of the Principal of the twelve Apostles and S. Iames was not so much as one of that number yet in the Church of Ierusalem he had the Priority of them both now considering that S. Iames is called an Apostle and considering the Preference he had in all these instances above the other Apostles at Ierusalem it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church of Ierusalem but if to all this evidence we add the most early Testimonies of Christian Antiquity we shall advance the Probability to a Demonstration for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical Writers S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem for so Hegesippus who lived very near the times of the Apostles tells us that Iames the Brother of our Lord called by all men the Iust received the Church of Ierusalem from the Apostles vid. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. so also S. Clement as he is quoted by the same Author l. 2. c. 1. tells us that Peter Iames and Iohn after the Assumption of Christ as being the men that were most in favour with him did not contend for the Honour but chose Iames the Just to be Bishop of Ierusalem and in the Apostolical Constistitutions that pass under the name of S. Clement which though not so ancient as is pretended yet are doubtless of very early Antiquity the Apostles are brought in thus speaking Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time we signifie to you that they were these Iames the Brother of our Lord was Ordained by us Bishop of Ierusalem c. so also S. Ierom. de script Eccles. tells us that S. Iames immediately after the Passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And S. Cyril who was afterwards Bishop of that Church and therefore a most Authentick Witness of the Records of it calls Saint Iames the first Bishop of that Diocess Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent Testimonies of S. Austin S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose and a great many others and S. Ignatius himself who was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles makes S. Stephen to be a Deacon of S. Iames Ep. ad Trall and therefore since Stephen was a Deacon of the Church of Ierusalem S. Iames whose Deacon he was must necessarily be the Bishop of it Upon this account therefore S. Iames is called an Apostle in Scripture because by being Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem he had the Apostolick Power and Authority conferred on him for since it is apparent he was none of the Twelve to whom the Apostleship was at first confined he could no otherwise become an Apostle than by deriving the Apostleship from some of the Twelve and therefore since that Apostleship which he derived from the Twelve was only Episcopal Superiority over the Church of Ierusalem it hence necessarily follows that the Episcopacy was the Apostleship derived and communicated from the Primitive Apostles The second Instance of the Apostles Communicating their Apostolick Superiority to others is Epaphroditus who in Phil. 2.25 is stiled the Apostle of the Philippians But I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and companion in labour and fellow souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but your Apostle for so S. Ierom Com. Gal. 1.19 Paulatim tempore precedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat Ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum c. i. e. by degrees in process of time others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen as that passage to the Philippians shews I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your Apostle And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the Apostle of the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he was intrusted with Episcopal Government as being their Bishop so that here you see Epaphroditus is made an Apostle by the Apostles and his Apostleship consists in being made Bishop of Philippi A third instance is that of Titus and some others with him 2 Cor. 8.23 Whether any do inquire of Titus he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our Brethren be inquired of they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ where it is plain they are not called the Apostles of the Churches merely as they were the Messengers of the liberality of the Churches of Macedonia for it was not those Churches but S. Paul that sent them vers 22. and therefore since they were not Apostles in relation to those Churches whose liberality they carried it must be in relation to some particular Churches over which they had Apostolical Authority and that Titus had this Authority over the Church of Crete is evident both from S. Pauls Epistle to him and from Primitive Antiquity As for Saint Pauls Epistle there are sundry passages in it which plainly speak him to be vested with Apostolical Superiority over that Church so Chap. 1. vers 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set things in order that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed thee For in the first place S. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting with an absolute power to reform and correct them which is a plain demonstration of his Superiority in that Church Secondly he Authorizes him to ordain Elders in every City and whether these Elders were Bishops or Presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate for first it is of undoubted certainty that there were Presbyters in the Church of Crete before Titus was left there by the Apostle and secondly it is as evident that those Presbyters had no Power to ordain Elders in every City as Titus had for if they had what needed S. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the Presbyters before him had sufficient power to do For if the Presbyters had before the power of Ordination in them this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain but mischievous it would have look'd like an invasion of the Power of the Presbyters for S. Paul to restrain Ordination to Titus if before him it had been common to the whole Presbytery and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention than an expedient of peace and good order From hence therefore it is evident that Titus had a Power in the Church of Crete which the Presbyters there before him had not and this Power of his extended not only to the establishment of good Order and the Ordaining of Elders but also to rebuking with all authority i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication chap. 2. vers 15. and taking cognisance of Heretical Pravity so as first to
admonish Hereticks and in case of Pertinacy to reject them from the Communion of the Church chap. 3. vers 10. from all which it is evident that this Apostolate of Titus consisted in his Ecclesiastical Superiority which was the very same in the Church of Crete that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches that were planted by them And accordingly he is declared by the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity to be the first Bishop of that Church so Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have received Episcopal Authority over the Churches of Crete So also Theodoret. in Argum. Ep. ad Tit. tells us that he was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Crete and so also S. Chrysostom S. Ierom and S. Ambrose and several others of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers This Episcopal Authority therefore which S. Paul gave Titus over the Church of Crete is another plain instance of the Apostles making Apostles or deriving to others their Apostolick Power and Superiority over particular Churches The fourth and last Instance I shall give is that of Timothy who as it appears by S. Pauls Epistles to him had Episcopal Authority over the Church of Ephesus and this not only over the Laity to command and teach 'em 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive Widows into the Churches Service or reject and refuse 'em 1 Tim. 5.4.9.16 and to oblige the Women to go modestly in their Apparel and keep silence in the Church 1 Tim. 2.11 12. but also over the Clergy to take care that sutable provision should be made for 'em 1 Tim. 5.17 that none should be admitted a Deacon till after competent trial nor Ordained an Elder till after he had well acquitted himself in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over 'em to receive Accusations against 'em and if he found 'em guilty to put 'em to open shame 1 Tim. 5.19 20. and S. Paul charges him to exercise this his Jurisdiction without preferring one before another and without partiality ibid. ver 21. which if he had no Jurisdiction over 'em had been very impertinent and as he had Jurisdiction over the Clergy concredited to him so had he also the Authority of Ordaining 'em for the due exercise of which S. Paul gives him that necessary rule 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man neither be partaker of other mens sins And that this Authority of his in the Ephesian Church over both the Laity and Clergy was given by S. Paul for a standing form of Government there is evident from hence because it was conferred on him after the Presbytery was formed and setled in that Church for in planting and cultivating this large and populous Church which extended it self over all the Proconsular Asia S. Paul had laboured for three years together with incredible diligence which is a much longer time than he spent in any other Church and therefore by this time to be sure he had not only constituted a Presbytery in it as he did in all other Churches Acts 14.23 but also reduced it to much greater perfection than any other that so in the constitution of it it might be a pattern to all other Churches and if so then to be sure the Government which he had now at last established in it was such as he intended should continue viz. by a single Person presiding over both Clergy and Laity And that de facto it was so we have not only the Authority of S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy but also the concurrent Testimony of all Ecclesiastical Antiquity for so Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. tells us he was the first Bishop of the Province or Diocess of Ephesus and the Anonimous Author of his life in Photius that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus and that he was Ordained and Enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great S. Paul and in the Council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that Chair from Timothy who was the first and Saint Chrysostom Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5.19 tells us that it is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a Church or rather with a whole Nation viz. that of Asia upon which account he is stiled by Theodoret in 1 Tim. 3.