A treatise of church-government occasion'd by some letters lately printed concerning the same subject / by Robert Burscough ...

A treatise of church-government occasion'd by some letters lately printed concerning the same subject / by Robert Burscough ...

Table of contents

§

Title page

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

ERRATA.

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.

A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by Samuel Smith, at the Prince's Arms in S. Paul's Church-Yard, London, 1692.

A TREATISE OF Church-Government, Address'd to the AUTHOR of the LETTERS Concerning the same Subject.

CHAP. I. Jesus Christ the Founder of Church Government. The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted. To them he gave no Temporal Authority, yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual.

CHAP. II. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers, particularly to the Seventy Disciples, and to Presbyters, as Superiors, they were Bishops both in Title and Authority.

CHAP. III. If the Apostles were Bishops, Episcopacy is of a Divine Original. The Objection against this, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, consider'd.

CHAP. IV. S. James was an Apostle, and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem, and constantly resided there.

CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop. It was design'd for continuance.

CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve.

CHAP. VII. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy: who was Bishop of Ephesus.

CHAP. VIII. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus, who was Bishop of Crete.

CHAP. IX. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches.

CHAP. X. Objections against Episcopacy, taken from the Writings of the first Century, consider'd.

CHAP. XI. After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons, who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops.

CHAP. XII. The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles.

CHAP. XIII. The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors.

CHAP. XIV. After the Apostles days there was no space of time, nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd, without Episcopacy.

CHAP. XV. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers, and some Later Authors examin'd.

CHAP. XVI. Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution. The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment.

CHAP. XVII. Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution, if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted: Their Testimony vindicated.

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.

§

§

[Page]

Imprimatur.

Z. Isham, R. P. D. Henr. Episc. Lond. à Sacris.

Feb. 4. 1691/2.

§

§

[Page]

A TREATISE OF Church-Government: Occasion'd by some LETTERS Lately Printed concerning the same SUBJECT.

BY ROBERT BURSCOUGH, M. A.

LONDON, Printed for Samuel Smith, at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1692.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

[Page]

[Page]

AN Observing Italian has given us an Account of a Transaction, which is not so well known amongst us, as many others of the like Nature. He acquaints us, that in an Assembly of Catholicks, as he calls them, which were brought together by the Late Earl of Bristol, a Consultation was held concerning the fittest Means of propagating their Religion in this Kingdom: [Page] and they agreed, that one of the most proper Methods they could make use of for that purpose, was, to testifie a mighty Zeal, and to make a great shew of Friendship, for the Non-conformists. Whereupon, he tells us, They represented them as Men of Trade, whose Sufferings would be prejudicial to the Nation. They pretended to commiserate their Condition, and declaim'd perpetually against Persecution. And there were two things, he says, which they propos'd to themselves in this Conduct.

Il primo di mantenere le Sette contra la Chiesa d' Inghilterra, sperando con questo mezo di destrugerla più tosto, rispetto alle tante animosita intestine, che senza dubbio haurebbono aperte più facilmente le Porte al Papismo: il secondo che sotto questo pretesto di toleratione de Settari, non potessero le Leggi haver campo libero all' esecuttione, in quello che riguarda la Religione, e cosi fosse più facile a loro Preti d' avanzar la Religione Romana. The first, was to maintain the Sectaries against the Church of England; hoping they might sooner destroy it by Intestine Divisions, and so more easily open a Gate to Popery. The second [Page] was, Under a pretence of tolerating these Sectaries, to stop the Execution of the Laws about Religion, that their Priests might meet with less opposition in advancing the Religion of the Church of Rome.

In pursuance of this Design, as my Author also informs us, They prevail'd with King Charles the Second to issue out his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience; which was recall'd by the interposition of the Parliament: But the Project, which was then so happily blafted by the Parliament, reviv'd to amazement in the following Reign, and the Nation had the pain to see a Jesuite made a Privy Counsellor and Prime Minister of State, and the Protestant Dissenters very deep in his Interests, and warm under his Influence; To see these Dissenters so liberally offering up their Incense to the Court, which was then labouring to inslave us to the Pope; and the Court answering their Devotion [Page] with many Favors. For so it was, as every Body knows: And when this Alliance was confirm'd between them, hardly a Week pass'd over our heads, which did not bring us fresh Intelligence of their mutual Endearments.

What I have said of the Dissenters, must not be understood of the whole Body of them without exception: For to do them Right, some of them were afflicted at the shameful Confederacy in which their Brethren were engaged: But neither in Number, nor in Zeal and Diligence did they equal those that beheld our Church in distress, with such Eyes, as the Children of Edom look'd on Jerusalem, in the day of her Adversity, when they cry'd to the Babylonians, Rase it, rase it to the foundation.

But it pleas'd God to disappoint their Devices, so that their hands could not perform their Enterprise: And one might then have thought, that the Reflection on their Actions, should have [Page] been such a Mortification to them, as would have dispos'd them to an Accommodation and Union with those, from whom they had made an Unreasonable Separation; and who were so willing to forget their former Miscarriages, and to receive them with all imaginable Tenderness. But they, on the contrary, have since appear'd more averse from the Way of Peace than ever. And it is Observable, that the Kindness of the Papists, put them into a strange fit of Complaisance, and was the Cause, that either they employ'd their Pens in the service of the Church of Rome, or not against it: But the Obligations which they have receiv'd from the Conformists, instead of abating, have inflam'd their Rage, and given them Encouragement to write abundance of Books, such as they are, against the Church of England. And this may shew, how dissatisfied they remain in their present Circumstances, and that [Page] as long as we live with them, and not under them, we are like to hear of their Complaints.

When my Adversary, who is of their number, and gave occasion to this Discourse, saw Their Politicks, and his Own defeated, I had hopes that he would leave me to the Retirement I affected, and give me no farther trouble with his Disputes about Church-Government. I was in expectation, that he would either study to be quiet, or that I should meet with him amongst some late Apologists. But when I least suspected it, he appears in Print on the Offensive side, and rudely attacking a whole Community, he would persuade his Readers Nat. of Church-Government, p. 46, 47., that a Separate National Jurisdiction, such as he supposes that of our Ecclesiastical Rulers to be, cannot but weaken the Jurisdiction of Kings and other States, and is neither more nor less, but the very same thing that heretofore was found so burdensom[Page]under the Papacy, and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie. So that he lays it down, he says, as a Maxim, that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government, than a National Hierarchy, that does not depend upon it, or is not in the Measures and Interests of it. Fresh Experience has learn'd us this. In which words, his design is to cast an Odium on the Conforming Clergy, and to suggest, that they have been hurtful unto Kings, and usurpt a Jurisdiction that is inconsistent with the Safety, and the Rights of Sovereignty. But if this cannot be prov'd against them, either from the Nature of their Jurisdiction it self, or from their National Union, or Matter of Fact, on which he grounds the Charge, he must be content to bear the Infamy of a false Accuser.

By the Jurisdiction of the Clergy, which is first to be consider'd, either he [Page] understands, that which is Spiritual, and such as the Pastors of the Church receiv'd from Christ; and to say that this hath no Limits, and is pernicious to the State, is not only to injure the Truth, but to cast a Reproach upon our Lord himself: Or else he means their Temporal Authority, with which they have been legally vested by Sovereign Princes, and then he knows that he hath falsly call'd it Independent, Unboundable and Uncontrollable P. 46.: he knows it is false, that this is neither more nor less, but the very same Supreme and Absolute Power which the Popes claim'd and usurpt, and by which they made our Kings so Uneasie: And I leave him to answer the Convictions of his own Conscience, for the wrong he hath done the Reformation by so odious a Reflexion.

Another thing on which he grounds his Censure of the Clergy, is their National Union; and he argues, that This, [Page] together with the Independence which he ascribes to them, must needs render them very dangerous, as putting them into a condition of being made a powerful Faction, and easie to be practis'd upon; and inabling the Heads of the Faction to convey Malignity to all their Subordinates, and these to the People P. 47.. And thus, when the abolishing of the Episcopal Government with all its dependences, Root and Branch, was in agitation, Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes objected See his Speech A. D. 1640. in Nalson's Collect. Vol. 1. p. 758. against the Bishops, That by their Power over other Ministers, who had an influence upon the People, they might mould them both according to their own wills; and having put out our eyes, says he, as the Philistins did Sampson's, they may afterwards make us grind, and reduce us to what slavery they please. A dreadful thing indeed, had there been any foundation for the apprehension of it. But if such Fantômes as may at [Page] any time be rais'd by Art or the Strength of Imagination, and have nothing in them of Substance or Reality, be sufficient to disquiet us, we are like to enjoy but little rest. And to come nearer to the purpose; If a meer possibility of doing hurt, be so dangerous and formidable to Princes, This would be enough to create in them frightful Idea's of their Guards and their Armies, and of all that are about them, and render them at last, like Pashur, a Terror to themselves.

He could not but see, that a meer Capacity in the Clergy of conveying Malignity, was not sufficient to make them Enemies to the State; and he pretends, that they have been actually guilty of a most notorious defection from their Duty to the Civil Magistrate, and that it has been found by Experience, not only that there never was, but that there never can be in the World, a thing more dangerous to any [Page] Government, than the National Hierarchy. An Accusation that sounds very harsh, and runs high, not against a few single persons only, but a considerable Society. But he hath not told us, in what Instance they were liable to it, or when it was they became so criminal.

It is certain, that in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, they could not deserve so hateful a Character. For Jealous as She was of her Glory, She could not find, that it was eclips'd by them. But She did perceive, how necessary it was, to check and repress the Attempts against them, and was sensible, as Mr. Camden acquaints us *Regina haud ignara suam Authoritatem per Episcoporum latera in hoc negotio peti, &c. Camd. Hist. Eliz. A. D. 1591. that her own Authority was struck at through the sides of the Bishops. As this Admirable Princess penetrated into the Secrets of Foreign Courts, so She perfectly understood the Interests of her own [Page] Kingdoms: And if any would know, what She thought of some fiery Zealots of those Times, who spent their Heats in opposing Episcopacy and the Liturgy, it may be seen in Serjeant Puckering's Speech, recorded by Sr. William Dugdale View of the Troubles in England, p. 13., for it is made by Her Command.

Her Successor King James could never discover, that nothing could be more dangerous to him, than the National Hierarchy. He always believ'd, that Episcopacy was of Divine Institution: and as he found it establish'd here, to his great satisfaction; so he never saw cause to repent of his defence of it, and the Privileges annex'd to it. How well he approv'd the Constitution of the Church of England, may appear from hence, that in his Speech in the Star-Chamber he affirm'd, June 20. A. D. 1616. That of any Church that ever he read or knew of, present or past, he thought in his Conscience, This was the most pure, and nearest[Page]the Primitive and Apostolical Church in Doctrine and Discipline, and the sureliest founded on the Word of God of any Church in Christendom.

At the same time he complain'd of the Contempt that was cast on a Church so Reform'd, and the Governours thereof; and looking on it as a sign of Impending Judgments, he says, God will not bless us and our Laws, if we do not reverence and obey Gods Law, which cannot be, except the Interpreters of it be respected and reverenced. Such a regard He had for them, from a Principle of Religion; and their Fidelity to Him was answerable to it; and contributed not a little to the Safety of his Person, the Support of the Throne, and the Welfare of the Nation. But as for the many Dangers to which he was expos'd, they arose from other Quarters. They either proceeded from the Conspiracies of Papists, whose Principles he examin'd and confuted See K. J's. Works, p. 382. Lond. 1616., that [Page]neither the Subversion of States, nor the Murthers of Kings, should have free passage in the World, for want of timely Advertisement; or from the Practices of another sort of persons, whom he calls Ibid. p. 160. the very Pests in the Church and Common-wealth; and by whom, as he declares to all Christian Monarchs, Free Princes and States, he was persecuted, not from his Birth only, but four Months before his Birth.

In the Reign of King Charles the First, the Clergy were not wanting in their demonstrations of Loyalty, as we all know, and they felt. Yet I grant, that some had discours'd before his Majesty, that Episcopacy, as claim'd and exercis'd within this Realm, was not a little derogatory to the Regal Authority, as well in the Point of Supremacy, as Prerogative; in the one, by claiming the Function as by a Divine Right; in the other, by exercising the Jurisdiction in [Page] their own Names: But on that occasion, He told Dr. Sanderson, that he did not believe, the Church-Government, as by Law establish'd, was in either of the aforesaid respects, or any other way prejudicial to his Crown. Nevertheless he requir'd that Learned Man, from whom I borrow'd this Relation, to draw up an Answer to those two Objections, for the satisfaction of others; which he did accordingly: And I shall only crave leave, to transcribe from him the following words, which he uses near the Conclusion of his Treatise ‖Episcopacy not Prejudicial to the Regal Power, p. 99., By this time, says he, I doubt not, all that are not wilfully blind, do see and understand by sad experience, that it had been far better both with King and Kingdom, than now it is, or is like to be in haste, if the Enemies of Episcopacy had meant no worse to the King and his Crown, than the Bishops and those that favour'd them did.

[Page]I shall not further exercise your patience, in going about to prove, that the Clergy were faithful to the Crown in the Reign of King Charles the Second. You may well enough remember what King James the Second acknowledged Speech in Parliament, May 22. 1685., that the Church of England had been eminently Loyal in the defence of his Father, and support of his Brother in the worst of Times. But that our Church-men have since revolted from their Principles, which were then said to be for Monarchy, I do not understand. Nor was our Author willing in plain terms to inform us, when it was that they became such Examples of Malignity, lest the Calumny might easily be detected. Yet, Obscure as he is, he hath left us a Key to his meaning: for he intimates, that they have been found to be dangerous by fresh experience, when they were not in the Measures and Interests of the Government, respecting doubtless the late [Page] Times, before the great Revolution. And so the Secret comes out, which was at the bottom, and rais'd his Indignation.

In the Opinion you see of this Gentleman, the Clergy were Then so very dangerous, when with so much Courage they threw themselvs in the Breach that was made by the Dispensing Power, and were asserting and labouring to preserve our Laws and Liberties, which others were offering up in Sacrifice: They were then conveying their Malignity to the People, when in their Books and Sermons, they defended the Cause of the Reformation with so much Success, that Popery lay Gasping before them in great Agonies, notwithstanding the Cordials that were administred to it by other hands. And Then indeed the King was uneasie, because his Endeavours, to establish his Religion, did not make the Impressions he desir'd: And the Jesuits and [Page] their Associats were uneasie, because their Measures were broken, and their expectation of extirpating the Northern Heresie defeated: And such of the Dissenters, as had been assisting and pushing them on in works of darkness, were uneasie at the Reproach they had brought upon themselves by their ill Conduct. But in the rest of the Nation there appear'd a general satisfaction, to see Truth prevailing by lawful Methods, against the Errors of the Church of Rome, when they were cover'd with a powerful Protection.

One may wonder, what it is that induced our Author to lead our thoughts to the Transactions of those Times; since it would be more for his Reputation, could he bury them in Oblivion, or cover them with a Veil of Darkness. But it seems, he cannot dissemble how much he was affected with the Management of Affairs, when himself was in the Interests and Measures of the Government, [Page] and when in a Pamphlet Intitled, Prudential Reasons for repealing the Penal Laws against all Recusants, &c. Penn'd by a Protestant Person of Quality, he declar'd to the World, that King James the Second had a clearer prospect of his own and the Kingdoms Interest, than any of his Royal Predecessors ever had, and pursu'd it with that Conduct and Vigour, which did correspond with the Miracles that preserv'd the Crown for him, and him for the Crown, and for a Glory greater than that of wearing Crowns, to wit, to be the Restorer of Religion to Liberty and Freedom of Exercise. And with such exquisite and servile Flattery, was that Unfortunate Prince encouraged in the Large Steps he made to his Ruine.

That I have imputed to my Adversary the Harangue which I have quoted from the Prudential Reasons, you will not think strange, when I have told you, that sometime since I received several Controversial Letters, written by [Page] the hand of a Non-Conformist Preacher, who subscrib'd them in his own Name, and profess'd and persuaded his Easie Followers, that they were his own: But he could not deny, when the Charge was lay'd before him, that they were compos'd by the Protestant Person of Quality, as he is pleas'd to call himself, who hath lately publish'd some part of them, to which this Treatise contains an Answer. But how his Amanuensis resents this usage, or contented he is to be stript of his borrowed Plumes, and left naked to the Pity or Derision of Spectators, as they are variously affected, I pretend not to discover. Some may think he hath had very hard measure, and that he had much better never have enjoy'd the Glory of his Masters labours, than be depriv'd of it in such a manner; but that I leave to be adjusted between themselves. And I had not said thus much of their Combination, but out [Page] of great Compassion to a deluded People, that I may let them see, if they do not wilfully shut their eyes on what it is they grounded their insolent boasting; by what Impostures they have been abus'd, and by what Arts they have been engaged and encourag'd in their Schism.

Here it may be fit to take notice, that since our Author appear'd in open light, his Style differs much from what it was before: For many Pages of his Manuscript Papers, which I have by me, are fill'd with bitter Invectives against me, and other Conformists; but it is in some measure true, what he now says, that his Printed Letters are refin'd from Personal Reflexions. He thought, it seems, that Scurrility was suitable enough to the part he acted, when he sustain'd the person of another, and was asham'd of it, when he laid aside his disguise. Yet since he shews no Repentance for his former [Page] Provocations, nor forbears to strike at the whole Body of the Conforming Clergy, some may object, that I have handled him with an excess of Tenderness. But I wish no greater defects may be found in this Discourse, than that I have err'd on the side of Lenity, and I shall not be much concern'd at this Exception. Nevertheless my Adversary may be assur'd, that such a Conduct as his must needs have awaken'd the observation of many, and I cannot promise, that others will spare him, as I have done; or that he may not receive such Correction from a severer Hand, as he is not Stoick enough to bear.

For my part, I could have been content, if he had refin'd away none of his Personal Reflexions. I was willing enough that the World should have seen with what an impotent Fury I have been assaulted by him, and I should have been glad to have been [Page] eas'd of the Fatigue of writing and giving a new Turn to the Answers I had sent him. But for his own sake, I congratulate to him any Tendency towards a Calmness of Thought, and still retain for him the Regard that is due to an Intelligent Person, of a sharp Wit, great Reading and indefatigable Industry.

I could say more to his advantage, but that I am afraid to indulge an Humour in him that is too predominant; and what that is, you may perceive from the Admonition he gave me in his Letter of Feb. 9. That he and I are never like to answer one anothers expectation, so long as he looks for strength and closeness in my Discourses, or I think, to find weakness or loosness in his. Which shews, that he is a Man of a peculiar Temper, and distinguish'd by such an Air of Assurance as is not common. Not but that another might have treated me with as [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] much Contempt; but he was the Man of the World, that thought, nothing could come from him that is weak or loose. Finding him in this condition, I thought it not unfit to give him such Touches, as might make him sensible, that he is a Mortal Wight and of Humane Race: and having convinc'd him by the method I propos'd, that he was not Infallible; he now confesses some of his mistakes. Yet there are some Remains of his former distemper still hanging on him. For says he to his Noble Friends Ep. Ded., I present you in these following Letters the true Idea (as I take it) of Church-Government, which could it be receiv'd by all others with the same degree of Candor, I assure my self it shall by you, would be of Infinite Advantage to end these fatal Controversies that for many Ages have perplexed, and in this last, almost destroyed the Church.

I have not the honour to be acquainted with those Gentlemen, to [Page] whom he dedicates his Book: But if I am not mistaken in their Character, they are of more Judgment, than to believe, that, if others were as Candid as themselves, this Idea, which he so much magnifies, would be of Infinite Advantage. They will rather perceive, that it would not otherwise put an end to the Fatal Controversies that have perplext the Church, than Poison would cure Diseases, that is, by the death of the Patients. For 'tis evident, that the design of it, is to abrogate the Authority which Christ bestow'd on his Ecclesiastical Officers; and consequently our Author, instead of Intitling his Book, The Nature of Church-Government Freely Discussed, might more fitly have call'd it, A Treatise of Church-Anarchy or Church-Confusion.

I know not whether the Applause of his Performances be continued to him in his own Person, which he first [Page] receiv'd by Proxy, from the neighbouring Dissenters. But sure I am that he contradicts the avowed Principles of their Party, and the sense of their Writers. He contends, that the Pastors of the Church have no Authority, but what they derive from the State. He makes Church-Government a meer Prudential Thing and Alterable in the Form of it, according to the various Forms of the Civil Government, and argues, that it ought to take its Model from the appointment of the Civil Magistrate: Whereas their other Writers tell us, That a Spiritual Extraction of a Legitimate Ecclesiastical Power cannot be made from a Secular Root See Goodwin. Theom. p. 48, &c.; That the Introduction of Humane Authority into the Rule of the Church of Christ in any kind, destroyeth the Nature of it Owen. True Nature of the Gospel-Church, p. 30.; That there is but one Form of Government laid down in the Word, and that Unchangeable Answer to 32. Quest., and that to think, Church-Government must be fram'd according to the Common-wealth, [Page]or Civil Government, is as if one should fashion his House according to his Hangings Cartwright. Reply to Whitgift, p. 181.. But that his Friends may not resent the matter too highly, when they find how they have been impos'd on by him, I can assure them, that in contradicting their Authors, he uses them no worse, than he does himself. For having formerly concluded from 2 Thess. 2.15. that it was the duty of Christians, to preserve the same Government in the Churches after the Apostles days, that was appointed and practis'd in them; he now comes to prove, that, let the Government in those days be what it will, it is but a Prudential and Ambulatory Thing, and lyable to Changes according to the difference of Times and Occasions. And that his Friends may not for the future expect to find him any more fix'd or steady, he professes in his Epistle Dedicatory, that he hath nothing of fondness in him for any Opinions.

[Page]He hath as little fondness in him for the Authority of the Apostles, as he hath for his own Opinions. For however he takes Diocesan Prelacy to be a Degeneracy or Defection from an Apostolical Constitution, yet he boasts of his Vindication of it, upon Prudential grounds Let. MS.: He represents Episcopacy as a Corruption, and yet he supposes, that it is of Divine Right, when it is by Law established See his Epistle Dedicatory.. The truth is, he hath confusedly jumbl'd together the Notions of the Dissenters, and the Principles of Hobbes and Erastus; and with this odd kind of mixture, he thinks himself sufficiently qualified to heal the Breaches of Christendom.

Before him, one Peter Cornelius Van Zurick-zee set up for a Reconciler General; and his Project for Union was See his Way to Peace., that in every City, and in every County, there should be appointed a General Meeting-place, in which the Christians of all Persuasions should be [Page] requir'd to assemble together, that they might hear the Scriptures read, and afterwards talk about them, and give their Interpretations of them according to their various Sentiments. Of this Device he had such a conceit, that leaving his Family and Native Country P. 1., he cross'd the Seas, that he might reveal it in England; expecting that here it would receive a kind entertainment, and from hence break forth as a Light into all other Countries and Nations P. 6.. But whether this Man, or the Free Discusser hath furnish'd us with a better Plan of an Universal Peace; or whether Prudential Reason hath been more happy, than a Freak of Enthusiasm, in proposing a Method of Union, or Scheme of Ecclesiastical Polity, I leave you to determine.

In the mean time, I am of opinion, that the way of governing Churches, which is agreeable to the will of God, was not to be invented or [Page] first discover'd fifteen or sixteen hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour. I suppose a thing of such use must needs have been known to the Primitive Christians: And they generally believ'd, 1. That our Saviour Christ, who was the Founder of Church-Government, bestow'd on his Officers such Authority, as qualified them for the Administration of it. 2. That this Government was Episcopal from the beginning.

On these two things I have chiefly insisted in this Discourse, but far more copiously on the last, against which, I met with the greatest opposition: By which opposition, I do not only mean, That which hath been made by my Adversary; for I have considerd the utmost that I could find objected on That side. And upon the whole I am satisfied, that it requires no great Abilities to defend Episcopacy; and that it proceeds from the Goodness of the [Page] Cause, that the more Learned the Opposers of it are, the more ready have they been to let fall such things as may serve for the Vindication of it, and answer their own Objections. This was the Case of Blondel and Salmasius, but more particularly of the last, who hath so many things that favour my Hypothesis, that of all Modern Authors none has been more useful to me, than Walo Messalinus.

But all the assistance I have receiv'd from him, has been only to confirm the Notions which I had before grounded on the Holy Scriptures, & the Testimony of the Ancients: from which I have prov'd, That Episcopacy was of Divine Institution; and that meer Presbyters were generally subordinate to Superior Pastors in the Apostles days, and afterwards in the best and purest Ages: And if so, there can be no doubt concerning the succeeding Times, or of the Truth of what was affirm'd by the Lord Falkland [Page] in a warm Speech which he made against some of the Bishops A. D. 1640. See Nals. Collect. Vol. 1. p. 771., that the Order of the Bishops hath always remain'd in the Churches from Christ to Calvin.

