Quid â—usâ—quâ—m meâ—â—nit exortis iliius Episcoporum auctoritais quae Ecclesiae Consuetudine post Marci mortem Alex nâ—â—iae atque â—o Exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed-plaâ—è ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias Communi Prisbyteroâ—um qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur Consiâ—io â—uisse Gubenatas That Clement no where makes any mention in his Epistle of that Eminent Authority of Bishops that by the Custom of the Church began when Mark was dead to be introduced at Alexaâ—dâ—ia and after that Example in other places but he plainly shews as the Apostle Paul also does that the Churches were then governed by the Common Council of the Elders all of which are stiled Bishops by him as well as by S Paul By what I have said you may see how little Satisfaction I received in the Proofs you gave me of the early distinction between Bishops and Presbyters for none of them do reach home unto the First Age and to the Dâ—ocesan Prelatical Bishop and if they did would move me but little For as for Tertullian he more than seems to be on my side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quique seniores Hon remistum non pretio sed Testimonio adepti That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them As for Clemens Alexandrinus his Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which you do imagine you have found the orders of the Celestial Hierarchy imitated in the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon this is but a Flourish of Rhetorick in that Father who though in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as also of Widows yet in his Stromata Lib. 6. 7. where he treats of the Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but Two the Presbyters and Deacons and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honoured with the first Seat But I am much surprized at your Citation of the Emperor Adrian his Epistle to Servianus recorded by Phlegon and related by Vopiscus for certainly it appears by that Epistle that Adrian had but little Acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of Men for he represents them as well as the other Inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most Injurious sort of Men and particularly says That those which Worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds That the very Patriarch Ipse ille Patriarcha coming into Egypt was constrained of some to Worship Serapis and others to Worship Christ. Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians and indeed more mistakingly for as for the Devotion of their Bishops to Serapis I cannot imagine any occasion that these Christians should give which with any Colour should render them suspected of that Idolatry but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross and this might it being a way of professing Christianity that at that Time was newly become the Mode and probably it had the Fate of New Modes which is to be approved of by some and be rejected and nick-named of others I am the more inclined to think that this Story of Serapis had some relation to the Christian Bishops who signed with the Sign of the Cross because I find in Pignorius in his Exposition of the Mensa Isaica that Serapis was used to be denoted by a Cross Vrceo says he superne infixa Crux Serapidem notat And says Rhodiginus Lect. ant l. 10. c. 8 9. figuram ejusmodi speaking of the Cross Serapidis pectori insculpâ—bant Egypâ—ii Adding out of Suidas That in the time of the Emperour Theodosius when the Temples of the Greeks were destroyed there were found in the Sacrary of Serapis certain Hieroglyphic Letters which resembled a Cross. But to let this pass I see no cogency in the Citation you make from the Emperour Adrian to evidence any such Distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter to have been in that time as is in ours and as you do plead for for in that Epistle there is only the Name of Bishop and Presbyter without any specification of Office signified by it either as to its Nature or Limits aâ—d possibly some will tell you That by the Coherence of tâ—e Epistle it is not so clear but that Adrian might intend the same Officers by Bishop and Presbyter But I have no list to engage in such a Dispute and therefore hasten to tell you what is above any that I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Expected that as I had essayed to set out a Scheme of Church-Government and such a one as I believed and do still believe to have been the Primitive and Original and of Apostolical Institution so you likewise would have given a Scheme according to your Sentiments and then by Comparing Scheme with Scheme and each with the Account of the Scriptures and other undoubted Accounts of the first Century we might at last come to have made a surer Judgment which was the Right and which the Wrong than now in the parcelling and retailing way you take it is possible to do Indeed to gain a true Light into the Nature and Frame of Church-Government in the whole extent of it one ought to distinguish the several States and Circumstances in which the Church hath been and accordingly consider the several Orders which were in it in those several States and the Grounds and Reasons of those several Orders Now the Church I speak of the Catholick or Evangelical Church may be considered either as it was a Constituting before it had received External Form and Shape as to Orders Or after it was Constituted and that the Apostles who had not only received Instructions from their Master what to do in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God but were likewise invited by the concidence of Events had put their last Hand unto it Again the Church after its being Constituted and Clothed with Orders undergoes a Double Consideration for it may be considered either as it subsisted and stood alone singly in a State of Separation from Secular Governments of the World or as it is united to them by the Laws and Ordinances that in several Countries are several which they have enacted and established about it Whosoever considers the Church whilst constituting before it had received its external Form and Orders ought at the same time to acknowledg That of necessity there must be persons to constitute it and cloth it with these Orders which persons if vested with Authority so to do are properly Officers but yet in that performance cannot be conceived to be or act as ordinary Officers these being permanent and standing and belonging to the Church as constituted whereas that Office had its place before the Constitution of the Church as being
THE NATURE OF Church-Government Freely Discussed and set out IN THREE LETTERS LONDON Printed for S. G. in the Year MDCXCI To My Noble Friends SVV Y.B. T.R. EN ME. SIRS I Present you in the following Letters the true Idea as I take it of Church-Government which could it be received by all others with the same degree of Candour I assure my self it shall by you would be of infinite Advantage to end those fatal Controversies that for many Ages have perplexed and in this last almost destroyed the Church I prefer the way of Letters to set out the Notion for two Reasons One because it is the more Insinuative and a way that is much taken at this Time The other because really there were Letters sent by a Non-con to a Conf. in which most of the things were said that are in these only now they come refined from all the Reflections that were Personal and from some Mistakes For my own part I have nothing of Fondness in me for any Opinions nor do I hold my self obliged unto these in the Letters further than as they shall endure the Tests of Truth I am very willing they should undergo them all by strict Examination though I confess I am as loth they should be put to Torture If upon the severest Enquiry any thing can be found in them or duly inferred from them as to the Main that will not stand with good Authority sound Reason good Order of Policy or Christian Piety I shall soon shake Hands with them But till then I cannot believe it any Crime to own what I am fully perswaded of and what I am sure is no Popery That Ecclesiastical Government is a Prudential thing and Alterabl◠and that the only True English of Jure Divino in the present Case is by Law Established I am Iune 8th 1690. SIRS Your most Humble and Obliged Servant THE FIRST LETTER SIR IT must be acknowledged that you took a very right Method in the Business of Church Government to search as you say you did into its very Original and had not some of the Prejudices of your Education or of your Circumstances stuck too fast to you I suppose that way you would at least have discovered the Institution of the twelve Apostles at first before our Lord's Passion and of the seventy Disciples to have been only Temporary as well as in Accommodation to the Mosaical Policy in which were twelve Philarchs or Heads of Tribes and seventy Elders After our Lords Passion when he was risen again from the Dead and about to Ascend into Heaven concerning himself no further with the seventy of whom under that Denomination we read nothing afterwards in the Christian Church he gives a new and large Commission to the twelve Apostles and assigns them two Works The First the making of Disciples or Christians all the World over by declaring and publishing every where what upon their own Knowledge they were certain of in reference to Christ that so by being Witnesses unto him they might both aver the Truth of Christianity and being many even compel Belief of it And after they had made Christians to put them under Orders according to the Rules which Christ had given them Acts 1. 3. In two Words the Apostles were first to make Christians and then to frame them into Churches In this properly the nature of an Apostle consisted that he was a Person authorized to preach the Gospel of Christ upon his own Knowledge as being himself a Witness of him and in this his Office differed from that of an Evangelist for though an Evangelist as such did preach the Gospel where it was not heard of before and consequently made Christians and planted Churches in which his Office agrees with that of an Apostle yet herein it differs That to be an Evangelist it was not necessary as it was to be an Apostle that he should be a Witness to Christ it was enough to qualifie an Evangelist for Evangelizing that he had certain Tradition but to be qualified for an Apostle he must by the Evidences of his own Senses have had certain Knowledge of Christ. This Notion of the Apostleship is not only couched by our Saviour in what he tells the Apostles Iohn 14. 26. and at his Ascension Acts. 1. 