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy the Apostle of the Asiatiques and to name no more of the great numbers of Authorities that might be cited in the Apostolical Constitutions we are expresly told that he was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. This therefore is another evident instance of the Apostles deriving down their Apostolick Authority Other instances might be given but these are sufficient to shew that the Apostles did not look upon our Saviours institution of a superiour Order of Ecclesiastical Officers as a temporary thing that was to expire with 'em but as a standing Model of Ecclesiastical Government since they derived to others that superiority over the Churches of Christ which he communicated to them For from all these instances it is most evident both that the Apostolical Office did not expire with the Twelve but was transferred by 'em to others and that that which is now called the Episcopacy was nothing else but the Apostolical Office derived from the Apostles to their successors for in the Primitive Language of the Church Bishops are generally stiled Apostles for which no other reason can be assigned but that they succeeded in the Apostolical superiority Thus as hath been shewn before S. Iames Epaphroditus Titus and Timothy are stiled Apostles in Scripture and by the Primitive Writers Clemens Bishop of Rome who was a Disciple of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Clemens the Apostle vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle and Bishop by S. Chrysostom and Thaddaeus who was sent b◠S. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and so are also S. Mark and S. Luke by Epiphanius and Theodoret lays it down for a general rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. those whom we now call Bishops were anciently called Apostles but in process of time the name of Apostle was left to them who were more strictly Apostles viz. the Twelve and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles If therefore the practice of the Apostles proceeding upon the express institution of our Saviour be sufficient to found a Divine Right we have this you see to plead for a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Offices since the Apostles did not only Ordain Presbyters and Deacons in the several Churches they planted but also Apostles or Bishops to preside over 'em and if their Ordaining of Presbyters be an argument of the perpetuity of the Office of a Presbyter as the Presbyterians themselves contend it is why should not their Ordaining Bishops also be as good an Argument of the perpetuity of the
which is the good of the Publick Since therefore the Church by Christs own institution is a governed Society of men we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles who as all agree had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour for so in Acts 15.6 we are told that upon occasion of that famous Controversie about Circumcision the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter where by the Elders by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things ver 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were it seems laid upon them as a burthen i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities they wrote to viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches to which they were more peculiarly related Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper tells them that other things he would set in order when he came among them 1 Cor. 11.34 but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices so also 1 Cor. 16.1 the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon which he gave to the Churches of Galatia which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in charge to his Church ver 7. so also Tit. 1.5 he tells Titus that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage unless it were by deputation from his Bishop and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority and Suffrage and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters or by the Bishops in Council among themselves was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true this Legislative Power of the Church as was shewn before extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign who is next to and immediately under God in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity than he was by the Laws of natural Religion and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth such as preaching the Gospel administring the Evangelical Sacraments c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World to perform those Ministries in his absence but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations for this is necessarily implied in the Commission he gave them Iohn 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you that is I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him but I also send you with the same authority to send others that I now exercise in sending you for unless this be implied in their Mission he did not send them as his Father sent him unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father which he then exercised in sending them Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36 Mar. 16.14 Mat. 28.16 in all which places we are expresly told that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission and consequently it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order no others could have right to transfer it to others but only such as were admitted of that Order none could give it to others but only those to whom Christ gave it and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles none but Apostles could derive it and accordingly we
Bishops is not consined to the Ministry of any particular Church but extends to the Ministry of the Church Catholick for so S. Paul Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas all are yours and you are Christ's that is they are all Ministers of the Catholick Church in common of which you are Members and as such you have all a share in them 1 Cor. 3.22 23. yet it is the particular application of this their general capacity to this or that particular number of Christians or Congregations of Christians that constitutes them particular Churches and being first authorized Ministers of the Catholick Church they carry along with them into the particular Church they are sent to all that church-Church-Authority and Power by which it acts and operates as a Church So that without Pastors or Governours particular Churches are nothing but so many Bodies without Souls to animate and act them and therefore as in natural Bodies the form that acts them doth also constitute their Kind and Species so in these Ecclesistical Bodies the Pastors and Governours that move and act them as Churches do also constitute them Churches What these lawful Pastors and Governours are I shall have occasion to discourse hereafter when I come to treat of the Ministers of Christ's Kingdom it being sufficient at present to shew the necessity of them to the constituting particular Churches Seventhly The Church is one universal Society of all Christian People distributed into particular Churches holding Communion with each other by holding Communion with each other I mean owning each other as parts of the same body and admitting each others Members as occasion serves into actual Communion with them in all their Religious Offices It is true in the Primitive Churches there were sundry prudential acts of Communion pass'd between them such as their formed and communicatory Letters by which the holy Bishops gave an account to each other of the state and condition of their respective Churches and consulted each others judgment about them but these were not at all essential to that Communion which they were obliged as true Churches to maintain with one another All the Communion which they are obliged to as they are similar parts and distributions of the Catholick Church is that they should not divide into separate Churches so as to exclude each others Members from Communicating in each others Worship when ever they have occasion to travel from one Church to another For so long as there is no Rupture between distant Churches no declared disowning of each other no express refusal of any act of Communion to each others Members they may be truly said to maintain all necessary Communion with each other And that this Communion is absolutely necessary between all those particular Churches into which the Catholick Church is distributed will evidently appear from these four considerations First that by Baptism as was shewed before all Christian People are made Members of the Catholick Church and by being made Members of it they are all obliged to Communicate with it for how can they act as parts of the whole that hold no Communication with the whole They who are Members of any Society have not only a Right to communicate in all the common Benefits of it but also an Obligation to communicate in all common Offices of it and therefore since by Baptism we are made Members of the Catholick Church or Society of Christians we are thereby not only entituled to partake with it in all its Priviledges but also obliged to joyn with it in all its Offices But then secondly it is farther to be considered that the Catholick Church being all distributed into particular Churches we can no otherwise communicate with it than by communicating with some particular Church for how can we communicate with the whole that is all distributed into parts without communicating with some part of the whole And since the whole is nothing but only a Collection of all the parts what Communion can they hold with the whole who hold no Communion with any part of it So long therefore as there is any such thing as a visible Catholick Church upon Earth we are obliged by our Baptism unless necessity hinder us to maintain a visible Communion with it and so long as this Catholick Church is all distributed into so many particular visible Churches we cannot visibly communicate with it unless we communicate with some one of those particular Churches For how can we be in Communion with the whole body when we are out of Communion with all the parts unless we can find a body to communicate with without all its parts or some universal Church without all particular Churches But then thirdly it is also to be considered that as we cannot Communicate with the universal Church without Communicating with some particular one so neither do we Communicate with the universal Church by Communicating with any particular one unless that particular one be in Communion with the Church Universal For if I cannot communicate with the whole without being in Communion with some part of the whole it is impossible I should communicate with the whole unless I communicate with some part that is in Communion with the whole It is as possible for a Finger to communicate with a body by being joyned to an Arm that is separated from the body as it is for a Christian to Communicate with the Church Catholick by being joyned to a Church that is separate from the Church Catholick But then fourthly and lastly There is no particular Church can be in Communion with the Catholick that separates it self from the Communion of any particular Church that is in Communion with the Catholick For they who separate from any part of any whole must necessarily separate from the whole because the whole is nothing but all the parts together and it is a contradiction to say that they who are separated from any one part are yet united to all How then is it possible for any Church to separate it self from the Communion of any other Church which is a true part of the Church Catholick without separating it self from the Communion of the Church Catholick it self since the Church Catholick is nothing but a Collection of all true Churches and to be at the same time united to all true Churches and separated from one true Church is the same absurdity as to be separated from all true Churches and yet united to one In short the Catholick Church is one by the Communion of all its parts and therefore they who break Communion with any one part must necessarily disunite themselves from the whole For when two Churches separate from one another it must be either because the one requires such terms of Communion as are not Catholick or because the other refuses such as are Now that Church which requires sinful or uncatholick terms of Communion doth thereby exclude not only one but all parts of the Catholick Church from its Communion because they
