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-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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
singulos And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul Ex Apostoli tamen Pauli sermonibus colligere possumus c. so that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought I see deserve but little more of Credit as being but little better ascertained than the Catalogue of the British Kings deduced from Brute In truth the Task is a little uneasie to make it clear That the Apostles were properly Bishops in the Modern Sense of the Word and that they had fixed Seats which yet is the Basis upon which such Catalogues must stand sure I am Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms their Office to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare so that in the Judgment of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers a sort of Officers that were unfixed As for Epaphroditus I cannot be peswaded by the bare Authority of S. Hierom whom yet I take for a very Learned as well as Pious Father much less by that of Walo Messalinus to believe against the Analogy of the Text That he was Bishop of the Philippians only because he is called by S. Paul their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. The Observation Walo has made of the Word Apostle that it is never used by the Evangelists by S. Paul in any other Place or by the other Apostles but only De Sancto Ministerio will hold no Water for I take it that Iohn 13 16. in which Place the Word is used in a Common Promiscuous Sense and rendred so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable Instance against him Irenaeus is also cited to prove that such a superiority as the Apostles themselves had in the Church was transmitted by them unto Bishops for say you this Father who distinguishes between the Bishops and Presbyters affirms That the Apostles delivered to the Bishops suum ipsorum locum Magisterii their own Place of Magisteriality or Government Irenaeus flourished towards the End of the 2d Century and yet so near as he was to the Apostles own Times if he affirmed as he is ageed by the most tho' not by all to have done That our Lord Christ did undergo his Passion in the fiftieth Year of his Age we shall have little Reason to be fond of his Authority in Matters which he takes upon Trust and by meer Report But admitting Irenaeus's Authority which I am unwilling to lessen to be as unblemished and as tight as one could wish it yet on this occasion it will do you but small Service for the Force of the Testimony which you cite from him depends on the Word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as you understand it a Masterly Authority but teaching and Doctrin for in this latter Sense the Word is often used by other Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as you may see l. 1. ep 3. and in other Places but this is a Sense that maketh nothing for you for then Irenaeus means no other than what Tertullian also affirms and none will deny that the Apostles delivered over to the Bishops their own Chairs of Doctrin so that succeeding Bishops or Pastors were obliged to deliver no other Doctrin unto their Flocks but that same which themselves had first received from those that were the Founders of Christianity In fine as to what you mention but somewhat invidiously concerning the Judgment of the Assembly of Divines the Gangrene of Mr. Edwards and the overflow that was of Sects and Heresies in the Late Times of the Interreign which you would insinuate to be occasioned by the Intermission of Episcopacy I answer that there were Sects and Heresies even in the Times of the Apostles and that Irenaeus S. Ausrin Philastrius and Epiphanius have furnished the Christian World with large Catalogues of them and of some in their own times and yet I doubt not you will acknowledge there were Bishops in the Church even in those times So that Episcopacy if it be not Coercive is no such Remedy against Sects and Heresies as you would have us believe and if it be Coercive it is not purely Christian and Spiritual but in so much has something in it of Secular and Worldly Thus I have reinforced my main Argument and removed such Exceptions as you take against it and now I shall not make your trouble much longer but to elucidate some Incident and By Passages which I will do with all the Brevity I can and without formality of Method only as they come to my Mind Peter is first named where ever the whole Colledge of the Apostles is called over but I do not inâ—er nor does it enforce that any Primacy was due unto him other than that of Precedence which All Protestants generally speaking allow him It doth not appear that Iames at the Council of Hierusalem spake with more Authority than the other Apostles as Bishop of the Place and President of the Synod Iesephus indeed takes notice of him under an eminent Character for Piety but not a word in that Author of his eminent Dignity as a Prelate As for Paul he calls him but plain Iames not Bishop Iames And though he put him before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. that preference might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother Gal. 1. 19. and consequently is no great Argument of his Prelacy in the modern sense of that word So Zomen's Censure of the practice of having more Bishops than one in one City does prove that practice though he did not approve it Epiphanius also is cited by many to evidence that practice I yield not that 1 Cor. 14. 34. which may be translated in the Assemblies will demonstrate that there were at that time several separate Meetings for Christian Offices in one City or Town where was but one Church And yet I grant it might happen to be so upon Occasion for our Experience Evinces it has been so of late in a time of Persecution among the Dissenting Churches and what has been in our time might on like Occasions have been before it However this Accident would not prove nor indeed do I find any other proof that there were in the first times of Christianity Pastors who had the Care of several Churches or that any Church at that time did take in several Cities or Towns which were remote a Church properly being a Coagregation and consequently the People of a Vicinage or Neighbourhood under Orders Cenchrea though one of the Ports of Corinth had a Church of its own distant from that at Corinth and none I think will say That that Church was Diocesan The Council of Chalcedon prohibited absolute Ordinations That the end of the World Matth. 28. 20. is literally to be understood of the end of the Jewish Policy or the Mosaical seculum
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