8. but is intimated also in the History of the Election of Matthias unto the Apostleship Acts 1. from 15 to the 26. and most plainly set out in all of them taken together in conjunction for so they make it demonstrable Iudas was once numbred with the Apostles as being one of the twelve but he fell from that Degree and Honour by his Transgressions and therefore that the Scripture might be fulfilled which had said another should succeed him Peter at an Assembly of the Believers proposes the Ordination of one in his Room And the better to regulate the Election he first instructs them in the Nature of the Office and Work of the Apostleship to which that Ordination was to be made and this he says is with the rest of the Apostles to be a Witness unto Christ and particularly to his Resurrection and then informs them how a person must be qualified to become capable of being ordained to this Office to wit that he must be one of those that had accompanied with them all the while the Lord Jesus went in and out among them even from beginning to end from first to last Beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from them He must it seems be such an one as had always been with the Lord or else he could not be qualified to be one of the twelve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Peter therefore must one of these Men that have accompanied with us c. And why must one of these but that it was the proper Business and Work of such an Apostle as was one of the twelve to be a Witness of Christ to all that he had said and done and suffered and none could be such a Witness but one that had been always with him from first to last And if the former is the true Idea of an Apostle as you may plainly see it is then no Diocesan Bishop or any Body else indeed can be one now for whoever is an Apostle must be a Witness to Christ and must have seen him and that too after his Resurrection And to be one of the twelve must also have been always with him from first to last even to S. Paul himself who having not conversed with Christ upon the Earth and therefore could not properly be one of the twelve our Lord appeared in an extraordinary manner to qualifie him for the Apostleship so that as all the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers it might be said of Paul that he was an extraordinary superadded Apostle It is true the Apostles were called Bishops by S. Cyprian but it had been more though even then not much to your purpose if he had called Bishops
Corinthian on which you insist so much does serve your purpose For S. Paul his Interposition in that business was purely Apostolical and Extraordinary from beginning to end the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary by his Apostolical Spirit or Revelation as Hierome interprets it absent in Body but present in Spirit The Censure Extraordinary which was to give the Incestuous up unto Satan as to a Tormentor So Hierome carries this also and the manner of the Execution extraordinary too to wit by delegation of his Apostolical Spirit to the Church of Corinth when you come together and my Spirit So that the whole Proceeding was extraordinary and though you are pleased to call it an Act of Episcopal or Prelatical Authority and to make an Argument of it for Diocesan Jurisdiction yet unless you can find Diocesans now that have the Spirit that can have a Cognisance of things at Distance by Revelation that can give up Persons to Satan as to a Tormentor and that can delegate their Spirit to a Congregation the Exception lying against it will still continue in Force Wherefore as yet I see no other Prelacy instituted by the Apostles but that of the Presbyters over the People nor are there any Officers now of any Denomination which ought to have though you seem to intimate that some ought a Mission like to that of the Apostles for as they were Ambassadours that were sent immediately by Christ as he was by God and brought their Credentials with them sealed by the Holy Ghost so I will not scruple to call them Extraordinary upon this Account too any more than to call the Presbyters and Deacons ordinary even though the Papists and the Socinians do so The first Missions were extraordinary whiles the Church was to be constituted but in a constituted setled Church in which the Officers are ordinary their Calling is so likewise But to let you know what Standard there is of Extraordinaries for this you demand I believe I have no more to do but to remind you of what you already know that the use of speaking or common Language is that Standard for certain you that have read so often in Cicero not to mention Livy Suetonius and others of Honores Extraordinarii Praesidium Extraordinarium Potestas Extraordinaria cannot be ignorant that that is Extraordinary which being not the setled standing perpetual order and use is only for some certain time and on some particular special Occasion or Accident And it is in this sense of the word that the Roman Magistrates in respect of time are distributed by Lipsius into Extraordinary and Ordinary when he says Aut enim Magistratus à tempoâ—ibus dividuntur ut Ordina ii Extraordinaâ—ii Illi dicti qui statis Temporibus semper in Republicâ essent uâ— Consulâ—s Praetores Ediles Tribuni Quaestores isti qui nec eodem tempore nec semper ut Dictatores Censores Inter-Reges c. It is true you tell me that the Commission Matth. 28. is not peculiar to the Apostles and that therefore it does not Evidence they were Extraordinary Officers for say you There is indeed a Charge given them to Baptize and Teach but it seems a wonderful way of proving them to be Extraordinary Officers from the Authority they had to do that which any Ordinary Minister may do and that by vertue of this Commission By vertue of this Commission Excuse me as to that every Body will not yield it some think that this Commission was personal given only unto the Apostles Go ye and inforced with a promise that related only to them directly Lo I am with you to the end of the world That is to the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum for so they understand that Phrase and apprehend they have sufficient Reason to do so upon comparing it with Matth. 24. 3 14. But let that be as it will Indeed Is the Commission given to the Apostles Matth. 28. not peculiar to them Are they Empowered by it to do no more than every ordinary Minister may I had thought that ordinary Ministers had been limited and local not unlimited and oecumenical Officers and that by their Institution they were confin'd to Teach and Rule the particular Churches over which they were appointed and not to Teach and Rule the whole World or as the Apostles had to have care of all the Churches I pray tell me is a Parish-Priest of as great Authority as a Diocesan and yet a Diocesan compared with an Apostle is less than a Parish-Priest The whole World was the Diocess of the Apostles Go ye teach all Nations I profess I am much surprized to find you deny without Distinction that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers especially after Dr. Cave in his History of the Lives of the Apostles which I believe you have read distinguishes their work and shews what was Extraordinary in it and what was Ordinary But possibly you foresaw that should you have spoken plainly and have said as he does that their ordinary work the standing and perpetual part of it was to Teach and Instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion to Administer the Sacraments to Institute Guides and Officers and to Exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church I would easily reply That the Apostles had provided themselves of Successors as to all this work but that these Successors were the Presbyters which they Instituted in every Church to feed and govern it and that having ordained no others it looks as if they saw no need of others But having this Occasion I beg your pardon if I use it to set out more fully the Institution which the Apostles made for the Government and Edification of the Churches and how that Institution came to be altered and by what steps First then the Apostles instituted a Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a College of Presbyters in every Church to Feed and Govern it and this is evident from Acts 14. 23 25. where Paul and Barnabas are said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church to have ordained Elders a College of Elders not a single Elder or Bishop And as they are not said to have ordained a single Bishop or Elder in any Church so much less are they said to have ordained any Prelate or Intendant over many Churches every Church as a Body Politick Compleat had sufficient power within it self for all its Ends They ordained Elders in every Church And to me it is plain that Clement had regard to this practice of the Apostles when in the place I cited before upon another occasion he says of them That going through Countries and Cities preaching the Gospel they appointed the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons having approved or Confirmed them by the Spirit That the Apostles instituted many Presbyters and not a single Presbyter in every Church is further confirmed not only from the frequent mention of a Presbytery found in
ordained to constitute it This Office as I evinced in my former Paper appertained to the Apostles it being their Work to lay the Foundation of the Christian Church by preaching the Doctrin of Christ as true upon their own Knowledg and consequently making Believers or Disciples which was to gather the Church as also by instituting of Officers and giving Rules about them which was to put the Church under Orders and to settle its Government On this Account the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and the New Jerusalem the City of God or the Evangelical Church in its most reformed State is described in the Revelations to have twelve Foundations answering to the twelve Apostles who by the Doctrin which they preached and witnessed and the Order which they setled did indeed lay the Foundation of the Christian Church and set it on foot It is true the Evangelists as well as the Apostles were in part at least the Founders of particular Churches But the Apostles only with the Prophets have the Honour of being stiled Founders of the Church these being the only persons that were commissioned by our Lord Christ for that end He immediately sending and directing his Apostles but these sending and directing the Evangelists who are therefore called by some and not unfitly Apostoli Secondarii Apostles of the Second Order So that I do distinguish between the Founding of the Church which was done by the Apostles only and that of particular Churches which was performed by the Evangelists as well as by the Apostles By the Church which for distinction sake I call Essential to discriminate it from particular Constituted Churches I mean nothing but the whole Multitude or Company of the Faithful as they are united to Christ and