veneration as I know your holy Presbyters do according to the appointment of God the Father And in his Epistle to the Ephesians Let us be careful saith he that we do not oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more for every one that the Master of the Family appoints to be his Steward we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is evident we ought to respect the Bishop as our Lord himself from whence I infer first that at the writing of these Epistles which was not above eight or nine years after the decease of S. Iohn there were Bishops every where constituted over the Churches of Christ for he not only mentions several Churches that had Bishops actually presiding over them but declares Bishops to be of Divine Ordination and that they were to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the appointment of God the Father and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they had their promotion not from men but from God and not only so but in his Epistle to the Trallians he bids them obey their Bishop as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them in which he necessarily supposes Bishops to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles and then he goes on He who is within the Altar that is within the Communion of the Church is clean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He is without the Altar who doth any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons and if any Christian acting without the Bishop c. was without the Communion of the Church then to be sure no Community of Christians that did so could be esteemed a part or Member of the Church and therefore since according to the Doctrine of this Primitive Age Bishops were a Divine Ordinance and were looked upon as necessary to the very Constitution of Churches we may from hence justly conclude that there were then no Churches without them And secondly we may from hence also infer that since there were Bishops in this early Age presiding over the Churches of Christ several of them at least received their Episcopal Orders immediately from the hands of the Apostles For at the time when these Epistles were written Ignatius himself had been above forty years Bishop of Antioch at which time sundry of the Apostles were living and therefore considering the singular Eminence of the Church of Antioch whereof he was Bishop as being immediately planted by S. Peter and S. Paul and that wherein the Disciples of Iesus first received the name of Christians and considering also that it was the constant practice of the Apostle to Ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted it is highly probable that he received his Ordination immediately from their hands and so S. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Edit Savil. p. 499. expresly tells us that he did not so much admire Ignatius for that he was accounted worthy of so great a Dignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. but because he obtained his dignity from those holy men and the sacred hands of the blessed Apostles had been laid upon his head And the same may be said of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna of whom Ignatius makes honourable mention and indeed it is not to be imagined that the Christian Churches would ever have so universally admitted of Bishops as it is apparent they did in Ignatius's time when the Apostles were living had not some of them at least derived their Authority from the Apostles immediately and considering how much S. Iohn who survived the Apostles was reverenced to the last through all the Christian Churches what likelihood is there that those very Churches should so far contemn both him and them even whilst they were living among them as to admit of a new order of men without their Authority to Oversee and Govern them but that de facto the Apostles did with their own hands Ordain several Bishops to preside over several Churches is most certain if any credit may be given to Ecclesiastical History which assures us that they ordained Dionysius the Areopagite Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archyppus of Colosse Onesimus of Ephesus Antipas of Pergamus Euphroditus of Philippi Crescens of the Gauls Erastus of Macedonia Trophimus of Arles Iason of Tarsus Titus of Corinth Onisiphorus of Colophon Quartus of Berytus Paul the Proconsul of Narbona Vid. Bishop Tailor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. But then thirdly and lastly from hence I also infer That the Bishops of this Age were look'd upon as a Superiour Order to all other Ecclesiastical Officers for Ignatius not only enjoyns the Presbyters and Deacons to obey their Bishops but also presses them thereunto by the Command of Christ and if by Christs Command they were to obey their Bishops then by Christs Institution their Bishops were their Superiours Thus much therefore we are assured of by the Testimony of Ignatius that in the Apostolick Age Bishops were universally admitted in the Churches of Christ that they derived their Authority from the hands of the Apostles and that by vertue of that Authority they were Superiour to all other Ecclesiastical Officers and this is all we contend for And now let us proceed to the Testimony of the Writers of the next Age who conversed with those that were Conversant with the Apostles of which number are Iustin Martyr Hegesippus Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus The first of which was converted to Christianity about the year of our Lord 133. which is not above twenty five years after the death of S. Iohn This Writer in his Apology for Christianity to the Emperour Antoninus giving an account of the manner of their Publick Worship makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a President or presiding Ecclesiastick in the Mother Church who did there Consecrate the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and give it to the Deacons to distribute it to such as were present and carry it to such as were absent and who did receive the Charities of the People and dispose and manage the Stock of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Bishops Title is evident for so Dionysius Bishop of Corinth who was Iustin Martyrs Cotemporary uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously stiling Publius Bishop of Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President and Quadratus his Successor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. Next after him we have the Testimony of Hegesippus who as S. Ierom de script Eccles. tells us lived very near to the Apostolick Age he wrote five Books of Commentaries some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius his History in which he not only makes mention of several Bishops with whom he conversed in his Journey from Iudea to Rome and of Primas Bishop of Corinth by name and afterwards of Anicetus Soter
and Elutherius Bishops of Rome successively but also tells us that after Iames the Iust who was the first Bishop of Ierusalem had suffered Martyrdom Simeon Cleophae was made Bishop of that Church because he was of the Kindred of our Lord vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Not long after him Dionysius Bishop of Corinth makes mention in several Epistles of several Bishops by name and particularly of Publius and Quadratus successive Bishops of Athens of Dionysius the Areopagite the first Bishop of that Church of Philip Bishop of Gortyna in Crete of Palma Bishop of Amastris in Pontus of Pinytus Bishop of the Gnossians and of Soter Bishop of Rome vid. Euseb lib. 4. cap. 23. About the same time lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who as himself tells us in his Epistle to Florinus had often seen Polycarp the Disciple of S. Iohn and did very well remember his person and behaviour when he discoursed to the Multitude the intimate conversation he had with S. John and the rest of the Apostles who had seen our Lord. And from him we have this express Testimony concerning the matter in debate We can reckon up those who were Ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches who they were that succeeded them even down to our times for the Apostles would have them to be in all things perfect and unreprovable whom they left to be their Successors and to whom they delivered their Apostolick Authority And then he goes on and gives us a Catalogue of Eleven Bishops of Rome by name beginning from Linus to whom he tells us S. Peter and S. Paul Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt i. e. delivered the Episcopal power of Governing that Church and ending with Elutherius who was the twelfth and did then actually preside in the Episcopal Chair and that by Bishops in this Age was meant such as presided over Presbyters as well as Laicks is evident by the demonstration Clemens Alexandrinus makes who was Irenaeus his Cotemporary between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 6. i. e. the Processes of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and a little before speaking of the dignity of the Presbytery he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that it was not honoured with the first Seat or placed in the first Class of the Ecclesiastick Orders which plainly shews that then there was an Order above the Presbytery viz. the Bishops whom presently after he mentions as the first Order of Ecclesiasticks And that passage which Eusebius quotes from him out of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lately published is a plain Argument that in his time Bishops were look'd on as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy for he tells us that when S. Iohn returned from Patmos to Ephesus he visited the neighbouring Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. partly that he might ordain Bishops and partly that he might set apart such for the Clergy as were pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit by which it is evident that in Clement's time at least and if he be not mistaken in S. Iohn's too the Bishops were a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy viz. the Presbyters and Deacons Thus both in the Apostolick Age and that succeeding it we have abundant Testimony of the derivation of the superiority of the Apostolick Order from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Churches of Christ. And then for the next Age we have the concurrent Testimonies of Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian not only of the continuance of this Apostolick superiority in the Church but also of the derivation of it from the Apostles themselves but we need not cite their words it being granted by the most learned Advocates of the Presbyterian Government that for several years before these Fathers viz. about the year of our Lord 140. the Episcopacy was every where received in the Church for they tell us that though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Ecclesiastical Orders yet they left none behind to succeed them in that power but the Church was every where governed by a Common Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and Divisions it was at last universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to preside over all the rest and this say they was the beginning of the Episcopacy for which they cite that famous passage of S. Ierom