What I have said on this subject, fastens an Imputation of Novelty on the Dissenters, but I cannot help it; and they have no reason to be offended at it. For their own Friends, the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches, who met at the Savoy *Octob. 12. A. D. 1658., confess ‖See the Preface before their Declaration, &c., that it is true in respect of the publick and open profession, either of Presbytery or Independency, this Nation hath been a stranger to each way, it's possible, ever since it hath been Christian. And I will adventure to add, that the Nation may be well enough without them both, so long as it shall be Christian; it being now too late to try Experiments of new Models, and to establish such Forms of Government, as in [Page] the best Ages, were never heard of in the World.

When I had enquir'd into the Original of Church-Government, and shew'd, that as it came out of the hands of Christ and his Apostles, and remain'd in the Primitive Times, it was, in the Nature of it, Spiritual; and in Form, Episcopal; I had thoughts to discourse particularly of the Exercise of it in the Administration of Discipline, and the Ordination of Ministers; as also of the Extent of a Bishops Authority over many Congregations; and of the Power of the Church in a Christian State; and then to make some Remarks on that Mystery of Iniquity that has been working amongst Bigotted Papists, and others, in opposition to Episcopacy: But being interrupted by many Avocations, and not being willing to swell this Volume into too great a Bulk, I have reserv'd those things, with some others, that may incidentally [Page] be consider'd, for a second Part of this Treatise.

I doubt not, but some will be ready to say, that it had been much better to have let the whole Work alone: For Now, they think, it is not a Time for Controversies: I should think so too, and would our Adversaries be of the same mind, and not drag us into the Press by their Importunity. But it may seem a little Unreasonable, that a Truce should be maintain'd only on one side: And I cannot imagine, that it is a time for us to lye open to Acts of Hostility, and not a time to guard our selves from them; or that it is a time to cast reproach on an Apostolical Constitution of Government, and not a time to defend it. I rather think, that it is High time to appear in vindication of it; and that we cannot be unconcern'd Spectators of the Diligence, with which others endeavour to promote the Interest of their several Parties, [Page] unless we will declare to the World, that we are not influenced by any due sense of Religion.

Indeed, if we are only in the Communion of the Church by Law establish'd, at certain seasons, and with design to destroy it, or to serve a Turn against it, Then it is not strange, if we cannot endure to hear any thing in defence of it. But what is most astonishing, is, that persons should be found bearing the Name of Christian, and carrying on the works of Darkness and Treachery, of Avarice and Ambition, in the most Solemn Acts of Worship, and the most Sacred Rites of our Holy Religion. Yet is the number of them considerable; and because it may not be fit to pass by them without notice, I shall here produce some part of the Charge against them, as it is recited and address'd to them by a Late Writer.

[Page] There are some things, says he Vox Clamantis, sect. 6., that I will but lightly touch, though others of contrary sentiment will lay on load. One is, at which I am not a little abash'd, that though you, according to your declar'd Principles and Ordinary Practice, are Nonconformists and Dissenters; yet upon occasion, and to get into Place and Office of Honor or Profit, you will and can take any manner of Tests that have of late been impos'd; also that you can, on such occasions, take the Sacrament according to the Form and Way of the Church of England, though you never did before, nor perhaps will ever do the same again, except on the like occasion; and although the making and forming of these Tests, and the taking of the Sacrament, were intended, and done on purpose to keep you, and such as you, out of Office; yet by these ways they have not been able to exclude you; and they think, that nothing, though never so contrary to your Principles, can be devis'd and made to keep you out, or to hold you in; but that [Page]you will break all Bounds, and leap over all Hedges; so that they are at a loss what to do with you, &c.

My Author who relates this to them as an Objection of their Adversaries, is himself a Dissenter; yet protests P. 50. that he knows not how to answer it in their behalf with truth and honesty. He confesses, that they make use of the same Artifices, as the Jesuits do in such cases: and he knows nothing, he tells them P. 53., that will more render them in the eyes of all, as men of flexible and profligate Consciences. He also laments their Hypocrisie, and breaks out into this Exclamation P. 50., O! the horrible scandal that comes from hence, &c. But I suppose, the Example of these men hath nothing in it, that may prevail with us to abandon the Vindication of a good Cause; their Practices being such, as, if we have any thing of Sincerity, we cannot think on without Pain and Detestation.

ERRATA.

[Page]

PAge 5. line 15. read averse. p. 6. l. 17. r. to bind and ab. p. 11. l. 6. marg. r. 18. p. 13. l. 29. r. the intention of the person. p. 39. l. 10. marg. r. c. 4. p. 44. l. 8. r. such, have. p. 49. l. 11. after High Priest, add, And yet he could not have been constituted High Priest. p. 54. l. 4. marg. r. Successores reliquit. p. 54. l. 11. marg. r. [...]. p. 63. l. 13. r. of all Churches. l. 17. r. presided. p. 73. l. 8. r. munere annos. p. 80. l. 27. r. continuance. l. 28. dele might. p. 88. l. 2, 3. marg. r. Apostoli. p. 102. l. 26. r. and as. l. 28. r. more than. p. 118. l. 1. r. of an. p. 143. l. 6. r. were written. p. 162. l. 26. (s) this note should have been placed after City l. 24. and another added here to refer to the words of Clemens. p. 170. l. 17. marg. r. c. 4. p. 179. l. 5. marg. r. Ep. 54. p. 200. l. 2. marg. r. lib. 9. c. 5. p. 208. l. 14. marg. r. c. 32. p. 218. l. 7. marg. r. obnitente. p. 260. l. 12. r. is mop't.

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.

[Page]

Chap. 1. JEsus Christ the Founder of Church-Government. The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted. To them he gave no Temporal Authority, yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual. p. 1

Chap. 2. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers, particularly to the Seventy Disciples, and to Presbyters, as Superiors, they were Bishops both in Title & Authority, p. 25

Chap. 3. If the Apostles were Bishops, Episcopacy is of a Divine Original. The Objection against this, that the Apostles were Extraordinary [Page] Officers, consider'd, p. 34

Chap. 4. S. James was an Apostle, and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem, and constantly resided there, p. 60

Chap. 5. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop. It was design'd for continuance, p. 78

Chap. 6. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve, p. 90

Chap. 7. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy: who was Bishop of Ephesus. p. 104

Chap. 8. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus, who was Bishop of Crete, p. 132

Chap. 9. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches, p. 144

Chap. 10. Objections against Episcopacy, taken from the Writings of the first Century, consider'd, p. 164

[Page] Chap. 11. After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons, who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops. p. 172

Chap. 12. The Bishops were Successors of the Apostles. p. 178

Chap. 13. The Bishops after the example of the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers as Superiors. p. 190

Chap. 14. After the Apostles days there was no space of time, nor any Country where Christianity prevail'd, without Episcopacy, p. 207

Chap. 15. Objections against Episcopacy taken from the Writings of the Fathers, and some Later Authors examin'd, p. 215

Chap. 16. Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution. The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment, p. 236

[Page] Chap. 17. Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution, if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted: Their Testimony vindicated, p. 250

Chap. 18. 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, p. 264

A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by Samuel Smith, at the Prince's Arms in S. Paul's Church-Yard, London, 1692.

[Page]

AN Enquiry after Happiness, in several Parts; by the Author of Practical Christianity, Vol. 1. Of the Possibility of Obtaining Happiness: The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged, in Octavo, 1692. Price 3 s. 6. d.

— Of the True Notion of Humane Life: or a Second Part of the Enquiry after Happiness, in Octavo, 1690. Price 2 s. 6 d.

The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation: In Two Parts, viz. The Heavenly Bodies, Elements, Meteors, Fossils, Vegetables, Animals, (Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Insects) more particularly, in the Body of the Earth, its Figure, Motion and Consistency, and in the Admirable Structure of the Bodies of Man and other Animals; as also in their Generation, &c. By John Ray, Fellow of the Royal Society. The Second Edition, very much Enlarged, Printed in Octavo, Price 3 s.

Miscellaneous Discourses concerning the Dissolution and Changes of the World; wherein the Primitive Chaos and Creation, the General Deluge, Fountains, Formed Stones, Sea-Shells found in the Earth, Subterraneous Trees, Mountains, [Page] Earthquakes, Vulcano's, the Universal Conflagration, and Future State, are largly Discussed and Examined: By John Ray, Fellow of the Royal Society, in Octavo, 1692. Price 2 s. 6 d.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Roman Emperour, concerning himself: Treating of a Natural Man's Happiness: Wherein it consisteth, and of the Means to attain unto it. Translated out of the Original Greek, with Notes: By Meric Casaubon, D. D. The Fifth Edition: to which is added, The Life of Antoninus, with some Select Remarks upon the whole by Monsieur and Madam Dacier, never before in English, in Octavo, 1692. Price 5 s.

A TREATISE OF Church-Government, Address'd to the AUTHOR of the LETTERS Concerning the same Subject.

[Page]

CHAP. I. Jesus Christ the Founder of Church Government. The Apostles the first Officers that he constituted. To them he gave no Temporal Authority, yet did communicate to them that which is Spiritual.

SIR,

SINCE you have been pleas'd to declare to the World, what expectation you had, that I would give you a Scheme of my thoughts concerning Church-Government, your Readers have occasion enough to enquire, how you could [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] meet with disappointment, when you had the Papers before you, wherein I had largely handled that Subject; and whilst you pretend to have drawn the things from thence, which you endeavour to confute, and not from your own Invention. The truth is, this Address would have been unnecessary, had you fully related my sense of the matters in debate between us, as you found it express'd in my private Letters: But the representations you have made of it are so very defective, that I think my self obliged to communicate to publick view the Principles on which I proceeded, with a Vindication of them. And I begin with what is evident enough, That our Saviour Christ, who is Head of the Church, was the Founder of Ecclesiastical Government, and consequently it proceeded from a Divine Institution.

The Original of this Government being known, we may the more easily gain a true Idea of its Nature: for that may best be discern'd, when we consider it in the greatest Purity, as it came out of the hands of our Lord, and was exercis'd by his Apostles, who were the first Ministers that he ordain'd. And upon enquiry we shall find, That, to qualifie them for the administration of it, he gave them no Temporal Jurisdiction, and [Page] yet did communicate to them Spiritual Authority: That amongst themselves they stood related as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers, as Superiors. And on these things all that I have to say of Church-Government will depend.

An easie Enquiry will inform us, that our Saviour gave his Apostles no Temporal Jurisdiction. For it is plain, that he did not send them to exercise any such Dominion as was possess'd by the Kings of the Earth, or the Lords of the Gentiles. Nor did he any where disingage them from Subjection to the Civil Magistrate. He gave them Commission to combate nothing but Ignorance and Vice; and when he call'd them to resist unto blood, it was that of themselves, and not of other men. And according to the Instructions they receiv'd, they taught and practis'd Submission to Secular Princes, not only for Wrath but Conscience sake; and in all their Conduct nothing appear'd, that might give any just occasion of Jealousie to the State, or create Disturbance to the Empire.

Our Saviour said indeed, that when he was lifted up from the Earth, he would draw all men unto him John 12.32.. But these words, signifying what death he should die, Ver. 33. are far enough from the sense which Jacobus de [Page]Terano puts upon them: For that wretched Paraphrast introduces our Lord speaking after this manner, I will recover all the Empires and Kingdoms of the World, and take them from Cesar and from Kings and Princes, by my Souldiers the Apostles. With such prodigious flattery, says Marquardus Freherus, Marq. Freher. in Append. ad Dissert. de Numism. Census. from whom I borrow'd that Observation, the Books of Augustinus de Ancona and other Papal Parasites are stuft; and with such Ornaments are the Decretal Epistles embellished. To these he might have added the Annals of Baronius, who, Vid. Sciop. Ep. ad Fulgent. Edit. à Colomesio inter Observat. Sacr. p. 6, &c. amongst other things that occur in them of like nature, grounds the Doctrine of deposing Princes on that expression, Arise Peter, kill and eat. And accordingly that Doctrine prevail'd by killing and devouring. It made its impressions with Blood and Violence; but not without the assistance of much Art, as may partly appear by this discourse of the Cardinal Prosper Sanctacrucius with the French Ambassador Paul de Foix in the presence of Thuanus Vid. Thuan. de vit. suâ. l. 1.: You compel me, Sir, said the Cardinal, in your favour, to reveal a Mystery that hath been conceal'd with a profound veneration, which is, that this Court uses an exquisite Severity when there is occasion, and it may be done without danger: and when any man of great Quality submits to it,[Page]the Cause is prolong'd with abundance of delays till the fame thereof, and the terror of our name be spread over the World. This Severity is so long successful, as it is tamely born, either through weakness or religious fear: but if a Prince be held by neither, with caution and great dissimulation we depart from this Rigor. This was an ingenuous Confession, and it shews in what wretched condition they have been, who most of all dreaded the Thunder of the Vatican.

That the Popes and their Creatures have infringed the Prerogatives of Princes, is evident beyond exception. And that others, who have seem'd very adverse from them, have notwithstanding in this imitated their Example, appears also from many instances, and will not be deny'd, I suppose, by you, who have read Spotswood's History of the Church of Scotland, and have no fondness for the Presbyterian Discipline. But whoever they are that take such measures, and invade and grasp into their hands the Rights of the Magistrate, whether they pretend to it in order to things Spiritual, or for the advancement of the Scepter of Christ, they make the Gospel a Carnal thing, and do infinite dishonour to Christianity by their Usurpations.

[Page]This may be sufficient to let you see, that the sentiments I have of Ecclesiastical Government intrench not on the Temporal: and that, when you tell me, The sword knows no other edge, but what the Magistrate gives it, it makes nothing against me, who am of opinion, that the Church hath no Secular Power, but what is deriv'd from Secular Princes, and what may be limited or extended by them.

Nevertheless I affirm in the next place, that our Saviour communicated some Power to his Church; and particularly, that he conferr'd on his Apostles such Authority as Secular Princes could not bestow. For he gave them Compare Matth. 16.19. with John 20.23. the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: He gave them Commission to absolve offenders, and an assurance that their Sentence should be ratified. Whose soever sins, said he, ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

After his Ascension, they acted as his Representatives, and by the Power they received from him, they constituted other Officers to be Governours of Churches; and to them they convey'd some Authority. For Authority is implied in the Titles [...]. that are attributed to them in the Scripture, and in different degrees it belongs to all Ecclesiastical [Page] Rulers. Obey them that have the Rule over you, says the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls, Heb. 13.17. And Clemens Romanus Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth. c. 57. p. 121. Ed. Oxon. 1677. admonishes those who had laid the foundation of the Schism at Corinth, To be subject to their Presbyters, to be contrite and penitent for their former miscarriages, to lay aside their arrogant speeches, and to learn submission; since it were better, as he tells them, that they should be little in the Fold of Christ, than to swell with pride, and fall from their hopes in him.

The Authority that has been assigned to the Apostles and other Pastors of the Church, is commonly called Spiritual, and not unfitly; for it is exercis'd in Spiritual matters, and relates to the affairs of another World. It does not touch or hurt the Body, or Life, or Estate of an Offender, but by accident. It may be assisted by the Coercive Power of the Magistrate, but that is not essential to it. The administration of it is sometimes rendred more easie by the favour of Princes, and sometimes more difficult by their opposition; but it is the same in it self under those various circumstances. It has its proper effects in the times of Persecution, as well as in those that are serene and calm; and it must be granted, that Obedience is always due [Page] to it under the pain of God's displeasure; unless one will say, that his Precepts may be broken without danger, or that Ecclesiastical Government is one of the most precarious useless things in the World.

Before I dismiss this Subject, it may be fit to take notice of the Attempts against Ecclesiastical Authority that have been made by a late Writer T. H., who is suppos'd by some to be, what he thought himself, a man of Demonstration. You are no Stranger to his Opinions, amongst which this is one, that Christ himself had not, nor hath in this World any Regal or Governing Power Lev. c. 42.. Our Saviour was sent, says he, to persuade the Jews to return to, and to invite the Gentiles to receive the Kingdom of the Father, but not to reign in Majesty, no not as his Fathers Lieutenant, till the day of Judgment. And from hence he gathers, that no obedience to his Officers can be requir'd.

For this purpose he produces these words of Christ, My Kingdom is not of this world: John 18.36. But he certainly mistakes their sense, as the Manichees did before him: and the Answer may be apply'd to him, which was given to them by Theophylact v. Theophylact. Comment. in Evangel. Ed. Rom. p. 558., who observes, that it is said indeed, My Kingdom is not of this World, and again, it is not from hence. But it is not said, My Kingdom is not [Page]in this World, or it is not here. The Kingdom of Christ is not from the earth as its Cause, nor is it earthly in its Nature. Yet is the Earth part of his Empire, and he turns about the affairs of it at his pleasure. In his state of humiliation, he had power on Earth to forgive sins Matth. 9.6.. And then it was that he said to his Disciples, Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am John 13.13.. After his Resurrection he declar'd, that all power was given to him in heaven and in earth Mat. 28.18.. And so far is it from being true, that he reigns not till the day of judgment, that the Apostle says expresly, He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor. 15.25..

If our Saviour had all Power, he might delegate some part of it to his Apostles; and that he did so, appears from what has been said; and it may be confirm'd from the Promise which he made to them, that they should sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel Mat. 19.28.. This place, I know, has been made use of to prove, that no Ministers of Christ have any ruling power, till he comes to judgment Loviath. c. 42.. But one that attentively considers, that the Jurisdiction which is represented by sitting on Thrones, commences not with his coming in Glory, but with his entring into it, or being [Page] See John 7.39. & 12.16. 1 Pet. 1.21. in it, may find reason to think, he design'd to intimate to his Apostles, in such terms as they could then receive it, that when he was departed from them, and sate down at the Right Hand of the Father, they should act as the supreme visible Governours of the Church, which is the Mystical Israel.

Another Objection which the Author of the Leviathan Lev. c. 42. p. 373. brings against Ecclesiastical Authority, is taken from our Saviour's forbidding his followers, to be called Masters Mat. 23.10.: But that proves too much or nothing; for in what sense they might not assume the Title of Masters, in that it may not be attributed to any man upon Earth, but belongs to Christ. The want of it therefore would abrogate all Humane Authority, or none at all. The like may be said of his Argument, which he grounds on these words of S. Paul, Not that we have Dominion over your faith 2 Cor. 1.24.: for, no man in the World hath any such Dominion, as implies a right to coin new Articles of Religion, or to impose things to be believ'd, as the Doctrine of God, which he hath no where reveal'd. This is what was disclaim'd by the Great Justinian [...]. ( [...]) &c. Justin. Cod. lib. 1: tit. 1. leg. 6., and ought to be so by all other Princes. Since therefore there is a want of that Dominion equally in all men, if such a defect were inconsistent [Page] with Authority, it would destroy that of the Civil Magistrate, or render it a mere Usurpation.

But the Objector assigns to Supreme Magistrates such Authority, that by it, he says, All sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected T. H. Lev. c. 38. p. 241.: and according to him, those Magistrates must be obey'd, though they command their Subjects to profess an Assent to the Alcoran, or to condemn the Gospel of Christ, or to worship Idols. And for this he pleads from the Example of Naaman the Syrian Leviath. c. 42. p. 271. who bowed himself in the House of Rimmon, 2 Kings 5.17. when his Master leaned upon his hand: But how impertinently he makes use of that Instance, others have demonstrated: and I shall only note, that it is not strange, that a person who shews such an enmity to Religion and to Christianity in particular, should tell us, Leviath. c. 39. p. 248. That Temporal and Spiritual Government, are but two words brought into the World, to make men see double, and mistake their lawful Sovereign.

Whosoever reads and believes the Scripture cannot but approve what he derides; so manifest it is from thence, that a Government distinct from the Temporal was establish'd by our Lord himself. The Apostles were constituted by him the first Rulers of his Church, but without any Commission [Page] from the Civil Magistrate. They laid their Commands We command you, &c. 2 Thess. 3.6. See also, v. 4, 12. 1 Thess. 4.11. on the Christian Converts, and expected an obedience to their Orders: And we must believe they had Power to do this from Christ, notwithstanding this man so confidently denies It is manifest, that Christ hath not left to his Ministers in this World, unless they be also indu'd with Civil Authority, any Authority to command other men. T. H. Lev. c. 42. p. 271., that he left them any such Authority. They asserted the Right he gave them to preach, notwithstanding the Prohibitions and Menaces of the Officers of State Act. 4.19. & 5.29.; and this was so reasonable, that they appeal'd to their enemies to be Judges of it. Without asking leave of any Secular Powers, they planted Churches: they form'd Societies under their proper Rulers, and did not teach them to see double, when they requir'd them to honour and obey those that presided over them in the Lord 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Thess. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.17..

Such Spiritual Governours remain'd after the Decease of the Apostles, when they were so far from receiving their Office, or any support and assistance in the discharge of it, from Temporal Princes, that they were hated and persecuted by them. Yet they proceeded in their work, and kept up their Discipline. And it is certain, that before the Empire was Christian, the Church was govern'd by its proper Officers, as a Society distinct from the State, and independent on it; yet were not the Christians then in danger [Page] of mistaking their lawful Sovereign.

You must excuse me, Sir, that I have been so long detain'd by the Exceptions of an Author of no good fame. It is from him that you have taken some of your Principles, and you are not neglected, when they are consider'd as I find them in the Original. You follow the Leviathan exactly, where you tell me, that the Apostleship itself was not a Magistracy, but a Ministry Letter of Aug. 10.. For your meaning is not, that the Apostles had no Secular Power, about which there was no dispute; but as it is manifest from your own words, that they had no Authority at all, unless it was to preach the Gospel: and for this you quote 2 Cor. 4.5. Where S. Paul says, We preach not our selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and our selves your servants for Jesus sake. But if this be for your purpose, and prove what you design by it, then was the Office of the Apostles, which has been so much magnified, a servile thing: Then were they put under the Dominion, and left to the Disposal of their own Converts, and made subject to the Churches which they had planted, or, which is all one, the Chief Pastors were obliged to be govern'd by their Flocks. And this comes of stretching a Metaphor beyond the person that us'd it.

[Page]You might have observ'd that the Apostles were not properly the Ministers of the Churches, but of Christ, and employ'd by him for the good of Mankind: and this no more derogates from their Power, than it does from the Dignity of the Blessed Angels, that they are Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.14., not of men indeed, but for them that shall be heirs of salvation. You might also have consider'd what S. Paul declares, that he was so a servant unto all men, 1 Cor. 9.19. as to remain free; and consequently, that he could not otherwise be their Servant, but in a Figure. And this which he us'd was very suitable to the condition of a person, who was so abundant in his labours, and comply'd so much with men of different tempers; not out of weakness indeed, or want of ability, but out of zeal and an ardent desire of the happiness both of Jews and Gentiles.

Another reason for which S. Paul represented himself under this Figure, is, that as Servants then received no wages for their work, so he reaped no temporal profit from his industry in communicating things that are Spiritual 2 Cor. 11.7. 1 Cor. 9.18, 19.. Yet this proceeded from his Choice, and not from the necessary Obligation of his Office. Nor did it signifie want of Power in him, 1 Cor. 9.6, 12. 2 Thess. 3.9. but a voluntary departing from his own Right. He declar'd [Page] that the Labourer is worthy of his reward 1 Tim. 5.18.: that the Lord hath so ordain'd, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14., and that himself as well as others might justly have expected his maintenance from the Contributions of those whom he had instructed, if he would have insisted on it. But had he been literally their servant, especially such a servant as those times afforded Vid. Pignor. de Serv. p. 7, &c. Ed. Amst. 1674., his acting amongst them as a Judge or Governour 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5., his passing Sentence of Condemnation on a Criminal, and the Order he sends that his Decree should be put in Execution, his declaring also that he was in readiness to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10.6., must remain unaccountable. The mention he makes of his power to use sharpness 2 Cor. 13.10., if his directions were not observ'd, and his challenging obedience 2 Cor. 2.9. from them to whom he ow'd obedience, could not but be very surprizing; and his threatning that he would come with his Rod 1 Cor. 4.21., if they did not prevent it by their Reformation, and that then he would not spare 2 Cor. 13.2, must needs have appear'd very strange language to his good Masters the Corinthians.

Another Argument, by which you pursue the design of the Leviathan in opposing Ecclesiastical Authority, is taken from the inconsistence, [Page] you conceive, it hath with the Civil Government, if it be not deriv'd from it. You conclude, there can be no Jurisdiction at all, unless it be in the Magistrate, or proceeds from him; because, as you tell me P. 35., in one Kingdom there can be but one spring or fountain of it. But if this be at all pertinent, and by Jurisdiction you do not only mean that which is Secular, your Objection makes as much against the Ruling Power of the Apostles, as of other Spiritual Pastors. Yet is this some of that stuff which you so highly extol, and I suppose, that in your Epistle Dedicatory you had it particularly in your eye, where you say, that were your Idea of Church-Government receiv'd by all others with the same degree of candour, as, you assure your self, it shall by your Noble Friends, it would be of infinite advantage to end those fatal controversies that for many Ages have perplexed, and in this last almost destroy'd, the Church.