hold Communion with him as well as one with another by one Common Faith and by the participation of the Holy Spirit And of this Church all that do believe in and make a true Profession of Christ though as yet they are not ranked in any particular one are Members and have their several Uses according to the Measure of the Dispensation given them from which Measure some are Principal and some are less Principal Members He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. This Essential Church though it is a kind of a Body Society and City yet it is not a Secular Politick Body I mean not a Body united in it self under one External Visible Head by any Universal Politick Orders and Dependencies that run throughout it such as are in Secular Governments whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical to make them one But it is a Spiritual Mystical Body a Body united unto Christ the Head by the Spirit of Faith and Love under the Laws and Rules of Christianity a Religion which obliges all its Members to Communion one with another as much as is possible for mutual Edification and Comfort Could all the Members of the Christian Church have held Communion one with another and ordinarily have met together for the Discharge of Common Duties and Offices and all have been subject unto one External Government common to them there would still have been but one Congregation of them as there was at first and consequently but one Church as to External Orders But the Christian Church in the nature of it being Catholick and Univers◠that is not walled in and confined by distinguishing Rites and Customs as the Jewish was unto a particular People but lying in common to all Nations as much as unto any so that such External Communion and Government was absolutely impracticable in the whole as taken together therefore it was necessary that it should be practised as indeed it was only by Parts each of which Parts was to bear the Denomination of the Whole as being the whole in Little This is the Original of particular Churches in reference to which Churches it may be observed That as the Jewish Church which some call the Synagogue was founded in a Nation so the Christian Church eminently stiled the Church was founded in a particular Assembly the Mother Church at Ierusalem was only a single Congregation It was for the former Reason as well as for others that the Apostles when they instituted Church-Government did not give any General Scheme that should relate to the Catholick Church as to an External Body or to Provincial or to National Churches but they only setled Particular Churches as Homogenecal Parts of the Whole And these in this Order That as the whole Church was a free People that had not one only but many Apostles who by the Original Institution were to take the Care of it so in every particular Church which was to be a Vicinage under Orders or a Company of Professing People that could conveniently meet together for the Discharge of Christian Offices there should be not one only but many Presbyters a College of Presbyters answering to the College of the Apostles who should Rule and Govern but as over a Free People and therefore in all material Businesses with their Approbation and Suffrage Thus in the mother-Mother-Church at Ierusalem besides the Apostles which were Extraordinary there was a Senate or College of Elders as the ordinary standing Officers and these with the whole Church or Body of the People and Brethren are convented upon the Business of Antioch And thus the Apostles Paul and Barnabas every where in every Church or Congregation are said to have established a Senate or Presbyters and that too by the Suffrage or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People So that the Original Government of the Church of Apostolical Institution was only Congregational which Congregational Government consisted of the People or Brethren and of the Presbyters or Senate in which Senate he that presided tho' in process of Time he was called Bishop by appropriation of the Name which all the Presbyters enjoyed at first in Common yet in the Original Institution he was no more than the first-named Presbyter and so no otherwise distinguished in it than as Peter was in the Institution of the College of the Apostles who is still first named in it And such a Bishop I do acknowledg to have been from great Antiquity namely a Congregational Bishop that had the first Direction of Matters a Person that was Primus Presbyter a Presbyter only in Order and the first of that Order in the College of Presbyters But a Diocesan Bishop invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction and he a Suffragan too for this is the Bishop that is in Controversie between us this Bishop you must prove if you can and nothing is done if you do not prove him to be Apostolical Sure I am that S. Cyprian considered himself but as a first Presbyter and therefore as his Name for the Bishop is always prepositus in respect of the People So he calls the Presbyters his Compresbyters Ep. l. 4. ep 8. Ques ed primitivum Compresbyterum nostrum Et
the Twelve he was the Minister of the Gentiles and as these were a kind of Proselytes to the Jewish Church so he was a kind of Proselyte or super added Apostle Himself expresses it That he was one born out of due season 1 Cor. 15. 18. And for the Offices of Apostleship and Episcopacy I have shewed in my former Letter how much they differ 'T is true you say that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles and that too by the Fathers but you may remember I acquainted you they were not stiled so by any Fathers of the first Century or till towards the latter end if then of the Second Else that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles I know and Dr. Cave hath many Citations to that purpose to which you have added some and might have added more but the Sense in which they were called Apostles is that only which is of any concern to us And certainly notwithstanding all that you have said to the contrary it doth not as yet appear that those Bishops that were called by the Antient Fathers Apostles were Diocesan Bishops for they might be and really for all that glorious Denomination they were but Congregational Prelates who because in a sense they were Successors of the Apostles and the same in some Proportion unto particular Churches that the Apostles themselves were to the general even for that reason they were called Apostles and all as well as any Diocesans That the Bishops compared to the Apostles by S. Cyprian who is one of the first that compares them so were only Presbyterical and Congregational Bishops is evident in that even there where he so compares them he doth plainly Contradistinguish them to the Deacons for even there he mentioneth but Two Orders as S. Paul to Timothy doth and therefore must be understood to mean as he doth the one of the Bishops and Praepositi which he compares to Apostles and the other of the Deacons who he saith were appointed by the Apostles as indeed they were Acts 6. to be their and the Churches Servants Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos id est Episcopos praeposiâ—os Dominus eligit Diâ—conos autem post assensum domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus sui Ecclesiae ministres And 't is plain in that Citation which I made before from S. Cyprian that his Bishop or Praepositus for both in him are Expressions of one and the same Office was a Preaching Minister ordained unto a certain People ed eam plebem cui Praeposiâ—us ordinatur c. Again that the preaching Ministers or Pastors of Congregations were considered as in a Sense Successors of the Apostles and compared to them on that Account is farther evidenced from the Testimony of Nilus who in his Book of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then may one say is not the Pope entirely the Successor of Peter Yes he is but 't is as he is a Bishop and is no more than what every Bishop that was ordained by Peter may easily challenge But there were may that by his namely Peters Hand received this Grace of Episcopacy Ay every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood and thus there are many Successors as well of Peter as of other Apostles but in other Respects they have no Successors Thus he speaketh plainly That Bishops and Pastours succeeded the Apostles but not in the Apostleship of this there is no Succession and Dr. Reinolds is fully of the same Opinion and speaks home Indeed it is a Point saith he well worth the noting that as you do notoriously abuse the Church of Christ speaking to Hart for you perswade the Simple and chiefly young Scholars who trust your Common-Place Books that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peter's Successors in the same meaning That the Pope doth when he saith That Peter and Peter's Suceessor is the Head of the Church and bindeth by solemn Oath to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peter's Successors them whom Christ doth put in Trust to seed his Sheep as the Master of the Sentences and Thomas of Aquin do give the Name of Peters Successors to all Priests and Prelates as they term them that is to all Pastors and Doctors of the Church as S. Augustin teacheth That it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou love me feed my sheep As S. Ambrose writeth That he and all Bishops have received the Charge of the Sheep with Peter as the Roman Clergy apply it to the rest of the Disciples of Christ and the Clergy of Carthage too Thus Dr. Reinolds But I stay too long on a matter that in no degree deserves it for to inferr that all Bishops are properly Apostles because they have the Name of Apostles is to imply That Identity of Names will inferr an Identy of Offices at which Rate Ioseph the Mittendary in Epiphanius whom he calleth an Apostle would have the Honour of being a Bishop and indeed on that Account his Title is all as good as Bishop Epaphroditus's 'T is true you tell me you believe as S. Hierome likewise did That Epaphroditus was really the Bishop because he is called the Apostle of the Philippians Phi. 2. 25. But as it is true that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle so it may well be acknowledged That our English Translators do render that Expression very well your messenger since nothing is more evident than this That the Coherence and Connexion of the Text will carry it to that Sense I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and companion in labour and fellow soldier but your messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and minster of my necessities Which indeed he was as appears by Chap. 4. 15 18. Now the Philippians know that no Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you but my God shall supply all your need c. to wit as you by him have supplied mine That the Apostles exercised a Jurisdiction over particular formed Churches and over those particularly which themselves had founded is as little to your purpose if Bishops are not which they are not either of the Order of the Apostles or else Founders of Churches as these were as in it self it is a Truth and not to be questioned The Jurisdiction of the Apostles over particular Churches undergoes a Double Consideration in neither of which it symbolizeth with the Diocesan or Episcopal for it may be considered either as it was an Appurtenance and Incident to the Office of the Apostleship to wit as the Apostles were Founders of the Church Essential and thus all the Apostles as they had one Commission so they had equal Authority equal Jurisdiction over all the
