Corinthian on which you insist so much does serve your purpose For S. Paul his Interposition in that business was purely Apostolical and Extraordinary from beginning to end the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary by his Apostolical Spirit or Revelation as Hierome interprets it absent in Body but present in Spirit The Censure Extraordinary which was to give the Incestuous up unto Satan as to a Tormentor So Hierome carries this also and the manner of the Execution extraordinary too to wit by delegation of his Apostolical Spirit to the Church of Corinth when you come together and my Spirit So that the whole Proceeding was extraordinary and though you are pleased to call it an Act of Episcopal or Prelatical Authority and to make an Argument of it for Diocesan Jurisdiction yet unless you can find Diocesans now that have the Spirit that can have a Cognisance of things at Distance by Revelation that can give up Persons to Satan as to a Tormentor and that can delegate their Spirit to a Congregation the Exception lying against it will still continue in Force Wherefore as yet I see no other Prelacy instituted by the Apostles but that of the Presbyters over the People nor are there any Officers now of any Denomination which ought to have though you seem to intimate that some ought a Mission like to that of the Apostles for as they were Ambassadours that were sent immediately by Christ as he was by God and brought their Credentials with them sealed by the Holy Ghost so I will not scruple to call them Extraordinary upon this Account too any more than to call the Presbyters and Deacons ordinary even though the Papists and the Socinians do so The first Missions were extraordinary whiles the Church was to be constituted but in a constituted setled Church in which the Officers are ordinary their Calling is so likewise But to let you know what Standard there is of Extraordinaries for this you demand I believe I have no more to do but to remind you of what you already know that the use of speaking or common Language is that Standard for certain you that have read so often in Cicero not to mention Livy Suetonius and others of Honores Extraordinarii Praesidium Extraordinarium Potestas Extraordinaria cannot be ignorant that that is Extraordinary which being not the setled standing perpetual order and use is only for some certain time and on some particular special Occasion or Accident And it is in this sense of the word that the Roman Magistrates in respect of time are distributed by Lipsius into Extraordinary and Ordinary when he says Aut enim Magistratus à tempoâ—ibus dividuntur ut Ordina ii Extraordinaâ—ii Illi dicti qui statis Temporibus semper in Republicâ essent uâ— Consulâ—s Praetores Ediles Tribuni Quaestores isti qui nec eodem tempore nec semper ut Dictatores Censores Inter-Reges c. It is true you tell me that the Commission Matth. 28. is not peculiar to the Apostles and that therefore it does not Evidence they were Extraordinary Officers for say you There is indeed a Charge given them to Baptize and Teach but it seems a wonderful way of proving them to be Extraordinary Officers from the Authority they had to do that which any Ordinary Minister may do and that by vertue of this Commission By vertue of this Commission Excuse me as to that every Body will not yield it some think that this Commission was personal given only unto the Apostles Go ye and inforced with a promise that related only to them directly Lo I am with you to the end of the world That is to the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum for so they understand that Phrase and apprehend they have sufficient Reason to do so upon comparing it with Matth. 24. 3 14. But let that be as it will Indeed Is the Commission given to the Apostles Matth. 28. not peculiar to them Are they Empowered by it to do no more than every ordinary Minister may I had thought that ordinary Ministers had been limited and local not unlimited and oecumenical Officers and that by their Institution they were confin'd to Teach and Rule the particular Churches over which they were appointed and not to Teach and Rule the whole World or as the Apostles had to have care of all the Churches I pray tell me is a Parish-Priest of as great Authority as a Diocesan and yet a Diocesan compared with an Apostle is less than a Parish-Priest The whole World was the Diocess of the Apostles Go ye teach all Nations I profess I am much surprized to find you deny without Distinction that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers especially after Dr. Cave in his History of the Lives of the Apostles which I believe you have read distinguishes their work and shews what was Extraordinary in it and what was Ordinary But possibly you foresaw that should you have spoken plainly and have said as he does that their ordinary work the standing and perpetual part of it was to Teach and Instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion to Administer the Sacraments to Institute Guides and Officers and to Exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church I would easily reply That the Apostles had provided themselves of Successors as to all this work but that these Successors were the Presbyters which they Instituted in every Church to feed and govern it and that having ordained no others it looks as if they saw no need of others But having this Occasion I beg your pardon if I use it to set out more fully the Institution which the Apostles made for the Government and Edification of the Churches and how that Institution came to be altered and by what steps First then the Apostles instituted a Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a College of Presbyters in every Church to Feed and Govern it and this is evident from Acts 14. 23 25. where Paul and Barnabas are said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church to have ordained Elders a College of Elders not a single Elder or Bishop And as they are not said to have ordained a single Bishop or Elder in any Church so much less are they said to have ordained any Prelate or Intendant over many Churches every Church as a Body Politick Compleat had sufficient power within it self for all its Ends They ordained Elders in every Church And to me it is plain that Clement had regard to this practice of the Apostles when in the place I cited before upon another occasion he says of them That going through Countries and Cities preaching the Gospel they appointed the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons having approved or Confirmed them by the Spirit That the Apostles instituted many Presbyters and not a single Presbyter in every Church is further confirmed not only from the frequent mention of a Presbytery found in
Apostles as somewhere he does Christ is called a Bishop and that by a greater Man than Cyprian and yet I believe you will not infer from thence that the Bishops are Christs or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also That the Apostleship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the communication of the Names than for the same Reason That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so The Apostleship was an Episcopacy but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for any more than because it was called a Deaconry it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification for not to mention prophane Authors as Homer Plutarch Cicero c. in which we read the word It is certain Basil applies it often unto God Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles and therefore being a word of so general signification nothing is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy To be plain with you the Writers of the First Century Cyprian was in the Third had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship as you imagine even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops though he compares them sometimes to God and other times to Christ which I believe you insist not upon because you thought it a little too much yet he never that I can find compares them to the Apostles Their College if you will believe Ignatius was imitated not to say succeeded by the Presbytery I add That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us as Hierom also does That St. Mark ordained that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number though possibly not so early as to be an Institution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine not one word in Clemens Romanus a Writer of the First Age of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Office of the Apostleship He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution to wit the Bishops and Deacons of which more hereafter Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being by Office the first Preachers and Witnesses of Christ by whom they were immediately sent for that purpose then certainly that