What your Noble Friends think of your performance, I cannot tell. For my own part, I am not surpriz'd to find you ascribing Infinite Advantage to the Exploits of your own Pen; nor convinced, but that if your Principles about Ecclesiastical Polity were generally embraced, they might be of more pernicious consequence than the Collection, [Page] which, as Lactantius Lactant. p. 452. Ed. Oxon. informs us, Ʋlpian made of the impious Rescripts of Princes, that he might shew, what punishments should be inflicted on those who professed themselves Worshippers of God.

The Justice of this Charge will be manifest from hence, that the Church cannot subsist without Government, nor Government without Authority: If therefore, as you contend, there be no Ecclesiastical Government or Authority, but what proceeds from the Magistrate, this would put it into the power of a Julian, to destroy the Church, by dissolving that Government, and abrogating that Authority. And to this he might be the more inclin'd, did he believe that the Hierarchy could not be tolerated with safety to himself, or were so dangerous a thing as you have represented it.

Had the Apostles, you say P. 19., own'd any pretensions of a design to erect a National (much more an Ʋniversal) Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church, or had they done any thing to occasion a just suspicion of such a Design, it would have much obstructed the true design and end of their Mission, which was the planting and spreading Christianity. For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own defence, and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives and[Page]Rights, must have always oppos'd it. That is, they would have been obliged to restrain the Apostles, or oppose their Attempts, if they acted by other Principles, or advanced other Notions than you have embraced. And this may a little discover the tendency of your Letters of Church-Government.

There can be no question amongst those that believe the Gospel, but that our Saviour might have established an Ʋniversal Hierarchy. Nor can there be any doubt, but if he enjoin'd his Apostles to erect an external form of Church-government, it had been their duty to obey his Command. And what must then the Kings and Rulers of the Earth have done? If you have stated the Case right, they might lawfully have taken counsel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed. They might and ought to have resisted his Design and Constitution: or in your words, They must in their own defence, and for the preservation of their own inherent Prerogatives, have always oppos'd it. A passage which one would think you should hardly reflect on, without something of Confusion.

It will deserve the severer Censure, if it be true, that such a Hierarchy as you condemn, was indeed erected, and that by the appointment of Christ himself. And this I [Page] take to be certain: For the Apostles, to whom he committed the Government of all the Church Militant, were not invisible Rulers; nor were the people under their charge invisible Subjects. They admitted not persons into the Christian Society by any secret Rite, but by Baptism. Nor did they expel them from it by any hidden practice, but in a publick manner. The Faithful were united to them, and other Pastors ordain'd by them, as also amongst themselves, not only in Love or Charity, as they were to all Mankind; but in that mutual relation which they had as visible Members of the same Body: and as such, they were obliged to meet and communicate in the Assemblies that were held for the putting up of solemn Prayers and Praises to Heaven for the Celebration of the Eucharist, and other external Acts of Worship. And whosoever had Right to Communion in one of those Assemblies, he had so in all; provided his demand of it was no way irregular. And whosoever was expell'd for his Offences from one particular Church, he was virtually excluded from the Communion of all other Churches. He could not rescind the Sentence against himself, by shifting of places. Nor could he be kept bound and loos'd on Earth, unless he [Page] might have been absolv'd and condemn'd in Heaven at the same time.

After the Apostles days an universal and external Form of Church-Government was kept up, and appear'd in great vigor, notwithstanding the disturbance it receiv'd from without. You your self confess, that the Notion of Catholick Ʋnity then obtain'd which was not understood, you say P. 30, 31., to be internal and spiritual: but to consist in something external, relating unto Order and Discipline; as being an Ʋnity that was to be maintain'd by Communicatory and other Letters, and by Orders, and (that) was intended to support the Notion of but one Bishoprick in the Church, and that every Bishop participated of that one Bishoprick in solidum. A Notion that was of great use to make the Discipline and Power the more pointed: for if but one Church, then to be cast out of any part of the Church, was indeed to be ejected out of the whole; and if but one Bishoprick to be participated by all the Bishops, what was done by one, was done by all. All did censure, if one did. The Expulsion made by one Bishop out of any Church was in effect an Expulsion from all Churches; and so a cutting off entirely from Christianity, and all Communion of Saints. Yet useful as you think this Notion was, and early as it obtain'd, [Page] you take it to be intolerable. The Authority which you acknowledge S. Cyprian approv'd, and which was exercis'd by him and other excellent Men in his time, was, in your judgment, fit to be extirpated by Magistrates and Rulers in their own vindication. Because, as you tell me P. 19., the permission of such a Power over their Subjects, as would not only possess an interest in their Consciences, but be strengthned, as a Secular Empire, by a close connection of all the parts of it, and an exact dependance and subordination, would render their own precarious.

How unfit this was to fall from the Pen of a Person that makes profession of Christianity, your self may better be able to judge, if you suppose, that you had stood before Decius or Dioclesian, to give your advice concerning the state of Christians, and the manner how they were to be treated: For had you then spoken your mind freely, as you have now expressed it, it would have been to this effect, Amongst the Christians, O Emperor, there hath generally obtain'd a Form of External Government, which is very useful indeed to them, but to you as dangerous: For it possesses an interest in the Consciences of your Subjects: it is strengthned by a close Connection and an exact Dependance and Subordination of its parts; and being so, it renders your own[Page]Power precarious. I therefore think, that it is necessary for you to oppose it, if you will be safe upon the Throne, and not weakly abandon the defence of your own inherent Prerogatives.

But to this the Christians might have reply'd, That what you had suggested, was false and injurious. That no danger arriv'd to the Emperor from the Form or Administration of that Government which obtain'd amongst them, or from the Exercise of their Religion in their Assemblies, but much advantage rather to himself and his Dominions. For example; By their Discipline (c)Vid. Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. p. 31. Ed. Paris. 1675., they did not usurp his Prerogatives, but put greater restraints upon Vice, than he did by his Laws. By their solemn Prayers (d)Origen. contra [...]els. l. 8. p. 426, 427. Ed. Spencer. Tertul. Apolog. c. 30. p. 27. Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 4. p. 152. Ed. Ludg. Bat. 1651. they endeavour'd, not to engage Heaven against him, but to draw down Blessings on him; and by hearing the Doctrine of the Gospel (e)Vid. Theophyl. ad Autolyc. l. 3. p. 233. Ed. Oxon. 1684. Just. Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 64., they were not instructed in the Arts of Sedition, but to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and to pay Tribute and Custom, Fear and Honor to whom they were due. By their Sacramental [Page] Engagements Vid. Plin. Ep. 97. they did not carry on any wicked design, but bound themselves not to commit any Thefts or Robberies, not to break their Faith or Promise, nor to conceal or keep back a pledge. And they that so carefully avoided all Injustice, were far enough from invading the Rights of Princes, and could not but be useful Members of Humane Society.

'Tis true the Heathen Emperors were sometimes under apprehensions of danger from their Assemblies. But Plinius Secundus (g)Vid. Plin. ibid. & Elmenhorst Observat. in Arn [...]b. p. 151. could discover nothing in them, that might give any just occasion to such fears, or create disturbance to the Empire. Tertullian (h)Haec coitio Christianorum meritò sanè illicita, si illicitis par; meritò damnanda, si non dissimilis damnandis— Hoc sumus congregati, quod & dispersi: hoc universi, quod & singuli, neminem laedentes, neminem contristantes. Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. p. 32., who knew them better, speaks with great assurance of their Innocence, He professes, that if they were not unlike the Seditious Societies or Factions, which are unlawful, they ought both to be involv'd in the same condemnation. But, says he, We are the same being assembled, as when we were dispers'd. We are the same all together, as when we are taken singly and apart, hurting no man, grieving no man. The union of Persons so inoffensive, and so ready to render [Page] to all their due, could not be pernicious to any; especially, not to the Magistrate. The Government, which was establish'd amongst them, could not be inconsistent with that of the State; for however they were distinguished from one another; yet were they both preserv'd together. The Authority of Spiritual Rulers did subsist without Injury to the Secular Power, which flow'd in another Channel, and without help or assistance from it. And in this Condition was Church-Government in the Days of the Apostles, and afterwards under the Reigns of the Heathen persecuting Tyrants. The variation of Circumstances, which it met with under the Influence of Christian Princes, comes not under my present Enquiry; but it will be consider'd in the Second Part of this Treatise.

[Page]

CHAP. II. The Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals, but to other Ecclesiastical Officers, particularly to the Seventy Disciples, and to Presbyters, as Superiors, they were Bishops both in Title and Authority.

I Have shew'd what Authority the Apostles had not, and what they had. I shall in the next place consider, how they stood related amongst themselves, and to other Ecclesiastical Officers. I shall digress from you in handling the former of these; but it will not belong before I come to the last, in which our present Controversie is chiefly concern'd.

First, I observe, That the Apostles stood related amongst themselves as Equals in their Office and Authority. They were all sent by our Lord, as he was by the Father. They had all alike Power to pardon and retain sins. And nothing of Jurisdiction can be mention'd, that was peculiar to one of them; and not common to the rest.

Yet the Zealots of the Roman Communion ascribe to S. Peter a Sovereignty over the rest, and for this they passionately contend, not caring what they say, if they think it may advance the Glory of that Apostle. One [Page] may conjecture, what is to be expected in this kind from their lesser Writers, when so great a Man as Leo Allatius so much passes the bounds of Modesty. Peter on earth, says Allatius Allat. de Eccles. Occident. & Orient. perpet. Consens. l. 1. c. 20. Col. 295., is Christ in Dignity and Authority. What things soever therefore were under the Administration of Christ, are subject also to Peter, who after him is truly Christ: So that he hath Authority over all the Churches in the World, over all the Sheep and over all the Shepherds. He tells us in another place Lib. 1. c. 2. Col. 12., That as the Earth was divided amongst the Sons of Noah, so that Shem had Asia, Cham had Africa, and Japhet Europe: thus was the Christian Common-wealth divided by S. Peter into three Patriarchates, which were the Alexandrian, the Antiochian, and the Roman. But as for the Roman, it hath Dominion, he says, in the other Patriarchates. So that the Pope is subject to none. He judges all men, but is not judged by any. He gives Laws to others, but receives none. He changes Laws at his pleasure. He creates Magistrates. He decrees what is to be receiv'd as matter of faith, and, as he thinks fit, determines the weightier affairs of the Church. Although he would, yet he cannot err; for a bar is put upon falshood, that it may have no access to him. He cannot be impos'd on by delusions, and although an Angel should declare otherwise, yet being fortified by the Authority of[Page]Christ, 'tis impossible he should be changed. This is very lofty! and the Author hath furnished us in this Harangue with a notable train of thoughts. He was Keeper of the Vatican Library to three Popes successively, and he shews what sordid flattery he had at the service of his Masters.

It were easie to make large Collections of such Extravagancies; but I hasten to more useful matter. I shall only produce an instance or two out of Xavier's History of Christ: for since that Book is not very common, I may perhaps gratifie the Curiosity of some, by shewing what sort of Gospel it is that he communicated to the Indians.

This Missionary represents our Saviour directing his followers, not to relate to the Church the Sin of an offending Brother who remains unreformed after two Admonitions: but to tell it to the Prince of the Church (l)Principi Ecclesiae dic, & si eum etiam non audit, &c. Xavier. Hist. Christ. Interpret. Lud. de Dieu, p. 370. meaning S. Peter, and after him the Pope). If he had done this no otherwise than as a Commentator, he had deserved, says Ludovicus de Dieu (m)Animadvers. in locum., the Character of a bad Interpreter; But when, as an Historian, he puts such words into the Mouth of Christ, he may be justly charged with Forgery, and lying against his own Conscience. At the same rate, and in [Page] pursuance of the same design, when he had truly set down these words of Christ, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; but I have pray'd that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren; he informs us, that for Illustration, our Saviour adds Nunquam fides Petri, qui Successor primus est, deficiet, & opus ejus confirmare alios est. Atque ità factum est, nam usque ad hodiernum diem nulli Papae, qui derivatio ex vicario Petro est, in fide defectus fuit. Xav. ubi supra, p. 446. Calipha (Pers.) quod nomen summi Imperatoris est vel Pontificis, &c. Lud. de Dieu, in loc., The faith of Peter, who is the first Successor or Calif, shall never fail; and 'tis his work to confirm others. And so it came to pass, says the Author, not one Pope succeeding Peter has been defective in the faith. And thus he comments on his own Vision, and would establish an impudent Fiction, by an Assertion that is notoriously false. Yet he declares, that this History excell'd all other things that had been translated into the Persian Tongue in the Reign of Acabar P. 10. the Great Mogul, for whose instruction it was compos'd. This, says he, is the Book that most deserves, that the King should be proud of it, and think it worthy of an honourable acceptance. He therefore petitions him, that a Command should be issued out for the reading of it in the Church, as being the root of the Doctrine of Righteousness, the tranquillity of the Heart, and the medicine of Spirit P. 13.. These are glorious Titles, and we have partly seen, how consistent they are with his performances.

[Page] Xavier might be the more hardy in a place where he was in no great danger of having the Materials of his History examin'd. Others perceive they have reason to be more cautious, and they proceed not by way of Narrative, but labour to support the same Cause for which he was concern'd, by Arguments. But these, we may be sure, can have no great weight, since they are employ'd to prove, that there was a certain kind of Government established amongst the Apostles, of which, it is plain enough, themselves were ignorant. Doubtless when the Sons of Zebedee made their Petition to our Saviour by their Mother, that one of them▪ might sit on his right hand, and the other on his left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21., they knew nothing of the Sovereignty of Peter, which yet is supposed to have been promised before Mat. 16.18, 19., and S. Paul was afterwards as great a Stranger to it, when, in so publick a manner, he withstood him to the face at Antioch Gal. 2..

I need not engage farther in this Controversie, since it hath been so lately and fully handled by others. And perhaps, Sir, you may think, that I have already dwelt too long on a Subject, in which I have no Adversary, but the Advocates of the Papacy. But their Doctrine being so inconsistent with that Scheme of Thoughts which you have obliged me to [Page] publish, I was not willing to pass by them without Ceremony. But now I return to you, and observe,

Secondly, That notwithstanding there was such an Equality amongst the Apostles, yet there were other Ecclesiastical Officers inferior to them. Such, I think, were the Seventy Disciples, whom our Lord constituted in the days of his flesh. For since the Apostles and Seventy Disciples are thus represented under different denominations: Since it is not doubted, but they were appointed in accommodation to the twelve Princes of the Tribes, and the Seventy Elders in the Mosaical Polity; since none of the Seventy could be of the Order of the Twelve, without a new Election and Advancement, you need not think it strange, that I conclude, as many have done before me, that they were of different Ranks, and that in this state of things there was a disparity of Ministers.

But you tell me P. 1., that if the prejudices of my Education, or of my Circumstances, had not stuck too fast to me, I might have discover'd, that the Institution of the Seventy Disciples, was only temporary. Yet if this Discovery will do you any service, I cannot find that your self have made it. You say indeed, that the Seventy were sent about a [Page] particular business to the House of Israel, and that their Office ceas'd of course at their Return. But of this I find no grounds in the Holy Scripture. I am sure, the Apostles Mat. 10. and Seventy Disciples Luke 10. were sent abroad and employ'd in like manner at different times: But the first return'd without any loss of their Function, and so might the last. And that they did so, we have reason to think, unless they were degraded or depressed into the Rank of private men, by some Act of their Master. But to me it seems incredible, as it did also to Blondel Blondel. Apolog. Sect. 3. p. 118., that when the Harvest was like to increase, our Lord diminished the Number of his Labourers: that he dismissed them when they were become acquainted with their Work, which still was necessary; or that he gave them a discharge at that time; when, for their Confirmation, he bestow'd on them power over all the power of the enemy, Luke 10.19. 'Tis true, the Scriptures mention them not afterwards by the Name of the Seventy; but if this proves, that their Office was expired, one may also conclude from it, that they were all dead; for there is as great a Silence about their Lives, as about their Ministry.

It may be useful to contemplate that Platform of Ecclesiastical Polity, which those [Page] early times afford: yet I confess, they are something obscure, and that you do not unfitly call them a Twilight between the Law and the Gospel. And this might have restrain'd you from reflecting on me, as influenced by prejudices or my circumstances, for not acknowledging that the Office of Apostles, which was first confer'd on the Twelve, as well as in your Opinion, the Commission of the Seventy Disciples, was temporary, or expired at the farthest after our Saviour's Resurrection, when for this you produce no better Argument, than what implies, that a former Grant must necessarily be cancell'd, when Additions are made to it. But about this, I have no need to dispute. We come now to another state of things which is most clear, and in which we are infinitely concern'd. The wall of partition was broken down: And after our Lord's Ascension, the multitude of Believers increasing first amongst the Jews, and afterwards amongst the Gentiles, the Apostles found it necessary to have some Assistance in their Labours, and for that purpose ordain'd Presbyters and Deacons, neither of which were their Equals, but subject to their Authority.

I will not contend, as you have done, that a Diocesan compar'd to an Apostle is less in Authority than a Parish Priest P. 6., [Page] nor can I approve, what you take for granted, that the Apostles could constitute no Officers, over whom they did not retain a Jurisdiction P. 4.. But since you offer more than I can accept; you allow as much as I demand, which is only this, that Presbyters were subordinate to the Apostles.

If there be now any doubt, whether the Title of Bishops may fitly be assign'd to the Apostles, whose Authority was Prelatical, that may easily be resolv'd from hence, that when the Psalmist, in one of his Prophecies Psal. 109.8., and S. Peter in the Application of it Act. 1.20., spake of a Bishoprick, they mean't an Apostleship. His Bishoprick, say they, let another take; that is, let another be chosen in the room of Judas to bear the Office of an Apostle, and accordingly the Apostles are said to have been Bishops by S. Cyprian Meminisse autem Diaconi debent, quoniam Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit▪ Cyprian. Ep. 3. p. 6., and by Hilarius Sardus Apostoli Episcopi sunt. Hilar. in Ep. ad Ephes. c. 4. v. 11., and other Ancient Writers.

[Page]

CHAP. III. If the Apostles were Bishops, Episcopacy is of a Divine Original. The Objection against this, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, consider'd.

IF the Apostles were Bishops of the Church, and if they had Episcopal Authority over Presbyters, Episcopacy is not a mere prudential thing, as you suggest, or a defection from the first Rule of Ecclesiastical Government. It was not the Invention of a Diotrephes, or a Creature of Ambition, but proceeded from our Lord himself, and is of a Divine Extraction.

But however the Apostles were Bishops, you conclude, that they were not Precedents for Government in succeeding times, because, as you tell me, they were Extraordinary Officers. And in this Assertion you stand not single; for it has been often urged by others, and readily receiv'd by Persons of different Persuasions.

[Page]Nevertheless, I think, we ought not, without due examination, to admit a pretence, which has been made use of to very bad purposes. The greatest Zealots for the Papal Monarchy tell us, that S. Peter only convey'd his Power to his Successors; but as for the rest of the Apostles, their Authority was Extraordinary and died with them (f)Omnibus persuasum video hanc potestatem in Petro fuisse Ordinariam, quae transeat in Successores, in aliis vero Apostolis fuisse Extraordinariam sive delegatam, quae morte illorum extincta fuerit. Petr. de Marca in Opuse. p. 110.. But this the Socinians affirm of them all (g)Quod attinet ad Apostolos—certum est eos amplitis in Ecclesiâ Christi non inveniri. Et enim causa, ob quam illi electi & missi & dati à Deo fuere, desiit: Ea verò fuit quod per eos Deus doctrinam filii sui mundo primum annunciari & confirmari voluerit. Catechism. Racov. Sect. 9. c. 2. And the same reason for which they conclude, that an end was put to the Apostolical Office, they employ also to cancel the use of Ministerial Mission or Ordination. They grant indeed, that such Mission was requisite for the first Preachers of the Gospel, but assert, that now it is become unnecessary, since we are not to teach a new Doctrine with which the World is unacquainted, but to explain the old one. But at this rate, they that are weary of any Ordinance of Christ, which is of positive Institution, need but fasten on it the Name of Extraordinary, and then it must be of no longer continuance.

I have therefore been desirous to know what Standard you have for Extraordinaries. [Page] And on this occasion you have oblig'd me with an Act of pure Generosity, for which I never ask'd. You send me to Cicero and Lipsius to shew what were the Extraordinary Honors, Power, Magistrates, among the Romans, which I knew well enough before. But what I demand is, some plain and certain Rule by which the things design'd for continuance in the Christian Church may be distinguished from those, that were shortly to expire. And such a Standard as this, I have not been able to obtain from you. I must therefore be content to state the matter, as well as I can, without it; and for that purpose I shall here set down some things, wherein, I suppose, we are agreed.

1. We are agreed, that they are Extraordinary Officers, who are only rais'd on some particular or special occasion or accident, to which their work is limited. But then it must be granted, that whatsoever proves not that the Work or Office of the Apostles was limited to their own time, or that they might have no Successors, neither doth it prove them to have been Extraordinary Officers. This I take to be manifest enough, and what use I intend to make of it, will shortly appear.

2. We are agreed, That Persons in Office may have Successors in some things, who [Page] have none in others: particularly, they may have those for Successors in their Ordinary Work, who are not so in some of their Privileges. We have great reason for this, for otherwise no Succession of Ecclesiastical Officers could have been preserv'd, and we must have remain'd, like the old Acephali Vid. Nicephor. H. E. l. 18. c. 45., without Ministers and without Sacraments.

3. We are agreed, that the Apostles themselves had Successors in their Ordinary work. But that we may rightly understand one another, and that nothing may disturb so friendly an accommodation, I farther add, 1. That I take all that to be their Ordinary work, which others also did perform by the Authority they received from them, and which hath been continued in the Church ever since their days. 2. I call that their Extraordinary work, which was peculiar to them. Accordingly you may reckon amongst Extraordinaries such Circumstances as were appropriate to themselves or their actions: and whatsoever Privileges and Qualifications they had, which were incommunicable, you may also set them down in your Catalogue of Extraordinaries, for they were Personal, and died with them.

4. We are agreed, that to teach and instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion, to administer the Sacraments, [Page] to constitute Guides, and to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church, was the Apostles Ordinary work. This is what you your self assign unto them as such in the words of Dr. Cave, which I cannot but approve: But you must put a strange Interpretation on them, if they do not overthrow that for which you produced them. For if, as you say well after that Excellent Author, it did belong to the standing and perpetual part of the Apostles work, to exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church: that must be either such a Discipline, or such a Government as they did not exercise, or such as they did: If you say the first of these, you suppose that to have been their Ordinary work, which was not their work at all: If you say the last, then it will follow, that such Government as they exercis'd, and which was Prelatical, ought to be continued to the end of the World.

I might now justly neglect all your Arguments drawn from the number of the Apostles, from their seeing Christ, and the Mission they receiv'd immediately from him; from their being the Foundation of the Church, and the Power they had to work Miracles; from the Extent of their Charge, and their unsetled condition, by which you would prove, that they are Extraordinary [Page] Officers: for you may furnish your self with a Reply to them, from the Articles of our Agreement. But in hopes to give farther light to what has been said before, I am content to attend your Motions, and you are like to find me liberal enough in my Concessions.

I. I grant, that originally there were but twelve Apostles; and I doubt not, but, as S. Barnabas intimates — [...] Barnab. Ep. Sect. 6., they were so many in allusion to the twelve Tribes of Israel. But it does not follow from hence, that the Office of the Apostles was limited to that Number or to their Persons. On the contrary I shall prove in another place, that it was actually communicated to others: yet I deny not, but the Name of the Twelve was continued: for as it was assign'd to the Apostles Joh. 20.24. 1 Cor. 15.5. with regard to their first Institution, when Judas was fall'n, and there remain'd only Eleven; so it was also when many more were admitted into the Sacred College Rev. 21.14.. And thus says Peter du Moulin Moulin. Vat. l. 2. c. 14. p. 54.. The Regions of Decapolis and Pentapolis kept up their Names, when some of their old Cities were destroy'd, or when new ones were built within their Precincts: and Neapolis (which signifies a New City) is still so call'd notwithstanding its great Antiquity.

[Page]II. I grant, That the first Apostles saw the Lord: but this was no part of their Office: only it made them fit to be the first Witnesses of Christianity. Because, says Paulinus (o)Quia Apostoli in orbem terrarum mittendi forent ad omnium gentium informationem, non auribus tantùm sed & oculis praedicandam fidem capere debebant, ut quod firmiùs didicissent constantius edocerent., they were to be sent into the World for the Information of all Nations, it was requisite they should receive the Faith, they were to preach, not only with their ears, but with their eys, that what they had more firmly learned they might more constantly teach. But we cannot infer from hence, that none might succeed them in teaching and governing. Their Conversation with Christ in the Flesh was a great Privilege, to which at this time none can justly pretend: But what qualified them for the Mission, by which they were enabled to constitute subordinate Officers, did not hinder them certainly from appointing others to preside over them, as themselves had done.

III. I grant, That the Apostles had their Commission immediately from our Saviour. But notwithstanding this Privilege, others might as well succeed them in the Authority, they had, to govern the Churches, [Page] as Princes might sit on the Throne of David, who were not advanced to it in a manner so Extraordinary, by the particular Appointment and express Declaration of the Almighty, as himself had been. Noah & his Sons receiv'd Power, by an express Revelation Gen. 9., over the beasts of the earth, and over the fowl of the air, over every thing that moved upon the earth, and over the fishes of the sea, and liberty to eat of every living thing as of the green herb. Yet they transmitted that Power and Liberty to their Posterity, who have not such an intercourse with Heaven, as themselves had. Thus the first Apostles, who were sent immediately by Christ himself, might convey their Authority to others, who had not that advantage. And 'tis manifest, that their Office was actually delegated to Matthias, to whom our Lord did not immediately speak the words of their Commission.