Antequam Diaboli instinctu c. i. e. Before such time as through the instinct of the Devil divisions in Religion began and it was said among the People I am of Paul I am of Apollo and I of Cephas the Churches were Governed by Common Councils of Presbyters but afterwards every Presbyter reckoning such as he baptized to be his and not Christs it was decreed over all the World that one from among the Presbyters should be chosen and set over all the rest to whom should belong all the care of the Churches that so the seeds of Schisms might be destroyed which universal Decree as they guess was made about the year 140. Now not to dispute with them the sense of this passage but allowing it to bear their sense I shall only desire the Reader to consider First That it is the Testimony of one who lived long after the afore-cited Witnesses and so far less capable of attesting so early a matter of fact for some of the Witnesses above-cited were such as lived in the days of the Apostles others such as lived in their days who lived in the days of the Apostles and certainly these were much more competent Witnesses of what was done in the Apostles days than S. Ierom who was not born till about the year 330. almost one hundred years after Origen the latest and three hundred years after Clemens the earliest of the above-cited Witnesses and certainly to prefer the Authority of one single Witness who lived so long after the matter of fact to the unanimous attestations of so many earlier Witnesses is both immodest and irrational II. It is also to be considered that S. Ierom was a witness in his own cause in which case men of his warmth and passion are too too apt to exceed the limits of truth for the design of that passage was to curb the insolence of some Pragmatical Deacons who would needs advance themselves above the Presbyters which Saint Ierom being a Presbyter himself takes in high disdain and as the best of men are too prone to do when their own concerns are at stake bends the stick too much t'other way and depresses the Deacons too low and advances the Presbyters too high For III. In other places where he is not Biassed by partiality to his own Order he talks at a quite different rate so in Dial. advers Luciferian dost thou ask why one that is not Baptized by the Bishop doth not receive the Holy Ghost why it proceeds from hence that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles
Where it is plain he places the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles so also in Ep. 1. ad Heliodor speaking of the Bishops of his time they stand saith he in the place of S. Paul and hold the place of S. Peter and in Psal. 45.16 Now because the Apostles are gone from the World thou hast instead of those their Sons the Bishops and these are thy Fathers because thou art Governed by 'em and Ep. ad Nepot What Aaron and his Sons were that we know the Bishops and the Presbyters are And therefore as Aaron by Divine Right was superiour to his Sons the Priests so is the Bishop above his Presbyters all which are as plain contradictions to that famous passage of his understanding it as the Presbyterians do as one proposition can be to another and whether is a man more to be credited when he speaks without Bias or Partiality or when he speaks in his own cause and under the influence of his own Interest VI. It is further to be considered that the Decree of which S. Ierom here speaks by which the Government of the Church was translated from a Common Council of Presbyters to a single Bishop must according to his own words be Apostolick and consequently much earlier than the Presbyterians will allow it for it was made at that time when it was said among the People I am of Paul and I am of Apollos and I of Cephas and this as S. Paul tells us was said in his time and therefore this Decree must be made in his time and that S. Ierome did mean so we are elsewhere assured from his own words for so in his Book de Eccles. Script he tells us that immediately after the ascension of our Lord S. James was Ordained by the Apostles to be Bishop of Jerusalem Timothy by S. Paul Bishop of Ephesus Titus Bishop of Crete and Polycarp by S. John Bishop of Smyrna So that either he must here expresly contradict himself or else the Decree of which he speaks must have been made immediately after the Ascension of our Lord and consequently be a Decree Apostolick V. It is yet farther to be considered that if any such Decree of changing the Church Government from Presbyterial to Episcopal had been made by the Apostles it is strange we should not find the least mention of it in Scripture and if it had been made after the Apostles about the year 140. it is as strange we should have no mention of it in Ecclesiastick Antiquity for an universal Change of the Government of the Church from one kind to another is a matter of such vast moment that had the Apostles made a Decree concerning it they would doubtless have been very solicitous to publish it through all the Churches and to have transmitted down to Posterity some standing record of it which yet they were so far from doing that they have not given us the least intimation of it in all their Writings And had it been made afterwards about the year 140. to be sure all Primitive Antiquity would have rung of such a publick and important alteration but on the contrary you see both Clemens and Ignatius who lived before that period testifie that the Church was not Governed in their time by a Common Council of Presbyters but by Bishops Hegesyppus Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth who lived in that period are so far from taking notice of any such Decree of alteration that they testifie the Government of the Church by an uninterrupted Succession of Bishops even from the Apostles themselves and as for Irenaeus who gives us an account of the Succession of the Roman Bishops from S. Peter down to the time when he himself was at Rome it was as easie for him to know who they were that succeeded from S. Peter as it is for us to know who succeeded from Arch-Bishop Whitgift in the Chair of Canterbury he being no farther distant from the one than we are from the other and though through the Ambiguity or defect of the Records of some Churches this succession be not equally clear in all yet in the most eminent Churches such as Ierusalem Rome Antioch and Alexandria the successions are as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastical History and is it not much more reasonable to conclude what was the Government of those Churches that are not known from what we find was the Government of those that are than to question those Ecclesiastical Records that are preserved because of the uncertainty of those that are not for though we do not find in all Churches an exact Catalogue of all their Bishops yet we cannot produce any one instance in any one ancient Church of any other form of Government than the Episcopal and therefore we may as well question whether ever there was any such thing as an ancient Monarchy in the World because many of the Histories of the Monarchs are defective as to their Names and the Order of their Succession as whether there was ever any such thing as a Primitive Episcopacy in the Church because the Records of several Churches are defective as to the Names and Successions of their Bishops Since therefore this Story of S. Ieroms universal Decree is not only altogether unattested but also directly contradictory to the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity how can we reasonably look upon it otherwise than as a mere figment of his own fancy especially considering VI. And lastly How odiously this conceit of his reflects upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles for the Apostles devolving the Government of the Church upon Common Councils of Presbyters was as he himself tells us the occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions for the removal of which the Church afterwards found it necessary to dissolve those Presbyteries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room and this S. Ierom approves as a very wise and prudent action for saith he the safety of the Church depends upon the Authority of the High-Priest or Bishop to whom if there were not given by all supreme Authority there would be as many Schisms in the Churches as there are Priests So that according to him had the Church continued under that Government which the Apostles left in it it must unavoidably have been torn in pieces with endless Schisms and Divisions and if so either the Apostles were very imprudent in not foreseeing this or very neglective in not preventing it so that had not the after-age taken care to supply the defect of their Conduct by erecting a wiser-form of Government than they left the Church had infallibly run to ruin This is the unavoidable consequence of S. Ieroms Hypothesis which therefore I can look upon no otherwise than as a mere device of his own brain snatched up in hast to defend his Order against the Insolence of those Factious Deacons that flew in the face of the Presbytery This therefore being removed which is the main and indeed the only considerable Objection against the
you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church to bind or loose suspend or restore excommunicate or absolve and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel which is the Christian Church even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel Mat. 19.28 and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles ver 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones to denote their power and dignity in the Church ver 19 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits that is twelve times twelve to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church ver 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church and administring the Censures of it being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicated their Order for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed 1 Cor. 5.3 and what he orders them to do ver 4 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence and 2 Cor. 13.2 he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established which are the very words of our Saviour Matt. 18.16 when he instituted the power of Censuring and then ver 10. he tells them that he wrote these things being absent lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification and not to destruction by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating and 1 Cor. 4.21 he threatens to come to them with a Rod that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church and with this Rod as he himself tells he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete for so he orders Timothy against an Elder Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves when they were accused and to punish them if he found them guilty for so it follows Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 1 Tim. 5.19 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Tit. 3.10 which plainly implies that he had an Authority inherent in him as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete to Cite Examine Admonish and Censure persons of erronious Principles and the same Authority it is evident was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not and to convict them for Liars Rev. 2.2 and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church ver 14 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel ver 20. which plainly implies that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries was inherent in them else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular Churches and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus Augendus and others of his Presbyters Ep. 38 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon he tells him that pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate i. e. by his own Episcopal authority without appealing to the Synod he might have chastised him And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops to examine whether any person Lay or Clergy had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegatâ— power to their Presbyters both to excommunicate and absolve as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth but in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of