assist and help the Apostles in the Work of founding and settling the Churches for this cause left I there in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or left undone to wit by Paul and ordain Elders in every City T it 1. 5. In the Acts of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain Elders in every Church and here Titus is said to be left in Crete to do it Indeed both Timothy and Titus in what they did the one at Ephesus the other at Crete were only Deputies that acted as by Delegation of S. Paul according to the Instructions which he gave them for this Apostle saith to Titus I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders AS I HAD APPOINTED and sets out the Qualifications that Titus must observe in the Elders he ordained Tit. 1. verse 6 7 8 c. In like manner he instructs Timothy how he was to behave himself in the House of God in settling Elders and Deacons 1 Tim. from 1 to 15. so that if Bishops be not Evangelists as well as Apostles I do not see of what Advantage Timothy and Titus their Business at Ephesus and at Crete can be to your Cause 〈…〉 of our Lord was Bishop of Ierusalem 〈…〉 and that he is stiled Bishop by S. Luke who yet had a fair Occasion 〈◊〉 it in his Acts of the Apostles had Iames been indeed such a Bishop nor is he so styled by any other of the Sacred Writers and if we except the Râ—â— Clement in an Epistle said to be his the first that stiled him so was Hegesippus who lived at least a whole Century after Another Clement he of Alexandria is also cited by Theodorus Mitochita and by others to prove it but really the Story as Clement tells it if they represent him right carries its own Confutation for they make him say That Iames by Divine Appointment was ordained to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem to prevent any Emulation and Dispute that Peter Iohn and the other Iames might otherwise have had for that honour But however that was I do acknowledge for my own part that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem but I acknowledge it only in the sense in which he was Bishop of all the other Churches and he was no more in the Opinion of the first Clement if we credit Bishop Iewell for this Bishop in the Defence of his Apology Part 2. Page 98. brings in Clement speaking thus I send greeting unto Iames the Brother of our Lord and the Bishop of Bishops Governour of the Holy Church of the Jews at Ierusalem and also of all the Churches that by Gods Providence are every where founded here faith Bishop Iewell Iames is the Head of all Churches whatsoever By this Testimony it plainly appears that Iames the reputed Bishop of Ierusalem as he was Iames the Apostle so he was no otherwise Bishop of that City than as Peter was of Rome and how that was Dr. Reinolds has told us in his Conference with Hart where he saith But whether Eusebius or Hierom or Damasus or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop either they use the name of Bishop generally and so it proves not your purpose or if they meant it as commonly we do they missed the Truth for generally a Bishop is an Overseer in which Signification it reaches to all who are put in Trust with Oversight and Charge of any thing as Eliazer is called Bishop of the Tabernacle and Christ the Bishop of our Souls But in our common use of speech it notes him to whom the oversight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus Philippi and they whom Christ calls the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this latter sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to Preach to all the World wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to have meant it In fine it may not be amiss on this occasion to take notice of an Observation made by a learned Man and he too a Bishop in reference to the Testimony of Fathers to wit That they wrote things they saw not and so framâ— matters according to their own Conceits and many of them were taintâ— with Partial Humours which another more softly expresseth thus Tâ—â— they namely the Fathers finding the name of Bishop continued in the 〈◊〉 cession of one Paster after another judged 〈…〉 according to them that lived in their times An Observa◠〈…〉 use with respect to the Fathers that lived at a greater distance than 〈◊〉 be of Clement did from the Apostolical time Thus I have briefly touched the Arguments offered by you in affirmance of Diocesan Episcopacy only to that which is taken from the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation I have said nothing because I do not think it worthy of a particular Consideration for since these Angels for ought we know might be only so many several Presidents of the Presbyteries in Congregational Churches the instancing of them makes but little for your purpose who do affirm Diocesan Prelacy But as you have argued for Diocesan Authority which you would have of Apostolical Institution so others do for the Synodical which as they apprehend is grounded upon the Synod so they call the Assembly at Ierusalem that was convened upon the appeal made by the Believers at Antioch For say they this Controversie was absolutely and finally decided by that0 Synod and a Decree or Canon made and this sent not only to the Church at Anticch but to all the Churches besides of Syria and Cilicia I deny not that the former Practice was the Occasion of Synods or Assemblies of Bishops but I affirm that that Assembly though it had something in it of more resemblance to a Synod properly so called than is in meer Convocations of the Clergy the Brethren as well as the Apostles and Elders being in that Assembly who generally are Excluded from Convocations yet it was not properly a Synod A Synod properly whether Diocesan Provincial or National being but an Ecclesiastical Parliament of the one sort or of the other in which all that are obliged by the Determinations and Resolutions of it must be understood to be in Person or by Representation as either being there themselves or else electing those that do Compose it to represent and stand for them The Controversie at Antioch was about a Doctrinal Subject of great Concernment whether Circumcision and Obedience to all the Mosaical Laws was necessary to Salvation for This some of Iudea taught the Brethren and were opposed for it by S. Paul and Barnabas but the Contention running high and neither side yielding all agreed to send to Ierusâ—lem to the Apostles and Elders â— to the Original Deliverers of the Christian Doctrin which being a Doctrin â—f Faith and not of Discourse and Ratiocination they rightly judged that it â—ust be
resolved at last into the Testimony and Witness of those who had reâ—ived it from Christ and those particularly whose Office it was to transmit it â—to others and to Vouch it So that in this respect the Case is particular the â—peal was made unto the Apostles and Elders or old Disciples as those â—o having conversed with our Lord had immediately received the Christian â—trin from him which Reason for the Appeal was Peculiar to those Persons â—made and received it and therefore can be none for others taken either in the private or in representative Capacities Further there is something else in this business that was very peculiar I know it is affirmed That the Holy Ghost did assist in this Assembly in a special manner and that the same Assistance and Guidance is promised to all others that convene in Christ's Name either for the Decision of Controversies or for Government of the Church and that any Synod lawfully called and proceeding lawfully may say in their Decrees as the Apostles and Elders and Church do hear It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us I acknowledge them very learned and worthy Men that think so but I must beg their Pardon if I differ from them for with Submission I conceive that the Phrase It seemed good to the Holy Ghost hath no Relation to any Assistance and Guidance of the Holy Ghost that was afforded by any Extraordlnary Illumination of Mind to them that met on that occasion and so it makes nothing for Infallible Direction in Council Rather it relates unto the Decision which the Holy Ghost in Effect had already made of that Controversie by his Descending upon some of the Gentiles who had believed in Christ as Peter preached him without any mention of Moses or of his Law Acts 10. from 34. to 45. For it was the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the believing Gentiles who were Strangers to the Law A Descent that was not transacted immediately by the laying on of the Hands of any Apostles but was an Immediate Descent such an one as that was which had been made before upon the Apostles themselves on the day of Pentecost It was this Descent that being a sealing of them by the Holy Ghost Ephes. 1. 