IV. I grant, That the Apostles were in some sense the Foundation on which the Christian Church was built: for so we learn from S. Paul, Eph. 2.20. But this does not demonstrate, that they were an Extraordinary part of the Building. Some think they were said to be the Foundation, because they first published the Gospel. So the Socinians [Page] Quod per eos Deus doctrinam filii sui mundo primum annunciari & confirmari voluerit — vocati fuere fundamentum Ecclesiae, &c. Catechism. Racov. Sect. 9. c. 2. interpret that Expression, and they infer from thence, as you have also done, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers. But if, for that reason, they were so in any thing, it was in teaching, and consequently, That was an Extraordinary Part of their work, which, you say, was standing and perpetual.

Casaubon observes in one of his Exercitations on the Annals of Baronius (r)Casaub. Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron. Sect. 13., that when the word Rock is used Metaphorically in Scripture, it is with allusion to some Properties of a Rock, and denotes Firmness and Stability, or the like. And says this Learned Man (s)Res sunt affines petra & fundamentum, & pro eodem ponuntur: differunt nimirum non re, sed ratione tantùm, &c. ibid. a Rock and Foundation are put for the same thing, and differ not in Reality, but in Notion only. This is what you will be oblig'd to confute, if you still adhere to your Opinion: for in vain do you argue, that the Apostles must needs have had Extraordinary Authority, because they had the honour to be a Foundadation of the Catholick Church, if no Authority be signified by that expression.

[Page]The Apostles were vested with Authority by their Commission, before they planted Churches, and therefore did not derive it from that work: But if we think, that because they formed those Societies, their Authority must needs have been Extraordinary and Incommunicable, we may as well conclude, that Romulus was no King, because at Rome he laid the Foundation of the Regal Government, which work was not repeated by those that succeeded him in the Throne. For my part, I know no necessity, that they who constitute Churches should be of a distinct Order from those that afterwards preside over them. Frumentius Vid. Socrat. H. E. l. 1. c. 19. was as much a Bishop, when he travell'd from one place to another in India, after his return thither, to plant Churches, as any that govern'd them in succeeding times: and they that were ordain'd Bishops by the Apostles of those that afterwards should believe [...] Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. c. 42., did not forfeit their Character, whatever that was, or acquire any Extraordinary Authority, if they were employ'd to convert those that were committed to their Charge.

But you tell me, that whilst the Founder of a College lives, it is the duty of the founded on emergent difficulties, to have recourse to him, and take his directions; but he dying, his Authority dies with him. And it [Page] may be so, and it may be otherwise. You your self cannot be ignorant, I am sure, how usual it hath been for Founders to appoint Visitors of their Colleges, and how permanent their Power has been in our Universities. So that this Argument, if one may call it so, may easily be turn'd against you. But Founders, you say, as such, as have no Successors. This is profound! and it signifies, that none came after them to lay the very same Foundations, which they had finished before. If such arguing as this silences all disputes, and puts an end to the fatal Controversies, which you truly say, have almost destroy'd the Church, it must be when the contending Parties are become very weary of their strife, and are mightily inclin'd to an Accommodation.

V. I grant, That the Apostles had Power to work Miracles, for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrine. But this hinders not a Succession to them in that Authority which is not miraculous, but may be continued in all Ages. There was something Extraordinary in the manner of discharging the Apostolical Office, but it does not follow from hence, that the Office itself was so, or ought to be laid aside. Otherwise, for the same reason, we must lay aside [Page] Baptism, Imposition of Hands, Praying and Preaching, because all these things were attended with something Extraordinary and Miraculous. [...], says S. Chrysostom Chrysost. c. 4. p. 268. Ed. Savil.. There was nothing that was merely humane or common in that Age of Wonders.

But Miracles are said to be the Signs of an Apostle, 2 Cor. 12.12. And from hence you have infer'd, that none can have a Title to the Authority of Apostles, who cannot produce those Signs and Credentials. And this, I confess, is very specious, but that is all, as may partly appear from what has been said already, and will be more manifest, by comparing the words of S. Paul in the place before mention'd, with those of our Saviour Christ, Mark 16.17, 18. For speaking there in general terms of such as in all parts of the World should be drawn to the Christian Faith, These signs, says he, shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Now if one should conclude, that whosoever cannot cast out Devils, speak with Tongues, &c. have not the Signs that should follow those that believe, and therefore are no Believers; [Page] this Consequence would be as good as the former. But if it be absurd, the other is so too.

Against this your Exception is, That the Signs our Saviour speaks of, did not follow all, but only some that believed: That Miracles were not called the Signs of Believers, but that they were such Marks and Characteristical Notes of the Apostles, that by them S. Paul prov'd himself to be one of their Order. To which I reply,

1. That you suppose a real difference between the Expression of Christ, and that of the Apostle, whereas there is none. For I appeal to any Person that is a competent Judge of the sense of words, whether, these signs shall follow or attend a Believer, and these shall be the signs of a Believer, are not Propositions of the same import. Certainly had S. Paul said, the Signs which follow an Apostle have been wrought among you, he had said as much as we find in his own words, the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you. If therefore the Promise of Christ extends not to all the Faithful, but some may believe who cannot shew the Signs that once followed Believers; so may some have such Authority over other Ecclesiastical Officers, as the first Apostles exercis'd, who cannot perform those things which were the Signs of those Apostles.

[Page]2. If Miracles, as such, were a Note of the Apostolical Office, if they were that peculiar or characteristical Mark, by which S. Paul was known and demonstrated to be an Apostle; then all that had that Mark, that is, all that wrought Miracles, were also Apostles; and consequently the number of the Apostles must be vastly increas'd by the accession of many Christians, who did bear no Office in the Church at all. Yet I deny not, but Miracles in connexion with something else, were Signs or Marks both of the Apostles and other Christians. They were Signs of the Apostles, as they confirm'd that Authority they exercis'd, and which they declar'd they had receiv'd from Christ. They were Signs of Believers, as attesting the Truth of what they professed. They were the Signs of those that had the Power of Miracles, but not such Signs, as exclude all others from their Order and Rank that have them not.

For Illustration of this, I further add, that something may be fit and necessary for the first Institution of an Order, which is not so for the Continuance of it. For example, the Seventy Elders mention'd, Num. 11. were constituted Judges by the immediate Command of Heaven: and the Lord came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was [Page]upon Moses, and gave it to them, and they prophesied, v. 25. This Spirit was no more Accidental to them, than other Miraculous Gifts were to the Apostles; for it was made necessary by the appointment of God, v. 16, 17. and it was such a Characteristical Mark of their being chosen by him, that Eldad and Medad, who remain'd in the Camp, were distinguished by it, and known to be of their number, v. 26. But it was only a Mark of the first Elders. None that came after them were advanced to that Dignity, and confirm'd in it with such Solemnity. Yet the great Council, which is said to have consisted of this Order of Men Vid. Sigon. de Rep. Heb. l. 6. c. 7. Selden. de Syn. Heb. l. 2. p. 77., remain'd till the last Desolation of the Jewish Nation Vid. Cun. de Rep. Heb. lib. 1. c. 12..

The Advancement of Aaron to his Office was Extraordinary, and so were his Circumstances; yet others succeeded him in that Office who were not admitted into it, nor established in it in a manner so miraculous and stupendous, as their Great Ancestor had been. They resided at Jerusalem, whereas he had sojourn'd in the Wilderness. They had not their Garments made by inspired Workmen, as his were: nor could they perform the mighty Acts, which he did: yet were they as certainly High-Priests as he was, notwithstanding the want of his Qualifications.

[Page]Formerly you thought, that if an Extraordinary Mission and Extraordinary Power do not constitute Extraordinary Officers, then there never could be any such in the Church of God. But upon better information, you cannot but acknowledge, that Aaron had such a Mission and such Power, and yet was succeeded by some that had neither. Only, you tell me, that these Extraordinary Qualifications of Aaron were contingent, and that he had them, not as he was High-Priest, but by a particular and express Revelation; nor could his Authority, when he was oppos'd by Corah and his company, have been preserv'd but by a Miracle Num. 16.. Afterwards he could not have been continued High-Priest, had he not been distinguished by the blossoming of his Rod: for that by the appointment of God, became a necessary Mark, by which the Person might be known whom the Lord had chosen to that Dignity Num. 17.5., and without which, none might have own'd him under the Character he had born. But this Miracle was a visible confirmation of his Election, and the wonderful Rod was kept as a lasting Sign of it against the Rebels V. 10..

The Successors of Aaron as they were High Priests, gave Answers when they were consulted in weighty affairs by Ʋrim and Thummim. But according to Josephus Joseph. Antiq. lib. 3. c. 8. [Page] these Oracles ceas'd two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities, which is much later than the Period assigned to them by the generality of the Jewish Rabbies Vid. Bernard. Not. in Joseph. Antiq. p. 208., yet it is early enough to shew, that there were many High-Priests who had not that LIGHT and PERFECTION which distinguished their Predecessors, and for which they were so eminent and useful to their Nation.

The Deacons, at Jerusalem, where they were first appointed, were Originally seven; and these might not have been chosen and constituted, had they not been Men full of the Holy Ghost Acts 6.3.. Stephen who was one of them, was full of Faith and Power, and did great Wonders and Miracles Acts 6.8.. And Philip also cast out unclean Spirits, and healed those that were taken with Palsies, and those that were Lame Acts 8.7.: So that Simon Magus, who saw the mighty Works which he did, was filled with Wonder and Astonishment, like the Inchanters of Egypt, when they beheld the Finger of God. But neither was it afterwards always requisite, that there should be just seven Deacons, however some religiously adher'd to that number; nor was it necessary, that they should always be adorn'd with Gifts that were Extraordinary and Miraculous: [Page] for otherwise, when Miracles ceas'd their Office must have ceas'd with them.

The Circumstances of the first Presbyters were also Extraordinary. They were qualified for their Ordination with Extraordinary Gifts, and Directions were given about it by Extraordinary Indications. They could pray with the Spirit, and preach by Inspiration: They could speak Languages which they had never learn'd, and perform other things as Miraculous. Yet when all those Extraordinaries ceas'd, the Order and Mission of Presbyters did not so, but still remain'd, and ought to remain to the end of the World.

From these Instances, it is manifest, that some things might be requisite for the beginning of an Office, and for some that were vested with it; a repetition of which, is not always necessary for its preservation; nor for all that are advanced to it. However therefore, the Apostles had some Prerogatives, to which none at this time have any just pretence, however it was very fit, that they that were the first Planters of the Gospel should be able to recommend their Doctrine, which was then new, to the World, with Miracles, which we may call the Seals of that Commission which they receiv'd from Christ: yet the Authority they had, [Page] as Supreme Visible Pastors of the Church, might descend to others, who have no need of new Seals or Credentials for what may be sufficiently confirm'd by the same.

Let us now suppose, if you please, that the Apostles did more Miracles than any others; or that the working of some, was peculiar to them; yet if Miracles, as such, hinder not a Succession to them, the number and quality of their Miracles cannot do it without some declaration, that they were intended for that purpose. They may rather seem to concur with other things, in signifying the pleasure of the Almighty to preserve that Office or Order which he so highly approv'd, and which he had established in so wonderful a manner.

VI. I grant, that the Charge of the Apostles was of great extent: yet this hinders not, but that they might have Successors in their Office or Authority. They had a large Sphere of Action, when they were sent to disciple all Nations: But then no Apostle had sole Commission to do this: Neither were the Apostles wont to act as in a Common Council by Majority of Voices, but dispers'd themselves, that they might better propagate the Doctrine of Christ: They did not all travel together into the same Country; [Page] but some went into Asia, some into Scythia, and others into other Nations, says Didymus (q)Neque enim omnes Apostoli ad omnes Gentes pariter sunt profecti; sed quidam in Asiam, quidam in Scythiam, & alii in alias dispersi sunt nationes, secundum dispensationem illius quem secum habebant Spiritus Sancti. Didym. de Sp. Sanct. lib. 1., as they were directed by the Holy Spirit. The Armenian Historian in Galanus (r)Accepto Spiritu Sancto, universas mundi plagas, ductis sortibus, partiuntur. Vid. Clem. Galan. Conciliat. part. 1. cap. 1. p. 4. tells us, that having received the Holy Ghost, they divided the Countries by Lot. But certain it is, that some of them were more especially engaged to plant Christianity amongst the Gentiles, some amongst those of the Circumcision: Some in this Nation, and some in that. No single Person had the whole work of preaching the Gospel committed solely to him. For, as there ought to be no Oecumenical Bishop, so there was no Oecumenical Apostle, who had Jurisdiction over the rest. It is also manifest, that all the Bishops in the second and other Centuries, had Power to govern all the Churches that were planted by all the Apostles, and to propagate Christianity far and near, so that the Charge of both in general, was of equal extent. And if the multitude of Pastors, as well as of other Christians, increasing, particular Bishops were concluded within a narrower compass than the Apostles had been, such Disproportion of Dioceses, [Page] does not necessarily hinder the Title of Succession of one from another, as may appear by the following Instances.

The Kings of Judah are mentioned in Scripture, as sitting on the Throne of David Jerem. 13.13.17.25.22.2, 4.29.16., when ten Tribes pay'd them no Obedience: So that however they had not his Dominions intire, it was enough to preserve their Succession to him in Royal Authority, that they retained it in such parts of them as remain'd under their subjection.

Eutropius says of Severus, that he left his Sons Bassianus and Geta his Successors (t)Filios suos Successores Bassianum & Getam. Eutrop. Hist. Roman. Brev. lib. 8. c. 19.. And Constantine, he tells us, left his three Sons his Successors (u)Successores filios tres reliquit. lib. 10. c. 9., none of which singly could have all the Dominions of their Father, in which the other Brothers had their share. And not to mention other Examples, I find in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius (w)— [...], &c. Vid. Plutarch. Vit. p. 890, 895, 896. Ed. Francosurt. 1599., the Great Men who divided amongst them the Empire of Alexander, twice styled his Successors, and once the Successors by way of Eminence: yet no one of them had either the personal Courage and Conduct, or all the Dominions of that Mighty Conqueror.

[Page]Perhaps it will be said, that this is a mere Dispute about Words: for that is the Reflection which a Learned Foreiner (x)Dans le fonds ce n'est encore là qu'une dispute de mots. Bibliotheque Universel. t. 9. p. 153. was pleas'd to cast on it when it had been managed by an incomparable hand. But when Salmasius (y)Plures uni non succedunt. Salmas. Appar. p 125., whom others have followed, argues against the Succession to the Apostles, from his own mistake of a Word, to give its true Interpretation, and to confute that which is erroneous, is the best way, I think, to shew the weakness of his reasoning.

VII. I grant, That other Pastors of the Church are commonly under an Obligation to a more constant Residence in some particular Places, than the Apostles were; yet this hinders not the Bishops from succeeding the Apostles in their Office or Authority. For,

1. It is not Essential to the Office of a Bishop, that he reside in a Place as a Local Pastor of a particular Church: nor is it always necessary, as you suggest, that he should be ordain'd to a certain People. They that with us are advanc'd to the Episcopal Chair, are constituted Bishops in the Church of God: But that they are limited to a certain Diocese, proceeds from such Rules of Government, as are [Page] not always of necessary Obligation. The Council of Chalcedon declar'd (z) [...]. Can. 6., that none should be ordain'd at large; yet this Rule, says Grotius (a)Grotius de Imper. Sum. Pot. c. 10. Sect. 2. p. 271., was not of Divine and Perpetual, but Positive Right, and it may admit of many Exceptions. Before that Council S. (b)Ep. 1. p. 7. Sect. 10. Ed. Paris. 1685. Paulinus was ordained Absolutely, in Sacerdotiam tantùm Domini, non in locum Ecclesiae dedicatus, as himself speaks in an Epistle to Severus: And when S. Jerom (c)Vid. Hieron. ad Pammach. Ep. 61. was made a Presbyter, he had no peculiar Church or Title assign'd to him. And to come nearer to the matter, Photius tells us (d) [...]. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48. Col. 37., that Caius who flourished in the beginning of the Third Century, was constituted Bishop of the Gentiles, that is, of the Heathen at large, that by his Labours amongst them, he might draw them to the Christian Faith.

Indeed where Ecclesiastical Government is setled and Christianity flourishes, however persecuted by the Civil Power, it is requisite for the most part, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops should be confin'd within [Page] their proper and certain bounds. Yet when their circumstances resemble those of the Apostles, and the great work is to convert Infidels to the Christian faith, doubtless it is then fit that they should make freer Excursions. And therefore the Great Council of Constantinople Can. 2., that so strictly limited Bishops within their own Dioceses, excepted those from their general Rule who liv'd among the Heathens, and gave them liberty to attempt their Conversion, and that within the bounds of other Bishops, as Balsamon and Zonaras explain the Canon Vid. Pandect. Canon. t. 1. p. 87, 88. Ed. Oxon.. And yet I cannot think that they to whom this Liberty was indulged were Bishops of a distinct Species, when they only differ'd from others in a particular Circumstance. Nor can I believe that they were Bishops at home and something else abroad: or that they forfeited their Episcopal Character, when they were making Converts or confirming them in a forein Province.

It is farther observable that the Canons by which Ecclesiastical Officers were restrain'd within certain Precincts, being made in Times of Peace, did not bind in Cases of Necessity. On which account, Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople determin'd Ep. Canonic. à Coteler. Edit. in Eccl. Graec. Monument. t. 3. p. 453, 454., that it was lawful to communicate with the Presbyters who were ordain'd at Rome, [Page] and Naples, and in Lombardy, without the Acclamation, or a Title. And this he confirms from the Examples of Athanasius and Eusebius, who, when Arianism prevail'd, confer'd Orders out of their own Dioceses: A plain Argument, that they had contracted no such Relation to a particular People, but they remembred, they were Bishops of the Catholick Church; and thought they might, on some occasions, exercise their Episcopal Power in any part of it, without a breach of Catholick Communion.

To conclude: As the Office of Presbyters was the same, when they were severally appropriated to distinct Congregations, as it was when they had the Care or Government in common of many Congregations under the Presidence of the Bishop Vid. Epiphan. Haeres. 69. n. 1. p. 727. Sozomen. H.E. l. 1. c. 15. p. 428. & Hen. Vales. not. in locum.: So is the Office of Bishops the same, whether they are limited or not, within certain Dioceses. And to serve the Necessities of the Church, some of them may be the more strictly confin'd, and not suffer'd to pass their Line: and others may be left to greater freedom in the exercise of their Function, without any essential difference.

2. It was not essential to the Office of an Apostle, that he should constantly be engag'd in Travels. S. Paul who was so abundant in his Labours, remained two years at Ephesus: [Page] and S. James resided much longer at Jerusalem, as I shall shew in the following Chapter. In the mean time, let me tell you, that all the Arguments, by which you would prove, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, perform more than you would have them, or nothing at all. If they prove any thing, it is, that the Apostles could have no Successors in Teaching and Instructing the People; which yet you say, was a standing and perpetual part of their Office. So that you must be content, I think, either to yield up the Cause, or you will be concern'd, as much as I, to answer your own Objections.

[Page]

CHAP. IV. S. James was an Apostle, and yet he was Bishop of Jerusalem, and constantly resided there.

AMongst the Arguments by which some would prove, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, I find none more frequently produced, than that which is taken from their unsetled condition. And this you urge, after the example of others: but something you have in the management of it, that is peculiar, and must be ascrib'd to to your own invention.

Sure I am, say you P. 49., Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans, ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms the Office of the Apostles to have been to go up and down and preach, circumvagari (as his Translator renders him) & Evangelium praedicare. But excuse me, Sir, if I tell you, that sure I am, you never saw any such Comment of Athanasius, nor any such Translator as you have mention'd; [Page] nor have they any Being, but in your Imagination.

The use you make of the words you have cited, is almost as surprising as the Quotation it self. In the judgement, say you, of this so celebrated a Father, the Apostles (as such) were but Itinerant Preachers: as if you had a mind to depress them now, as much as you exalted them before. I leave you to clear your self as well as you can; and I come now to prove what I have already propos'd, that it was not essential to the Office of an Apostle, that he should be constantly engaged in Travels. And this I think, is very clear, from the example of S. James the Just.

I know that many Learned Men have deny'd, that this James was one of the Twelve, which others notwithstanding of great Eminence have affirm'd. But I have no need to be interessed in that Controversy. I think it sufficient, that he had both the Name and Authority of an Apostle Gal. 1.19.2.9.. And I shall shew, that he was Bishop of Jerusalem, and constantly resided there. I join these things together, because of their Affinity. If I prove either of them, it will be for my purpose; if both, the truth will be more confirm'd, and they will give mutual light to one another.

[Page]That S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, appears from the Testimony of a whole Cloud of Witnesses, amongst which, Clemens Alexandrinus and Hegesippus, are the most commonly produced, and chiefly depended on by the Assertors of Episcopacy, as being the most Ancient and best qualified to gain an assent to their information.

S. Clemens flourished in the next Age after the Apostles, and as Blondel says truly of him Vir sanctitate & omnimodâ eruditione praestans. Blondel. Apolog. Sect. 2 p. 36., he was eminent for Holiness, and all manner of Learning. But Divine Learning was the highest in his esteem; to acquire which, he travel'd into many Countries; and, as himself acquaints us, he had Masters to instruct him, that were of several Nations. One of them, he tells us, was of Coelosyria, and another of Egypt Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.: the third he mentions, was an Assyrian, and the fourth a Hebrew. And these having preserv'd the Doctrines and Institutions of the Apostles pure, which they receiv'd from Peter and James, from John and Paul, as Children from their Parents, communicated them to him and others in his time. We have therefore reason to think, that he was not deceiv'd nor design'd to impose on Posterity, when he left us this relation, for which I now make use of his Name Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. H. E. l. 2. c. 1.; That although our Lord had prefer'd Peter, and [Page] James, and John, before the rest of the Apostles, yet they did not contend about Honour, but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was the principal Place, wherein our Saviour himself exercis'd his Office, and taught personally, when he was upon Earth. It was the Metropolis of the Jews, who afforded Converts to the Christian Faith, before Salvation was brought to the Idolatrous Gentiles. The Church of Jerusalem therefore was justly styl'd by the Council of Constantinople Concil. Const. Ep. Synod. apud Thedoret. H. E. l. 5. c. 9., the Mother of Churches: and it consisted of a vast number of Believers. And these are things that may put such Marks of Dignity on the Person that presides in it, that the Chief Apostles had reason to think, it would not have been a diminution, but an honour rather, to any of them, to have been in his Station.

This may be sufficient to clear the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, as recorded by Eusebius, to whom I refer'd you: and I am not concern'd to enquire, Whether the relation of it, which you produce from Theodorus Metochita and others, and which, you say Really the Story, as Clement tells it (if Theodorus Metochita and others represent him right) carries its own Confutation: for they make him say, that James, by Divine Appointment, was ordain'd to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem, to prevent any Emulation and Dispute, that Peter, John, and the other James, might otherwise have had for that honor. p. 27. carries with it, its own Confutation, [Page] be so absurd as you imagine: Yet I cannot but observe, that when I offer, what you despair of opposing with success, you think it enough to find out something else, which, in your judgment carries with it its own Confutation. A Politick device, I confess, but no great Argument of your Ingenuity.

Hegesippus flourish'd in the same Age with Clemens, but something more early: and living so near the Apostles time, he made use of that advantage in his Enquiries into the things that were done in them; amongst which, he acquaints us, this was one (q)Vid. Hegesip. apud Euseb. H. E. l. 2. c. 23. & l. 4. c. 22. & apud Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccles., That S. James took on him the Government of the Church of Jerusalem.

Hegesippus does not only relate this of him, but he gives us a copious Account of his Life and Martyrdom: yet this, I confess, would signifie but little, were he, as Joseph Scaliger represents him (r)Scalig. Animadvers. in Euseb. Chron. p. 178, 179., a trifling and a fabulous Writer. But that he was unjustly censur'd by that celebrated Critick, has been shew'd by Petavius and Valesius (s)Petav. Animadvers. ad Epiphan. Haeres. 78. n. 13. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. H. E. l. 2. c. 23.: and to what they have said, more might be added, for his Vindication: if it would [Page] not occasion too large a Digression; or were it necessary to insist so much on the Authority of one, for the Confirmation of a thing, which may be sufficiently prov'd by the Suffrage of many others.