used this Technological Phrase in any different sence from its common acceptation he would have told us of it and not have given us such an unavoidable occasion to mistake in so great a Doctrine by clothing its sence in such Phrases as in the Language of the Age he wrote in signified so differently from what he meant and intended by them And as in the above-named Texts he is expresly stiled God so other Texts to convince us that he is not a meer titular Deity attribute sundry things to him which are peculiar to God Essential For so the making of the World is in sundry places expresly attributed to him which as the Apostle tells us Heb. 3.4 is peculiar to God For he saith he that made all things is God for so in the above-named Text we are told That by him were all things made and that without him was not any thing made which was made where by all things we must necessarily understand the whole World unless we will suppose the Apostle to equivocate because it was then a common and received Doctrine that the Word was the maker of the World. For so besides the above-cited Authorities the Chaldee Paraphrase upon Isa. 45.12 instead of I made the Earth and created man upon it saith the Lord renders it I by my word made the Earth and created man upon it and on Gen. 1.27 instead of God created man the Ierusalem Targum renders it The Word of the Lord created man and so in several other places This therefore being the Doctrine of the Age S. Iohn could not but apprehend that they would certainly understand these words of his in their own sence because in all appearance they are so to be understood if therefore he meant them in any other sence he ought immediately to have explained himself which since he hath not it is plain either that he meant according to the common sence or that he intended to equivocate but that he meant according to the common Doctrine of the Age is sufficiently evident from other Texts of Scripture For Heb. 11.3 the Apostle expresses this Article to the Jews in their own Language through Faith we understand that the Worlds were made by the Word of God now that by this Word he meant Christ is plain from Heb. 1.1 2. In these last days God spake unto us by his own Son by whom also he made the Worlds and that by these Worlds he means the whole Creation is evident from the 8 9 and 10. verses of this Chapter But unto the Son he said thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity c. speaking still of the Son and then it follows And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thine hands for the conjunction And here plainly connects these words to the foregoing viz. But unto the Son he said c. so that still it is the same Son of whom it is said Thy Throne O God c. and thou Lord in the beginning c. the same Person whose Throne in verse 8. is said to be for ever and ever that is said in verse 10. to have laid the foundations of the earth So also Col. 1.15 16 17. Who is the Image of the invisible God the first-born of every Creature for by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are on earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things do consist where to shew that he means a proper and literal creation the Apostle describes it in those very words wherein Moses describes the creation of the World For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are on Earth and to shew that he doth not mean by creating renewing or regenerating as the Socinians will needs understand him he tells us that not only Men were created by him who are the only Subjects of this new Metaphorical creation but all things in general that are on Earth and not only all things that are on Earth but all things that are in Heaven too where there never was any thing new-created or regenerated for the Thrones and Dominions the Principalities and Powers i. e. Orders of Angels that are here said to be created by him have never been renewed or regenerated but those of them that fell fell for all eternity and they which stand have always stood and shall stand for ever and therefore by his creating them must be meant his giving them their being and existence And as the creation of the World is in Scripture attributed to Christ which speaks him a divine Being so there are other things ascribed to him which are peculiar to the Divinity as particularly his being Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last in Rev. 22.13 and several other places which is a stile that God hath appropriated to himself Isa. 44.6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God. If then Christ be the first and last as he himself declares he is Rev. 1.17 he must be that Lord the King and Redeemer of Israel Hitherto we have been proving that he is God but then there are other Texts that do as plainly prove him to be God-man For so in 1 Tim. 3.16 Without controversie great is the mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the flesh which is the same with that of S. Iohn John 1.18 And the Word which in the first verse he saith was God was made flesh so also Phil. 2.6 7. For being in the form of God he thought it not Robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself and took upon him the form of a servant being made in the likeness of men from which words it is plain that Christ was in the form of God before ever he was in the form of a servant for it was by taking on him the form of a Servant that he emptied himself and his being in the form of a servant consisted in being made in the likeness of men so that his being in the form of God doth as much imply that he was God as his being in the form of a servant doth that he was Man and since in becoming man he emptied himself it necessarily follows that before he became so he was full and also that that fulness of his consisted in being in the form of God if then he was full by being in the form of God before he emptied himself into the form of a servant by being made in the likeness of men it is certain that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of man and that his being in the form of God
6.3 in doing of which he even then Mediated for God with Men under the Great Mediator and so he hath continued to do through all successive Ages of the World. For there is nothing more apparent from Scripture than that it is under Christ that the Spirit acts in the Kingdom of God upon which account he is called the Spirit of Christ 1 Pet. 1.11 even as by the ancient Jews he is called the Spirit of the Messias as was observed before and this Spirit whom St. Peter calls the Spirit of Christ was as he himself there tells us the Spirit which was in the ancient Prophets by which it is evident that long before Christ came this Spirit was his and that he acted by him And even when he came down into the World to transact personally with men he generally acted by this holy Spirit For so at his Baptism we are told that the Holy Ghost descended on him in a bodily shape Luke 3.22 upon which it is said that he went away full of the Holy Ghost Luk. 4.1 after which it is plain that it was by this Holy Ghost in him that he Prophesied and wrought his Miracles for so Isa. 61.1 the Prophet attributes the whole Prophecy of Christ to the Spirit of the Lord which was upon him and in Matt. 12.28 our Saviour himself affirms that he cast out Devils by the Spirit of God and therefore he calls the Jews attributing his miraculous works to the Devil blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12.31 because it was by the power of the Holy Ghost that he wrought them Now as the Father's acting by the Son implies the Son's Subordination to him so the Son 's acting by the Spirit implies the Spirit 's subordination to him which subordination of the Spirit in his Mediatorial Office is immediately founded in that Compact of the Son with the Father upon which he undertook the Mediation For the Spirit was a part of the purchace of the Son's Bloud and whatsoever he purchased he purchased of the Father by compact and agreement with him so that now he hath a right to the Spirit 's Ministry not only by vertue of his proceeding from him together with the Father but also by the purchace of his own Bloud whereby he obtained the promise of him from the Father For so the Holy Ghost is said to be shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour i. e. through the Intercession he makes in vertue of his meritorious Sacrifice Tit. 3.5 6. For whatsoever comes to us from God through Christ is part of what he hath purchased for us and in Rom. 5.5 6. he makes Christ's dying for the ungodly the reason of the giving the Holy Ghost to us The promise of the Holy Ghost therefore being part of the purchace of Christ's bloud he by his Advocation in Heaven obtained the performance of it of the Father even as he doth the performance of all his other promises For the Father being the supreme person in the Holy Trinity is the prime and Original Fountain of all our blessings and every good thing we receive is derived from him to us through the Son and by the Holy Ghost and even the Holy Ghost himself is derived to us from the Father through the Advocation of the Son. For so he himself tells us I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter namely the Holy Ghost Iohn 14.16 So that though Christ hath purchased the Holy Ghost of the Father as he hath also all the other blessings of the New Covenant yet it is plain this Purchace vests him not with a right to bestow and send him without the Father but only to obtain him of the Father upon his Prayer or Advocation and so of all those other blessings So that still the Father is the supreme Source from whence the Spirit and all those blessings are derived to us and it is from his hands that the Son procures them by his powerful Intercession in short therefore Christ by his death purchased a right of the Father to obtain of him by his Intercession Authority to send the Holy Ghost to Minister for and under him in his Mediation for God with men and accordingly he promises his Disciples that when he departed this World he would send the Comforter to them Iohn 16.7 where he uses the very same phrase as he did when he Commissioned his Apostles to minister under him As the Father hath sent me so send I you John 20.21 and accordingly his sending the Comforter must denote his Commissioning him by the Authority he had received from the Father to minister under him in his Mediation for the Father For so in Iohn 15.26 When the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me where first the Son is said to Commission or send him Secondly to Commission or send him from the Father i. e. by Authority from him And thirdly to Commission or send him to testifie of him and therein to minister to him and so in Luke 24.49 when he was just ascending into Heaven he tells his Disciples Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you i. e. the promise of the Holy Ghost and accordingly Acts 2.33 St. Peter tells us upon that miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost that Christ being exalted to the right hand of God and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost i. e. having by his Intercession received authority of the Father to send the Holy Ghost according to that promise which he had before purchased of him with his bloud he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear i. e. this Miraculous Gift of the Holy Ghost in all which places it is evident that the Holy Ghost was substituted commissioned and sent by the Son authorized thereunto by the Father to minister under him For as the Son acts by the Father's Authority as he is his Minister so all that authority which he communicates to others to act under him he must derive Originally from the Father and consequently that Authority by which he sent the Spirit to act as his Minister he must have derived from the Father whose Minister himself is and hence the Father is said to send the Spirit in the name of the Son i. e. to appoint the Spirit to act under the Son and by his authority Iohn 14.26 as the Son is said to send the Spirit from the Father i. e. by the authority which he had received of the Father and this I verily believe is the reason why the Apostle in Eph. 4.8 quotes the Psalmist with that variation he ascended up on high saith he speaking of Christ he led Captivity Captive he gave gifts unto men whereas the words of the Psalmist are He received gifts for men Psal. 68.18 to denote that that gift of the Holy Ghost which Christ gave