Work and Office as well as their Mission to it was extraordinary and but Temporary And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching and had framed them under perpetual standing Orders they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority either by way of Direction upon new Emergences or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages That was extraordinary too and by vertue of a Jurisdiction naturally arising and remaining in them as also in the Evangelists as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary is devolved upon any other Persons as Successors of the Apostles lyes on you to evince and I think it is an hard Province For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates while themselves were living or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living but only ordained That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church as their Successors but not before If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living I demand how that could be Can any come into the places of others even while these others possess them And again I demand whether there were or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction which I suppose you will not deny over the Prelates they instituted if they instituted any Then they transâ—erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates that is the Prelatâ—s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them for none does give that which he keeps I believe therefore you will say the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living but ordained that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches as their Successors But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded In what Scripture In what Fathers of the First Age or how came you to know of such an Order if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fathers transmits it All of any Aspect this way in any Father of the First Age is in Clemens Romanus and he is against you for having premised what is very remarkable and much to our purpose That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds that for that Cause to wit to end such strife they ordained Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed the forementioned Officers and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons of whom he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they namely the Apostles appointed the first fruits of those Cities and Countries where they had preached approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe This is a plain Testimony so plain that I see not how it can be evaded that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church of which one indeed was that of the Bishops But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others as in the sacred Scriptures it must be understood of the Presbyterian and not of the Prelatical Orders And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders which the Apostles had instituted to continue in the Church from time to time I did it with good Authority for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it He adds And moreover they gave it in direction That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had appointed should decease others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous
Ignatius which as I shall shew hereafter was Congregational but by the Express Testimony of Clement who blames the Church of Corinth for raising a Sedition and Stir against their Presbyters and therefore there were many in that Church only upon the Account of one or two Persons so that it is plain there was a College of Presbyters in the Ancient Apostolical Church of Corinth Again in the Presbytery or College which was ordained in every Church though all the Presbyters were equal the Institution making no Difference for Paul and Barnabas are said to Constitute Elders but not to Constitute Elders and a Bishop as a Superiour over them yet it being requisite for Order-sake that some one in every Assembly should have the Direction and that Honour naturally falling on the Eldest Presbyter unless some other Course be resolved it is most probable that at first the Eldest Presbyter as he had the first Place so he had the first Direction of Matters But afterwards it being found by Experience that the Eldest was not always the Worthiest and Fittest for that purpose it came to pass that the place devolved not any longer by Seniority but was conferred by Election And in this S. Ambrose if it be he and not rather Hillary in his Comment on the fourth to the Ephesians is plain Vid. Sixt. Senens Bibl. Sanct. l. 6. annot 324. And admitting that all the Presbyters were called Bishops as undoubtedly at first they were it is easie to conceive how the first Presbyter came to be called the Bishop and at last for Distinction-sake to have the Name of Bishop so appropriated to him that the rest retained only the Denomination of Presbyters But all this while the Bishop was but the first Presbyter and had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is allowed to S. Peter in the College of the Apostles by all Protestants Even Epiphanius himself if we may believe Danaeus was at last compelled to confess That in the Time and Age of the Apostles no such Distinction as that is which you contend for was to be found between the Bishops and Presbyters Again though all the Presbyters in every Church had like Authority to Preach and Rule both Functions being comprehended in the Episcopacy assigned to them 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. yet some of them being better qualifyed for the one and some for the other it is probable that they exercised their different Talents accordingly some of them more in the one and some more in the other This as strange as you may make it seems plainly intimated in that Injunction of the Apostles 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrin For here is a plain Distinction of Elders of which some being better at Ruling and some at preaching they exercised 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 Doctrin And since Labouring in the Word and Doctrin had the special Honour no Question but the first Presbyter as most honourable was always of the number of those that laboured that way so that the Bishop was the Pastour also or Preaching Elder that is the Preaching Spiritual Work became appropriated to him at first Eminently but afterwards entirely and then nothing lay in Common between him and the Presbyters but only Rule And this is what I can gather from Scripture of the Apostolical Settlement Upon the whole it is evident That a Diocesan Bishop was unknown in the first Age of the Church and the only Bishop to be found then was the Presbyter which is further confirmâ—d in that the Scotâ— who received the Knowledg of Christianity very early even in that Age had not any Knowledge for many Ages after that appears oâ— any but Presbyterian Jurisdiction Even Bishop Spotiswood in his History of the Church of Scotland tells us out of Boethius and Boethius from Ancient Annals of the Culdees or Ancient Scottish Priests and Monks who he believes were called Culdees not because Culteres Dei as most think but because they lived in Cells their Names as he says being Kele-Dei and not Culdei in old Bulls and Rescripts He says of these Culdees That they were wont for their better Government to elect one of their Number by common Suffrage to be the Chief and Principâ—l among them without whose Knowledge and Consent nothing was done in any Matter of Importance and the Person so Elected was called Scotorum Episcopus a Scots Bishop and this was all the Bishop that he could find in the first Times But Bâ—chaâ—an is plainer who tells us That no Bishop to wit an Order superiour to that of the Presbyters ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Paliadius his Time the Church says he unto that Time was Governed by Monks without Bishops with less Pride and outward Pomp but greater Simplicity and Holiness Thus I have Eâ—idenced what the Sâ—aâ—e of Things was in the first Times of the Christian Churches to wit that those were governed by Presbyteries in which all the Presbyters were equal and all Bishops only for Order-sake there was a first Presbyter who having more Care and more Work had yet no more Authority and Power than any other but as the best Men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions lyable to Rust and Canker so these were not exempted there was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own Times and those that followed him improved upon the Example The first Presbyter soon became advanced into another Order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters We are told by Dâ—naeus who citeth Epiphanius and he might have cited others that this Departure from the Primitive Institution began in Alexandâ—ia and it is very probable That the Appointment of twelve Presbyters besides a President for so Eutichius assures us it was there did give occasion to the President who easily took the Hint to challenge to himself the Place and Authority of Christ when the very Number of Presbyters over whom he presided made it manifest that they were an Imitation of the Apostles But whether other Churches took their Pattern from that of Alexandria or no 't is easie to conceive in what manner and by what means the Mistake might gain upon them For after the first Presbyter became elected and consequently was separate by Prayer and Imposition of Hands no wonder he was â—oon taken for an Officer of another Order much Superiour unto that of the Presbyters who was distinguished from them by that Token of a new Ordination and was in place above them Ay it is highly probable That the first Recess from the Primitive Institution even in Alexandria began this way if that be true that Grotius hath observed That the Election of the President Presbyter came not in use there but after the Death