Apostles as somewhere he does Christ is called a Bishop and that by a greater Man than Cyprian and yet I believe you will not infer from thence that the Bishops are Christs or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also That the Apostleship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the communication of the Names than for the same Reason That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so The Apostleship was an Episcopacy but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for any more than because it was called a Deaconry it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification for not to mention prophane Authors as Homer Plutarch Cicero c. in which we read the word It is certain Basil applies it often unto God Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles and therefore being a word of so general signification nothing is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy To be plain with you the Writers of the First Century Cyprian was in the Third had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship as you imagine even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops though he compares them sometimes to God and other times to Christ which I believe you insist not upon because you thought it a little too much yet he never that I can find compares them to the Apostles Their College if you will believe Ignatius was imitated not to say succeeded by the Presbytery I add That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us as Hierom also does That St. Mark ordained that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number though possibly not so early as to be an Institution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine not one word in Clemens Romanus a Writer of the First Age of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Office of the Apostleship He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution to wit the Bishops and Deacons of which more hereafter Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being by Office the first Preachers and Witnesses of Christ by whom they were immediately sent for that purpose then certainly that Work and Office as well as their Mission to it was extraordinary and but Temporary And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching and had framed them under perpetual standing Orders they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority either by way of Direction upon new Emergences or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages That was extraordinary too and by vertue of a Jurisdiction naturally arising and remaining in them as also in the Evangelists as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary is devolved upon any other Persons as Successors of the Apostles lyes on you to evince and I think it is an hard Province For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates while themselves were living or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living but only ordained That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church as their Successors but not before If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living I demand how that could be Can any come into the places of others even while these others possess them And again I demand whether there were or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction which I suppose you will not deny over the Prelates they instituted if they instituted any Then they transâ—erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates that is the Prelatâ—s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them for none does give that which he keeps I believe therefore you will say the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living but ordained that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches as their Successors But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded In what Scripture In what Fathers of the First Age or how came you to know of such an Order if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fathers transmits it All of any Aspect this way in any Father of the First Age is in Clemens Romanus and he is against you for having premised what is very remarkable and much to our purpose That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds that for that Cause to wit to end such strife they ordained Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed the forementioned Officers and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons of whom he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they namely the Apostles appointed the first fruits of those Cities and Countries where they had preached approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe This is a plain Testimony so plain that I see not how it can be evaded that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church of which one indeed was that of the Bishops But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others as in the sacred Scriptures it must be understood of the Presbyterian and not of the Prelatical Orders And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders which the Apostles had instituted to continue in the Church from time to time I did it with good Authority for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it He adds And moreover they gave it in direction That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had appointed should decease others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous
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-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
at large Propter quod saith he diligenter de Traditione divinâ Apostolicâ servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per provincias universas teneâ—ur ut ad ordinationes rise celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praeposâ—us ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit quod apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostii ordinatione ut de universae fraternitatis Suffragio de Episcoporum qui in praesentia Convenerant quique de eo ad vos Litteras fecerant Iudicio Episcopatus is deferretur manus ei in Locum Basilidis imponeretur or imponerentur Wherefore it ought diligently to be observed and maintained as a thing of Divine Tradition and of Apostolical practice the which also is observed by us and almost in all the Provinces that to the end Ordinations may be rightly made the Bishops of the same Province which are nearest to that People for whom a Minister is ordained do all meet and that the Bishop be chosen the People being present who have a perfect Knowledge of the Life that every one hath led and also do throughly understand his ability by his Conversation And this we see you also have observed in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague on whom as well by the Suffrage of the Brotherhood as the Judgment of all the