13. was urged by the Apostle Peter as an Argument against the Imposition of the Mosaical Yoke which Argument was confirmed and strengthened by Barnabas and Paul and at last by Iames who doth not give a Difinitive Sentence as the Translation carries it and you somewhere say but only gives his Judgment And this in fine did carry the matter so that it is evident that no Council Synod or Assembly of Men may say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us in their Decisions as the Apostles and Elders did and because they did if that Council Synod or Assembly has not such a particular Manifestation of the Holy Ghost to bottom their Decisions as the Apostles and Elders had when the Apostles and Elders said It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us they meant it seemed good to the Holy Ghost by his Descent and to themselves upon full Debate But to return The Church wilest it stood in its State of Separation from Secular Government must be considered to have been in a Double Condition the first while the Apostles were living who as they had an Extraordinary Charge so they had a proportionable power over all the Church the second after the decease or other removal of the Apostles when the Church was left to it self for in these different Circumstances the proceedings were very different both as to the punishing of Offenders and to the ending of Controversies Whilst the Apostles who had an Extraordinary and Supernatural Rod were living and in a Condition to use that Rod as there needed no other Discipline but that to terrifie flagitious and great Offenders so I find no other used and that too but rarely the greater Excommunication had no place that I can find unless where Diotrephes ruled in that State of the Church Besides the Apostolical Rod it was only Non conversing with or abstaining from the Society of Offenders that was used as a Remedy for the Reducing of them and this by Apostolical Order Indeed the Apostles were not so much for cutting off from the Church as for inviting and calling Men into it The Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a Dragnet But after the Decease or other removal of the Apostles when the terrour of their Rod was vanished and when God himself did no longer as at first he seem'd to have done in Extraordinary manner particularly punish for particular Sins as in the Case of the Corinthians For this cause many are sick and weak among you c. and no Assistance could be had from the Sword of the Magistrate without Scandal in that State necessity grew upon the Church to make its Discipline straighter and more awful that so having something in it of severe and rigorous the Terrour of it might restrain and the Execution reform Hence came the Church-Covenant or voluntary Subjection which saith Lewis du Moulin is intimated by Pliny in his Epistle to Trajan in his Sacramento obstricti and says Mr. Selden by Origen contra Celsum when he spake of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christians And hence by degrees and as occasions obliged it came to pass that Excommunications the greater and the lesser grew into use the former not so much by a positive Institution as by the Common Law of Society and the latter by Congruity to the Apostles Direction 1 Cor. 5. 11. Both which though they carryed terrour in themselves yet to add to it as the Estimate of the Privation ever doth depend upon that of the Possession Admission into the Church and consequently to the Lord's Table were practised with more Formality than in the Apostles times Now comes in a solemn Distinction of Chatechuneti and Fideles and the Candidates of Christianity must take time before them must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must pass through many Degrees before they can attain to the happiness of being admitted to a participation of the priviledges and rights of the Faithful It was now also that the Notion of a Catholick Vnity obtained which was not understood at that time to be Internal and Spiritual an Unity of Faith and Charity only But to consist in something External relating unto Order and Discipline as being an Unity that was to be maintained by Communicatory and other Letters and by Orders and that was intended to support the Notion of but one Bishoprick in the Church and that every Bishop participated of that one Bishoprick in Solidum A Notion that was of great use to make their Dicipline and Power the more pointed for if but one Church then to be cast out of any part of the Church was indeed to be ejected out of the whole and if but one Bishoprick to be participated by all the Bishops what
was done by one was done by All All did censure if one did the Expulsion made by one Bishop out of any Church was in effect an Expulsion from all the Churches and so a cutting off entirely from Christianity and all Communion of Saints Thus they aimed in a General Bishoprick at what the Church of Rome doth in a personal in affirming which I do not impose upon you for S. Cyprian is plain Hoc â—rant utique says he in his Tractate de simplicitate Praelatorum caeteri Apostoli quid fuit Petrus pariconsoriio praediti honoris potestatis sed Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur c. quam unitatem firmiter tenere vindicâ—re debemus maximè Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum utque Indivisum probemus Thence also came the Rails about the Table I mean the Differences of Communions Clerical and Laical to wit to raise the Reputation and Credit of the Clergy and withal to make their Ceusures the more solemn and awful as also that the Clergy who were obliged to a stricter and more exemplary life if they did not live it might have a peculiar Punishment which was to be thrust from the Clerical Communion and be degraded to that of the Laity In fine hence Publick Confessions and rigorous shaming Penances in all the Decrees of them Fletus Auditio Substractio Consistentia had their beginning and also solemn Absolutions by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop and of the Presbyters Which things as being only Human and Politick tho' not unnecessary for the Time are all of them alterable and some actually altered Again as Controversies arose in the Churches either about Matters of Doctrin or of Discipline the Apostles while they lived and were in a Condition those especially which founded such particular Churches where they arose did take care to end such Differences and were accordingly repaired unto for that purpose Thus in the Business of Antioch Appeal is made unto all the Apostles and for the Corinthians Galatian c. S. Paul particularly cared But after the Decease of the Apostles or a Failure of the Apostolical Infallible Guidance by other means the Controversies that arose in any Church became determined by the Common Counsel and Advice of other Churches either by their Letters or by a solemn Discussion and Debate in an Assembly of Bishops and Elders in Provincial Councils We do not read indeed of any Rule for this Practice but the Light of Nature or Common Reason directed it and there was something too that did lead unto it in the first Assembly at Ierusalem For as the Apostles and Elders were appealed unto by them of Antioch so the whole Church was convented and the Business considered and debated by the whole and by the whole resolved In sum the Churches of Christ in this separate State subsisted by themselves like so many little Republicks as being only in the World but not of it and therefore concerned not themselves in any Business with the Secular Powers And yet seeing their Members were Men as well as others and in the World as well as others and consequently liable to Passions and Misgovernment to Common Accidents of Providence and to Differences too arising in Worldly Matters it was absolutely necessary that some Provision should be made in all these Respects in the Church it self by Officers on purpose or else since there was no other Remedy all would run to Confusion Hence as the Ancient Christians had Deacons for the Poor so they had Wisemen as the Apostle calls them or Elders who to prevent the Scandal of their going to Law before the Heathen determined Matters by way of Arbitration and likewise restrained and suppressed exorbitant and evil Manners by censuring them Out of the Church to provide for the Poor to end Controversies between Man and Man and to punish evil doing was the Business of the Magistrate And this reminds me of the Third State of the Church when Magistrates and Powers becoming Christians the Christian Religion was taken by them into Civil Protection and became incorporated into the Laws as that of Israel was into theirs so that now States became Churches a State professing Christianity being a National Church and a National Church nothing but a Christian Nation in a Word a Holy Commonwealth Great was the Alteration that was made in the Government and Face of the Church in this Condition from what it was before for after the time that Emperours became Christian and that they shewed Kindness to the Church the Hierarchy became a Secular thing it being in this State that That and the Power of Councils attained to their full Growth but yet in several Countries by several Steps and Occasions Lavius in his Commentary of the Roman Commonwealth lib. 1. fol. 22. tells us That the Episcopal Diocesses of the Christian Religion do by many very great Tokens represent the Roman Antiquity and well he might for it is plain the Form of Civil Administration after the Roman Empire became Christian and in some degrees before was imitated in the Church and that both in the Provinces and Bounds of the Empire and in the City it self For as the Roman Empire was divided into several Pretories which Pretories were called Pretorian Diocesses or Sees and these Pretories again were subdivided into Provinces and that in every Pretory there was a Prefect of the Pretory who resided in the Metropolis called Sedes prima to administer and rule the Diocess and under the Prefect in the several Provinces there were other Principal Officers called Presidents to rule and govern them So in the Church there were the Metropolitan Primates or Archbishops who were seated in the Metropolis or Capital Cities and answered to the Prefects of the Pretories and there were Bishops that resided in the Inferious Citie who were called Suffragan Bishops and those resembled the Presidents of the Provinces l and the Parallel holds out further since a Person as Ioseph Scaliger observes might be a Bishop with Archiepiscopal Ornaments and yet not be an Archbishop in like manner as one might be an Officer with Consular Ornaments and yet not be a Consul The same Scaliger in his Epistles hb. 2. ep 184. also acquaints us That in the Time of Constantine the Great there were four Prefects of pretories the Prefect of the Pretorium of Constantionople the Illirian Prefect the Prefect of the Pretorium of Rome and the Prefect of the Pretorium in the Gallia Adding that seeing the Prefect of the Pretorium was of the same Degree that at this Day a Vice-Roy is he had under him Vicars and the Vicar he saith was the Governour of a Diocess or one that had under him a whole Diocess and a Diocess was a Government that contained under it several Metropolies or Capital Cities as a Metropolis had under it several Cities He further adds That the