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
the Twelve he was the Minister of the Gentiles and as these were a kind of Proselytes to the Jewish Church so he was a kind of Proselyte or super added Apostle Himself expresses it That he was one born out of due season 1 Cor. 15. 18. And for the Offices of Apostleship and Episcopacy I have shewed in my former Letter how much they differ 'T is true you say that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles and that too by the Fathers but you may remember I acquainted you they were not stiled so by any Fathers of the first Century or till towards the latter end if then of the Second Else that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles I know and Dr. Cave hath many Citations to that purpose to which you have added some and might have added more but the Sense in which they were called Apostles is that only which is of any concern to us And certainly notwithstanding all that you have said to the contrary it doth not as yet appear that those Bishops that were called by the Antient Fathers Apostles were Diocesan Bishops for they might be and really for all that glorious Denomination they were but Congregational Prelates who because in a sense they were Successors of the Apostles and the same in some Proportion unto particular Churches that the Apostles themselves were to the general even for that reason they were called Apostles and all as well as any Diocesans That the Bishops compared to the Apostles by S. Cyprian who is one of the first that compares them so were only Presbyterical and Congregational Bishops is evident in that even there where he so compares them he doth plainly Contradistinguish them to the Deacons for even there he mentioneth but Two Orders as S. Paul to Timothy doth and therefore must be understood to mean as he doth the one of the Bishops and Praepositi which he compares to Apostles and the other of the Deacons who he saith were appointed by the Apostles as indeed they were Acts 6. to be their and the Churches Servants Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos id est Episcopos praeposiâ—os Dominus eligit Diâ—conos autem post assensum domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus sui Ecclesiae ministres And 't is plain in that Citation which I made before from S. Cyprian that his Bishop or Praepositus for both in him are Expressions of one and the same Office was a Preaching Minister ordained unto a certain People ed eam plebem cui Praeposiâ—us ordinatur c. Again that the preaching Ministers or Pastors of Congregations were considered as in a Sense Successors of the Apostles and compared to them on that Account is farther evidenced from the Testimony of Nilus who in his Book of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then may one say is not the Pope entirely the Successor of Peter Yes he is but 't is as he is a Bishop and is no more than what every Bishop that was ordained by Peter may easily challenge But there were may that by his namely Peters Hand received this Grace of Episcopacy Ay every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood and thus there are many Successors as well of Peter as of other Apostles but in other Respects they have no Successors Thus he speaketh plainly That Bishops and Pastours succeeded the Apostles but not in the Apostleship of this there is no Succession and Dr. Reinolds is fully of the same Opinion and speaks home Indeed it is a Point saith he well worth the noting that as you do notoriously abuse the Church of Christ speaking to Hart for you perswade the Simple and chiefly young Scholars who trust your Common-Place Books that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peter's Successors in the same meaning That the Pope doth when he saith That Peter and Peter's Suceessor is the Head of the Church and bindeth by solemn Oath to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peter's Successors them whom Christ doth put in Trust to seed his Sheep as the Master of the Sentences and Thomas of Aquin do give the Name of Peters Successors to all Priests and Prelates as they term them that is to all Pastors and Doctors of the Church as S. Augustin teacheth That it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou love me feed my sheep As S. Ambrose writeth That he and all Bishops have received the Charge of the Sheep with Peter as the Roman Clergy apply it to the rest of the Disciples of Christ and the Clergy of Carthage too Thus Dr. Reinolds But I stay too long on a matter that in no degree deserves it for to inferr that all Bishops are properly Apostles because they have the Name of Apostles is to imply That Identity of Names will inferr an Identy of Offices at which Rate Ioseph the Mittendary in Epiphanius whom he calleth an Apostle would have the Honour of being a Bishop and indeed on that Account his Title is all as good as Bishop Epaphroditus's 'T is true you tell me you believe as S. Hierome likewise did That Epaphroditus was really the Bishop because he is called the Apostle of the Philippians Phi. 2. 25. But as it is true that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle so it may well be acknowledged That our English Translators do render that Expression very well your messenger since nothing is more evident than this That the Coherence and Connexion of the Text will carry it to that Sense I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and companion in labour and fellow soldier but your messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and minster of my necessities Which indeed he was as appears by Chap. 4. 15 18. Now the Philippians know that no Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you but my God shall supply all your need c. to wit as you by him have supplied mine That the Apostles exercised a Jurisdiction over particular formed Churches and over those particularly which themselves had founded is as little to your purpose if Bishops are not which they are not either of the Order of the Apostles or else Founders of Churches as these were as in it self it is a Truth and not to be questioned The Jurisdiction of the Apostles over particular Churches undergoes a Double Consideration in neither of which it symbolizeth with the Diocesan or Episcopal for it may be considered either as it was an Appurtenance and Incident to the Office of the Apostleship to wit as the Apostles were Founders of the Church Essential and thus all the Apostles as they had one Commission so they had equal Authority equal Jurisdiction over all the