That S. James was Bishop, or had the Charge of the Church of Jerusalem, hath been generally believ'd by the Christians of different Nations and Languages. The memory of it hath been preserv'd by the Ethiopians in their Diptychs Vid. Ludolf. Comment. ad Hist. Aethiop. p. 342.: by the Coptites in their Fasti Ab eodem Ludolf. Edit. ibid. l. 3. n. 66.; and by the Syrians in their Menology Vid. Combefis, Not. in Auct. t. 2. Col. 843, 844. An. 1648.. It hath been receiv'd and related as an undoubted truth by Hippolytus Hippolyt de 12. Apost. and Eusebius Euseb. Chron. Can. p. 189. Ed. Scalig.: by Cyril of Jerusalem Cyril. Catech. 4. & 14., and another Cyril of Scythopolis (a): by Epiphanius (b), and Chrysostom (c): by Augustin (d), and Fulgentius (e): by Nicephorus (f), and Photius (g): by Oecumenius (h), and Nilus (i): And it was also mention'd as a thing universally acknowledged by the Sixth General Council (k); and Blondel (l) himself confesses, that it was asserted by all the Fathers.

[Page]This Testimony in which they are so unanimous, will appear the more considerable, if it agree exactly with the Circumstances of S. James, as they are represented in the Holy Scripture: And that it does so, will be manifest, by comparing it with several places of the New Testament wherein he is mention'd. For instance, we read, that when Peter had escap'd out of Prison, he said to those that were surpriz'd and astonish'd at his presence Act. 12.17. Go and shew these things to James and to the Brethren. In which words he passes by all Ecclesiastical Officers, except James, without any particular notice. And this I take to be an Indication, that however, there might be others at Jerusalem that were subordinate to him, there remain'd none with him, that were his Equals.

When Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, other Disciples saw he none, but James the Lord's Brother (n)Galat. 1.19.. And this is that James says S. Jerom (o)Hic autem Jacobus Episcopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit, &c. Hieron. in Galat. 1.19., who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem: a Person of great Sanctity, and of such Reputation, that the People would press and throng, that they might touch but the Skirt of his Garment. That Father also gives this reason why S. Paul did not [Page] see other Apostles, it was he tells us Quod illi ad Evangelium praedicandum toto fuerant orbe dispersi. ibid., because they were dispersed abroad to preach the Gospel: but he resided where his peculiar Charge was.

Fourteen years after this, or rather, as some think, after his Conversion, S. Paul went up again to Jerusalem, and there he found James Gal. 2.1.9., and reckons him with Cephas and John, who seem'd to be Pillars, and were Chief Apostles; hereby paying respect, in the Opinion of Bede, to the Dignity of his Chair Cujus cathedrae dignitatem etiam Paulus Apostolus in eo nominando venerans ait, Jacobus, Cephas, & Johannes, &c. Bed. Prolog. super 7. Epist. Canon. nuper Edit. à D. Cave in Hist. Lit. p. 475.. And 'tis observable, that however Peter was one of the Number, yet to James he gives the first place, because says Anselm (s), at Jerusalem where he was Bishop, he had the Primacy.

But this you will not admit: for that preference, you say, might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother P. 51.. As if John was not also the Lord's Brother, who is mention'd after Peter, or James had but lately contracted this relation. I think this variation in the Order of Names from the usual Method, must suppose a Change in the Affairs of the Apostles, and import something [Page] peculiar to S. James, which did not always belong to him; but now gave him the pre-eminence in this place. What that was, we have seen already: and Mr. Calvin saw it, and does not speak of it as a thing improbable: for says he (u)Quum hic quaestio sit de dignitate, mirum est Jacobum Petro praeferri: fortassis id factum fuit, quod Jerosolymitanae Ecclesiae erat Praefectus. Calvin. in Galat. 2.9., When the question is concerning dignity, it is wonderful that James should be prefer'd before Peter: Perhaps it was, because he was Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem. The good man would not speak more plainly out of tenderness to his own Discipline.

At the Council of Jerusalem S. James makes a greater Figure than any of the rest of the Apostles, and speaks with an Air of Authority, as President of the Synod. He was Bishop of Jerusalem, says Chrysostom, (w) [...]. Chrysostom. com. 4 p 795, 796. and to him was the chief Place assign'd. And from hence it was, that others having given their sense of things in debate. S. James passes the final Sentence; whereupon, says Hesychius (x) [...], &c. Phot. Cod. 275. Col. 1525., How shall I celebrate the Servant and Brother of Christ, the Supreme Governour of the New Jerusalem, the Prince of Priests, [Page]the Chief of the Apostles, the most resplendent amongst the Lamps, and most illustrious amongst the Stars! Peter preaches, but James decrees. His words are but few, but comprehend the greatness of the question. My sentence is, says he, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God. And thus, says the Commentator on his Acts [...], &c. Commentar. Rer. Jacob. p. 524. Edit. in Combefis Auctar. par. 1. A. D. 1673., he spake the word, and it was done. His Suffrage passed into the form of a Law, and was deliver'd to the Church.

Indeed, if S. James had usurpt a Jurisdiction over his Collegues, this had been criminal. But I have ascrib'd to him no other Pre-eminence, but what, we may well suppose, was granted to him by the rest of the Apostles, that the proceedings in the Assembly might be the more regular. It was agreeable to the Nature of a Synod, not that he that presided in it, should determine the thing in controversie by his sole Power, but with the consent of the other members of it. This is what S. James did after the full hearing of the matter, and the manner of his giving judgment (y)My sentence is, &c. Act. 15.19. [...]. Illud [...] cum Emphasi proferendum. Vid. Jo. Pricaei Annot. in locum. [...]. Chrysostom. t. 4. p. 797. [...]. Theophylact. in Act. Apost. p. 135. 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 [Page] 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 (a)Surgens Petrus tanquam Apostolorum Supremus & Caput dixit [in margine, primò loquitur]. Bin. Concil. t. 1. p. 2., Peter rising up as the Head of the Apostles, speaks first. And says M. de Marca (b)Conventum Apostolorum & Presbyterorum cogit, de negotio controverso relationem facit, primam sententiam dicit rem definiendo, ut s [...]lebat Imperator in Senatu. Pet. de Marc. Opusc. p. 154., 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 (c)Vid. Bin. not. ad Synod. 3. Apost. 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 [Page] 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 (d)Petri auditâ sententiâ illicò obmutuit universum Concilium, conquisitio cessavit.— tacuit omnis multitudo, subdit S. Lucas, idque in signum manifestissimum, quod Petri judicio acquiescendum duxerit omne Concilium. Scheistrat. Antiq. Illustrat. p. 138., 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 'tis 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 [Page] of some Jews that came from him to Antioch. That is, says S. Augustin (e)Ab Jacobo, id est à Judaea, nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit. August. t. 4. p. 379. Edit. Paris. 1614., 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 (f) [...]. Chrys. t. 4. p. 864., 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 Matth. 13.55., as [Page] 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 (h)Triginta annos Hierosolymis rexit Ecclesiam. Hieron. in Catalog. says it was thirty years, and he is followed amongst others by an Ancient Writer of Our Nation cited by Whelock †Wheloc. in H. E. Bed. l. 5. c. 7. in his Annotations on Bede's Ecclesiastical History: It was not much less according to Eutychius (i)Factus est Jacobus Episcopus. Hierosolymitanus quo munere viginti octo functus est. Eutych. Annal. t. 1. Interpret. Pocock. p. 327. 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 (k)Ab. Ecchel. Eutych. Vindic. c. 13. p. 206.. 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, [Page] that Walo Messalinus thought (l)Hierosolymis non abstitit nec quoquam extra urbem pedem movit. Wal. Messal. p. 20., that he did not remove a foot from thence. It was perhaps by reason of his constant Residence there, that the Jewish Rabbies (m)Vid. Cl. Castell. Lexic. Heptaglot. Col. 2869. became acquainted with his Miracles, the memory of which they have preserv'd. But certain it is, that Josephus (n)Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. & apud Origen. Comment. in Mat. p. 223. Edit. Huet. & lib. 1. Contr. Cels. p. 35. 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 [Page] 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 (o)A. D. 1526. Jacobo—& omnibus Ecclesiis quae ubique sunt., 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 whereever 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 [Page] this one, that 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 (p)Euseb. Chronic. and Abulpharagius (q)Abulpharag. Dynast. 7. 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 (r)Dodwel. Dissert. Cyprian. 11. Sect. 20, 21. 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 (s)Vid. Anton. Pagi Critic. in Annal. Baron. A D. 107. n. 4.. Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer, and he testifies (t)Hegesip. apud Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 22. p. 142. & Freculph. Chron. t. 2. l. 2. c. 11., amongst many [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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.

[Page]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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 you must acknowledge them to have been, unless you will say, that the Administration of the Eucharist by the Pastors of the Church hath no foundation in the Holy Scripture.

I see no way to avoid the difficulties with which you are intangled, unless it be granted, that the Apostles receiv'd Commission [Page] to administer both the Sacraments for not only themselves, but others also. And since a Right to that Commission cannot be convey'd but by Ordination; and there can be no Power of Ordination, unless it be deriv'd from the Apostles: from hence I gather, that in this, which was a principal part of their Authority, as well as in that of conferring Baptism, and celebrating the Eucharist, they ought to have Successors in all Ages.

3. When our Lord, before his Ascension, gave his Commission to the Apostles, he left them an assurance of his Presence with them in these words, Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, Matth. 28.20. And from hence it appears, that it is agreeable to our Saviour's intention, that they should have Successors: Jus Divin. Minist. Evangel. par. 1. p. 26, 27. for as the Assembly of Divines say well, This promise cannot be confin'd to their persons, who did not live to the end of the world, but reacheth all Ages, and strongly argueth that the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ: And if so, let us see whether the words be capable of such a Paraphrase as this; Hereafter there shall be another sort of Ministers, far inferior to you, not only in personal Gifts or inward and miraculous Qualifications, but in Authority; and these I will protect to the end of the world; but you and[Page]your Function must shortly be extinct. Now this is such an odd kind of Interpretation, as I can by no means approve. But since the Promise was made immediately to the Apostles, one would think, that it had a more especial regard to the preservation of their Order, if it was also meant of any others.

Against this, your exception is, that by the End of the World, some understand the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum, and think they have good reason for so doing, by comparing Matth. 28.20. with 24.3, 14. But that expression is only used in the former of those Verses of Matth. 24. where the Disciples said to our Saviour, What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the End of the World? And here they seem to understand such an End, as should be put to the World, at our Lord's personal and glorious Appearance; and not that earlier Period of his coming in a Figure only, to take vengeance on the Jewish Nation: for this could hardly agree with the Idea they had of that state of things, about which they made their enquiry. However it be, thrice Matth. 13.39, 40, 49. do we meet with this Phrase in the thirteenth Chapter of the same Evangelist, and as often it signifies the Consummation of all things at the day of Judgment: For then it [Page] is, that the Son will send forth his Angels to gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and cast them in the furnace of fire. And then shall the Righteous shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father; that is, when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father; for then, says the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.24. cometh the end. But if it be said, that the Predictions I have mention'd from Matth. 13. import no more, than the Calamities that fell on the Jews, and the refreshment that the Christians receiv'd above sixteen hundred years ago; after this rate of expounding Scripture, one may evacuate the clearest Prophecies of the future and glorious appearance of our Lord, to render to every one according to his deeds.

The Exposition which you defend, is not free from other inconveniences: For it supposes, that the continuance of Christ with his Apostles, must be commensurate with the time of his long-sufferance towards his mortal enemies: and then, however he had already freed them from the Mosaical Yoke, and intended to disperse them into remote Regions, where they would be little concern'd with the Political Affairs and Government of Judea: yet wherever they were, they could have no assurance of the presence [Page] of our Lord with them, any longer than he preserv'd his Crucifiers, and so their hopes must live and dye with his Murderers.

'Tis true, all the Apostles did not live till Titus executed on the Jews a most just Vengeance. But then I would demand of you, that limit the Advantage of our Saviour's Promise to the Persons of the Apostles, and understand by it, that extraordinary Assistance he gave them in the discharge of their Office, how he continued with them that were deceas'd: and whether their dust and ashes, or their reliques, perform'd the Work and Signs of Apostles till that Period, which you call the end of the Mosaical Seculum? But some lived after that time, and I would be inform'd, whether they were then abandon'd by our Lord? If so, what afflicting thoughts must it cost S. John, who liv'd above thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, when his Master, that lov'd him so well all that while, deserted him, or lest him without his usual Consolation. But this inconvenience you think P. 51., may be avoided, by comparing Matth. 28.20. with Matth. 1.25. where we are inform'd, that Joseph knew not Mary, till she had brought forth her first born Son. For as the meaning is not, that he knew her afterwards, so when our Saviour says, that he would be with his [Page]Apostles to the end of the Jewish World, this signifies indeed, that he would be with them so long; but does not imply, that he would be with them no longer. That is, you had fixed a Period of Christ's Presence, but finding your self pressed with the consequence of it, you declare, that there was no Period of it at all. And his declaring, that he would be with them to the End of the World, was as if he had said, he would be with them after the End of the World indefinitely.

I do not see how that instance from Matth. 1.25. supports this Exposition. For neither doth this shew how our Saviour could be said to be with those that were deceas'd before the end of the Jewish Polity: that is, how he assisted them in the work of their Apostleship, when that work was over, and they were entred into their rest: nor yet does it reach the Case of those that surviv'd. For however it is enough for us to know, that the Mother of our Lord remain'd a Virgin till the time of his Birth; yet it was not enough for them to know, that he would be with them till the Jews were destroy'd. They had as much need of Comfort and Encouragement from his gracious Promise afterwards, as they had before; yet of this they must have been deprived, had the End of the World, beyond [Page] which that Promise was not extended, signified the Ruine of their Nation.

Upon the whole, these words of Grotius on Matth. 28.20. seem highly rational. From hence, says he (z)Hinc manifestissimè apparet voluisse Christum ut Apostolis aliis, illi rursum aliis viris fidis, munus illud magisterii commendarent. Nam eùm promissio haec ad consummationem Seculi se extendat, Apostoli autem tam diu victuri non essent, omninò hic Christu [...] in Apostolorum persona censendus est etiam Successores ejus muneris compellâsse., it very manifestly appears, it was the mind of Christ, that the Apostles should commit to others, and they again to other faithful persons, that Charge of Government which was committed to them. For since this Promise extends it self to the Consummation of the World, and the Apostles could not live so long; Christ is plainly to be thought to have spoken to their Successors in that Office. And this, Sir, is the Testimony of that Learned Man, who for the reputation he hath justly gain'd in the World of great knowledge, and exact Criticism may signifie something with you, to use your own words: and if he was not much mistaken, this Text of Scripture, by which you would prove that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, overthrows what you design by it, and supposes that the Apostles ought to have Successors till the coming of our Lord to Judgment.

[Page]4. The Office of the Apostles or the Authority they had over Presbyters was committed to many in their days that were not of the Twelve, and it was preserved after their decease. It was therefore design'd for Continuance, and ought to remain in all Ages. This Consequence I take for granted, and the Assertions from whence it is drawn, I shall clear in their proper places. At present I only observe, that if they are true, they will much confirm what went before. For whatever extraordinary Qualifications and peculiar Privileges the first Apostles had, it will be manifest, that the Authority they had as Supreme Governours of the Church, was none of them. That could not be limited to them, which was convey'd to others. What was communicated was certainly communicable.

[Page]

CHAP. VI. The Title and Office of Apostles were communicated to many besides the Twelve.

I Shew'd before, that however there were Originally but Twelve Apostles, yet their Office might be confer'd on others that were not of that number; and that it actually was so, is evident from the examples of Paul and Barnabas, who were Apostles Acts 14.14., and that not only in Title, but in Power also. For the first of these declares, that he was nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12.11.. And if Barnabas had ow'd him any Subjection, when a Controversie happen'd between them, it might easily have been ended by that Authority, which one of them might have exercis'd, and the other ought to have obey'd: but they debated the matter on equal terms, and neither of them gave place to the other. The result was, when the Contention between them grew sharp, they departed asunder, and took different [Page] courses Acts 15.39, 40.. But at another time they agreed, and went together to Jerusalem: and then James, and Peter, and John, who seem'd to be Pillars, paid to both the regard that was due to their Collegues: Gal. 2.9. They gave to both the right hand of fellowship, and both went to exercise their Apostolical Office among the Heathen, as the other three did among those of the Circumcision.

You think however, that Barnabas was an Apostle of an Inferior Order, and that he had his Apostleship from the Church. For this you quote Acts 11.22. where, you tell me, the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle [...]., and not barely to dismiss him. But you might as well have said, that when the Brethren sent away Paul [...]. Acts 17.14., they did not barely dismiss him, but made him an Apostle. And at the same rate, you may carry on the work of Criticism farther, and declare, that when the Magistrates sent Serjeants [...]. Acts 16.35. to free Paul and Silas; when Herod sent an Executioner to cut off the Head of John the Baptist Mar. 6.27.; when the Chief Priests and Scribes sent forth Spies that should feign themselves just Men Luk. 20.20., and when the Pharisees and Chief Priests sent Officers to take our Saviour John 7.32., all these that were sent, were transform'd into so many Apostles.

[Page]That Barnabas was, as you imagine, subordinate to any other Apostles, is altogether improbable. For S. Paul speaks of him, as a Person in the same Station with himself, where he says, Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas? and I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working? 1 Cor. 9.5, 6. Which words suppose S. Barnabas to have been S. Paul's Colleague, and S. Paul to have had equal Power with any of the most eminent Apostles, and both to have been vested with all the Rights and Authority, that belonged to the Apostleship; for otherwise those Expostulations would have been liable to great exceptions.

Besides Paul and Barnabas, there were many others that were not of the Twelve, and yet did bear the Title of Apostles: and of what account they were in the Church, Theodoret informs us [...], &c. Theod. [...]. 3. p. 473. Edit. Sirmond.. He observes, that anciently the same persons were indifferently call'd Presbyters and Bishops; and then such as are now call'd Bishops, were styled Apostles, but afterwards this Title was left to those that were properly Apostles: and on others, who sometimes had it, the Name of [Page] Bishop was impos'd. To the same effect, is that passage, which is cited by Amalarius from the Reputed Ambrose Quia Beatis Apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis, illis primis exaequari non poterant, neque miraculorum testimonium par ill [...] habere, sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur, grave illis videbatur, Apostolorum sibi vindicare nuncupationem. Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa & Presbyteris nomen presbyterii reliquerunt. Alii vero Episcopi sunt nominati, híque Ordinationis praediti potestate, ità ut plenissimè Praepositos se esse Ecclesiarum cognoscerent. Vid. Amalar. de Eccl. Offic. l. 2. c. 13., wherein he shews, that they who were ordain'd to govern the Churches after the Apostles (by which, says Salmasius, he means others besides the Twelve) finding themselves not equal to their Predecessors in Miracles or other Qualifications, would not challenge to themselves the Name of Apostles; but the Titles of Bishops and Presbyters they thus divided. That of Presbyters they left to others, and that of Bishops was appropriated to them, who had the Power of Ordination: so that they presided over Churches in the fullest right.

This place is quoted several times by Salmasius Vid. Salmas. Apparat. p. 75. & alibi., but how contrary it is to what he endeavours to establish, is very obvious: for it plainly intimates, that there were always Prelates in the Christian Church, only with this difference. The first of them excell'd the rest in Gifts, and were call'd Apostles: but their Successors finding how disproportion'd their Merit was to that Title, [Page] thought fit to decline it: and then they began to be distinguished by the Name of Bishops. Yet both were of the same Order, and govern'd with the same Authority.

This is not the only instance wherein Salmasius has done right to the Truth, with disservice to his Cause. For in his Dissertation against Petavius (o)Walo Messal. c. 1., he proves, that there were many Secondary Apostles, as we call them for distinction sake, which were the Disciples of the First: And these, he tells us

(p)

Apostolorum Discipuli Apostolicâ Auctoritate pari jure ac potestate ut illi fecerant Ecclesias gubernabant. Ibid. c. 3. p. 244.

Tenebant Ecclesiam eodem jure ac more quo tenuerant eos Apostoli. Ibid. p. 248.

govern'd the Churches with equal Right and Power, and in the same manner as the First had done. He also ascribes to them the same Place over Presbyters, that Bishops had in succeeding times (q)Hi locum eundem tenuere in Ecclesiâ supra Presbyteros, quem postea Episcopi obtinuere. Ibid. c. 5. p. 50.. So that, according to him, there were always Prelates since the days of Christ, differing indeed from one another in Name and Circumstance in the first Ages, but not in Authority.

Amongst the Prelates of the first Century. I think 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: [Page] 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 (r) [...]. Theod. t. 3. p. 172., 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 [...]. Ibid., 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.

[Page]Agreeable to what has been said, is this Observation of S. Jerom (t)Paulatim verò tempore procedente & alii ab his, quos Dominus elegerat; ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, Necessarium autem existimavi, Epaphroditum fratrem cooperatorem, & commilitonem meum vestrum autem Apostolum, &c. mittere ad vos. Hieron. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1., 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 Erat eo [...]um Apostolus ab Apostolo factus. Hil. Sard. Comment. in Ep. ad Philip. c. 2. v. 25., he was by the Apostle made the Apostle of the Philippians: which in his Language signifies, that he was their Bishop (w). And with him agrees Pacianus (x) and Theodoret (y) [Page] 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 Primi Ecclesiarum Curatores à Primariis Apostolis adlecti Apostoli dicti sunt. Hinc Paulo Philip. 2.25. Philippensium Apostolus Epaphroditus. Blond. Apolog. Sect. 2. p. 85. Vid. pl. p. 86, 87. 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 Sic Philippensium Apostolus à Paulo vocatus est Epaphroditus, ut ipse Paulus appellatus est Apostolus Gentium, & Petrus Apostolus Circumcisionis. Wal. Messal. cap. 1. p. 60. 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 (b), 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[Page]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 [Page] as well have urg'd, that for the same reason Letters Dimissory must have been Bishops also, because they were sometime commonly styled Apostles Dimissoriae Literae dicuntur quae vulgò Apostoli dicuntur. Digest. Lib. 50. Tit. 16. l. 106..

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 'tis 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 Gothofred. Comment in Cod. Theodos. tom. 6. p. 230, 231▪, 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 [Page] 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 [...]. Muneris mei Vicarium. Castell., 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 Phil. 4.18., 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 Dicit simpliciter. [...], mittere, inquam, non remittere. Wal. Messal. c. 2. p. 107., he was for that reason dignified with the highest Title that belong'd to any Officer in the Christian Church.

There is another reason for that Title, for S. Paul calls him his Brother My Brother, Philip. 2.35., in such a manner, as he does no man who was not his Colleague. He also calls him his Companion in labour, and his Fellow souldier: not for attending him doubtless in carrying Contributions [Page] from place to place; but because he was engaged with him in the same Spiritual Work of the Ministry.

I make no question, but it is he that is styled by S. Paul his Toke-fellow (i)Philip. 4.3.. And the word so translated (k) [...]., in Nonnus (l) [...]. Nonn. Metaphras. c. 14., signifies an Equal. In the Glossary of Philoxenus, and in the Vulgar Latin, 'tis render'd by Compar. And by Compar, says Reinesius (m)Compar, pro socio cujuscunque muneris & conditionis apud Plautum, Pseud. Act. 5. Sc. 3. v. 9. ubi servus conservum appellat comparem suum; & Vulgatus Ep. ad Philip. 4. v. 3. Interpres [...] rectè Compar germane, insinuans, collaboratorem & in eodem officio socium compellari ab Apostolo: Is verò Epaphroditus erat, &c. Reines. Syntag. Inscript. Antiq. p. 906., is meant a Fellow or Companion in any Office and Condition; and he shews, that so it is us'd in Plautus. This Learned Man also gathers from Phil. 4.3. compar'd with Chap. 2. v. 25. that the Apostle intimated, that Epaphroditus was his Colleague or Partner in the same Function: and if so, he was not only in Name, but in Reality an Apostle.

I am not ignorant, that in this Explication, I dissent from a Learned Author, who thinks it sounds too harsh, that Persons should be call'd Apostles of those from whom they had no Mission. But it should be consider'd, that the sense of words, of such especially as are Terms of Art, often [Page] varies from their original signification; so that we ought not to put such limits on their Interpretation, as are not consistent with their use. And certain it is, that when Apostles are mention'd under the relation they bear to any Church or People, they are said to be the Apostles of those by whom they were not sent(n)Vid. Wal. Messal. c. 1. p. 58, 59, 60.. They that are styled by Clemens Romanus (o) [...]. Clem. Ep. c. 44. p. 93. the Apostles of us, are not such, as deriv'd their Authority either from the Romans, in whose Name he writes; or from the Corinthians, to whom he directs his Epistle, but from Christ. The Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11.13. had not his Commission from them. The Apostles and Angels of the Churches, which I take to be of the same Order, were not their Messengers, but their principal Governors. So exactly does it agree with the Language of those Times, that he that was the Bishop of the Philippians, should be call'd their Apostle.

'Tis true, S. Paul salutes several Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1.1.. But these in the Syriack Version, as Mr. Selden tells us Selden. de Synedr. lib. 2. c. 7. p. 212., in the Arabick of Erpenius, are said to be Presbyters. And that they were no more than Presbyters, we are agreed. Many of the Fathers, particularly Jerom Hieron. t. 9. p. 197., Chrysostom Chrys. t. 4. p. 5., Theodoret [Page] Theod. t. 3. p. 323., and Oecumenius Oecumen. Comment. p. 655., had the same opinion of them; for which they give this reason, that of one City, there might be no more than one Prelatical Bishop. And for such a Bishop, we need not here be at a loss, having consider'd under what Character it was, that Epaphroditus was sent to the Philippians.

