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

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

I Have shew'd that the Churches of Jeru∣salem and Philippi, of Ephesus and Crete, the Churches of Smyrna and Pergamus, Thy∣atira and Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, were govern'd by Bishops in the first Centu∣ry: And one need but read the second and third Book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, or S. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiasti∣cal Writers, to find that Bishops then pre∣sided in the Churches of Antioch and Rome, of Alexandria and Athens; and to be in∣form'd, who they were. This may give us reason to think, that all the Churches in the World were at that time under an Episco∣pal Administration; especially if it appear, that they were so in the following Age: But before I come to make enquiry into that, it may be requisite to remove out of

the way some Objections that relate to the Apostles days.

1. You argue from Acts 20.17, 28. Titus 1.5, 7. that mere Presbyters were Bishops. And this I am ready to grant: But then it must be acknowledged, that the Presbyters mention'd in those places, were subordinate to other Pastors, and consequently, a conti∣nuance of their Office supposes a continu∣ance of such Superiors as they had, to the end of the World.

Their Superiors were S. Paul and Ti∣tus, 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 Anci∣ents, it may fitly be apply'd, not only to the Twelve, but to all their Colleagues. But Episcopacy, you tell me (t), 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 af∣firm, that it had but one sense in all the Books where it occurs, whether they are

Sacred or Profane? Did I ever assert, that none but Apostles were called Bishops, and deduce from that Title an account of the special Nature of their Office? If you can impute to me neither of these things, you must be content to fight with your own shadow: And I shall think it enough, that the instances I have produced, perform what I design'd by them. They shew, that in af∣firming, 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 Jurisdi∣ction 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 menti∣ons no more, when he speaks of the Bishops and Deacons, that were constituted by the Apostles, of those that afterwards should be∣lieve. As if the whole Scheme of the Go∣vernment which the Apostles established, might be taken from that one Act, or they had done nothing, but what this Author

left upon Record. But, as Epiphanius tells us (u), All things could not be regulated by them on a sudden. And the Churches of their Plantation afford us the best Pat∣tern 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 Mini∣sters; he meant to exclude a greater num∣ber. 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. (w). Yet one of those Rulers was the President. There were many, that at the same time were said to be Princes of Asia (x), yet one of them was called The Asiarcha, by way of Eminence, and distinguish'd from the rest in Dignity and Power; as Span∣hemius (y) and Harduinus (z)

collect from some Ancient Coins, and from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna. And as a Learned Man of our own a 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 di∣stinct Title. Clemens Romanus himself speak∣ing of Abraham, says, that all the Priests and Levites were descended from him (b), and in one of the Members of that Division he must be suppos'd to compre∣hend the High Priests, whom he does not expresly mention. And probably, it was in imi∣tation of the Hellenist Jews (c), that many of the Pri∣mitive Christian Writers di∣stinguish'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 ge∣neral agreement between them, are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use. This one thing being con∣sider'd, may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology: And it shews, that if nothing else hinders, Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church, under the

Name of Bishops, that being a word, which, at that time, was of a general signification; yet some of them might be Supreme, and others Subordinate to them. He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters, yet some of them might be Prelats; and the rest of an inferior Rank, and under their Au∣thority.

But supposing, what, for my part I am in∣clin'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), that there were Officers di∣stinct from them, and supe∣rior 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 E∣pistle thither, which was before the Destru∣ction of Jerusalem: But if the See was va∣cant at that time, it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd. Certain it is, that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession, as

you may learn from Hegesippus (e): And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession, Tertullian (f) 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 E∣pistle. He was a Bishop or an Apostle, as he is styl'd by Clemens Ale∣xandrinus (g): He is menti∣oned in the Table of the Ro∣man Apostles, which was ta∣ken by Mabillon (g) out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie: and, which amounts to the same thing, he is rec∣kon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops. S. Irenaeus (i), who liv'd near his time, informs us, that he was Bishop of Rome. The same is attested by Tertullian (k) and Origen (l), by Eusebius (m) and E∣piphanius (n), by Optatus (o) and Jerom †, by Augustin (p) and many others. So that we have as great certainty of it, as there is, that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name. And if there be no ground

to doubt of it, as I think there is not, his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth, is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy, as his own Example is for it: there not be∣ing the least cause to believe, that so Excel∣lent a Person would have born an Office, which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful.

Notes

• (t)

  P. 3.
• (u)

  Epiphan. Haeres. 75. n. 5.
• (w)

  Vid. Grot. Annot. in Matth. 9.18.
• (x)

  Acts 19.31.
• (y)

  Vid. Spanhem. de Praest. Numism. p. 693, 694.
• (z)

  Harduin. Num. Antiq. Illu∣strat. p. 423.
• a

  Bevereg. ••od. Can. Vind. ••. 2. c. 11. p. 316.
• (b)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. R. c. 32.
• (c)

  Vid. Dodwel. Dissert. Cypr. 10. Sect. 9, 10.
• (d)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. c. 44.
• (e)

  Apud Eu∣seb. H. E. l. 4. c. 22.
• (f)

  Tertul. de Praescript. Hae∣ret. c. 36.
• (g)

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 4. p. 516.
• (g)

  Mabillon. de re Diplom. l. 5. p. 357.
• (i)

  Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232.
• (k)

  Tertul. de Praescript. Hae∣ret. c. 32. p. 213.
• (l)

  Origen. Comment. Ed. Huet. vol. 2. p. 430.
• (m)

  Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 3.
• (n)

  Epiphan. Haeres. 27. n. 6.
• (o)

  Optat. adv. Parmen. l. 2. p. 36.
• †

  Hieron. Catalog. in Clemente.
• (p)

  Augustin. ad Fortunat. Ep. 165.