Churches Or it may be considered as accruing to the Apostles from more particular Respects to wit as they were the Fathers and Founders of particular Churches The former I call Essential the latter Accidental Jurisdiction of the Apostles Take the Jurisdiction of the Apostles in the first Consideration and then Diocesan Bishops can no more pretend thereto than they can to the Office of the Apostleship which was oecumeuical for its extent as well as Infallible for its Execution it being an Appurtenance and Incident only unto this and dyed with their Persons Or take it more particularly for that Authority which they assumed and were understood to have in a more particular manner over the Persons they had converted and the Churches they founded between which and themselves on that foot there was a more particular Relation than between others and them although in this Consideration the Jurisdiction of the Apostles was no other than what was common to them with the Evangelists or any other Persons that planted Christianity made Conversions and setled Churches in any particular Regions or Places yet even this is as far from being Diocesan as from being ordinary A Founder that institutes a College settles Orders and makes Statutes though he doth not constitute himself as rarely any does a Visitor yet on extraordinary Occasions and in Difficulties arising about the Meaning of Statutes or their Application upon incident Emergencies he would think it but a Duty while himself lived and the Founded should think it theirs to have recourse unto him and to take his Directions but he dying that Authority as being incident only unto his Person dyes with him Founders as such have no Successors I touched in my former Letter on this latter Jurisdiction in respect whereof in a right sense one Apostle may well be affirmed to have had an Authority and Power in some places and over some Persons more than another for thus in a particular manner Paul was stiled the Apostle of the Uncircumcision as Peter was of the Circumcision The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 4. Expostulates with the Corinthions on this Account he assereth the Authority he had over them and shews the ground of that Authority for he affirms That as he was their Father in Christ so he had an Authority over them as a Father over his Children ver 14 15 16. I write not these things to shame you but as my beloved Sons I warn you for though you have ten thousand Instructors in Christ yet have you no many Fathers for in Christ Iesus I have begotten you through the Gospel Thus he claims an Authority over them as being their Father or one that had Converted them which Authority he plainly distinguishes from theirs who were only Instructors Now Bishops as such are but Instructors of Churches not Fathers they may Convert and Proselite single Persons but as Bishops they do not Found Churches but only Feed the Churches already founded In vertue of this Authority as he was their Father and Founder the Apostle Exercised that Jurisdiction over the Church at Corinth which you call Episcopal a thing so evident that nothing can be more to one that observes the Connexion for in the latter end of the Fourth Chapter he evinced as I said that he had a paternal Authority over them as well as Care for them and immediately in the beginning of the 5th as an Instance of that Authority he gives them that Direction about the Incestuous Person upon which you i◠sist. So that in this Transaction with the Corinthians the Apostle acted not as an ordinary Bishop but acting by vertue of that Authority which he had over them as he was the Person that had Converted them and was their Father and Founder The Quality he acted in was Extraordinary and particular Again the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary too he was present in Spirit and not in Care and Affection only affectu et sollicitudine as by a supposed Parallel in the Expression Coloss. 2. 5. you would have me believe for he makes his presence the ground of his proceeding in the Censure or Judgment which he pronounced for I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have Iudged already and all Judgment must proceed upon Evidence by View or Proof not Affection and therefore his presence which is the Ground of his proceeding must be a Spiritual view The Report or general Scandal which is mentioned ver 1. on which you insist was but a Motive to the Apostle to invite him to consider the matter it was not the Ground on which he proceeded in his Censure this as he plainly affirms was his Spiritual view or presence in Spirit And what Spirit but that same Spirit mentioned afterwards in the same Text which Spirit you must yield to be Extraordinary and Apostolical when you come together and Mr SPIRIT it being but reason that the same Spirit which gave in Evidence should also assist at the Execution But this latter Spirit you say was but a Letter or Authority conveyed by the Apostles Letter and why say I the latter Spirit not the same with the former and where I pray you is Spirit taken for a Letter or for Anthority conveyed by it I am sure this same Apostle distinguishes Letter Word and Spirit 2 Thess. 2. 2. and therefore and my Spirit should not be and my Letter especially when joyned in the manner it is here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ which what it is may more particularly be understood by Act. 1. 8. But you shall receive the POWER of the Holy Ghost coming upon you And the Sentence passed by S. Paul was as Extraordinary as the Cognisance whereon he grounded it for To deliver to Satan was not to Excommunicate either with the lesser Excommunication which is Suspension from the Sacrament or with the greater which is a solemn Excision from the Church Some will tell you it was a Censure wholly unknown unto the Jews who yet had all the Forms of Excommunication Nidui Cberem and Maranatha and that in the whole New Testament nothing in the least is said to support this thought that Tradition to Satan is Excommunication The delivery to Satan as many of the the Antient Fathers believed some of whom your self do cite was certainly a Judiciary giving the Dilinquent to the Devil as to a Tormentor for so the Apostles Phrase doth carry it when he saith it It was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Destruction of the Flesh and it was practised only by the Apostles by their Apostolical Power of which see Petrus Molineus in his Vates l. 2. c. 11. You do indeed acknowledg at last that Corporal Asfliction or Pains inflicted by the Devil as by a Tormentor had Place in the first Times and by virtue too of Apostolical Censure but then by way of Qualification you say also That it was a Consequent of Excommunication But this is a thing that
the Bishops only to their ordinary and lawful Jurisdiction Invest them in any new or any that is unlawful at the Common Law or that is contrary to the Prerogative of our Kings All that I have said on this Occasion might receive a further Confirmation were there need of more by the famed Character of King Kenulphus made to the Abbot of Abington in which was a grant of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction as there also was in that of King Off a made to the Monastry of S. Albans by the Title of King Edgar who stiled himself Vicar of God in Ecclesiasticals by the Offering that Wolstan made of his Staff and Ring the Ensigns of his Episcopacy at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor by the Petition of the Archbishop and Clergy at the Coronation of our Kings by the form of the King 's Writ for Summoning a Convocation and of the Royal Licence that is commonly granted before the Clergy and Convocation can go upon any particular Debates In fine by the Statutes relating to Excommunication that do both direct and limit the Execution of that Censure and the proceedings upon it as to Capias's c. And thus much for Church-Government in the Third State of the Church as it is become incorporated by Civil Powers In discoursing of which I have made it plain That as no National Draught is of our Lord Christ's or his Apostles designing so that National Churches are all of Human Institution and their Government Ambulatory that is Alterable according as Times and Occasions and as the Forms of Civil Governments in States that do incorporate the Church oblige it to be to make it fit and suitable I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE THIRD LETTER SIR I Have always acknowledged some Episcopacy to be of Primitive Antiquity but you will please to remember I have likewise shewed that that Episco pacy was Presbyterial not Prelatical Congregational not Diocesan And that the Primitive Bishop was only a first Presbyter that is a Chairman in the College of Presbyters and not as in the Diocesan Hierarchy a Prelate of a superior Order that presided over several Congregational Churches and was invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction much less was he an Officer that kept Courts that had under him Chancellours Commissaries Officials Registers Apparitors c. and that judged per se aut per alium in certain reserved Cases To make this out I presented to you a Scheme of the Government of the Church both as it was established and settled by the Apostles and as it was afterwards I shewed That the Apostles in all their Institutions did carefully avoid any Imitation of the Temple-Orders to which Orders the Prelatical Hierarchy doth plainly conform I shewed also That the Government settled by the Apostles was only Congregational the Apostles in planting of Churches proceeding only after the Model and Way of the Synagogues Ay! all the Churches that we read of in Scripture that were constituted by the Apostles were only Congregational not National or Provincial that is they were as so many little Republicks each consisting of a Senate or Eldership with the Authority and of a People with the Power but all independant one of another and all possessed of all that Jurisdiction and Authority over their Members that was to be standing and ordinary For this Reason tho' every Congregation was but a part and a small one yet it had the Denomination of the whole every particular Congregation was stiled a Church