[Page]

CHAP. VII. Apostolical Authority was communicated to Timothy: who was Bishop of Ephesus.

WE have seen that the Name and Office of Apostles was confer'd on many that were not of the Twelve. I come now to shew, that there were others of the same Order, or to whom the same Authority was convey'd, who are not mention'd in Scripture under the denomination of Apostles. Such are Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Asiatick Churches, to which more may be added; but on these I chiefly insist.

That Apostolical or Episcopal Authority was communicated to Timothy may be collected from hence, that he had full Power of Ordination. This appears from the advice that was given him 1 Tim. 5.22., to lay hands suddenly on no man. That is, not to admit any into a Sacred Function, without a due examination. For so I interpret the words [Page] with Theodoret Theod. t. 3. p. 485., Photius Phot. Ep. 54. p. 109., and several others, both Ancient and Modern Writers. Some Learned Men, I know, put another sense on them, and by laying on of hands, understand the Absolution of Offenders from Ecclesiastical Censures: But I cannot find in Scripture, that the Reconciliation of Penitents to the Peace of the Church was perform'd by that Ceremony.

The Context leads us to the Exposition I have given: For in the precedent Verses the Apostle treats of Spiritual Officers. He speaks of the double honour or maintenance, which is due to those that rule well, and shews the reason of it. He speaks of the Complaints against others that are criminal, and of the publick Reproof and Censure of them. And to prevent the Scandal that results from the Miscarriages of such, he directs Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man: not to be too hasty in Ordaining of any, lest by his Precipitance, he should admit unworthy Persons into the Ministry, and partake with them in their sins. And from hence we may learn, what high trust was impos'd in him. For in the Church committed to his Care, the Admission of Persons into Ecclesiastical Offices, was wholly committed to him, and he was the sole Judge of their Qualifications.

[Page]There were many Presbyters where he resided, yet were they not joyn'd in Commission with him; and that they might not act as his Equals in the Administration of the Government, is manifest from hence, that it is not said by S. Paul to any of them, Against my Work-fellow whom I left amongst you, receive not an Accusation; but it was said to him, Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses, 1 Tim. 5.19. Which words plainly import the Office of a Judge. For, asMorin. de Ordinat. Par. 3. Exerc. 3. c. 3. p. 44. Morinus observes, from hence we may gather, that three things belong'd to Timothy, in which the Office of a Judge amongst the Romans was contain'd. He might grant an Action to those that petition'd for it, and prescribe the Form of it: He might sit upon examination of Matters in debate, and hear them pleaded; and he might determine them, by passing Sentence. Presbyters therefore, as well as others, being liable to his Sentence were subject to his Authority. And this the Apostle intimates, where he adjures him to be impartial in his proceedings with them, and not to be warpt by his affections or respect of persons, 1 Tim. 5.21.

We find not that any offending Presbyters were left in a condition to put in Exceptions against his Authority; or that, if [Page] they were rebuk'd by him before all, they might make the following Reply, We believe our Doctrine to be true, or know our Actions just; but if not, we are not accountable to you for them: for you, Sir, and we stand upon the same level: if therefore you would make us subject to your Censures, you take too much upon you, and usurp a Power to which you have no Right. Yet if some Modern Opinions had prevail'd and were well grounded, that Answer they might have given him, or they might have appeal'd from him, to their own Colleagues in the Consistory, or to their own private Congregations. But that no such thing could be done, is evident, because it would have rendred the Apostles Instructions useless and impertinent.

He had not only Power to correct and punish Miscarriages: He was also oblig'd to give suitable encouragement to the industrious. Let the Elders that rule well, says the Apostle, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. I know that the meaning of these words has been mightily controverted by dissenting Parties, and that they have been made a foundation by some for the establishment of such a sort of Officers, as before the last Age were never heard of in the Christian World: But though they [Page] yield no such Consequence as these men would draw from them, yet in my opinion, they may give some light to the matters before us, and afford us a Pattern of what was practis'd in the Primitive times. For,

1. All Presbyters were not then usually employ'd in labouring in the Word and Doctrine; as will be manifest to any that will but consult what Mr. Le Moyne Observat. ad Ep. Polycarp. p. 35, 36. has written on this Subject, and the Authorities mention'd by him. But there was no reason to fear, that the people should want Instruction, when the Bishop, who preach'd himself, had many Presbyters under him, and employ'd some in teaching, some in administring the Sacraments, some in visiting the Sick, and comforting the Weak and Afflicted, some in enquiring into Scandals, and assisting in the Affairs of Government. And the Inconveniencies that might arise from Emulation, if every one had been Judge in his own Cause, were best avoided by the Authority of the Bishop who assign'd Work and Encouragement to them suitable to their several Capacities.

2. In the Primitive Times the Bishop was intrusted with the Goods of the Church Vid. Canon. Apost. 38. & 41. Cyprian. Ep. 5. p. 10. Edit. Oxon., and out of the Contributions that were made [Page] to him, he appointed subordinate Officers to supply the Wants of private Christians. He was also obliged to make provision out of the same for his Clergy. And for this, Timothy was a Precedent, whose duty it was, to take care that the Labourer should have his Reward, and that the Elders, who rul'd well, should receive double honour, or a double portion out of the Publick Stock. They depended on him therefore for their maintenance, as well as in the exercise of their Function.

But that the force of what I have argued from the Pre-eminence and Power of Timothy, may the better appear, I am desirous, his Case may be compar'd with the following Instance, in which we are alike disinteressed. Nicocles was advis'd by Isocrates Vid. Isocrat. Nicocl. p. 38, 40, 44. Ed. Basil. 1587 to confer Honors on the most deserving, and to commit the management of Affairs to Men of worth, as knowing, that the Miscarriages of those that were in such a station, would be imputed to him. He was also advis'd to take cognizance of Complaints, and to judge indifferently, according to the Merits of the Cause between contending Parties. And this was enough to satisfie any one that had never heard the Name of Nicocles, and knew nothing of his Character, that he had the Administration of Government; [Page] and that the persons about whom he receiv'd this counsel, were his Subjects. In like manner, when we reflect on the direction that was given to Timothy concerning the Ordination of Ministers, and the danger he incurr'd, if he did not observe it; when we also consider how he was requir'd to proceed, if an Action were brought before him against a Presbyter, and what Care he was oblig'd to take of the Elders that ruled well, we have reason to conclude, that they were not his Equals, but under his Inspection and Authority.

That Timothy had Episcopal Authority, is manifest, I think, from what has been said: and that he was Bishop of Ephesus, appears from hence, that there he resided 1 Tim. 1.3., that he might exercise his Apostolical Power in such manner as we have seen, and that he might charge some, who were persons doubtless that had Right to preach the Gospel, to teach no other Doctrine. The Apostle intended not, as M. Daille observes Exposition de la 1. Epître à Timothée, p. 40., that he should act feebly with those that were so bold, as to corrupt a thing so important: He does not say, that he should pray or exhort them, or that he should remonstrate to them, or simply that he should conjure them, not to depart from the truth. He uses a term that implies more vigour, and requires him to denounce [Page] [...]. to them, that they teach no other Doctrine than the Apostles did. For to denounce, is to act with Authority, in the Name, and instead of another, whose Person one sustains, or whose Minister he is, and with a Menace of Punishment to the disobedient. And from hence, says our Author D'où paroît, que Timothée avoit été laissé dans l'Eglise d'Ephese avec Authorité de la gouverner & d'en censurer & deposer même les Predicateurs. p. 41. it appears, that Timothy was left by S. Paul in the Church of Ephesus, with Authority to govern it, and to censure and depose even Preachers themselves. And if so, I think, we may safely conclude, that they were under his Jurisdiction, notwithstanding any thing this Learned Man added for the service of his Hypothesis.

What I have said of the Office of Timothy fully agrees with the Sentiments of the Ancients. For by some of them, he is styl'd an Apostle Vid. Hieronym. Chronic. A. D. 357. Theodoret. t. 3. p. 474. Salvian. de Gubernat. Dei, l. 1. p. 10. & Ep. 9. p. 210. Ed. Baluz.: by some a Bishop Vid. Ambros. sive Hilar. in 1. Tim. 3.8. Epiphan. Haeres. 75. n. 5. Chrys. t. 4. p. 5. Theophylact. in 1 Tim. 4.14., and both meant the same thing. Others speak more plainly, and say, that he was Bishop of Ephesus Vid. Anonym. apud Phot. Cod. 254. Col. 1404. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 4. p. 73. Pallad. Dialog. de vit. Chrysostom. p. 114. Ed. Bigot. Oecumen. ili 1 Tim. 1.3.: and of this Belief generally were the Fathers.

Nevertheless, against that which they so universally receiv'd, you produce several Objections, [Page] and refer me for more to Mr. Prynne, whose Treatise intitled The Ʋnbishopping of Timothy and Titus Edit. 1661. &c. came lately to my hands; and now I am able to tell you, that he is a very promising Author. He pretends that he has refuted the Arguments for Episcopacy, taken from the examples of Timothy and Titus, in an irrefragable manner Ep. Ded. p. 28., and that he hath shaken the rotten pillars, and undermin'd the sandy foundations of the high towring Hierarchy, and left it without any divine prop, to support it longer Ibid. p. 24.. This work he dedicates to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, proposing to them two things Ep. Ded. p. 2. one of which he modestly leaves to their choice. 1. He challenges them to give him a speedy, solid, satisfactory answer, which must be pretty difficult, if, as he tells them, he had made it manifest, that their founding their Prelacy on a Divine Right (on which grounds only they were willing to continue in their station) was a mere absurd ridiculous fiction. 2. In defect of this, he requires them to relinquish their places, and not any more to advance themselves above their Fellow-Ministers Ibid.. And for this demand, there might have been some reason, had he demonstrated every thing of which he boasts so confidently, with as much certainty, as he hath from abundance of [Page] Quotations and Examples both foreign and domestick Ibid. p. 13, 14, 5, &c., that Bishops may dye of the Plague, as well as other Folk, notwithstanding their Rochets, Miters, Crofiers Ibid. p. 13., to the confusion of those arrogant Prelates that think otherwise. But I was soon convinced that no great matter was to be expected from him: for, not far from the beginning of his Treatise, he argues that Timothy was no Bishop, because he was a Novice Unbishop. p. 6.: so he supposes he must needs be, who was a young man P. 5.. Yet afterwards he expresly acknowledges, that he was a Bishop P. 25.; 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 P. 2., 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 P. 6., 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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 Unbishop. p. 2.: He is in direct terms call'd an Evangelist, say the Assembly of Divines Jus Divin. Minist. Angl. par. 2. p. 68., and that he was so, says Smectymnuus, is clear from the Letter of the Text Sm [...]c. p. 48., 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.

'Tis true, Timothy was admonish'd to do the work of an Evangelist, but this he might, and yet be no Evangelist. Daniel did the [Page] work of the King (a) [...]. Dan. 8.27., and yet was no King. The Levites did the work of all Israel (b) [...], &c. Numb. 8.19., yet were they not all Israel. And Timothy, who, as M. Prynne says truly, was a Partner with S. Paul in the Apostleship (c)He worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do, 1 Cor. 16.10., 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 (d)Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 37. p. 109. Edit. Vales., 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 (e)See Acts 19.8, 9, 10. & 20.31. Qua est Ephesi Ecclesiae à Paulo quidem fundata. Iren. a [...] vers. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 234.. I conclude therefore, that the word Evangelist in this Verse ought to be [Page] 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 P. 45..

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 [Page] 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 Acts 8.; 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 See the History of Ethiopia, by Ludolphus. B. 3. c. 2. 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 Ibid. c. 7., 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 [Page] 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 Clem. Ep. p. 42., 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 P. 26.. On this Mr. Prynne also insists, and calls it an infallible Argument P. 2.. 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; [Page] because that Name is not ascribed to them in any part of Scripture. The truth is, if we must always use the words of Scripture, and no other, in treating of Religious or Ecclesiastical Affairs, all Translations of it ought to be rejected. It should be read to the People only in the Original, and Sermons should be made to them in Greek and Hebrew, which I suppose would not be much for their Edification.

You farther urge, that Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus, because the stay he made there, was only upon the desire of the Apostle, and did not arise from the duty of his place P. 26.. But what if he first took on him the peculiar Charge of the Church of Ephesus immediately after S. Paul besought him to remain there, could he not be a Bishop of it, unless he was under an antecedent obligation to that Residence? or if he did it before (which is improbable) might he not be exhorted to the performance of a thing which was incumbent on him by his Office? The Apostle, you know, beseeches the Romans to present their Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God Rom. 12.1.. He beseeches the Corinthians to speak the same thing 1 Cor. 1.10.. He beseeches the Thessalonians to walk worthy of God 1 Thess. 2.11, 12., and Buodias and Syntiche to be of the same mind [Page] in the Lord Phil. 4.2.. And from these instances it is manifest, that things may be duties on another account, when he makes them the matter of his Exhortation.

You fancy however that Timothy could be no standing Officer at Ephesus, because, as you tell me, his stay and business there are limited to the Apostles return P. 26.: for which you quote 1 Tim. 1.3. compar'd with Chap. 3. v. 14.15. Chap. 4. v. 13. And this gives me occasion to shew,

1. That where S. Paul acquaints Timothy with his hopes to see him at Ephesus 1 Tim. 3.14, 15., he speaks as under some uncertainty, for being acted by the Holy Ghost, says Theoophylact Theoph. in loc. citat., he knew not whither that would carry him. Theodoret Theod. in loc. dict. observes, that however the Spirit reveal'd to the Divine Prophets and Apostles whatever was expedient, yet did they not foresee all things. And it was as consistent with the Dignity of S. Paul, not certainly to foresee, whether he should visit Timothy or not, as to be doubtful concerning the time of his coming, when he had this in his hopes. These things, says he, write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the house of God. Some necessary [Page] cause might detain him, besides his expectation [...]. Theodoret. t. 3. p. 477.: and it doth not appear, that he took any Journey to Ephesus, after the writing of this Epistle.

2. When he says, Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine 1 Tim. 4.13., This does not signifie, that if he did come to Timothy, his attendance on these things must then cease, or his work be at an end: But the Apostle might think by such an admonition, to excite his diligence, when he was absent from him: or else he might hereby intimate, that when he saw him, he would communicate to him farther Instructions.

3. When the second Epistle was sent to Timothy, he was neither remov'd from his Authority, nor the place where he resided, when the first was written See Dr. Lightfoot's Harmony of the N. T. An. 59.. For in several passages of both Epistles, the same Rules of Discipline are given him. He is advis'd in both to avoid the same Errors and Miscarriages, and warn'd against the same persons. Hymeneus and Alexander are mention'd in both under marks of Infamy 1 Tim. 1.19.20. 2 Tim. 2.17. & 4, 14.; and this last, is that Alexander who was drawn out by the multitude when the Tumult was at Ephesus. Acts [Page] 19.33. 'Tis likewise observable, that in the second Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 4. v. 19. the Apostle salutes Prisca and Aquila, whom he left formerly at Ephesus, Acts 18.19. He also salutes the houshold of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4.19., who ministred unto him whilst he was at Ephesus, as Timothy knew very well, 2. Tim. 1.18.

Yet says Smectymnuus, to whom you refer me, Paul was so far from setling Timothy at Ephesus, that he rather continually sent him up and down: for which they quote 1 Thess. 3.1, 2. Acts 18.5. & 19.22. & 20.4. You also tell me P. 26., that we find Timothy as an Itinerant Officer often going from place to place upon occasion: and from hence you would infer, that he was not a Bishop. But there is no sufficient ground for any such Consequence, as may appear if it be consider'd,

1. That Presbyters and Deacons were sometimes engaged in Travels, and that without any loss of their Character. Philip was appointed at Jerusalem to serve tables Acts. 6.; yet he did not relinquish his Office, but remain'd one of the Seven, when he went down to Samaria Acts 8.5., and when he was at Caesarea C. 21.8.. And I know nothing in Scripture, that confines Bishops perpetually [Page] within their own Dioceses, or Limits their absence from them to a certain number of Days or Miles. Ordinarily indeed, they are obliged to reside where their peculiar Charge is: yet great occasions, and their care for the publick good may sometimes call them thence. And diligent as they ought to be to instruct and govern that part of the Church which is assign'd to them, they may not forget the relation they bear to the whole. Primis Ecclesiae temporibus, says a Learned Man Casaub. Excercit. 14. ad Annal. Baron. n. 4., omnes Episcopi praeter peculiarem curam propriae sibi Ecclesiae, in solidum sibi commissam, ut loquitur Cyprianus, etiam universam, suo quodam modo curabant. These are the words of Casaubon, and Alstedius Alsted. Supplem. l. 4. c. 1. was so affected with them, that he hath transcribed them into his Supplement of Chamier's Panstratia, and about two hundred lines more verbatim, all very near together, without any mention of the Author, being willing, it seems, that they should pass for his own.

2. The Journeys mention'd in the Smectymnuan Objection, were taken before Timothy was requested to remain at Ephesus, as may be gather'd from hence, that S. Paul left him there, when he went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3.: But this could not be the first time of his [Page] going thither; for then Timothy was a Companion of his Travels See Acts 16.9, 10., and 'tis probable that he had not been yet at Ephesus. Neither was it the second time: for he had then sent Timothy before him into Macedonia Acts 19.22., where afterwards they were both together See 2 Cor. 7.5. & 8.1. & 9.2. & 1.1.. Nor yet the third; for then to avoid the Conspiracy of the Jews, he return'd in great haste from Achaia to Macedonia See Acts 20.3, 4, 5.; and departing thence, Timothy, who waited for him at Troas, attended on him to Jerusalem. And from these reasons which I have briefly mention'd, but which Bishop Pearson Opp. Posthum. Chronolog. Dissert. 1. c. 9. Sect. 5. hath fully illustrated and confirm'd, we may conclude, that Timothy was not desir'd by S. Paul to remain at Ephesus before this Apostle was brought to Rome: nor till after he had written his Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, and the Hebrews Vid. Annal Paulin. p. 12, 13, 15, 20.. What account therefore soever of the Travels of Timothy may be collected from any of those Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles, it is consistent enough with his setled Residence in his Diocese, when the Church of Ephesus was committed to his Administration.

I do not remember any other material Objection against what I have said concerning this subject. So that I make no doubt still to affirm, that Timothy was an Ordinary Pastor [Page] of the Church; and thus much in effect is acknowledged by some Learned Presbyterians, who say he was the first Presbyter or President of the Presbytery. And if they would allow such Presidents as have the full Power of Ordination, which he had Presidents with Authority equal to his, and which, as Cameron gathers from 1 Tim. 5.19 Timothei autoritas major suit quam ut [...] ejus officium dici possit. Camer. 1. Tim. 4.14., was greater than was consistent with the Office of other Presbyters. Presidents that are so for life, as Ludovicus Cappellus Primatus ille non fuit annuus, vel menstruus, aut hebdomarius, ac per vices sed perpetuus, sive uti loquuntur ad vitam, &c. Thes. Salmur. par. 3. p 322. thinks, they originally were: Then, if they please, they may call them Presidents still, and I shall not contend about the Name, if we are agreed about the Thing.

But since you and many others have not made the Concessions I have mention'd, I shall farther prove, that the Office of Timothy was such as I have describ'd, by the following Arguments.

1. If it had been intended that the Authority committed to Timothy and others of his Rank should be temporary, either this may appear from the nature of the thing, or it might have been expected that we should [Page] have had some notice of it in the Scripture. For if we may take the liberty, without any grounds to fasten on it the Title of Temporary or Extraordinary, we may by the same means soon put an end to any Constitutions whatsover. But there is nothing in the nature of this Authority, that may hinder its continuance: nothing in the Scripture that declares it to be abrogated: We may conclude therefore, that as it is fit to be continued, so it was design'd to be so in all succeeding times.

2. We have no reason to believe, that S. Paul would alter his own Constitutions without a cause; or that, without any necessity, he would put the Government of a Church into a new Model, and divert the Course of Discipline from that Channel in which it ought to run in all Ages. If therefore he sent Timothy as an Extraordinary Commissioner to interpose in the Affairs of Ephesus, we may suppose this to have been either, 1. Because there was some Extraordinary Work, which none but Extraordinary Officers could perform: or, 2. Because there were no Ministers at Ephesus, or such only as were unfit for Government: But neither of these can well be imagin'd: Not the first, for the Work was no other than what hath [Page] or might have been perform'd by Bishops ever since: Not the second, for there were Presbyters at Ephesus of eminent Gifts, such as the Holy Ghost had made Overseers See Acts 20.28.. It seems improbable then, that these were constituted Supreme Standing Rulers of the Church, or that the Work for which they were so well qualified, was so soon taken out of their hands. Particularly it seems improbable, either that they had the Power of Ordination, or that it would have been transfer'd from them to a Stranger, who came to visit them, but was not of their number, and that without any ground or reason given, or any notice taken of them, as concern'd in the matter.

Flaminius did a thing acceptable to the Greeks, when he gave them permission to live after their own Laws: But if he had afterwards sent amongst them some Governour with Power and Commission to overrule and controul their Magistrates, and to disturb that Polity which had been established by his Concession, by such Changes and Turns of Affairs he would have introduc'd and encouraged great Irregularities, and put his former Admirers upon upbraiding his Levity, or questioning his Veracity. And let us now suppose, if you please, that such Elders were constituted by S. Paul [Page] at Ephesus, as were inabled and obliged to perform the highest Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority, as Supreme Ordinary Pastors, and were design'd also to be a Pattern for following Ages: Let us farther suppose, that an Officer Extraordinary had afterwards been left amongst them with Commission from that Apostle to alter the measures they had taken, and to suspend the exercise of a principal part of their Function, by taking it wholly to himself, and that without any Miscarriage laid to their Charge; you may easily perceive what Reflections this might have occasioned, and that such Proceedings would have been so far from setting things in order, that, one has reason to think, they would have put them into greater confusion.

3. If such eminent Presbyters as were at Ephesus, and a Church so flourishing as that of Ephesus was, had a Governour put over them, this ought not to be esteemed an extraordinary thing; for doubtless other Presbyters and Churches, whose Exigences were greater, had so too. And if such a Subordination of Officers was necessary when the Apostles were alive, I cannot imagine why an end should afterwards be put to it, when there was more occasion of it than ever.

[Page]Some of the most Learned Opposers of Episcopacy, grant, that Timothy and others of his Rank, govern'd Churches with the same Plenitude of Power, as Bishops afterwards did; who, as they say, were rais'd in the second Century for the Cure of Schism. But if, in the common sense of Christians, Prelacy was useful to that purpose, as 'tis supposed, this must have obliged them to preserve it, when it had been introduced amongst them by such as were directed by the Spirit of God: and it could be no great Argument of their Wisdom, if they laid aside that which was of Divine Original, and were very shortly afterwards put upon contriving, how to restore it by a Humane Invention.

4. It seems very improbable, that the Apostle should write two Epistles to Timothy, only to direct him in the temporary Administration of the Affairs of a Place, where he was only to make a transient Visit. But if from the Examples we have of Presbyters, and the Rules that are laid down for them in Scripture, we may gather, that such ought to be continued: Then may we also conclude, from the Example of Timothy, from the Authority he had, and the Rules that were given to him for the [Page] exercise of it, and which are of perpetual use, that the Office with which he was vested, ought to be preserv'd in the Church till the end of the World.

5. As we learn from the Scripture, that Timothy resided at Ephesus, so it may something confirm what I have said of his relation to that Place, if there he ended his days. And this is what is testified by Sophronius (s)Sophron. in Catalog., who tells us, that there he gloriously suffer'd Martyrdom: But more fully by an Ancient Writer in Photius (t)Phot. Cod. 254., who acquaints us, that he was put to death at the detestable Festival called the Catagogium, which he would have abrogated.

6. After his death we find Onesimus in his Place, who is said to be Bishop of Ephesus by Ignatius (u)Ignat. Ep. ad Ephis. p. 17, 18. his Co-temporary, and by whom he is represented as a Person of admirable Charity, and a Worthy Pattern and great Blessing to his Flock. Polycrates was another of his Successors (w)Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c.22. & 24., and it were easie to reckon many more. If therefore your Standard of [Page] 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 'tis in vain to advance little Conjectures against plain Matter of Fact.