Beza and Piscator renders the Text Quâ—mque ipsis per suffragia creassent c. I know that some have told us That Iosephus uses the Word with reference unto God he saying that God did chrirotonize Aaron thrice and therefore to chirotonize is not always to be taken for the Popular Suffrage Nor is chirotonizing always taken so But supposing that the Word Chirotonize was used by Iosephus as afterwards it came to be by others in a second Sense for any Creation of Officers in general yet in the primary and proper use it signifies the Popular Suffrage for Chirotonia in Suidas is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Election Ratification made by All. And this also was the common Use of the Word at that time when and in the Places most of them Republicks where the Apostles are said to chirotonize And certainly no Man can imagine with Reason That the making of Elders in its first Institution should be called Chirotonia and bear the Name of the Suffrage of the People especially in that time and in such places had these Elders been made in any other manner than by the popular Suffrage for then the name of the Action would have been distinctive or proper as all Original Names of things are used to be Besides what if it should be said as indeed it is by Mr. Harrington that when the Congregation or People of Israel upon the several miraculous Appearances in favour of Aaron did recognize him again and again for High Priest this Chirotonia of the People was the Chirotonia of God Why might not God as President of the Congregation in that Theocracy as well be said as he is by Iosephus to chirotonize when the People did as the Proedri who presided in the Assembly of the People at Athens be said by Demosthenes to make the Diachirotonia the Thesmothetae by Pollux to Chirotonize the Strategi and the Consul who presided at the Election of Officers at Rome be said by the Roman Historians to create these Officers As for the Diachirotonia tho' you think it the Act only of the Magistrates not of the People because Hesychius says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will give me leave to acquaint you that the Diachirotonia was as much the Act of the People or of those suffrageâ— as the Chirotonia it self was For those that suffraged or made the Chirotonia are said in cases of competition to Diachirotanize because then by their Suffrages they did distinguish one of the Competitors from the other and he of the Competitors that was distinguished to his Advantage as carrying the Office by most Voices was said to be Diachirotonized and a Declaration was made That he was elected which Declaration was called Crisis All this is evident from Plato who treating l. 6. de leg concerning the Election of the Strategi in case of Competition says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoever appears to be Diachirotonized or to have most Voices be it declared let the Crisis be that he is elected Here he distinguishes very plainly between the Diachirotonia which he attributes to those that suffraged and the Crisis or declarative Judgment which was the Act of those that presided But he does it afterward more plainly wheâ— ordaining that the same Rule that was observed in the making of the Strategi should be also observed in that of the Taxiarchi he says Let the same be observed both as to the Epichirotonia and the Crisis that is as to the Suffrage and to the Resolve So that Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be interpreted a Discrimination or preference made by Suffrage As for the Jurisdiction of the Apostles I make no doubt but that the Apostles who were Elders as well as Apostles 2 Pet. 5. 1. acted in setled Congregations where any of them happen'd to be or to reside with the Elders of such Congregations in that Capacity of Elders but as this Authority was not properly or purely Apostolical so that which was both that I call the Essential that was incident to the Apostles as they founded the Church and the Accidental that was incident to them as they founded particular Churches was Extraordinany and peculiar as being only for that emergent Occasion and not for Continuance To speak generally governing the Churches was as much an ordinary Work as â—reaching and was common to all the Elders whether Apostles or not but to do it in such a particular manner with such a Rod and with so large a Superintendence as in some cases the Apostles did was extraordinary and peculiar to them No Officers that are now can pretend to a Rod like that of the Apostles Acts 5. 3 4 5 c. 1 Cor. 4. 21 and therefore none that are now can exercise such a Discipline as they did Those that will truly evidence that the Prelatical Hierarchy is Apostolical ought to demonstrate that besides the Officers setled in all particular Churches to feed and govern them the Apostles and Evangelists setled others as a kind of Visitors General over all or over many Churches together with the same Authority that themselves had exercised and this for continuance without this nothing is done to any purpose As for the Transaction 1 Cor. 5. I am still of the mind it was wholly extraordinary and that it cannot be drawn into Example The Apostle says When you are gathered together and my Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with the Authority but with the mighty power of the Lord Christ to the end to deliver such an one unto Satan Whence it follows very clearly That without the Apostles Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ the Corinthians were unable to deliver that Incestuous to Satan for else I see no Reason why they should have the Conjunction and Assistance of these the Apostles Spirit and Christ's Power for that end since then there would be no need of it And if they could not deliver the Incestuous to Satan without the Assistance of the Apostolical Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ it also follows that to deliver to Satan was not meerly to excommunicate eject or suspend him since this was so much in their own Power that they might have done it of themselves without such Extraordinary and Miraculous Aids To be sure this Effect whatever it was if it bore as every Effect must do proportion unto its cause it must be something that was Extraordinary for it came not only from the Spirit of the Apostle but also from the Miraculous Power of Christ for such a Power that is which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as is evident Acts 1. 8. 'T is true you infer from 1 Cor. 5. 2. That the Corinthians could not put away the Incestuous without a new Commission from the Apostle who was their Bishop and consequently you understand the Power was given to them only of a Commission or Authority But on the contrary the Word used for Power is as I have said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word that commonly signifies Strength not Authority Besides if this putting away v. 2. must be understood as certainly it must of the same putting away with that v. 13. nothing can be plainer than that it was a Censure the People could and ought to have made of themselves without expecting any new Commission as being in a matter that by the Apostles own Concession they had a proper Cognisance of and over a Person too whose competent Judges they were as the same Apostle tells them Do not you judge them that are within therefore put away c. putting away is grounded on the Peoples Judgment but delivery unto Satan upon the Apostles And yet however putting away may well be called an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rebuke and be a kind of Punishment for to be excluded from the Common Society and Conversation of the Faithful cannot deserve a milder Expression You still insist That there is and ought to be a Disparity of Ministers because there was a Disparity between the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples and with Blondel think that the 70 continued in the same Office after the Ascension of our Lord that they had before for you say You cannot believe they withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men. But tho' you do not believe as I know no need you should that the 70 withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men yet if their Office was only occasional that is if they were sent by our Saviour to the House of Israel as Messengers upon some particular Occasions and about a particular Business then their Office ceased of Course at their Return like that of a Prince's Envoy whose Office ends with his Business that is as soon as his Message is done and he returned with the Account of it I know of no Jurisdiction the 12 Apostles had over the 70 but am sure the Office and Work of the 70 whatever it was related but to the Jews as being a Business only for that Time a Time that was the Crepusculum or Twi-light between the Law and Gospel Judaism and Christianity while as yet the Kingdom of Heaven was only at hand but not come Luke 10. 9. I add That the Office of the 70 is not reckoned in the number of the Ascension Gifts Eph. 4. 11. And which is more that the Apostles themselves had they not received another a new Commission after the Reâ—urrection of Christ they by their former old one which confirmed them unto Iudaea as that of the 70 also did them and which was only for a preliminary Work Matth. 10. 7. as that of the 70 also was could not have had an Authority to preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles and so to lay the Foundation of the Catholick Church And therefore the first Commission as it was limited so it was Temporary and expired at furthest when a second was given them Matth. 28 18 19. Acts 1. 8. Not but that the 70 as well as the 12 had Business in the Kingdom of Heaven or the Evangelical State but they had it not under the Denomination of the 70 or in vertue of their first Commission or Mission but only as they came to be Officers in this Kingdom by being constituted Evangelists or Prophets or Pastors and Teachers or Deacons c. You offer again in Confirmation of your Notion of the Apostleship of Bishops that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation were Bishops constituted by the Apostles with the same Authority themselves had and that the Twelve Apostles and Paul were not all the Apostles that the Scripture speaks of for Barnabas and others were Apostles too as well as they I acknowledge Barnabas to be an Apostle but I cannot acknowledge that he was an Apostle of the same Rank with the Twelve and Paul for as Paul himself distinguishes Gal. 1. 1. All Apostles were not of the same Rank but some were in the first some in the second Order that is some were Apostles sent immediately by Christ himself and so were Legates à latere and some were sent not immediately by Christ himself but by Men. Now Paul insists That himself was an Apostle of the first Order and in the same Rank with the Twelve Gal. 1. 17. whereas it is plain that Barnabas and all the others who are called Apostles can pretend to be but of the second they being sent not immediately by Christ himself as those of the first were but only by Man either by the Apostles that were of the first Order as Timothy and Titus by Paul or by some Church as Barnabas Acts 11. 