This will appear more evident if we consider That the Interest of the People had at first and long after for above 150 Years in the Ordination of Officers was very great It is true the Word Ordination or that which answers to it in the Greek is never used throughout the whole New Testament for the making of Evangelical Officers nor did it in this Sense come into use among Christians till after the Christian Church began to accommodate to the Language as well as to the Orders of the Jewish But then as the People was called Laity and Plebs so the Clergy was called Ordo and this in the same Sense of the Word as when we read of the Order of Aaron and of that of Melchisedeck and then too the calling of any Person to the Ministry as it was a calling of him to be of the Clergy or Order so it was stiled an Ordination Ordination being nothing but the placing of a Person in the Order of the Clergy But tho' the Word Ordination was not as yet in use in the first Times the Thing was which is the Creation of Officers in the Church and in this the People possess'd so great a share which is a very good Argument of the Church's being framed at first after the Model and Way of Republicks that even the Action it self is called Chirotonia by S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and ever since by the Greek Fathâ—rs Ay the Creation of Officers is not usually called Chirothesia for this with the Greek Fathers was the Word that was mostly if not always used for Confirmation not for Ordination tho' Imposition of Hands the Ceremony signified by that Word was the Rite which was used by the Jews in creating of Rabbies and Doctors the Act of Ordination is usually if not always denominated Chirotonia or Extension of Hands which in the Greek Republicks was the Name or Word for the Popular Suffrage Indeed Paul and Barnabas are said to Chirotonize or as our Translators render the Word Acts 14. 23. To ordain them Elders in every Church But says Mr. Harrington they are said to do so but in the same Sense that the Proedri who were Magistrates to whom it belonged to put the Question in the Representative of the People of Athens are in Demosthenes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the Suffrage and the Thesmothetae who were Presidents in the Creation of Magistrates are in Pollux said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chirotonize the Strategi who yet ever since the Institution of Cliethenes that distributed the People into ten Tribes were always used to be elected and made by the Popular Suffrage Nor was this manner of Speaking peculiar unto the Greeks but as Calvin in his Institutions l. 4. c. 4. f. 15. observes it was a common Form used also by the Roman Historians who say That the Consul created Officers when he only presided at the Election and gathered the Votes of the People Et c'est uniforme commune de parler comme les Historiens disent quun Consul creoit des Officiers quand il recevoit le voix du peuple presedoit sur l' election So plain it is that S. Luke in saying that Paul and Barnabas did chirotonize the Elders intended to signifie no more but that the Elders were made by the Suffrage of the People Paul and Barnabas presiding at the Election and declaring or making the Crisis and so the New Latin Translation in
Beza and Piscator renders the Text Quâ—mque ipsis per suffragia creassent c. I know that some have told us That Iosephus uses the Word with reference unto God he saying that God did chrirotonize Aaron thrice and therefore to chirotonize is not always to be taken for the Popular Suffrage Nor is chirotonizing always taken so But supposing that the Word Chirotonize was used by Iosephus as afterwards it came to be by others in a second Sense for any Creation of Officers in general yet in the primary and proper use it signifies the Popular Suffrage for Chirotonia in Suidas is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Election Ratification made by All. And this also was the common Use of the Word at that time when and in the Places most of them Republicks where the Apostles are said to chirotonize And certainly no Man can imagine with Reason That the making of Elders in its first Institution should be called Chirotonia and bear the Name of the Suffrage of the People especially in that time and in such places had these Elders been made in any other manner than by the popular Suffrage for then the name of the Action would have been distinctive or proper as all Original Names of things are used to be Besides what if it should be said as indeed it is by Mr. Harrington that when the Congregation or People of Israel upon the several miraculous Appearances in favour of Aaron did recognize him again and again for High Priest this Chirotonia of the People was the Chirotonia of God Why might not God as President of the Congregation in that Theocracy as well be said as he is by Iosephus to chirotonize when the People did as the Proedri who presided in the Assembly of the People at Athens be said by Demosthenes to make the Diachirotonia the Thesmothetae by Pollux to Chirotonize the Strategi and the Consul who presided at the Election of Officers at Rome be said by the Roman Historians to create these Officers As for the Diachirotonia tho' you think it the Act only of the Magistrates not of the People because Hesychius says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will give me leave to acquaint you that the Diachirotonia was as much the Act of the People or of those suffrageâ— as the Chirotonia it self was For those that suffraged or made the Chirotonia are said in cases of competition to Diachirotanize because then by their Suffrages they did distinguish one of the Competitors from the other and he of the Competitors that was distinguished to his Advantage as carrying the Office by most Voices was said to be Diachirotonized and a Declaration was made That he was elected which Declaration was called Crisis All this is evident from Plato who treating l. 6. de leg concerning the Election of the Strategi in case of Competition says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoever appears to be Diachirotonized or to have most Voices be it declared let the Crisis be that he is elected Here he distinguishes very plainly between the Diachirotonia which he attributes to those that suffraged and the Crisis or declarative Judgment which was the Act of those that presided But he does it afterward more plainly wheâ— ordaining that the same Rule that was observed in the making of the Strategi should be also observed in that of the Taxiarchi he says Let the same be observed both as to the Epichirotonia and the Crisis that is as to the Suffrage and to the Resolve So that Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be interpreted a Discrimination or preference made by Suffrage As for the Jurisdiction of the Apostles I make no doubt but that the Apostles who were Elders as well as Apostles 2 Pet. 5. 1. acted in setled Congregations where any of them happen'd to be or to reside with the Elders of such Congregations in that Capacity of Elders but as this Authority was not properly or purely Apostolical so that which was both that I call the Essential that was incident to the Apostles as they founded the Church and the Accidental that was incident to them as they founded particular Churches was Extraordinany and peculiar as being only for that emergent Occasion and not for Continuance To speak generally governing the Churches was as much an ordinary Work as â—reaching and was common to all the Elders whether Apostles or not but to do it in such a particular manner with such a Rod and with so large a Superintendence as in some cases the Apostles did was extraordinary and peculiar to them No Officers that are now can pretend to a Rod like that of the Apostles Acts 5. 3 4 5 c. 1 Cor. 4. 21 and therefore none that are now can exercise such a Discipline as they did Those that will truly evidence that the Prelatical Hierarchy is Apostolical ought to demonstrate that besides the Officers setled in all particular Churches to feed and govern them the Apostles and Evangelists setled others as a kind of Visitors General over all or over many Churches together with the same Authority that themselves had exercised and this for continuance without this nothing is done to any purpose As for the Transaction 1 Cor. 5. I am still of the mind it was wholly extraordinary and that it cannot be drawn into Example The Apostle says When you are gathered together and my Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with the Authority but with the mighty power of the Lord Christ to the end to deliver such an one unto Satan Whence it follows very clearly That without the Apostles Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ the Corinthians were unable to deliver that Incestuous to Satan for else I see no Reason why they should have the Conjunction and Assistance of these the Apostles Spirit and Christ's Power for that end since then there would be no need of it And if they could not deliver the Incestuous to Satan without the Assistance of the Apostolical Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ it also follows that to deliver to Satan was not meerly to excommunicate eject or suspend him since this was so much in their own Power that they might have done it of themselves without such Extraordinary and Miraculous Aids To be sure this Effect whatever it was if it bore as every Effect must do proportion unto its cause it must be something that was Extraordinary for it came not only from the Spirit of the Apostle but also from the Miraculous Power of Christ for such a Power that is which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as is evident Acts 1. 