[Page]

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 Rom. 16.21. 1 Cor. 16.1 [...]. 1 Thess. 3.2. 2 Cor. 2.13. & 8.23., 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 P. 46., 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[Page]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 [...], &c. Matth. 24.45., 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 [...], &c. Acts 7.10., 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, [Page] 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 Tit. 2.15.. That is, says Beza Cum omni imperio: id est, cum Auctoritate summâ non simpliciter monendi, vel exhortandi, vel suadendi, sed praecipiendi, tanquam Dei Legatus. Bez. in locum., with the highest Authority, as an Ambassador of God: and to let no man despise him: which last advice [Page] 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 Digest. l. 1. Tit. 19. l. 19., 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 See 1 Tim. 1.3. Titus 1.11. Rev. 2.14, 15, 16.20. 1 Tim. 5.20. 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 [Page] 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 Tit. 3.10. 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. [Page] 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 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 [Page] 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 P. 45., 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 [Page] 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 Vid. Theod. c. 3. p. 986, 987., 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 Vid. Sozomen. H. E. l. 6. c. 21. & l. 7. c. 19., 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 Hi qui Ordinationis nunc habent potestatem (qui nunc nominantur Episcopi) non unius Ecclesiae creabantur Episcopi, sed Provincias integras eo tempore regebant, Apostolorum nomine nuncupati. Rab. Maur. in 1 Tim. 4.14., Bishops govern'd whole Provinces under the Name of Apostles; or when Titus remain'd in Crete. For then 'tis 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, [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] 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 Act. 21▪8., and yet he wanted Power, either to Confirm those that were Baptiz'd, or to Ordain Officers, by Imposition of Hands See Act. 8.. 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, [Page] 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, 'tis 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 Vid. Pearson. ubi supra, p. 77, 78, 79.; That he died there, as we are inform'd by Paulinus Creta Titum sibi sumpsit, Paulin. Poem. 27. p. 169. and Sophronius (q): [Page] 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 [Page] Church, preserving these Epistles, as of constant and perpetual Ʋse, did thereby suppose the same kind of Office to continue; for the sake whereof, those excellent Epistles were written: And we have no greater Assurance that these Epistles were by S. Paul, than we have, that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the Care and Government of the Churches.

[Page]

CHAP. IX. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches.

WHat Timothy was at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, that were the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. in their several Dioceses: They govern'd the seven Churches of Asia with Apostolical or Episcopal Authority.

This is what you oppose, and one might therefore have expected from you another Account of them, to which you would adhere; but you fix upon nothing, a practice very common amongst many that are engaged with you in the same work, who combine indeed in their attempts against the Truth, but without any steady Principles, and in great confusion.

Amongst the rest, the Assembly of Divines tell us Jus Divin. Minist. Evang. par. 2. p. 75., that these Titles of Angels are Mysterious and Metaphorical, and that it cannot not be safe or solid to build on them the structure[Page]of Episcopacy. And yet they are not of the mind of the old Alogians, who derided the Revelation of S. John Epiphan. Haeres. 51. n. 32., saying, of what advantage is it, that he talks of seven Angels, and of seven Trumpets? They affirm, that this Book is of singular use to Christians to the end of the world Argument before their Annot. on the Revelations.. They have also furnished us with Annotations on it, such as they are; and particularly without any he sitation, they give their Interpretation of this expression, which yet they would have us believe, is so Mysterious and Obscure.

As for their Argument, that Symbolical Theology is not Argumentative, it is no farther to be admitted, than as it signifies, that Parables and Figures are not to be stretched beyond the plain intention of any Author: But if no determinate sense can be gather'd from them, this would make a great part of the Holy Scriptures useless to us, and leave us mightily in the dark concerning the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which yet the Reformed think, and that with good reason, they clearly apprehend. Yet after all, we do not read of the Mystery of the Angels, but of the Seven Stars, of which the Angels are the explication, and therefore must be suppos'd to be intelligible: And indeed there seems to be no difficulty in this, but what has been created by those [Page] that would amuse us with exceptions, that they may find some way to escape.

You pretend not to have any certainty that the Title of these Angels was Metaphorical. For what, say you P. 48., if by the Name of an Angel, an Angel properly so call'd should be understood? Should this be so, then farewel to any ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels. And should it not be so, you are not unprovided of other shifts: but if they succeed no better than this, the Diocesans are safe enough. For to your Quaere 'tis easie to reply, that these Angels of the Churches could not be Celestial Spirits, unless we may believe, that one of those Spirits was faln and summon'd to repentance: that another of them had a name to live, but was dead: and that a third was wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: which, I think, is sufficiently absurd. But the Revelation, you tell me, goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel; and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations, and in such a manner, that what refers to the Nations, or to their Governours, is said of the Angels themselves. Which signifies nothing to the purpose, unless you were able to shew, that to charge the Blessed Angels with the sins of men, and call them to [Page] Reformation of Life hath a Congruity with the Prophetick Scheme of Daniel, or with the nature of those holy Beings, who are so constant and chearful in their obedience to the Divine Will.

Walo Messalinus C. 4. p. 184. and some others affirm, that these Angels were the Churches themselves: and to comply with them, we must believe that the Angels of the Churches were the Churches of the Churches (x)Vid. usser. Armachan. Dissert. praefix. Polycarp. & Ignat. Epist. c. 18. which, I think, is no good sense. Grotius reflecting on their Exposition does justly charge it with a manifest contradicting of the Holy Scripture (y)Grot. de Imp. Sum. Potest. C. 11. Sect. 6. p. 343., which declares that The Candlesticks are the Churches, and that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. But Whither, says he, may not men be drawn by an itch of contradiction when they dare confound those things, which the Spirit of God does so plainly distinguish? Yet I deny not that the Instructions, which did immediatly relate to the Angels were communicated by the Spirit, not only to them, but to the Churches also: it being fit that both should be made sensible how their Duty and Interest were combin'd; and encourage one another in the performance of [Page] the things enjoin'd, and in carrying on the work of Reformation with the greater vigour and application.

If these Angels were neither Celestial Spirits, nor the Churches of Asia themselves; it cannot be imagin'd that they were any thing else but the Pastors of those Churches. Yet this being suppos'd, some question has been made about their number, which is omitted, says Smectymnuus, not without some mystery, lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company. This you call a Critical nicety. But I take it to be a prophane abuse of the Holy Scripture under a pretence of discovering a Mystery. 'Tis said expresly in Scripture that the seven Stars are the Angels: there were therefore just so many Angels as there were Stars. The Churches also were seven, and every Church had its distinct and peculiar Angel; and if any, notwithstanding this, deny that the number of the Angels and Churches was equal, they seem not in a capacity to be convinced of any thing by the clearest demonstration.

As for the conceit, that every Angel was a Company, it is inconsistent with the Scripture; for the Angels are not called Constellations but seven Stars. And says Suidas, [...]. [Page] [...]. Yet if these words sometimes happen to be us'd promiscuously, we ought not however to depart from their genuine and usual signification without necessity.

Such a necessity there is not here, for an Angel no more properly signifies a Colledge of Angels than a man signifies a Troop or a Corporation. Nor are the descriptions of the several Angels applicable to a multitude, unless we will suppose that all the Elders of the respective Societies deserv'd the same particular reproof or commendation, which hath not the least shadow of Truth.

We read indeed, that the strong Cattel before whom Jacob placed his Rods generally brought forth the speckled or ringstraked, and this we impute to a Miracle, and question not the thing, because it is related by Moses in the Book of Genesis Gen. 30. But what should make all the Presbyters of each of the seven Churches have the same particular perfections or defects; the same ornaments of mind, or stains and blemishes, I cannot imagine. I am sure no such thing is reveal'd in Scripture, nor hath it any probability.

Yet I deny not that amongst the things that are written to the Angels, there are some instructions mingled, in which others are immediatly [Page] concern'd Rev. 2.10, 24., and to whom they are addressed. And from hence Smectymnuus and the Assembly of Divines argue, that every Angel must be understood collectively. But they might have consider'd that sometimes in the Holy Scripture, discourses begun with one are diverted to many; and with many, to one; and that without any artificial transition. For example, S. Paul in the fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Philippians, ver. 3. writes thus, I intreat thee Yoke fellow. And he concludes his second Epistle to Timothy with these words; The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you; And one might as well infer from hence, that the Philippians were a single person, and Timothy a multitude, as conclude from the like instance, that every Angel of the several Asiatick Churches was a Presbytery.

We have seen, that these Angels were men, and not Celestial Spirits. We have also seen, that they were seven individual Pastours, and not so many Collective Bodies. I farther add that they were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Ministers within their own Precincts, and that constantly, as Bishops of their respective Churches.

[Page]1. These Angels were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Ministers in their several Churches. This is granted by Beza Vid. Bez. Annot. in Apoc. 2.1. and some other learned Presbyterians, and the thing is manifest. For if all the Presbyters in these Churches had been Angels alike or without any difference in Dignity or Order, doubtless they would have born the same Title, and then to have directed an Epistle to any of them under the name of Angel, would have been to as little purpose as to have dispatched away another Letter with no other Inscription but this, To a Senatour of Rome; in both which cases no particular person would have thought himself concern'd.

2. These Angels receiv'd not their Office with condition that they should resign it before death, or shortly be degraded from it; but they constantly retain'd their praeeminence. The Christians did not distinguish their Ordinary Officers, as, some Antiquaries observe Vid. Octav. Falconer. Inscript. Athlet. p. 39.40. Ez. Spanhem. de Praestant. Numism. p. 696, 697, 698. Henrici Noris Cenotaph. Pisan. Dissert. 1. p. 72, 73. Johan. Harduin. Num. Antiq. Illustrat. p. 84.400, 401., the Heathens did their Priests, into such as were Temporary and such as were Perpetual or for Life; For none of them were Temporary, but they were all obliged [Page] constantly to remain in their Station unless any of them were Deposed for their Offences, or advanced into a higher Order. The Dignity, therefore, or Authority of these Angels was not limited to a certain number of days or years, but was communicated to them with a design that it should be continued in their persons. And that it was so may be gather'd also from hence, that there were Duties prescrib'd in the Epistles that were directed to them, which could not be perform'd but in their constant exercise of the same Function.

This is different from the account which is given of them by Beza: for having suppos'd they were no more than Presidents of the Presbyteries without Authority over them, he goes on to suppose that the Office of Presidents was Ambulatory, passing from one Presbyter to another in a circular motion. He tragically complains that it became fixed: For from hence, he says Bez. in Apocal. 2.1., The Oligarchical Tyranny the Top of which is the Antichristian Beast, had its original, to the destruction, not of the Church only, but of the World. Here is a heavy Charge, you see, at which however one need not be concern'd, for the load falls on a Chimera of his own; His Presidents, I mean, that had no Being in or near the time he speaks of. Yet if [Page] they had any existence before their late establishment, he produces nothing to prove, that they took their turns in this manner he describes, but groundless Conjectures.

He was under such fear that Presidents or First Presbyters might grow up into Bishops or Oligarchical Tyrants, that he would allow them no long continuance in their Station. For 'tis probable, he thinks (e)Hebdomadicam hanc [...] fuisse probahile est. Bez. Vid. Sarav. de divers. Minist. grad. p. 338., that their Administration expir'd every week. And since he would have it so, he should have inform'd us, whether all that is said to have been done by the Angels, which with him are First Presbyters, or all that is prescrib'd to them, was or could be perform'd within the compass of a week: and if not, how it was applicable to them, when they had shifted their places, and were not consider'd under their former Title; Or rather, whether the Epistles were not addressed to the Angels for the time being: and if so, how it came to pass, that the same actions are ascrib'd to all that were successively placed in the same Chair. If he had consider'd these things, he had never troubled the world with his absurd conceit of Circular Presidents or weekly Moderators.

[Page]3. These Angels were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches. For if they were distinguished from all other Ministers in their several Dioceses by their Eminence and that Constantly: we have reason to think it was rather after the manner of Prelates, who are acknowledged by the Adversaries of Episcopacy to have govern'd the Church in the following and succeeding Ages, than as meer Presidents, in Beza's sense, of which there are no examples within a thousand years.

Mr. Prynne's attempt to Ʋnbishop them answers the rest of his performances. He says, as many of his Brethren have also done, that Ordinary Presbyters are Angels, and this he proves from Rev. 1. 20. P. 124. the sense of which is the thing in question: and in his usual way of Rhetorick he condemns the contrary Opinion as a Crazy conceit of a proud Episcopal brain P. 128.. He hath advanced another assertion which is a little surprizing, and in which I presume You will hardly concur with him: He tells us, 'Tis evident beyond contradiction that the Angels of God are all equal in Order, Power, Dignity, Office, Degree, Ministry P. 133.. And this, he says, is an unanswerable evidence of the equality of Ministers by Divine institution. He also informs [Page] us, that Angels, being ministring Spirits, have no need of Lordships, Mannors or Possessions: and hence he takes occasion to express his indignation against the Prelates for their Palaces, Mannors, Lordships, Possessions, Miters, Rochets, Vestments. His Book abounds with such stuff as this, which moves one to pity rather than expose his weakness. Yet it was fit some notice should be taken of it, for the sake of those, that, to the prejudice of the truth, still have his person in admiration.

But I return to the Proposition from which he diverted me: and which I think may be thus confirm'd.

1. If these Pastours that are called Angels were only so styled, as they were Presidents of the several Presbyteries, then were they the Angels of the Presbyteries, but not of the Churches; which is directly contrary to what is said of them in the Holy Scripture.

2. They are said to be the seven Stars in Our Lords Right Hand ver. 16. which signifies that they had such Dignity and Power as were not ascrib'd to any other Officers in their respective Churches: and if so, there is no question but our Saviour approv'd [Page] their Function, and would support those that were so near him in the discharge of it.

3. They were called Angels in allusion to the practice of the Jews, who attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel. For of him, I suppose, Solomon speaks, where he says, Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou before the Angel it was an error. Eccl. 5.6. I cannot think that Solomon here advis'd a person that had bound himself by a Vow, not to make this speech before the Messiah or any Ministring Spirits (as some Interpreters conceive) or not to attempt to delude with words any invisible Beings. It may seem he was in no danger of that: But the Royal Preacher gives him caution that he should not satisfie himself, if, by his excuses, he could impose on the High Priest, who was obliged to take cognizance of his Vows Levit. 5.4, 5, 6., but to remember that God would be an Avenger of the falshood, that was acted before his Vicegerent, however it was cover'd with the greatest art.

That Exposition and what I infer from it, may be confirm'd from the 42d. Chapter of Isaiah ver. 19. where we find this expostulation, Who is deaf as my Messenger [...] Sym [...]. ach.? But the the Original may well be rendred, who is [Page] deaf as my Angel? And this doubtless was not an Angel of Light: nor can an inspir'd Prophet be thought so stupid as the person was, against whom that complaint was made. His Character is not so applicable to any as the High Priest, whose duty indeed it was to understand the Will of God and instruct others: but at that time, it seems, himself had great need of admonition, which yet he was in no readiness to receive.

The like use of the word we meet with in Malac. 2.7. For I make no question, but what the Prophet speaks there of the Priest, is to be understood of the High Priest, or, that it is he who is styled the Angel [...]. LXX. of the Lord of Hosts, at whose mouth the people were required to seek the Law. And it may seem that the High Priests were not only called Angels, whilst they were inabled as the Messengers of the Almighty to reveal his mind by Ʋrim and Thummim, but after the period to which the Cessation of these Oracles is assign'd by Josephus (m)Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 8. himself. For Diodorus Siculus (n) [...]. Diod. Sic. apud Phot. Cod. 244. Col. 1153. speaking of the Jews and their High Priest, says, They esteem him an Angel to convey to them the commands of God.

[Page]And from what has been said, I collect, that there was an Analogy between the Jewish High Priest, and every Angel of the Asiatick Churches; that both of them were Governours in Chief, and had their subordinate Officers, and that the Presbyters and Deacons were subject to the one as the Priests and Levites were to the other.

But, say you P. 48., Should it be yielded that the Jews had any such practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High Priest, what could this amount to in our case, since every Bishop is not a High Priest in the sense of the Jews? For in their sense there could be but one, and then that one amongst the Christians must be a Pope. And to the Pope you would do no small service, if you may be permitted to make Inferences for him from this Analogy; for you stretch it as far as he desires, and beyond what is consistent with Scripture and the common sense of Christians in the best Ages; with both which it agrees, that there should be one Bishop in a Diocese, resembling the High Priest within the bounds of his Jurisdiction. Farther than this, the similitude may not be extended, unless it be said, that as there is but one Catholick Church, which is the Mystical Israel, so Mystically there is but one Bishop. For all the Bishops were anciently [Page] esteem'd as one; and what was done by one in the due exercise of his Office, was esteem'd the Act of the whole Colledge. A Notion that supposes an equality of all Bishops in their Office and Authority, and consequently is so far from affording any advantage to the Popes, that it directly opposes their pretences, and has sometimes been us'd, to very good purpose, to prevent their Usurpations and check their Ambition.

4. The Epistles directed to these Angels are such as suppose them to have had Jurisdiction over all others, both Ministers and People, within their respective Dioceses: And on this it is that I principally insist.

Our Lord, says Arethas Areth. in Apoc. 1.20. p. 661, 662. does by the Angel treat with the Church, as if by the Master a person should discourse of one that is under his Government: knowing that the Master is wont to esteem those things as his own which are done by his Scholars, whether they were worthy of honour or reproach. But he might have added, that a Master could then only justly be charged with the irregularities of his Scholars, when he had power, but did not exercise it, to prevent their miscarriages. And how much this is the case [Page] here may partly appear from this concession of Blondel. The actions of the Church, says that learned Man (q)Iis (scilicet Presbytericrum Praepositis) ceu [...] commissi gregis tam [...] quam pudenda ex aequo imputari potuere, & à Domino ipso Ecclesiarum Asiaticarum Angelos Calestibus monitis ad fidei constantiam armante imputata Sunt. Blond. Apolog. Prae [...]at. p. 6., whether they were glorious or infamous were imputed to the Angels as their Exarchs or Chief Governours. They were therefore more than Moderators in a Presbytery, and had full power to correct abuses. And this is what may be illustrated from the following instance, which I have chosen out of several that might be given.

The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is celebrated for his personal Virtues. He dwelt where Satan's seat was, and yet he held fast the name of Christ, and denyed not the Faith in those days when Antipas the faithful Martyr was slain. C. 2. v. 13. But some defect was imputed to him as a Governour, I have a few things against thee, saith the Lord, because thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam, &c. So thou hast also them which hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate, ver. 14, 15. And from hence we may gather, that it was in his power to suppress those pernicious Doctrines and Sects that disturb'd the [Page] Church, and for this purpose the concurrence of any Coordinate Officers was not necessary. He could not alledge, that he wanted Authority, or that others controul'd him in his proceedings against enormities: But as it was laid to his charge alone, that he had not stopt the mouths of Gainsayers: so he alone was warn'd to repent for this want of Discipline, lest the Lord should come quickly and fight against him with the sword of his mouth, ver. 16. Since therefore this Angel had full power of reforming Abuses, since the defect of that Reformation is intirely imputed to him: Since there is 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, 'tis 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 [Page] 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 Clem. Alex. de Div. Salv. p. 110. 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 Smyrnam vocat hanc Urb [...] Auctor Chronici Alexandrini, Annotante Valesio. [...]. Supra omnis constitutus. Interpret. Wal. Messal. p. 229.: which Character [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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 P. 3., is a word of ample signification; for 'tis 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 [Page] 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 [Page] left upon Record. But, as Epiphanius tells us Epiphan. Haeres. 75. n. 5., 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. Vid. Grot. Annot. in Matth. 9.18.. Yet one of those Rulers was the President. There were many, that at the same time were said to be Princes of Asia (x)Acts 19.31., yet one of them was called The Asiarcha, by way of Eminence, and distinguish'd from the rest in Dignity and Power; as Spanhemius (y)Vid. Spanhem. de Praest. Numism. p. 693, 694. and Harduinus (z)Harduin. Num. Antiq. Illustrat. p. 423. [Page] collect from some Ancient Coins, and from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna. And as a Learned Man of our own Bevereg. [...]od. Can. Vind. [...]. 2. c. 11. p. 316. 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 (b) [...]. Clem. R. c. 32., and in one of the Members of that Division he must be suppos'd to comprehend the High Priests, whom he does not expresly mention. And probably, it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews (c)Vid. Dodwel. Dissert. Cypr. 10. Sect. 9, 10., 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 [Page] 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 (d) [...], &c. c. 44., 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.

'Tis 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 [Page] you may learn from Hegesippus Apud Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 22.: And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession, Tertullian Tertul. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 36. 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 (g)Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 4. p. 516.: He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles, which was taken by Mabillon (g)Mabillon. de re Diplom. l. 5. p. 357. 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 (i)Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232., who liv'd near his time, informs us, that he was Bishop of Rome. The same is attested by Tertullian (k)Tertul. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 32. p. 213. and Origen (l)Origen. Comment. Ed. Huet. vol. 2. p. 430., by Eusebius (m)Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 3. and Epiphanius (n)Epiphan. Haeres. 27. n. 6., by Optatus (o)Optat. adv. Parmen. l. 2. p. 36. and Jerom †Hieron. Catalog. in Clemente., by Augustin (p)Augustin. ad Fortunat. Ep. 165. 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 [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 22, 23. l. 5. c. 24. 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 [Page] One Bishop of a Church In singulis Ecclesiis bini sunt Episcopi, alius visibilis, alius invisibilis. Orig. in Luc. 2. Hom: 13.: 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.

'Tis 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 Salutat vos Narcissus qui ante me hic tenuit Episcopalem locum & nunc mecum eundem orationibus regit annos natus circiter centum sedecim. Alexand. apud Hieron. In Cat. Script. Eccles., but also because, as Eusebius informs us (t), 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 [...]. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. p. 41.. On which principle Cyprian (w) and Cornelius (x) argued against the Novatians: And the Council of Nice (y) meant [Page] 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 (z) [...]. Haeres. 68. n. 6., 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 Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum, quem confessi sumus, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. Vid. Cornel. Ep. ad Cyprian. inter Epp. Cypr. n. 49. p. 93..

[Page]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 [Page] as much purpose, that is, to testifie such things as never enter'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 (b)Haec praelatio unius in civitate Alexandrinâ primum nata fuisse videatur; ex qua Urbe etiam Monastica vita & variae Ecclesiae pestes ortae sunt. Dan. in Aug. de Haeres. c. 53.; 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 [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 Ps. 45.16.; For of them he gives us the following Paraphrase Aug [...]. 9. p. 169., The Apostles begat thee, they are thy Fathers. But could they remain [Page]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 (e)Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent. Apud [...]os Episcopus [...]ertius est. Habent enim de Pepusa Phrygia Patriarchar. Hieron. [...]. 2. p. 88. Ep. 52., 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 [Page]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 Potentia divitiarum & Paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum facit (ità enim lego sine negatione, ex fide Cod. M.S.) Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt T. 2. Ep. 85..

Long before Jerom, Firmilian, Potestas peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est & Episcopis, qui eis ordinatione vicariâ successerunt. Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. inter Epp. Cypr. n. 75, p. 225. 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. (h), and Clarus à Muscula (i) 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 Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis & Successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt quale ab his deliratur; Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, quae scorsim & latenter ab reliquis perfectos dotibant, his vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valdè enim perfectos & irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse quos & Successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum loc [...]m Magisterii tradentes. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232., who by the [Page]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 'tis probable, he was born several years before the death of S. John Vid. Dodwel. in Iren. Dissert. 1., and 'tis 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 Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 2. c. 39.. But Antonius [Page]Pagi Critic. in Annal. Baron. A. D. 32. n. 5. 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 Joh. 8.57., 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 [Page] 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 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 (p)Sueton, in vit. Domit. c. 4. & in vit. Aug. c. 2. in Ammianus Marcellinus (q)Ammian. Marcel. l. 26. p. 455., in Sulpicius Severus (r)Sulp. Sever. Dialog. pag. 162. and many others, it signifies some Dignity or Office with Power and Jurisdiction. It signifies Government [Page] in Apuleius (ſ)Apul. Asin. Aur. lib. 1. p. 161.; and Casaubon (t)Casaubon. Not. ad Jul. Capitol. M. Anton. Philos. c. 4. p. 157. 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[Page]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 Vid. Euseb. H.E. l. 3. c. 11..

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 Vit. Ver. c. 3, 4. p. 225. vid. not. Salmas. ad loc., that Lucius was as observant of Marcus, who made him Partner of [Page] 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 [Page] 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

(†)

Ay, every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle, from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood. Let. 2. p. 21.

Paul. Golomes. Observat. Sacr. p. 42. Ed. 1688.

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, [Page] 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 (w) [...]. Phot. cp. 54. p. 108. Clarus à Muscula acquaints us (x)Manifesta est sententia Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, Apostolos suos mittentis, & ipsis solis Potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem Potestate Ecclesiam gubernantes. Clar. ubi suprà., that both govern'd with the same Power. S. Basil ascribes to both the same Prelacy (y) [...]. Basil. ad Ambros. Episcopum. Ep. 55. p. 830.: And according to Tertullian both sat in the same Chairs (z)Ipse adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident. Tert. de Praescript. c. 36. p. 215., and that not only as Teachers, but as Presidents or Rulers of the Churches.