he officiate effectually between them unless he performs all those good Offices on both sides which considering their states as they stand related to one another are necessary to create a mutual accord and agreement between them Now the state of God as he stands related to us is that of a supreme and absolute Sovereign over blind and rebellious Subjects who were so far depraved and degenerated as that we neither understood his Will nor were at all disposed to obey it Wherefore that he might officiate effectually for God with us his ignorant and rebellious Subjects it was necessary First that he should perform the Office of a Prophet in revealing God's Will and pleasure to us of which the whole Race of Mankind was so deplorably ignorant Secondly That he should perform the Office of a King in exacting our obedience to God and subduing our stubborn Wills to his heavenly pleasure so that in officiating for God with us it was necessary that he should both teach us as God's Prophet rule us as God's King. And then the state of man as it respects God is that of a most guilty and criminal Subject who by a continued course of Rebellion had justly and highly incensed and provoked his Sovereign Lord against him in which state of things it was highly necessary that in officiating for us with God our Mediator should in the first place render him some great and honourable reparation in our behalf such as he in his infinite wisdom should think meet to exact for those high and manifold affronts and Indignities which we had offered to his Sacred Person and Authority For without some such reparation he could not well have admitted of any reconciliation with us without prostituting his own Authority and rendring it cheap and vile in the eyes of bold and insolent Offenders Now the greatest reparation he could make for us was to take our punishment on himself by offering up his own life to God as a Sacrifice for the sins of the World. And then secondly it was necessary that having made this reparation for us he should thereupon become our Advocate and plead his Sacrifice to God in our behalf that for the sake thereof he would be so far propitious to us as to admit us upon our unfeigned repentance to his grace and favour Both which are comprehended in the Priestly Office which consists as I shall shew hereafter in atoning God with Sacrifice So that the particular Offices which the respective states of God and Man require of him that Mediates between them is to teach and rule for God and to expiate and Advocate for men But for the better understanding of these particular Offices it is necessary we should briefly consider the Method and Oeconomy of them and explain in what Order and Manner the Mediator hath proceeded and advanced in the exercise and administration of them Which in short was thus by Commission from God the Father he came down into this World where the first Mediatorial Office he undertook was that of Prophet in the discharge whereof he made a full revelation of God's Mind and Will to the World. And having performed this at least so far as was needful in his own Person he next enters upon the first part of his Priestly Office which was to make an expiation for the sins of the World by the Sacrifice of himself and this being finished he a little after proceeded to the other part which was to make an Oblation of his Sacrifice to God in Heaven and in vertue thereof to Advocate for us and solicite our Pardon and admission into the divine favour upon the performance of all which and as a glorious reward of it he was admitted to sit down at the right hand of God in the Throne of Regal Authority next and immediately to the Father For so Phil. 2.8 9 10. the Apostle tells us He humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every Knee should bow And in Heb. 12.2 his sitting down at the right hand of the Throne of God is the consequence of his enduring the Cross and despising the shame of it So that in short the Order and Method in which he proceeded in his Mediatorial Offices was this First he Prophesied then he made expiation for our sins on the Cross then presented his Expiation in Heaven and therein began to Advocate or intercede for us and then he received that Regal Authority by which he is to reign till the Consummation of all things And therefore for the more clear and distinct explication of these particular Offices it will be most proper to treat of them in the same order wherein they are placed in the divine Oeconomy beginning first with the Prophetick thence proceeding to the Priestly and thence to the Kingly Office. SECT III. Of the Prophetick Office of Iesus Christ. COnsidering the manifold Errors and the deep Ignorance in which Mankind was almost universally lost and bewilder'd it was absolutely necessary that he who Mediated for God with men in order to the reconciling them to him should in the first place take care to inform them of the Nature and instruct them in the Will of God without which it was impossible for them so much as to know what it is to be reconciled to him And accordingly this was the first Mediatorial Office that our Saviour undertook viz. to Prophesie to the World i. e. to reveal and publish the Gospel to Mankind wherein the Nature and the Will of God and the Method of our Salvation are plainly stated and described so far forth at least as it is necessary to our reconciliation to him Upon which account he is called the Light of the World the Sun of Righteousness the Way and the Truth and the bright Morning Star all which refer to his Prophetick Office which is the fountain of all that spiritual light that shines through the World. For long before our Saviour was born it was foretold of him that he should execute the Office of a Prophet so Deut. 18.15 The Lord thy God shall raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren like unto me unto him ye shall hearken which prophecy S. Peter applies to our Saviour Acts 3.22 And upon this and other Prophecies of the Old Testament it is evident it was a general anticipation among the Iews in our Saviour's time that the Messias should be a Prophet For thus upon Christ's feeding five thousand men with five Loaves and two Fishes they cried out This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world John 6.14 so upon his restoring the Centurion's Servant they were amazed and glorified God saying that a great Prophet was risen up among them Luke 7.16 And so also his own Disciples stile him A Prophet mighty in deed and
Lye i. e. a known and wilful falsehood because it depended as I shall shew by and by upon matters of fact which he could not but know whether they were true or false So that if these facts were false he was a wilful Deceiver in affirming them and building his Doctrines upon them But how could he be reasonably suspected of lying whose whole life was such an illustrious example of goodness and unspotted integrity of manners For it is to serve either their Covetousness or Ambition their Envy or their Revenge that men turn wilful Deceivers none of which Vices nor so much as the least appearance of them are visible in the life of Iesus but their contraries continually shone through the whole course of his Actions and if none of those Vices ever appeared in him that could any way tempt him to lye and deceive it is not only unjust but unreasonable to suspect him Thus by the sanctity of his life he not only instructed men in his Father's Will but also confirmed them in the belief of it IV. As a Prophet also he sealed his Doctrine with his bloud which is the highest pledge that any Mortal can give of his truth and integrity While he was preaching his Doctrine to the World he foresaw all along that he must either recant it or die for it and therefore it is not imaginable that he would have proceeded to divulge it had he not believed it to be true For what man in his wits would ever publish a lye to the world when he knows beforehand he must either recant it with shame or assert and maintain it with his bloud But such was the nature of his Doctrine that he could not believe it to be true unless it were so because the truth or falsehood of it depended upon matters of fact wherein he could not be deceived namely that he was the Son of God that he came down from him and had dwelt with him in unspeakable glory and happiness from the foundations of the world Iohn 17.5 upon the truth of which facts depended the Authority of his whole Doctrine but whether these were true or false he could not be ignorant if he were in his wits which no body can doubt that considers the exactness of his Conversation and the wisdom and dependence of his Doctrine Now if he were first in Heaven and was sent down from thence to preach to the World there is no doubt to be made of the truth of his Doctrine and whether he were or no he could not be ignorant if he were not there he not only died with a wilful lye in his mouth which is not reasonably imaginable of a person of his unspotted Piety and Vertue but he also published it to the World in his life notwithstanding he knew it to be a lye and foresaw he must either dye for it or shamefully recant it which is not imaginable of a person of his wisdom and soundness of mind So that considering that he could not but certainly know whether his Doctrine were true or false his sealing it with his bloud is an unanswerable attestation of the truth of it and accordingly his bloud is made a great Testimony of the truth of his Gospel 1 Iohn 5.8 and S. Paul tells us that he witnessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate 1 Tim. 6.13 that is in affirming before Pilate that he was the Son of God and King of the Iews even when he certainly foresaw that he should forfeit his life by it he took it upon his death that he had preached nothing but the truth to the world V. As a Prophet he also instituted an Order of men to publish and declare his Doctrine to the World. Whilst the