8. 'T is true you infer from 1 Cor. 5. 2. That the Corinthians could not put away the Incestuous without a new Commission from the Apostle who was their Bishop and consequently you understand the Power was given to them only of a Commission or Authority But on the contrary the Word used for Power is as I have said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word that commonly signifies Strength not Authority Besides if this putting away v. 2. must be understood as certainly it must of the same putting away with that v. 13. nothing can be plainer than that it was a Censure the People could and ought to have made of themselves without expecting any new Commission as being in a matter that by the Apostles own Concession they had a proper Cognisance of and over a Person too whose competent Judges they were as the same Apostle tells them Do not you judge them that are within therefore put away c. putting away is grounded on the Peoples Judgment but delivery unto Satan upon the Apostles And yet however putting away may well be called an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rebuke and be a kind of Punishment for to be excluded from the Common Society and Conversation of the Faithful cannot deserve a milder Expression You still insist That there is and ought to be a Disparity of Ministers because there was a Disparity between the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples and with Blondel think that the 70 continued in the same Office after the Ascension of our Lord that they had before for you say You cannot believe they withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men. But tho' you do not believe as I know no need you should that the 70 withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men yet if their Office was only occasional that is if they were sent by our Saviour to the House of Israel as Messengers upon some particular Occasions and about a particular Business then their Office ceased of Course at their Return like that of a Prince's Envoy whose Office ends with his Business that is as soon as his Message is done and he returned with the Account of it I know of no Jurisdiction the 12 Apostles had over the 70 but am sure the Office and Work of the 70 whatever it was related but to the Jews as being a Business only for that Time a Time that was the Crepusculum or Twi-light between the Law and Gospel Judaism and Christianity while as yet the Kingdom of Heaven was only at hand but not come Luke 10. 9. I add That the Office of the 70 is not reckoned in the number of the Ascension Gifts Eph. 4. 11. And which is more that the Apostles themselves had they not received another a new Commission after the Reâ—urrection of Christ they by their former old one which confirmed them unto Iudaea as that of the 70 also did them and which was only for a preliminary Work Matth. 10. 7. as that of the 70 also was could not have had an Authority to preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles and so to lay the Foundation of the Catholick Church And therefore the first Commission as it was limited so it was Temporary and expired at furthest when a second was given them Matth. 28 18 19. Acts 1. 8. Not but that the 70 as well as the 12 had Business in the Kingdom of Heaven or the Evangelical State but they had it not under the Denomination of the 70 or in vertue of their first Commission or Mission but only as they came to be Officers in this Kingdom by being constituted Evangelists or Prophets or Pastors and Teachers or Deacons c. You offer again in Confirmation of your Notion of the Apostleship of Bishops that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation were Bishops constituted by the Apostles with the same Authority themselves had and that the Twelve Apostles and Paul were not all the Apostles that the Scripture speaks of for Barnabas and others were Apostles too as well as they I acknowledge Barnabas to be an Apostle but I cannot acknowledge that he was an Apostle of the same Rank with the Twelve and Paul for as Paul himself distinguishes Gal. 1. 1. All Apostles were not of the same Rank but some were in the first some in the second Order that is some were Apostles sent immediately by Christ himself and so were Legates à latere and some were sent not immediately by Christ himself but by Men. Now Paul insists That himself was an Apostle of the first Order and in the same Rank with the Twelve Gal. 1. 17. whereas it is plain that Barnabas and all the others who are called Apostles can pretend to be but of the second they being sent not immediately by Christ himself as those of the first were but only by Man either by the Apostles that were of the first Order as Timothy and Titus by Paul or by some Church as Barnabas Acts 11. 22. for here the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him as the word Imports that is used Acts 13 3. Apostles of the second Order are called also Evangelists and it was their business to be Assistant unto those of the first if not always to their Persons yet at least to their Work which was to plant Churches by making of Conversions and setling Orders And of this sort of Apostles I again acknowledge Timothy and Titus to have been I proved in my former Paper that Timothy and Titus were Evangilists but it seems the Argument I used loses all its force with you because its strength like that of the Arch-work lies in the Combination and Concurrence and you consider it only in pieces not as a whole and all its parts together and United but only separately and part by part As for Timothy methinks we do too often find him with S. Paul in his Perambulations to have any reason to conceive that he was resident Bishop of Ephesus and for Titus his Diocess seems too large for any ordinary Bishop Crete is famed to have had an hundred Cities in old time and Pliny assures us L. 4. c. 12. that in his there were forty which were enough for so many Bishopricks Titus had it in Charge Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City and to ordain Elders in every City was to settle a Church in every City so that if every Church must have a Bishop as some are confident it must then every City in Crete that had a Church had also a Bishop and so possibly there were as many Bishops and Bishopricks in Crete as there were Cities This Consideration if well weighed will much abate of the Authority of the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus in which this Evangelist is stiled the Ordained Bishop in the Church of the Cretians for according to the Language of that time had Titus been indeed the Bishop of that whole Island he ought to have been stiled Bishop of the Churches and not of the Church of the Cretians But it seems it is taken for granted that a Bishop must have but