'Tis 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 (a)Quadratus vocatur Apostolus in Men. Gr. Septemb. 2 [...]. Item Meletius Antioch. Episcop. à Greg. Nyssen. T. 2. p. 1019. & plura istiusmodi occurunt exempla in Scriptis Veterum.. It is also manifest, that sometimes they were stil'd Apostolici (b)Vid. Bignon. ad Marculf. Formul. l. 1. c. 2., that their Office was call'd an Apostolate (c)Vid. Alcim. Avit. Ep. 18.23.27.37. Vid. Savar. Comment. in Sidon. Apoll. Lib. 6. Ep. 4. p. 388., and that any Bishoprick, especially [Page] 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 (d)Vid. Not. ad Paulin. Ep. 3. p. 10. Ed. Paris. 1685.: it was not before the thirteenth, says Mabillon (e)De Re Diplom. l. 2. c. 2. p. 64.: it was not certainly before the Popes had trampl'd under their feet the Rights of Episcopacy.

[Page]

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 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 (f)Unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos & ad tempus Judex vice Christi. Ep. 59. p. 129. 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 (g)Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit, Vid. Cypr. Tr. p. 229.. This he spake in a Council at Carthage, and with reflection probably on Stephen Bishop of [Page] Rome, who injuriously invaded the Rights and Liberties of his Brethren.

'Tis 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 [Page]the Bishop, and to the Presbytery, and to the Deacons (h) [...]. p. 43. Ed. Lond. 1680.. He instructs the Ephesians to respect the Bishop as the Lord that sent him (i) [...]. p. [...]1.. And to the Smyrnaeans he declares, that in things relating to the Church, none ought to act without the Bishop (k) [...], &c. p. 6.: 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 Chrys. T. 5. p. 499. 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 [Page] 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 Vid. Chronic. Oriental. p. 53. & Abulpharag. Dynast. 7., 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 (n)— [...]. Ep. ad Philad. p. 43.. 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 [Page] us Vid. Praest. Vir. Ep. Eccl. p. 825. Ed. Amstel. 1684, 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 Vid. Is. Voss. Ep. Ignat. praefix., 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 (q)Honorabant Sanctum per Episcopos, Presbyteros & Diaconos. S. Ign. Martyr. Ed. Usser. p. 5.. And they deserve the more credit as being Eyewitnesses of what they relate.

[Page]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 (r)Devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum Presbyter, non Mathematicus, &c. Fl. Vop. inter Hist. Aug. Scr. p. 959, 960. 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 [Page] 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 Comment. in Hist. Aethiop. lib. 3. p. 445. 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 Comment. 1 [...]. Cod. Tutodes. Th. 8. p. 230. and other Learned Men have prov'd from unquestionable evidence: and amongst these Jewish Patriarchs [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Suid. in voce [...]., to whom you refer me, and in Socrates Socrat. l. 5. c. 17., who is cited by Pignorius, [Page] 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 Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6., 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 Vid. Euseb. ibid., 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, 'tis easie to conceive that men extreamly malicious against them and their Religion, might hite or force some Wretches to personate them in the worship [Page] 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 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.

[Page]The next Witness I shall mention is Clemens Alexandrinus, who mentions the three Orders, of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons (y) [...], Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 667., 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 Paedag. l. 3. c. 12. p. 264. 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,[Page]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.

'Tis 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 Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus: debinc Presbyteri & Diaconi: non tamen sine Episcopi Auctoritate, propter Ecclesiae honorem, quo falvo, falva pax est. Tert. de Bapt. p. 230. Ed. Par. 1675., [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Cùm ea Majoribus competant, ne sibi adsumant dicatum Episcopis Officium Episcopatus. De Bapt. c. 17. p. 231..

[Page]Not long after Tertullian, flourish'd Origen, and he tells us in his Discourse of Prayer (c) [...], &c. Orig. [...]. Oxon. nuper Edit. p. 103. [...]. Origen. in Jerem. Homil. 40. p. 114., 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 (d)— [...]. Comment. p. 395.: 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] between that Period, and the Constitution of Bishops, as Blondel Apolog. p. 3. dreamt of; nor had he any thing but meer conjectures, to support his Opinion, which is oppos'd by the whole current of Antiquity. His Friend Walo Messalinus Wal. Mess. p. 7. 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 (g)Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum: evolvánt ordinem Episcoporum suorum ità per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit Auctorem & Antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt. Tert. de Praescript. c. 31. p. 213.. 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 [Page] 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. 'Tis 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 g [...]ven by [Page] Jewish and Christian Writers, as Mr. Selden Selden. de Success. in Pontificat. l. 1. c. 5. & alibi. 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. Final Answer, &c. See his Works, p. 641. 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[Page]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 (k)Neque hae quae in Germaniâ fundatae sunt Ecclesiae aliter credunt aut aliter tradunt: Neque hae quae in Hiberis sunt, neque hae quae in Celtis, neque hae quae in Oriente, neque hae quae in Aegypto, neque hae quae in Libya, neque hae quae in medio mundo sunt constitutae. Sed sicut Sol Creatura Dei in Universo mundo unus & idem est, sic & lumen, praedicatio veritatis, ubique lucet, &c. Adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 3. p. 53. 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, [Page] 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 Sed quoniam valdé longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare Successiones, &c. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232.. And in the following Age S. Cyprian Jampridem per omnes Provincias & per Urbes singulas Ordinati sunt Episcopi. Cypr. Ep 55. p. 112. 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 [Page] rais'd the Envy of some, and that drew from him these words Considerator Consider'd, c. 9. p. 194.. 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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 'tis 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 Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit: Diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt, Episcopatus sui & Ecclesiae Ministros., The Deacons [Page] 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 1 Pet. 5.1. [...]. consider'd himself only as first Presbyter, because he addresses his Exhortation to the Elders, as being also an Elder: Or that S. Basil Basil. t. 2. p. 789.1059, 1098. Ed. Paris. 1618. [Page] 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 Blond. Apolog. p. 62., and Mabillon Mabillon. de re Diplom. l. 2. c. 2. sect. 16..

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 Cypr. Ep. 16. p. 36. 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.

'Tis true S. Cyprian says Ep. 14. p. 33., 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 [Page] own Rules of Discipline Vid. Ep. ad Stephan. p. 198., so neither did himself always take the same measures. Sometimes he restor'd Offenders to the peace of the Church (x)Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo, ut tales patiantur admitti, & justior factus est fraternitatis dolor ex eo quod unus atque alius obtinente plebe & contradicente, mea tamen facilitate suscepti pejores extiterunt quàm prius fuerant. Ep. 59. p. 137, 138., 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 (y)Ep. 40. p. 78, 79., Numidicus a Presbyter, without consulting them before about this matter. And he acquainted his Clergy and People, that without their Suffrage Celerinus (z)Ep. 39. p. 76, 77, 78. 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 Ep. 34. p. 68.: 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, [Page]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 Ep. 66. p. 166, 167., 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 (c)Inde enim schismata & haereses obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est & Ecclesiae praeest quorundam praesumptione contemnitur. Ibid., 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 Is. 30.1. fecistis conventionem. [...]. LXX. Ed. Complut..

[Page]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 (e)Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatûs ordinationem subjecit. Quare, nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est. Comment. in 1 Tim. 3. Uterque enim Sacerdos est.. 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 (f)Sed Episcopus primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit; non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Ibid.. 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 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 [Page] 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 Comment. in Ephes. 4.11., 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 [Page] 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 )g)Jacobum vidit Hierosolymae quià illic erat constitutus ab Apostolis Episcopus. Com. in Gal. 1.19. Caput in Ecclesiâ Apostolos posuit, &c. ipsi sunt Episcopi. Com. in 1 Cor. 12.28. Hunc jam creatum Episcopum instruit per epistolam. Praefat. in Ep. 1. ad Tim. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum. Praefat. in Ep. ad Tit. Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Johannis. Com. in 1 Cor. 11.10. In Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quià primus Sacerdos est, hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum, &c. Com. in Ephes. 4.11.. 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.

[Page]Another of them is S. Jerom (i)Idem est Presbyter qui Episcopus, & antequàm Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquàm verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret & schismatum semina tollerentur. Hicrom. ln Tit. 1., 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.

Blond. Apolog. p. 3. 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 [Page] 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 1 Cor. 1.12.. 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.

'Tis 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.

[Page]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 (m)Ecclesiae Salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet: cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata, quot Sacerdotes. Hieron. T. 2. p. 96. 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 (n)Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse majores. Comment. in Tit. 1. 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 [Page] 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 Ubi suprà.: And the Custom he speaks of he resolves into Apostolical Tradition, and this he grounds on Scripture. That we may know, says he (p)Ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri Testamento, quod Aaron & filii ejus atquae Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. Ep. ad Evagrium in sine., 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 (q)Quanquàm secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus presbyterio major sit. &c. Aug. Ep. 19., 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 Consuetudinem cum dicunt Patres, non excludunt Apostolicam institutionem, imò ut Augustinus ait, quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Apostólicâ auctoritate traditum rectissimè creditur. Grot. de Imper. Sum. Pot. c. 11. §. 10. p. 355., what is agreeable to that which has been said already, [Page] 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 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 Divinâ voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine Praepositus Ecclesiae. Aug. Ep. 162..

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 [...], &c. T. 4. p. 289.: 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 [...], &c. ibid.. 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.

[Page]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 Haeres. 75. n. 1, 4.: 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 N. 3, 4., 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 N. 5., 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 1 Tim. 5.1.. But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder, but that he had Authority over him? He admonishes him [Page] 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 [Page] word may be taken for it, this would be something to the purpose. But Camden says Ca [...]. [...] A. D. [...]., 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.

[Page]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 (b)Haec (Hibernia scilicet) propriè patria Scottorum est. Bed. H. E. l. 1. c. 1. p. 29. Ed. Chifflet., that it is properly the Country of the Scots: and accordingly in Claudian (c)— Totam cùm Scotus Iernen Movit & infesto spumavit remige Tethys. Claudian. in 1. Consul. Scilich. l. 2. Carm. 22. v. 251, 252., 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 (d)Historical Account of Church-Government, &c. c. 2. and Worcester (e)Antiquity of the British Churches. c. 2. Pref. p. 65. &c., 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.

[Page] Polydor Vergil Polyd. Verg. de Rer. Invent. l. 7. c. 1. ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died, as he tells us, in the year 361. Danaeus says Vid. Dan. Opera. p. 483, 484, 485., 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 (g)— Asserunt Antonium hujus propositi fuisse caput: quod ex parte verum est. Amathas verò & Macarius discipuli Antonii, etiam nunc affirmant: Paulum quendam Thebaeum principem istius rei fuisse, quod non tam nomine, quàm opinione nos quoque comprobamus. Hieron. Ep. 50. p. 154. Edit. Francofurt. A. D. 1684.. But which of them soever was the Founder of it, it is not material, since they were Cotemporaries and in the year 341. or thereabouts, one of them receiv'd a visit from the [Page] other. After their decease, the Monks were despis'd in the West for the novelty of their Constitution: and Jerom complains Quousque genus detestabile Monachorum non urbe pellitur? Ep. 25. p. 104. that in his time they were detested even at Rome it self. So far is it from being true, that they had then made their progress as far as Scotland, and flourish'd there in great Reputation.

It was therefore boldly done of Hector Boethius to tell the World (i)Coepere nostri eò tempori [...] Christi dogma accuratissimè amplexari, Monachorum quorundam ductu, &c. H. Boeth. Scot. Hist. l. 6. fol. 92. Vid. Blondel. Apolog. Sect. 3. p. 315., that his Countrymen, about the year 263. as Blondel interprets his words, began diligently to embrace the Christian Faith, by the Conduct and persuasion of certain Monks. Yet hardy as he was, you have exceeded Hector himself. For you say, that the Scots had the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age, which is much sooner than Hector allows: and if your Argument from Beda perform what you design by it, these Converted Scots must have some kind of Government, amongst them, and you undertake to shew from Buchanan, that till the time of Palladius the Scottish Church was govern'd by Monks with more Holiness and Simplicity than it was afterwards by the Bishops. And now, I think, it will follow from these things laid together, that the Church of Scotland [Page] was very well govern'd by the Monks, whilst some of the Apostles were alive, and after their decease till the year of our Lord 430 Vid. Blondel ubi suprà.. And this makes more for the honour of Monkery than any thing else, I have yet read.

You have likewise such an opinion of the Antiquity of the Culdees that you censure Bishop Spotswood for insinuating, that in their time there were Bishops of his Order, which he did, you say, that he might magnifie his Office. A strange and unadvised Project! That he should think to magnifie his Office by telling us, there were Prelates in Scotland before the Culdees were extinct, who were not in being till many Ages after the death of Palladius. And are not mention'd by any Writer that liv'd within five hundred years of his time See the Bishop of S. Asaph. Hist. Ac. &c. c. 7..

Hector Boethius, whom you quote, was alive in the year 1526. and yet he is the first, as the Bishop of S. Asaph observes Ibid., that found that the Monks were Culdees, who are said by others as well as him, and of like credit, to have govern'd the Church of Scotland till the coming of Palladius. He had no Records of the Primitive times to support his Narrative, yet did not this abate the courage of Hector, who knew how to supply that defect by a fertile invention. He made a Bishop of S. Alban's Cloak, and call'd [Page] it S. Amphibalus. He placed it in the Isle of Man, and there he put Culdees under it. And at the same rate he might have Scotland converted when he would, and by whom he pleas'd, and bestow on them what Titles he thought convenient.

'Tis certain he was a very fabulous Writer and in your Letter of Feb. 9. your self represented him as a Romancer and his story of the Culdees you call'd Romancing: yet now you depend on it as good substantial evidence; and this shews to what wretched shifts you are driven rather than you will acknowledge that you have been mistaken.

[Page]

CHAP. XVI. Prelacy is no degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution. The Pastours of the Church that came next after the Apostles did not conspire to deprave any Form of Government which was of Divine appointment.

IF we may not believe the ridiculous Fable of the Scottish Monks, you have not been able to prove, that any part of the Christian world, for many Ages after the decease of the Apostles, was without Episcopal Government. Yet, as if the matter were clear on your side, and past all doubt, you take it for granted, that Prelacy is a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution. You pretend to have observ'd the Springs and Motions by which it was advanced; and to discover, on what grounds it was introduced, and by what degrees it grew up to that Grandeur in which it now appears.

[Page]1. You say the Defection began on Tabernacle Grounds P. 19., and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick. And a little before you tell me, that when the Judaizing Opinion, which prevail'd mightily even in the days of the Apostles, had, after their decease, diffus'd and spread it self farther, so that Christians came into the admiration of the Orders, Beauty and Pomp of the Temple, which was but a fixed Tabernacle, and Christianity it self became consider'd (as by some this day) but as another kind of Judaism, then Ministers were turned into Priests, Deacons to Levites. A wonderful transformation at such a time! And it may seem very strange, that the Christians should be much more charm'd with the Beauty and Pomp of the Temple, when it was laid in ashes, than they were when it stood in its Glory. To deal plainly with you, I take this to be very absurd, and inconsistent with the best Records, we have, of the first Ages. For it appears from them, that the weak Brethren, as they were call'd, were most zealous at the first for the Mosaical Rites; and that S. Paul himself did more in compliance with them and the Jews, than all the Bishops in the world in the following Century.

[Page]The truth is, when an end was put to the Jewish Polity, the Judaizers made a Sect by themselves: and the Pastours of the Church thought fit to bury the Mosaical Rites in the ruins of the Temple, and vigorously asserted their freedom from them. At least they let them fall by degrees: And 'tis observable, that when the great Controversie was rais'd about the keeping of Easter, however they that contended, it ought to be observ'd exactly at the time of the Jewish Passover, had more to say for themselves from Tradition, yet the matter was carried and determin'd on the side of Christian Liberty.

But that Liberty doth not leave all things indifferent that were drawn by Analogy from the Jewish Laws or Customs. For such things there are, and some of them of perpetual use. Amongst these I reckon Baptism and the Supper of the Lord Vid. Ludolf Comment. ad Hist. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. n. 49.. The Ordination of Officers by imposition of hands Vid. Ludolf Comment. ad Hist. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. n. 49.. The maintenance of those that Minister in things Sacred 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Vid. Hieron., and the distribution of them into several Ranks Ep. ad Evagr. in fine.. All these Institutions had their Basis in the Jewish practices, and with some variation from the Original, were consecrated to serve the purposes of Christianity, and that by unquestionable Authority.

[Page]By such Authority one is justified in ascribing to Ecclesiastical Officers the Title of Priests; for it may seem, that they were opposers of such as did bear it, who are said by S. Jude to have perish'd in the gainsaying of Core, ver. 11. And manifest it is, and it has been generally acknowledg'd, that the Almighty speaks of the Professors of Christianity where he says, I will take of them for Priests and for Levites. Isai. 66.21. And from hence we may gather, 1. That the Christian Church 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 [Page]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 P. 7., that in every Assembly one should have the direction, and 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page] 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 P. 8., 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 [Page] 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. P. 7.. 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 [Page]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 [...]. c. 44. were the Presbyters, that Ruled, rather than [Page] Preach'd, well. But you might have found, that in another place, this Father tells us, that Peter and Paul Politiz'd divinely (r) [...]. c. 6. (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 (ſ)— [...]. c. 3., he meant not to reflect on them as Bad Governours, but in general as persons that did not walk (t) [...]. Hesych. 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 'tis true that Preaching was the work of that President; for so it appears from Justin Vid. Justin. Apolog. 2. p. 161. Grot. de Imp. Sum. Pot. c. 11. §. 7.: 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 [Page] 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 Lib. de Div. Salv. p. 110. Ed. Oxon. 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 Adv. Haeres. lib. 3. c. 3., 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? [Page] When they daily expos'd their lives to danger; when they despis'd the Ʋngulae 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 [Page] 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, (y)Quod si falsa, ut dicitis, historia illa rerum est, unde tam brevi tempore tótus mundus ista religione completus est? aut in unam coire qui potuerunt mentem gentes regionibus dissitae, ventis, coeli convexionibusque dimotae [...] Arnob. advers. Gent. l. 1. p. 33. 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 [Page] 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 Chillingw. Apost. Institut. of Episc. Sect. 11., 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:

[Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] is, to reject those as incompetent Witnesses, who upon examination appear against you. And accordingly you tell me P. 27., 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 P. 49., 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 [Page] 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 Euseb. H.E. l. 4. c. 23. 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 Vid. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccl. in Quadrato., 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 [Page] 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.

'Tis 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 Reply to the Answer of the Divines at Newport, amongst the works of K. C. p. 619., 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 P. 49., 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, [Page] 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, [Page] 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 Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae corum recitantur. Tert. de Praescript. c. 36. p. 215., That the Authentick Letters of the Apostles were read in the Apostolick Churches.

But whatever he meant by the Chairs, 'tis plain enough, he thought, the Bishops were the Successors of the Apostles in particular Dioceses or Churches:P. 49. 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, [Page] 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 P. 49., 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 [Page] 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 c [...]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 Jo. Twin. Comment. de Reb. Albion, &c. l. 1. p. 13., the English Homer, and the Father of Lies. And as for his Brutus ▪ some have observ'd, as Mr. Camden acquaints us Camd. Brit. p. 6, 7., 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 'tis no wonder, that, in the times of the thickest [Page] 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.

[Page]The Instance I intend, is that of Polycarp, who is not only said to have been Bishop of Smyrna by Polycrates Polycrat. apud Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccl. in Polycrate. and Tertullian Tertul. de Prascript. c 32. p. 213., who flourish'd not long after him, and by Eusebius Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 36, p. 106., Jerom Hieron. [...]. 2. p. 177., Socrates Socrat. H. E. l. 5. c. [...]2. p. 284., Sozomen Soz. H. E. l. 7. c. 19. p. 734., Victor Capuanus Vict. Cap. è Cod. M. S. à Feuardent. citat. in Annot. ad Iren. p. 240., Suidas Suid. t. 2. p. 560., 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 [...]. Smyrn. Eccles. Ep. Ed. Usser. p. 26., that he was their Bishop. This they do in an Epistle which is yet extant, and which the famous Joseph Scaliger Certè Ego nihil unquam in historiâ Ecclesiastica vidi, à cujus lectione commotior recedam, ut non amplius meus esse videar. Aulmadvers. in Euseb. Chron. p. 202., 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.

[Page]S. Irenaeus, who was his Scholar, informs us likewise Iren. advers. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 33., that he was Bishop of Smyrna. And the same is attested by S. Ignatius [...] Ep. ad Magnes. p. 38., who was not only his Contemporary, but his Friend, as also by Philo and Agathopus; who acquaint us further Applicans [Ignatius] post multum laborem Smyrnaeorum civitati, cum multo gaudio descendens de navi, sestinabat S. Polycarpum, Episcopum Coadjutorem videre; fuerant enim quondam Discipuli Johannis. Martyr. S. Ignat. p. 5. Ed. Usser. 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 [Page] enquiry be made, how he obtain'd his Office, from Tertullian Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collecatum resert. Tertul. de Praescript. H [...]res. c. 32., and Polycarpus Joannis Apostoli Discipulus ab eo Smyrnae Episcop [...]s Ordinatus, &c. Hieron. Catalog. in Polycarpo. 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 Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus, & conversatus cum multis ex eis qui Dominum nostrum viderunt: sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asia, in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus, &c. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 233., 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 Vid. Iren. ibid. & [...]p. ad Florin. apud Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 20., 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.

[Page]

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[Page]Mussus Cornel. Muss. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 14., 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, Ʋniversality 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 Vid. Gittich. Ep. ad Ruar. ad calcem. Epp. Ruar. Cent. 1. p. 469, &c., 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 [Page] 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 (e)Legantur ea qua hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historia Ecclesiastica & invenietur usque ad illius Eusebii aetatem—nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangella, liber Actorum Apostolorum, &c. ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur. Socin. lib. de Auct. S. Script., 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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,Apud usser. in lib. de Succes. Eccles. c. 3. 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 confer'd on the Pastors of his Church; and also your Exceptions against the Divine Right of Episcopacy: and I am apprehensive, that I need an excuse, rather for paying you too nice an attendance, than for neglecting any thing of moment, either in your Printed or Manuscript Papers. But what comes not within the compass of my present design, may be examin'd in the Second [Page] Part of this Treatise, in which you may expect a Review of your way of managing this Controversie, which I omit at present, being willing to give you and my self some respite, who am,

SIR,

Your Faithful Servant, &c.

Novemb. 2. 1691.

FINIS.

[Page]

Notes

(a)

Cyril. Scythop. à Caugio citat. è Cod. M.S. in Append. ad Gloss. Gr. Col. 83.

↵

(b)

Epiphan. Haeres. 66. n. 19.

↵

(c)

Chrys. t. 3. p. 498.

↵

(d)

Aug. contr. Crescon. l. 2.

↵

(e)

Fulgent. l. de Trinit. ad Foelicem Notar. c. 1.

↵

(f)

Niceph. Chronograph. Ed. Scalig. in Thes. Temp. p. 311.

↵

(g)

Phot. Ep. 117. p. [...]58.

↵

(h)

Oecumen. Enar. in Act. Apost. p. 122.

↵

(i)

Nil. Doxopat. Not. Patriarch. Ludg. Bat. Ed. inter Var. Sacr. p. 216.

↵

(k)

Concil. in Trullo Can. 32.

↵

(l)

Blond. Apolog. p. 50.

↵

(s)

Jacobus hoc loco ponitur ante Petrum & Johannem propter primatum suum quem habebat in Jerusalem, ubi erat Episcopus. Anselm. Explanat. Ep. Paul. fol. 128.

↵

(w)

Vid. ejusdem Comment. in 1. Ep. ad Corinth. c. 12. v. 28. & in Ep. ad Ephes. c. 4. v. 11.

↵

(x)

Et Episcopi Apostoli nominantur, sicut de Epaphrodito Paulus disserit, &c. Pacian. Ep. 1.

↵

(y)

Theod. t. 3. p. 323.

↵

(b)

Haec mihi verisimilis non videtur, qui sciam, vocem [...] nunquam à Paulo nec ab aliis Apostolis & Evangelistis usurpari, insi de Sancto Ministerio, c. 1. p. 57.

↵

(q)

[...]. Sophron. in Catalog. Script. Eccles.

↵

(t)

Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 11.

↵

(w)

Vid. Cypr. Ep. 46. & Ep. 55. p. 104.

↵

(x)

Corn. apud Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 43.

↵

(y)

[...]. Can. 8.

↵

(h)

Laboramus & laborare debemus, ut unitatem à Domino, & per Apostolos nobis Successoribus tràditum, quantum possumus, obtinere curemus. Cyp. Ep. 45.

↵

(i)

Quibus (i. e. Apostolis) nos successimus. Vid. Concil. Carthag. de Baptizand. Haeret. inter Opp. Cyp. p. 242.

↵

Information about this book

Title statement

A treatise of church-government occasion'd by some letters lately printed concerning the same subject / by Robert Burscough ...

Burscough, Robert, 1651-1709.

Edition statement

1692

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A30625

ID [STC]

Wing B6137

ID [STC]

ESTC R2297

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12691502

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12691502

ID [VID]

65847

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30625)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 65847)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 346:13)

Source

— A treatise of church-government occasion'd by some letters lately printed concerning the same subject / by Robert Burscough ..., Burscough, Robert, 1651-1709..

Extent

[3], xxxvii, [7], 270 p.

Printed for Samuel Smith ...,. London :: 1692.. (First ed. Cf. DNB.) (Errata: p. [1] (3rd pagination).) (Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.) (Marginal notes.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.