gift of Prophecy continued in the Iewish Church there were certain Schools called the Schools of the Prophets in which men were trained up under some great and eminent Prophets who were the Masters of those Schools in the knowledge of divine things and the practice of Piety and Vertue that so being educated in wisdom and goodness they might be the better disposed and qualified to receive the Prophetick influx and deliver God's Messages to the people For out of these schools God ordinarily called those persons whom he imployed and sent forth to prophesie to their Kings and People and accordingly our Saviour when he began to revive the spirit of Prophecy in his own Person which from Malachi till then which was for the space of four hundred years had been utterly extinct immediately erected a School of Prophets consisting of his twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples to whom as it seems he afterwards added thirty eight more Vide Acts 1.15 over whom he himself presided as the great Master Prophet in order to the instructing their minds in all divine wisdom and forming their manners by the strictest rules of Piety and Vertue that so when ever occasion required they might be duly qualified to Prophesie to the World. And accordingly as those ancient Masters of the Prophetick Schools had ordinarily their Scholars personally attending on them and upon emergent occasions did frequently send them forth as their Ministers upon Prophetick Messages Vid. 2 Kings 9.1 and 1 Kings 20 35. so our blessed Saviour kept his in ordinary attendance about him that so they might hear his Doctrine and see his Miracles and observe his Conversation and upon particular occasions he sent them forth as his Ministring Disciples to Prophesie in his name Vid. Luke 10.1 And out of this Prophetick School of our Saviour the Primitive Prophets of our Religion were called and sent forth to preach the Gospel through the World. For that his Gospel might be taught through all succeeding Ages to the end of the World he first erected this sacred School and when he was to leave it he deposited a standing Commission in the hands of his twelve Apostles whom he ordained to preside in it in his room by which he impowered them not only to ordain and send forth the present Disciples of it viz. the Presbyters and Deacons to teach his Gospel to all Nations but also to derive down the same authority to their Successors through all Generations to come For as the Father hath sent me saith he so send I you Iohn 20.21 and as he sent them so they still sent others and so in an uninterrupted line of Succession hath this Commission been handed and derived from one Generation to another the Bishops who next succeeded the Apostles in presiding over the Sacred School not only still ordaining other Bishops to succeed them but also still admitting other Presbyters and Deacons who are as the Disciples of that School to Minister under them in the propagation of the Gospel Thus Christ as the Great Prophet of the Church hath erected a standing Prophetick School or Order of men authoritatively to teach and declare his Gospel to all succeeding Ages of the World. VI. And lastly As he was a Prophet also he sent his
Prince or that that voice was a designed delusion Since therefore our Saviour declares that he is the first and the last which is the essential Character by which Iehovah the King of Israel describes himself and doth no where intimate a different sence of this Character as applied to himself from what it signified as applied to the Iehovah it necessarily follows that either he meant not sincerely or that himself and that Iehovah the King of Israel were the same Person And accordingly Zach. 9.9 which all agree is a Prophecy of our Saviour he is expresly called the King of Israel Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion shout O Daughter of Ierusalem behold thy King cometh unto thee the most natural sence of which Phrase thy King is he that is now thy King not he that is hereafter to be so and if then when this Prophecy was delivered he was King of the Daughter of Zion or People of Israel to be sure he was always so and therefore the Prophet Malachi calls the Temple which was the Palace of the divine King of Israel the Temple of Christ Mal. 3.1 Behold I will send my Messenger i. e. John Baptist and he shall prepare my way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple even the Angel of the Covenant whom ye delight in behold he shall come saith the Lord of Hosts from whence I infer first that this Lord of Hosts which is the ordinary stile of the God of Israel was Christ whose Messenger and fore-runner Iohn Baptist was vid. Luke 1.76 And secondly That the Temple which was the abode of this Lord of Hosts was the Temple of Christ the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple which cannot be meant of God the Father because in the next words he is called the Angel of the Covenant which all agree is Christ if then the Temple of Ierusalem was the Temple of Christ and he was that Lord of Hosts that dwelt in it it necessarily follows that he was that divine King of Israel who under God the Father governed the Iewish Church And now having proved at large this fourth Proposition which is the principal Hinge upon which the whole Argument turns I proceed Fifthly That after his coming into the World he still retained this his Right and Title of King of Israel in particular till they finally rejected him and Apostatized from that Covenant on which his Kingdom is founded For he did not at all divest himself by his Incarnation of that Royal Authority he was vested with as he was the Eternal Word and Son of God hereafter to be incarnate For this his Royal Authority as I shewed before is necessarily implied in his Mediatorship of the New Covenant of which as I have also shewed he was always Mediator without any discontinuance or interruption So long therefore as the New Covenant continued in force with the Iews in particular so long he was their Mediatorial King in particular under God the Father Now it is certain that the New Covenant continued in force with them so long as they continued to be the Church of God because it was the New Covenant that made them so and it is certain they continued the Church of God many years after the Incarnation of our Saviour even till such time as by their obstinate rejecting of our Saviour and incurable Apostasie from that Covenant which made them the Church and People of God they had finally incensed him to reject them to break off his Covenant-relation to them and utterly to dispark and un-Church them And therefore we find that for several years both our Saviour and his Apostles continued in close Communion with the Iewish Church frequented their Temple and Synagogues and joyned with them in all the Solemnities of their Publick Worship by which they owned them to be the true Church of God and consequently to be yet in Covenant with him Since therefore they continued in the New Covenant after Christ's Incarnation Christ must also continue the Mediator of that Covenant to them and consequently their Mediatorial King. And hence he is stiled the King of the Iews in particular after his Incarnation for so the Wise-men in their enquiry after him Where is he that is born King of the Iews Matt. 2.2 And that he was born King of the Iews not merely as he was descended from the Loins of David but by a Title that he had Antecedent to his birth viz. as he was the Son of God hereafter to be Incarnate is evident by that confession of Nathanael Joh. 1.49 Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel where his being the King of Israel is consequent to his being the Son of God and so Iohn 12.13 they who attended him in his progress to Ierusalem salute him with a Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord which S. Iohn makes the accomplishment of that forementioned Prophecy Zach. 9.9 Rejoyce greatly O daughter of Zion behold thy King cometh unto thee sitting on an Asses Colt verse 14 15. And this Title our Saviour assumes to himself in that good confession he made before Pontius Pilate who asking him Art thou King of the Iews He answered him Sayest thou this of thy self or did others tell it thee of me And when Pilate presses him for a more explicite answer he tells him My Kingdom is not of this world as much as if he had said I know the Jews mine enemies have insinuated to thee that by assuming to my self this Title of King of the Iews I design to usurp the temporal Dominion of Caesar thy Master but let not that trouble thee for though it is most certain that I am King of the Jews yet my Kingship and Caesar's are of a quite different nature and do no way clash or interfere with one another for whereas his Kingdom is Temporal mine is purely spiritual and not of this world and when Pilate insists farther Art thou a King then Jesus answers Thou sayest I am a King i. e. thou sayest truly so to this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness to the truth John 18.33 34 35 36 37. And as he retained the Title of King of the Jews after his Incarnation so we frequently find him exercising his Royal Authority among them For in the first place he not only authoritatively explained to them those old and eternal Laws of Morality which he delivered to them from Mount Sinai and inforced them with new Sanctions and Motives but he also gave them two new Laws viz. that of Baptism and that of the Lord's Supper to be continued in force to the end of the world Secondly He erected a perpetual form of Government and Discipline in his Church and gave Commission to his Apostles to exercise and administer it and to derive down their Commission to all succeeding Generations Thirdly
universal conformity of the Primitive Church to the Episcopal Government it remains that if any credit may be given either to those Writers that lived in the Apostolick age or to those who immediately succeeded 'em it is evident from their unanimous Testimonies that the Episcopacy is nothing else but only the Apostolick superiority derived from the hands of the Apostles in a continued succession from one Generation to another and to reject their Testimony is not only very unreasonable there being at least as much reason why we should reject all ancient History but also of very dangerous consequence since 't is from thence that we derive the very Canon of Scripture and so we may as well reject it in this instance as in the other IV. And lastly That the rightful Government of the Church of Christ is Episcopal is evident also from our Saviours declared allowance and approbation of the Primitive practice in this matter viz. in those seven Epistles which he sent by S. Iohn to the seven Churches of Asia all which he directs particularly to the seven Angels of those Churches whom he not only stiles the seven Stars in his own right hand or the seven lights of those seven Churches Vid. Rev. 1.20 and Rev. 2.1 but in every Epistle particularly owns 'em for his Angels or Messengers if therefore we can prove that these seven Angels were at that time the seven Bishops that presided over both the Clergy and Laity of those seven Churches they will be an unanswerable instance of our Saviours allowance and approbation of the Episcopal Order In order therefore to the clearing this matter I shall shew First That they were single persons Secondly That they were persons of great Authority in those Churches Thirdly That they were the Presidents or Bishâ—ps of those Churches First That they were single Persons is evident because they are all along mentioned