one Church and therefore that Titus may be a Bishop of the Cretians all the Churches of Crete must be Consolitated into one else among all the Churches in Crete I would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where Titus resided If Titus was Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops and at least a Metropolitan which indeed would be most in favour of the Hierarchy could it be Evidenced But this could not be the settlement that was made in Crete For it would be strange that the Apostle should appoint a Hierarchy in Crete that should differ from the form of Government setled upon the Continent by himself and Barnabas who constituted Elders in every Church without appointing that we read of any Superiour Bishop or Metropolitan that should have a General Care and Inspection over the several Churches For my part I could not see how Titus should understand his Commission which was to ordain Elders in every City to carry any other Intention with reference to Crete than the very same words do when they are used to signifie what Paul himself who gave him this Commission had done upon the Continent where he and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church And therefore as Paul and Barnabas established single Congregations only and Organized them with Elders and then left them to govern themselves by their own Intrinsick powers So in the like manner Titus established Churches in every City and Organized them with Elders which having done it is very probable that he returned again unto S. Paul to give an account of his Commission Thus Titus his business in Crete has the very Idea and Signature of that of an Evangelist or a Secundary Apostle without the least Mark of an ordinary Bishop nor is there any hint in all the Authentick Scriptures of his being ordained Bishop of Crete or indeed of any place else And the like must be said of Timothy with reference to Ephesus who was sent to the Church there as a Visitor only with Apostolical Authority and so as S. Paul's Delegate Nor it Titus his ordaining of Elders a good Argument for sole Ordination for the word Tit. 1. 5. is the same that is used in Acts 6. 3. in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the People And one might well admire that the same word which is Translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordained in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if there were a plain Text for sole Ordination But what if Timothy and Titus had a power of sole Jurisdiction and a power too of making Canons for the Government of the Church which latter yet is an Authority that every Bishop will not pretend unto after their Example The Church then was in a State of Separation from Secular Government and among Heathen just as the Jews are now among Christians so that all it could do at that time was to perswade it could not compel And therefore it will not follow now that the Church is protected and not only protected by but Incorporated into the State that the Officers of it must have the same powers and Exercise them in the same manner as before or as Mr. Selden expresses it That England must be Governed as Ephesus or Crete It is certain that Kings would gain but little by the Bargain not to say they must depart with their Sovereignty to Incorporate the Christian Religion should this be admitted that Church-Authority Church-Power must be still the same after such Incorporation as before For a separate National Jurisdiction Exercised by one or many is a Solecism in State especially if it claim by the Title of Iure divino a Title that renders it Independent upon as well as unboundable and uncontroulable by all that is human Such a Jurisdiction would weaken that of Kings and other States All their Subjects would be but half Subjects and many none at all and it is no more nor less but that very same thing that heretofore was found so inconvenient and burden some under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie A Clergy imbodied within it self and independent on the State is in a Condition of being made a powerful Faction upon any Occasion and easie to be practised upon as being united under one or a few Heads who can presently convey the Malignity to all their Subordinates and these to the People So that I lay it down 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 learned us this I know not with what Design it was said by Padre Paulo Sarpio of Venice but his Words are very remarkable as I find them cited from an Epistle of his to a Counsellor of Paris in the Year 1609. I am afraid says he in the behalf of the English of that great power of Bishops though under a King I have it in Suspicion when they shall meet with a King of that goodness as they will think it easie to work upon him or shall have any Archbishop of an high Spirit the Royal Authority shall be wounded and Bishops will aspire to an Absolute Domination Methinks I see a Horse Sadled in England and I guess that the old Rider will get on his Back But all these things depend on the Divine Providence Thus he very prudently as to the main though perhaps with some mistake as to his Conjecture For my part I think it but reason that such Persons as have the Benefit of Human Laws should in so much be guided by them and that the Sword which owns no other Edge but what the Magistrate gives it should not be used but by his Direction As indeed the practice in England has always been For as Mr. Selden observes Whatever Bishops do otherwise than the Law permits Westminster-Hall can controul or send them to absolve c. He also says very well That nothing has lost the Pope so much in his Supremacy as not acknowledging what Princes gave him 't is a scorn says he on the Civil Power and an unthankfulness in the Priest But adds he the Church runs to Iure divino lest if these should acknowledge what they have by positive Laws it might be as well taken from them as given to them Ay This excellent Person goes further so much further as to tell us That a Bishop as a Bishop had never any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England for as soon as he was Electus Confirmatus that is after the Three Proclamations in Bow-Church he might Exercise Jurisdiction before he was Consecrated and yet till then that he was Consecrated he was no Bishop neither could he give Orders Besides says he Suffragans were
Bishops and they never claimed any Jurisdiction As for the Angels in the Revelation I see no Evidence in what is said tho' much is said to prove them to have been Diocesans It will not follow they were single persons because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who would say they are compared to Stars and not to Constellations for the Truth is both these Words are used promiscuously as well for the Constellations as for the single Stars so that no stress is to be laid upon the Word that is used for either side Besides some are of the Opinion That to the making of it clear that these Angels were only single Persons and for that cause compared but to single Stars and not to Constellations sufficient Reason ought to be given why the Holy Ghost who expresly limits the Number of the Churches doth not in like manner limit the Number of the Angels belonging to them For say they when the Holy Ghost said The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches had he intended to signifie that the Angels were but seven as the Churches were he would in like manner have said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of those seven Churches But as I am not satisfied that any great Stress should be laid in things of Moment upon such Critical Nicities so should I yield without granting that these Angels were Stars or single Persons yet I should also think it but equal to demand What Reason there is to perswade that these Stars were other than the seven President Presbyters who were Chair-men in the several Presbyteries of those seven Churches Which Churches I take to be single Congregations For I see as yet no Reason but that as a Letter intended for the Honourable House of Commons may be directed to the Speaker so these Epistles intended for the seven Churches for that they were Rev. 2. 7 11 17 c. might be superscribed for the Chief Pastor or President Presbyter who probably at that Time was stiled the Bishop by way of Appropriation In fine what if by the Name of Angel an Angel properly so called should be understood And that the Epistles intended for the Churches Pastors and People were sent to them under the Name of their Guardian Angels Should this â—e so then farewel to any Ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And that it should be so is very agreeable to the Prophetical Spirit in the Revelation For the Revelation 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 Dan. 10. 13 20 21. Which is further confirmed in that it seems to have been an Hypothesis obtaining in the first Age of Christianity that the several Churches or Assemblies of Christians had their Guardian Angels for it is very probable that in Relation and Aspect unto this Hypothesis the Apostle Paul does tell Women 1 Cor. 11. 