22. for here the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him as the word Imports that is used Acts 13 3. Apostles of the second Order are called also Evangelists and it was their business to be Assistant unto those of the first if not always to their Persons yet at least to their Work which was to plant Churches by making of Conversions and setling Orders And of this sort of Apostles I again acknowledge Timothy and Titus to have been I proved in my former Paper that Timothy and Titus were Evangilists but it seems the Argument I used loses all its force with you because its strength like that of the Arch-work lies in the Combination and Concurrence and you consider it only in pieces not as a whole and all its parts together and United but only separately and part by part As for Timothy methinks we do too often find him with S. Paul in his Perambulations to have any reason to conceive that he was resident Bishop of Ephesus and for Titus his Diocess seems too large for any ordinary Bishop Crete is famed to have had an hundred Cities in old time and Pliny assures us L. 4. c. 12. that in his there were forty which were enough for so many Bishopricks Titus had it in Charge Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City and to ordain Elders in every City was to settle a Church in every City so that if every Church must have a Bishop as some are confident it must then every City in Crete that had a Church had also a Bishop and so possibly there were as many Bishops and Bishopricks in Crete as there were Cities This Consideration if well weighed will much abate of the Authority of the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus in which this Evangelist is stiled the Ordained Bishop in the Church of the Cretians for according to the Language of that time had Titus been indeed the Bishop of that whole Island he ought to have been stiled Bishop of the Churches and not of the Church of the Cretians But it seems it is taken for granted that a Bishop must have but
one Church and therefore that Titus may be a Bishop of the Cretians all the Churches of Crete must be Consolitated into one else among all the Churches in Crete I would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where Titus resided If Titus was Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops and at least a Metropolitan which indeed would be most in favour of the Hierarchy could it be Evidenced But this could not be the settlement that was made in Crete For it would be strange that the Apostle should appoint a Hierarchy in Crete that should differ from the form of Government setled upon the Continent by himself and Barnabas who constituted Elders in every Church without appointing that we read of any Superiour Bishop or Metropolitan that should have a General Care and Inspection over the several Churches For my part I could not see how Titus should understand his Commission which was to ordain Elders in every City to carry any other Intention with reference to Crete than the very same words do when they are used to signifie what Paul himself who gave him this Commission had done upon the Continent where he and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church And therefore as Paul and Barnabas established single Congregations only and Organized them with Elders and then left them to govern themselves by their own Intrinsick powers So in the like manner Titus established Churches in every City and Organized them with Elders which having done it is very probable that he returned again unto S. Paul to give an account of his Commission Thus Titus his business in Crete has the very Idea and Signature of that of an Evangelist or a Secundary Apostle without the least Mark of an ordinary Bishop nor is there any hint in all the Authentick Scriptures of his being ordained Bishop of Crete or indeed of any place else And the like must be said of Timothy with reference to Ephesus who was sent to the Church there as a Visitor only with Apostolical Authority and so as S. Paul's Delegate Nor it Titus his ordaining of Elders a good Argument for sole Ordination for the word Tit. 1. 5. is the same that is used in Acts 6. 3. in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the People And one might well admire that the same word which is Translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordained in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if there were a plain Text for sole Ordination But what if Timothy and Titus had a power of sole Jurisdiction and a power too of making Canons for the Government of the Church which latter yet is an Authority that every Bishop will not pretend unto after their Example The Church then was in a State of Separation from Secular Government and among Heathen just as the Jews are now among Christians so that all it could do at that time was to perswade it could not compel And therefore it will not follow now that the Church is protected and not only protected by but Incorporated into the State that the Officers of it must have the same powers and Exercise them in the same manner as before or as Mr. Selden expresses it That England must be Governed as Ephesus or Crete It is certain that Kings would gain but little by the Bargain not to say they must depart with their Sovereignty to Incorporate the Christian Religion should this be admitted that Church-Authority Church-Power must be still the same after such Incorporation as before For a separate National Jurisdiction Exercised by one or many is a Solecism in State especially if it claim by the Title of Iure divino a Title that renders it Independent upon as well as unboundable and uncontroulable by all that is human Such a Jurisdiction would weaken that of Kings and other States All their Subjects would be but half Subjects and many none at all and it is no more nor less but that very same thing that heretofore was found so inconvenient and burden some under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie A Clergy imbodied within it self and independent on the State is in a Condition of being made a powerful Faction upon any Occasion and easie to be practised upon as being united under one or a few Heads who can presently convey the Malignity to all their Subordinates and these to the People So that I lay it down as a Maxim that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government than a National Hierarchy that does not depend upon it or is not in the Measures and Interests of it Fresh Experience has learned us this I know not with what Design it was said by Padre Paulo Sarpio of Venice but his Words are very remarkable as I find them cited from an Epistle of his to a Counsellor of Paris in the Year 1609. I am afraid says he in the behalf of the English of that great power of Bishops though under a King I have it in Suspicion when they shall meet with a King of that goodness as they will think it easie to work upon him or shall have any Archbishop of an high Spirit the Royal Authority shall be wounded and Bishops will aspire to an Absolute Domination Methinks I see a Horse Sadled in England and I guess that the old Rider will get on his Back But all these things depend on the Divine Providence Thus he very prudently as to the main though perhaps with some mistake as to his Conjecture For my part I think it but reason that such Persons as have the Benefit of Human Laws should in so much be guided by them and that the Sword which owns no other Edge but what the Magistrate gives it should not be used but by his Direction As indeed the practice in England has always been For as Mr. Selden observes Whatever Bishops do otherwise than the Law permits Westminster-Hall can controul or send them to absolve c. He also says very well That nothing has lost the Pope so much in his Supremacy as not acknowledging what Princes gave him 't is a scorn says he on the Civil Power and an unthankfulness in the Priest But adds he the Church runs to Iure divino lest if these should acknowledge what they have by positive Laws it might be as well taken from them as given to them Ay This excellent Person goes further so much further as to tell us That a Bishop as a Bishop had never any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England for as soon as he was Electus Confirmatus that is after the Three Proclamations in Bow-Church he might Exercise Jurisdiction before he was Consecrated and yet till then that he was Consecrated he was no Bishop neither could he give Orders Besides says he Suffragans were
Ignatius which as I shall shew hereafter was Congregational but by the Express Testimony of Clement who blames the Church of Corinth for raising a Sedition and Stir against their Presbyters and therefore there were many in that Church only upon the Account of one or two Persons so that it is plain there was a College of Presbyters in the Ancient Apostolical Church of Corinth Again in the Presbytery or College which was ordained in every Church though all the Presbyters were equal the Institution making no Difference for Paul and Barnabas are said to Constitute Elders but not to Constitute Elders and a Bishop as a Superiour over them yet it being requisite for Order-sake that some one in every Assembly should have the Direction and that Honour naturally falling on the Eldest Presbyter unless some other Course be resolved it is most probable that at first the Eldest Presbyter as he had the first Place so he had the first Direction of Matters But afterwards it being found by Experience that the Eldest was not always the Worthiest and Fittest for that purpose it came to pass that the place devolved not any longer by Seniority but was conferred by Election And in this S. Ambrose if it be he and not rather Hillary in his Comment on the fourth to the Ephesians is plain Vid. Sixt. Senens Bibl. Sanct. l. 6. annot 324. And admitting that all the Presbyters were called Bishops as undoubtedly at first they were it is easie to conceive how the first Presbyter came to be called the Bishop and at last for Distinction-sake to have the Name of Bishop so appropriated to him that the rest retained only the Denomination of Presbyters But all this while the Bishop was but the first Presbyter and had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is allowed to S. Peter in the College of the Apostles by all Protestants Even Epiphanius himself if we may believe Danaeus was at last compelled to confess That in the Time and Age of the Apostles no such Distinction as that is which you contend for was to be found between the Bishops and Presbyters Again though all the Presbyters in every Church had like Authority to Preach and Rule both Functions being comprehended in the Episcopacy assigned to them 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. yet some of them being better qualifyed for the one and some for the other it is probable that they exercised their different Talents accordingly some of them more in the one and some more in the other This as strange as you may make it seems plainly intimated in that Injunction of the Apostles 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrin For here is a plain