as such the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in the singular number the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and so of all the rest and so every where in the Body of the Epistles they are all along addrest to in the singular number I know thy works and thy labour nevertheless I have a few things against thee remember whence thou art fallen repent and do thy first works and the like in all which our Saviour plainly writes to 'em as to single persons It is true what he writes to them he writes not only to them personally but also to the People under their Government and inspection and therefore sometimes he mentions the People Plurally so Chap. 2. ver 10. The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison and so ver 13. and ver 23. but this is so far from arguing that these Angels were not single persons that it argues the quite contrary since if they had not what reason can there be assigned why our Saviour should not mention them plurally as well as the People I know it is objected that the Angel of the Church of Thyatira is mentioned Plurally Chap. 2. ver 24. but unto you I say and unto the rest of Thyatira where by you it is supposed must be meant the Angel and by the rest of Thyatira the People To which I answer that in the ancient Greek Manuscripts and particularly in that at S. Iames's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and is left out and so the words run thus but unto you the rest of Thyatira or to the rest of you at Thyatira which is set in opposition to those of Thyatira that had been seduced into the Sect of Iezebel and therefore cannot be understood of the Angel who is all along mentioned in the singular number wherefore had he not been a single person no account can be given why he should be mentioned singly and the rest of Thyatira Plurally But then Secondly That these single persons were of great Authority in those Churches is evident not only by that honourable title of Angel that is given them which plainly shews them to be persons of Office and Eminence and that not only by our Saviours directing his Epistles to them to be communicated by them to their several Churches but also from that authority which the Angel of Ephesus exercised there and which the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira ought to have exercised but did not For as for the Angel of Ephesus he is commended for trying them which said they were Apostles and were not and discovering them to be liars which words plainly denote a Iuridical Trial and Conviction of some person or persons who pretended to Apostolical Authority but upon examination were found to be Cheats and Impostors and then as for the Angel of the Church of Pergamus he is blamed for having in his Church those that held the Doctrine of Balaam or of the Nicolaitans which plainly shews that he had power to remedy it by casting them out of the Church for if he had not how could he have been justly blamed for suffering them And the same may be said of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira who is also blamed for suffering the woman Jezebel which was not in his power to prevent unless we suppose him to have Authority to eject her and her Followers But then Thirdly and lastly That these single persons were the Presidents or Bishops of those Churches is also evident from the most Primitive Antiquity for so in the Anonymus Tract of Timothy's Martyrdom recorded in Biblioth Pat. n. 244. we are told that when S. Iohn the Apostle returned from his Exile in Patmos which was two or three years after he wrote his Revelations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the government of it Now that these seven Bishops were the same with those seven Angels he wrote to in his Revelations is evident because all those seven Churches in which those seven Angels presided lay within the Circuit of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was the Metropolis and therefore who else can we so fairly suppose these seven Bishops to be by whom he governed the Province of Ephesus as the seven Angels of those seven Churches which were all of them within that Province and S. Austin expresly calls the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Proepositus Ecclesiae i. e. the Governour of the Church Ep. 162. and speaking of those seven Angels he stiles them Episcopi sive praepositi Ecclesiarum the Bishops or Governours of the Churches Comment in Revel so also the Commentaries under the name of S. Ambrose referring to these Angels in 1 Cor. c. 11. expresly tells us that by those Angels he means the Bishops and that they were so is most indubitably evident of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in particular who could be no other than S. Polycarp who was most certainly made Bishop of Smyrna some years before the writing these Epistles and continued Bishop of
his continual intercession in Heaven Royal Authority to dispense that Promise to us doth by vertue of that Authority actually pardon us upon our actual repentance So that as soon as ever we perform the condition of Gods grant of pardon our Saviour who knows the inmost thoughts of our hearts and perfectly discerns our sincerity immediately pronounces our sentence of pardon and by a particular application of that general grant to us absolves us from our obligation to eternal punishment and freely receives us into Grace and Favour For though the completion and publication of our pardon is reserved for the day of judgment when we shall be absolved from all punishment i. e. not only of eternal misery but also of corporal death and temporal sufferings in the publick view and audience of the World yet it is certain that every penitent Believer in Jesus is actually pardoned by him in Heaven as soon as ever he believes and repents that is he is in foro Christi and before the Tribunal of his Royal Judgment Absolved from the obligation to suffer eternal misery which he lay under during his state of impenitence and Christ in his own mind judgment and estimation hath Judicially thus pronounced concerning him By vertue of my Fathers grant to all penitent offenders and of that Royal Authority which he hath committed to me I freely release thee from all that vast debt of everlasting punishment which thou hast too justly incurr'd by sinning against him Thus as the Father forgives us vertually by that publick grant of mercy which for Christs sake he hath made to all penitent offenders so the Son forgives us actually by that Royal Authority which the Father hath given him to make a particular application of that his general grant to us upon our actual repentance and as it is by the Fathers grant that the Son pardons us so it is by the Sons application of it that the Father pardons us and therefore we are said in or by Christ to have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sin Col. 1.14 i. e. to be forgiven for the sake of his blood in consideration whereof God the Father hath given him power to forgive us for so he himself tells us that all power in Heaven and Earth was given him Matth. 28.18 and there is no doubt but in all power the power of forgiving sins was included for so S. Peter tells us that through his Name i. e. by his Authority or judicial sentence Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins Acts 10.43 And thus you see what the first Regal act is which our Saviour hath always performed and will always continue to perform viz. forgiving of sins II. Another of his Regal acts of this kind is punishing obstinate offenders For as he mediates for his Father in ruling and governing us he must be the Minister of his Fathers providence and being so whatsoever divine punishments are inflicted upon offenders are to be look'd upon as the stroaks of his hand and the Ministries of his power for he hath the Keys of Death and Hell i. e. the power of punishing both here and hereafter Rev. 1.18 and accordingly he threatens the corrupt Churches of Asia that he would remove their Candlestick and that he would fight against them with the sword of his mouth that he would come upon them as a Thief and that he would spew them out of his mouth Rev. 2.5.3.16 and Chap. 3. Vers. 16. all which is a sufficient proof that the punishment of offenders both here and hereafter is committed to him as a branch of that Royal Authority with which he is invested by the Father in the execution of which Commission he many times Chastens bad men in this life in order to their reformation and amendment for as many as I love saith he i. e. wish well to I rebuke and chasten Heb. 3.19 and many times he persecutes them with exterminating judgments thereby hanging them up in Chains as it were as publick examples of his vengeance to warn and deter the World from treading in their impious footsteps For so he threatens Iezebel and her followers I gave her space to repent of her fornications and she repented not behold I will cast her into a bed i. e. into a Bed-rid and irrevocable condition and them that commit Adultery with her into great tribulation and I will kill her Children with death and all the Church shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and heart and I will give unto every one of you according to your works Rev. 2.21 22 23. And though for wise and gracious ends he oftentimes spares bad men in this life and sometimes shines upon them a continued day of prosperity without any cloud or interruption yet he always overtakes them with the fearful storms of his vengeance in the life to come For no sooner do their souls depart from their bodies but they are immediately consigned by his warrant into the hands of evil Angels those skilful spiteful and powerful executioners of his justice under whose savage Tyranny they indure all the tortures and Agonies that the wrath and power of Devils together with their own awakened consciences and furious and unsatisfied affections are able to inflict Of which see Part 1. Ch. 3. For that the souls of bad men are transmitted into a state of wretchedness and misery immediately upon their separation from their bodies is evident from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus wherein in the first place Dives immediately after his death is said to be in great torment in Hell and this while his body lay buried in the grave Luk 16.22 23. which is a plain argument that in all that interval between death and the resurrection of the body the souls of bad men abide in a state of torment for secondly this torment of Dives's soul in hell was then when his Brethren were living upon earth and under the teaching of Moses and the Prophets ver 27. and 28 29 30 31. which shews that our Saviour supposes it to be at that very time when he delivered this Parable and consequently he supposes all bad men who were then dead and whose condition he represents by that of Dives to be then in Hell and there suffering unspeakable Agonies and Torments and if so then it 's plain that when ever impenitent souls leave their bodies they are carried by Devils into some dismal abode and there kept under a perpetual discipline of torment and in this deplorable state they remain expecting that fearful day of accounts when their condition through their reunion to their bodies and that dread bodily Torment they must then be condemned to will be rendered yet far more intolerable III. Another of those Regal Acts which our Saviour hath always and always will continue to perform is his protecting and defending his Kingdom in this World. For thus he promises his faithful Church of Philadelphia Because thou hast kept the