10. That they ought to have power over their heads Because of the ANGELS the Expression seems to imply That there were Angels Guardians of the Assemblies who observed the Demeanour of All and therefore they ought to be Circumspect Modest and Decent in their Behaviour and in their Fashions and Garbs out of Respect to those Guardians And indeed the former Account of the Title of Angels is a more agreeable and easie one than that which some others give who by Angel understanding a Bishop in the Modern Sense of that Word believe the Denomination given with reference to a Practice among the Jews who they say as from Diodorus attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel But 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 unto in our Case since every Bishop is not an High Priest in the Sense of the Jews For in their Sense there could be but one and then that one among Christians must be a Pope or a Sovereign Bishop over all the Bishops as among the Jews the High Priest was over all the Priests But in reality the Jews had no such Practice nor does the alledged Diodorus say they had to call their High Priest Angel they called him High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his name but indeed he adds That they had a Belief of him That he was often made a Messenger or Angel of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as really he was when he had the Urim on him and this is all that Diodorus affirms Your other Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy which you ground upon the Traditional Succession of Bishops in several Sees down from the Times of the Apostles and in the Seats of the Apostles has no more of cogency in it than the former I know Tertullian l. de praescript adv Hae etieos says Precurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsâ— adhus Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c. And I acknowledg the Apostles may well enough be said to have sate in Chairs and others to succeed in them if the Chairs be understood of Chairs of Doctrin in the same Sense in which the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses's for in this Sense All those Churches were Apostolical and had Apostolical Succession which being founded upon the Doctrin of the Apostles had such persoâ—s only in any Authority over them as did continue therein But else I cannot believe my self obliged to assent that the Apostles had Chairs in Particular Churches tho' Tertullian's Words at first Sight may seem to sound that way than to believe the Story of the Cells of the 70 Translators a Story that S. Hierom not only confutes but Ridicules tho' it has this to be said for it That Iustin Martyr affirms he saw the Ruins of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandri Tertullian flourished but in the beginning of the third Century by which Time many Fob Traditions past Current of which Truth too many Instances are obvious in the Writings of that Father as well as of other Fathers Indeed Eusebius has given us Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops in several Churches but these Catalogues are only Conjectural and Traditionary Himself in the Proem of his Ecclesiastical History tells us of a great Chasm that was in that kind of History for the three first Centuries and that being alone and solitary in this kind of Performance he had nothing but Fragments here and there to help him from any of those who preceeded him Ay 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 quorum nomina non est facile explicare per
singulos And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul Ex Apostoli tamen Pauli sermonibus colligere possumus c. so that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought I see deserve but little more of Credit as being but little better ascertained than the Catalogue of the British Kings deduced from Brute In truth the Task is a little uneasie to make it clear That the Apostles were properly Bishops in the Modern Sense of the Word and that they had fixed Seats which yet is the Basis upon which such Catalogues must stand sure I am Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms their Office to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare so that in the Judgment of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers a sort of Officers that were unfixed As for Epaphroditus I cannot be peswaded by the bare Authority of S. Hierom whom yet I take for a very Learned as well as Pious Father much less by that of Walo Messalinus to believe against the Analogy of the Text That he was Bishop of the Philippians only because he is called by S. Paul their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. The Observation Walo has made of the Word Apostle that it is never used by the Evangelists by S. Paul in any other Place or by the other Apostles but only De Sancto Ministerio will hold no Water for I take it that Iohn 13 16. in which Place the Word is used in a Common Promiscuous Sense and rendred so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable Instance against him Irenaeus is also cited to prove that such a superiority as the Apostles themselves had in the Church was transmitted by them unto Bishops for say you this Father who distinguishes between the Bishops and Presbyters affirms That the Apostles delivered to the Bishops suum ipsorum locum Magisterii their own Place of Magisteriality or Government Irenaeus flourished towards the End of the 2d Century and yet so near as he was to the Apostles own Times if he affirmed as he is ageed by the most tho' not by all to have done That our Lord Christ did undergo his Passion in the fiftieth Year of his Age we shall have little Reason to be fond of his Authority in Matters which he takes upon Trust and by meer Report But admitting Irenaeus's Authority which I am unwilling to lessen to be as unblemished and as tight as one could wish it yet on this occasion it will do you but small Service for the Force of the Testimony which you cite from him depends on the Word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as you understand it a Masterly Authority but teaching and Doctrin for in this latter Sense the Word is often used by other Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as you may see l. 1. ep 3. and in other Places but this is a Sense that maketh nothing for you for then Irenaeus means no other than what Tertullian also affirms and none will deny that the Apostles delivered over to the Bishops their own Chairs of Doctrin so that succeeding Bishops or Pastors were obliged to deliver no other Doctrin unto their Flocks but that same which themselves had first received from those that were the Founders of Christianity In fine as to what you mention but somewhat invidiously concerning the Judgment of the Assembly of Divines the Gangrene of Mr. Edwards and the overflow that was of Sects and Heresies in the Late Times of the Interreign which you would insinuate to be occasioned by the Intermission of Episcopacy I answer that there were Sects and Heresies even in the Times of the Apostles and that Irenaeus S. Ausrin Philastrius and Epiphanius have furnished the Christian World with large Catalogues of them and of some in their own times and yet I doubt not you will acknowledge there were Bishops in the Church even in those times So that Episcopacy if it be not Coercive is no such Remedy against Sects and Heresies as you would have us believe and if it be Coercive it is not purely Christian and Spiritual but in so much has something in it of Secular and Worldly Thus I have reinforced my main Argument and removed such Exceptions as you take against it and now I shall not make your trouble much longer but to elucidate some Incident and By Passages which I will do with all the Brevity I can and without formality of Method only as they come to my Mind Peter is first named where ever the whole Colledge of the Apostles is called over but I do not inâ—er nor does it enforce that any Primacy was due unto him other than that of Precedence which All Protestants generally speaking allow him It doth not appear that Iames at the Council of Hierusalem spake with more Authority than the other Apostles as Bishop of the Place and President of the Synod Iesephus indeed takes notice of him under an eminent Character for Piety but not a word in that Author of his eminent Dignity as a Prelate As for Paul he calls him but plain Iames not Bishop Iames And though he put him before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. that preference might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother Gal. 1. 19. and consequently is no great Argument of his Prelacy in the modern sense of that word So Zomen's Censure of the practice of having more Bishops than one in one City does prove that practice though he did not approve it Epiphanius also is cited by many to evidence that practice I yield not that 1 Cor. 14. 34. which may be translated in the Assemblies will demonstrate that there were at that time several separate Meetings for Christian Offices in one City or Town where was but one Church And yet I grant it might happen to be so upon Occasion for our Experience Evinces it has been so of late in a time of Persecution among the Dissenting Churches and what has been in our time might on like Occasions have been before it However this Accident would not prove nor indeed do I find any other proof that there were in the first times of Christianity Pastors who had the Care of several Churches or that any Church at that time did take in several Cities or Towns which were remote a Church properly being a Coagregation and consequently the People of a Vicinage or Neighbourhood under Orders Cenchrea though one of the Ports of Corinth had a Church of its own distant from that at Corinth and none I think will say That that Church was Diocesan The Council of Chalcedon prohibited absolute Ordinations That the end of the World Matth. 28. 20. is literally to be understood of the end of the Jewish Policy or the Mosaical seculum