Distinction of Elders of which some being better at Ruling and some at preaching they exercised themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrin And since Labouring in the Word and Doctrin had the special Honour no Question but the first Presbyter as most honourable was always of the number of those that laboured that way so that the Bishop was the Pastour also or Preaching Elder that is the Preaching Spiritual Work became appropriated to him at first Eminently but afterwards entirely and then nothing lay in Common between him and the Presbyters but only Rule And this is what I can gather from Scripture of the Apostolical Settlement Upon the whole it is evident That a Diocesan Bishop was unknown in the first Age of the Church and the only Bishop to be found then was the Presbyter which is further confirmâ—d in that the Scotâ— who received the Knowledg of Christianity very early even in that Age had not any Knowledge for many Ages after that appears oâ— any but Presbyterian Jurisdiction Even Bishop Spotiswood in his History of the Church of Scotland tells us out of Boethius and Boethius from Ancient Annals of the Culdees or Ancient Scottish Priests and Monks who he believes were called Culdees not because Culteres Dei as most think but because they lived in Cells their Names as he says being Kele-Dei and not Culdei in old Bulls and Rescripts He says of these Culdees That they were wont for their better Government to elect one of their Number by common Suffrage to be the Chief and Principâ—l among them without whose Knowledge and Consent nothing was done in any Matter of Importance and the Person so Elected was called Scotorum Episcopus a Scots Bishop and this was all the Bishop that he could find in the first Times But Bâ—chaâ—an is plainer who tells us That no Bishop to wit an Order superiour to that of the Presbyters ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Paliadius his Time the Church says he unto that Time was Governed by Monks without Bishops with less Pride and outward Pomp but greater Simplicity and Holiness Thus I have Eâ—idenced what the Sâ—aâ—e of Things was in the first Times of the Christian Churches to wit that those were governed by Presbyteries in which all the Presbyters were equal and all Bishops only for Order-sake there was a first Presbyter who having more Care and more Work had yet no more Authority and Power than any other but as the best Men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions lyable to Rust and Canker so these were not exempted there was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own Times and those that followed him improved upon the Example The first Presbyter soon became advanced into another Order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters We are told by Dâ—naeus who citeth Epiphanius and he might have cited others that this Departure from the Primitive Institution began in Alexandâ—ia and it is very probable That the Appointment of twelve Presbyters besides a President for so Eutichius assures us it was there did give occasion to the President who easily took the Hint to challenge to himself the Place and Authority of Christ when the very Number of Presbyters over whom he presided made it manifest that they were an Imitation of the Apostles But whether other Churches took their Pattern from that of Alexandria or no 't is easie to conceive in what manner and by what means the Mistake might gain upon them For after the first Presbyter became elected and consequently was separate by Prayer and Imposition of Hands no wonder he was â—oon taken for an Officer of another Order much Superiour unto that of the Presbyters who was distinguished from them by that Token of a new Ordination and was in place above them Ay it is highly probable That the first Recess from the Primitive Institution even in Alexandria began this way if that be true that Grotius hath observed That the Election of the President Presbyter came not in use there but after the Death
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
the Bishops only to their ordinary and lawful Jurisdiction Invest them in any new or any that is unlawful at the Common Law or that is contrary to the Prerogative of our Kings All that I have said on this Occasion might receive a further Confirmation were there need of more by the famed Character of King Kenulphus made to the Abbot of Abington in which was a grant of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction as there also was in that of King Off a made to the Monastry of S. Albans by the Title of King Edgar who stiled himself Vicar of God in Ecclesiasticals by the Offering that Wolstan made of his Staff and Ring the Ensigns of his Episcopacy at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor by the Petition of the Archbishop and Clergy at the Coronation of our Kings by the form of the King 's Writ for Summoning a Convocation and of the Royal Licence that is commonly granted before the Clergy and Convocation can go upon any particular Debates In fine by the Statutes relating to Excommunication that do both direct and limit the Execution of that Censure and the proceedings upon it as to Capias's c. And thus much for Church-Government in the Third State of the Church as it is become incorporated by Civil Powers In discoursing of which I have made it plain That as no National Draught is of our Lord Christ's or his Apostles designing so that National Churches are all of Human Institution and their Government Ambulatory that is Alterable according as Times and Occasions and as the Forms of Civil Governments in States that do incorporate the Church oblige it to be to make it fit and suitable I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE THIRD LETTER SIR I Have always acknowledged some Episcopacy to be of Primitive Antiquity but you will please to remember I have likewise shewed that that Episco pacy was Presbyterial not Prelatical Congregational not Diocesan And that the Primitive Bishop was only a first Presbyter that is a Chairman in the College of Presbyters and not as in the Diocesan Hierarchy a Prelate of a superior Order that presided over several Congregational Churches and was invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction much less was he an Officer that kept Courts that had under him Chancellours Commissaries Officials Registers Apparitors c. and that judged per se aut per alium in certain reserved Cases To make this out I presented to you a Scheme of the Government of the Church both as it was established and settled by the Apostles and as it was afterwards I shewed That the Apostles in all their Institutions did carefully avoid any Imitation of the Temple-Orders to which Orders the Prelatical Hierarchy doth plainly conform I shewed also That the Government settled by the Apostles was only Congregational the Apostles in planting of Churches proceeding only after the Model and Way of the Synagogues Ay! all the Churches that we read of in Scripture that were constituted by the Apostles were only Congregational not National or Provincial that is they were as so many little Republicks each consisting of a Senate or Eldership with the Authority and of a People with the Power but all independant one of another and all possessed of all that Jurisdiction and Authority over their Members that was to be standing and ordinary For this Reason tho' every Congregation was but a part and a small one yet it had the Denomination of the whole every particular Congregation was stiled a Church This will appear more evident if we consider That the Interest of the People had at first and long after for above 150 Years in the Ordination of Officers was very great It is true the Word Ordination or that which answers to it in the Greek is never used throughout the whole New Testament for the making of Evangelical Officers nor did it in this Sense come into use among Christians till after the Christian Church began to accommodate to the Language as well as to the Orders of the Jewish But then as the People was called Laity and Plebs so the Clergy was called Ordo and this in the same Sense of the Word as when we read of the Order of Aaron and of that of Melchisedeck and then too the calling of any Person to the Ministry as it was a calling of him to be of the Clergy or Order so it was stiled an Ordination Ordination being nothing but the placing of a Person in the Order of the Clergy But tho' the Word Ordination was not as yet in use in the first Times the Thing was which is the Creation of Officers in the Church and in this the People possess'd so great a share which is a very good Argument of the Church's being framed at first after the Model and Way of Republicks that even the Action it self is called Chirotonia by S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and ever since by the Greek Fathâ—rs Ay the Creation of Officers is not usually called Chirothesia for this with the Greek Fathers was the Word that was mostly if not always used for Confirmation not for Ordination tho' Imposition of Hands the Ceremony signified by that Word was the Rite which was used by the Jews in creating of Rabbies and Doctors the Act of Ordination is usually if not always denominated Chirotonia or Extension of Hands which in the Greek Republicks was the Name or Word for the Popular Suffrage Indeed Paul and Barnabas are said to Chirotonize or as our Translators render the Word Acts 14. 23. To ordain them Elders in every Church But says Mr. Harrington they are said to do so but in the same Sense that the Proedri who were Magistrates to whom it belonged to put the Question in the Representative of the People of Athens are in Demosthenes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the Suffrage and the Thesmothetae who were Presidents in the Creation of Magistrates are in Pollux said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chirotonize the Strategi who yet ever since the Institution of Cliethenes that distributed the People into ten Tribes were always used to be elected and made by the Popular Suffrage Nor was this manner of Speaking peculiar unto the Greeks but as Calvin in his Institutions l. 4. c. 4. f. 15. observes it was a common Form used also by the Roman Historians who say That the Consul created Officers when he only presided at the Election and gathered the Votes of the People Et c'est uniforme commune de parler comme les Historiens disent quun Consul creoit des Officiers quand il recevoit le voix du peuple presedoit sur l' election So plain it is that S. Luke in saying that Paul and Barnabas did chirotonize the Elders intended to signifie no more but that the Elders were made by the Suffrage of the People Paul and Barnabas presiding at the Election and declaring or making the Crisis and so the New Latin Translation in