbyters it being it matter not latent but apert and manifest no doubt some would have been so just to themselves as to have stood up in their own Defence and so zealous as to have encountered it with a direct opposition yet we read nothing of this nature till three hundred Years after in Aerius's time and then all the recompence which he received was the infamy of Heresie Heresie being an errour in the Foundation and the foundation being inclusive of that which relates to Practice and Government as well as Doctrine in Religious government as well as Civil there is something which is Fundamental he advancing an opinion diametrically opposite to what was then reputed the basis of Ecclesiasticall Policy did take a compendious course to expose himself to this imputation His separation from the Communion of the Church was not the reason of this charge that being if we may be allowed to speak properly Schism and not Heresie Nor his Arianism S. Austin and Epiphanius assign him in their Catalogues a place distinct from that which is appropriated to Arius And it will be difficult to find a more authentick Testimony for the identity of their Heresie than those two have given for the diversity Had the Episcopall Constitution been in any respect a defection from the institution of the Apostles how comes it to pass that they themselves should give countenance to it by the performance of many acts peculiar to a Prelate as hath been already declared If their practice was not designed for imitation how came the best of Men in the second and third Century not to understand so much but fall so roundly to a Conformity and without the least hesitancy stile their Bishops the Apostles Successours as most evidently appears by Irenaeus and Tertullian Adv. Har. l. 3. c. 3. de praes c. 32. Though a desire to prove a Succession in Apostolicall doctrine gave occasion for what they assert in this particular yet upon this occasion they plainly own a Succession in Power and Authority Irenaeus proves that the Apostles would not conceal any of the Mysteries of Christian Religion from them because they left them to be their Successours suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes delivering to them the same Power Authority they themselves had It will hardly gain belief in the thoughts of those who are acquainted with the consequences of Reason that they who made it their election to endure the greatest torments rather then to violate the least of the Precepts of Christ should so soon as He and his Apostles had left the World erect a government contrary to his Institution that those who were willing to die for the Mystery of Godliness should make it their choice to live under a branch of the Mystery of Iniquity I know the Israelites in a short time in the absence of Moses and after the death of Joshua made a notorious revolt yet this is no argument that these pious and holy Men did the same after the death of the Apostles What the Israelites did was known to be a defection because it was opposite to the practice of Moses and Joshua and encountred with opposition from the Best of men then living But this which some think fit to stile a defection in the Primitive Christians is exactly conformable to Apostolicall practice and was submitted to by those heroick Spirits who by Martyrdom gave the World an undoubted assurance of their Sincerity and Goodness If the practice of the universall Church must be totally set aside as a matter of no consideration in order to the conducting of us into an understanding of the Mind of God one pillar of our Belief will be very much shaken I mean the Authority of some particular Books of Holy Writ for the knowledge of which we are without controversie in no mean degree indebted to it No small diminution will be made in our assurance that Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians is no part of the Canon and that S Paul's is that Ecclesiasticus is Apocryphall and Ecclesiastes not If custom be of no signification it is strange that S. Paul should appeal to it as no unfit Arbitrator to put a period to those contentions which did molest the Church 1 Cor. 11.16 Indeed it is said that of whatsoever consequence it may be in other cases yet in this before us it cannot be safe to deduce the Divine Will from it because those who were ingaged in it did not look upon themselves as obliged thereunto by any Divine Precept but on the contrary by enlarging the Church's power as the Churches did enlarge by conforming Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil by managing Spirituall concerns according to the Canons of Synods by acknowledging a Subordination to the civil Power they did manifest that they were acted not by the influence of a Supernall command but by some occasionall and prudentiall considerations To all which I reply in order 1. The Regiment we contend for was universall acknowledged to have its basis in a Divine right as most evidently appears by the twenty ninth Canon of the fourth generall Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to depress a Bishop down to the degree of a Presbyter is Sacriledge It will be very difficult to explain how the Synod could pronounce this to be sacrilegious except there was a generall belief that the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter was made by a Sacred Institution Upon this account the Author of the Book of Questions in S. Quae. vet Nov. Test Q. 97. tom 4. p. 775. Frob. Austin affirms Nemo ignorat c. no man is so ignorant but he knows that our Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his Ascension into Heaven he putting his hands upon the Apostles ordained them to be Bishops S. Epist 27. Cyprians words are of the same importance Lege divina fundatum c. it is founded upon a divine Law that every act of the Church should be governed by Bishops Apostolos id est Epist 65. Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours This is the reason why Prelates in after-ages are sometimes stiled Apostles as Epiphanius in the epistle of Acacius and Paulus and Athanasius in the Coptick Calendar Tom. 1. Petav. Seld. de Synâ—d l. 3. c. 15. This name was used with a design to preserve the memory of the Primitive Institution 2. The enlarging Church-power as the Church did encrease is no argument against the