Bishops both those that were then present and those that sent you their Letters about him the Bishoprick was conferred and hands imposed in place of Basilides Those learned Men that have told us that the Christian Church was formed after the Fashion of the Synagogues and not of the Temple or rather the Tabernacle did certainly own a true Idea of this business There was but one Temple in all Iudea as but one Church and one High Priest to whom the other Priests as also the Levites in severel orders were subordinated as well as one to another in a certain line of Dependance But the Synagogues were many and many in one City even some Hundreds in Ierusalem and in every Synagogue if all had one form there were many Rulers Now particular Churches are unto the Catholick Church the same in proportion that Synagogues were to the Jewish To be sure this is manifest to whosoever considers it That Christ and his Apostles did carefully avoid the Imitation and Similitude of the Tabernacle in all their Institutions and all their Orders The Apostles were never called Chief Priests nor the Presbyters Priests the Ministers the Clergy nor the People the Laity no National Form of Church Government was ever Established no Consecration of Officers no Garments or Holy days or other such like Observances were ever appointed by them in Conformity to those of the Tabernacle But when the Judaizing Opinion which prevailed mightily even in the days of the Apostles had after their decease diffused and spread it self farther so that Christians came into an Admiration of the Orders Beauty and Pomp of the Temple which was but a fixed Tabernacle and Christianity it self became considered as by some it is this day but as another kind of Judaism then Ministers were turned into Priests Deacons to Levites and Ordination to Consecration the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was turned into a Sacrifice the Table to an Altar The Tabernacle Times and Seasons of Easter and Whitsuntide became generally observed only with some little Bowing and bending of themselves to Christianity and the Tabernacle Maintenance in time became insisted upon also as well as the Tabernacle Title Thus began the Defection which upon the Tabernacle Grounds and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick did afterwards grow up to a great height in most Countries in a National Form and Dependance but in none to that Perfection as under the Papacy which as it doth divide its Rites and Observances almost all from the Tabernacle so it can pretend to very little Authority for them but what conceited Analogies and some Congruities of Reason taken from the Tabernacle Orders and the Tabernacle Worship do afford unto them but Christ and his Apostles appointed not any National Forms as that under the Tabernacle was Indeed had the Apostles owned any Pretentions of a Design to erect a National much more an Universal Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church or had they done any thing to Occasion a Just Suspition of such a Design it would have much obstructed the true Design and End of their Mission which was the planting and spreading of Christianity For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own Defence and for Preservation of their own Inherent Prerogatives and Rights must have always opposed it since the Permission of such an Authority such a Power over their Subjects that would not only possess an Interest in their Consciences but be strengthened as a Secular Empire by a close Connection of all the parts of it and an exact Dependance and Subordination would render their own precarious such a pretence must needs have awakened the Jealousie of Kings as indeed it did when Christ but spake of a Kingdom though Spiritual and but in Hearts much more then had it been an External and Visible Kingdom for then Reason of State would for ever oppose Christianity But notwithstanding all that I have said I doubt not but you will tell me That the Government of the Church is Universal and that there is a Catholick Hierarchy that the Apostles were ordinary standing Officers and that as Apostles they were the very same in the Primitive Church that Diocesan Bishops are now and Dioccsan Bishops the same now the Apostles were then that the Apostles exercised Juridiction over the Particular Churches which they instituted And that Timothy and Titus who were Bishops not Congregational but Diocesan Bishops were ordained such by S. Paul And as you will tell me these and the like very plausible things of Bishops so I make no question but others will tell me as plausible of the Council at Ierusalem and of the Government of the Catholick Church by Councils and Synods of Bishops in Correspondence to that That the Apostles as Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops and that Diocesan Bishops as such should be Apostles seems so strange an Assertion and so much against the Common Sense of most Believers that I would rest the Controversie on that Issue Sure I am Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica tells us expreâ—ly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Pope is no Apostle for the Apestles did not make or ordain Apostles but Pastors or Teachers much less the Chief of the Apostles Thus he And indeed there were but twelve Apostles originally which number was so stated that it gave Denomination to their Order they were called the Twelve As for Paul who also was an Apostle and not of
the Twelve he was the Minister of the Gentiles and as these were a kind of Proselytes to the Jewish Church so he was a kind of Proselyte or super added Apostle Himself expresses it That he was one born out of due season 1 Cor. 15. 18. And for the Offices of Apostleship and Episcopacy I have shewed in my former Letter how much they differ 'T is true you say that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles and that too by the Fathers but you may remember I acquainted you they were not stiled so by any Fathers of the first Century or till towards the latter end if then of the Second Else that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles I know and Dr. Cave hath many Citations to that purpose to which you have added some and might have added more but the Sense in which they were called Apostles is that only which is of any concern to us And certainly notwithstanding all that you have said to the contrary it doth not as yet appear that those Bishops that were called by the Antient Fathers Apostles were Diocesan Bishops for they might be and really for all that glorious Denomination they were but Congregational Prelates who because in a sense they were Successors of the Apostles and the same in some Proportion unto particular Churches that the Apostles themselves were to the general even for that reason they were called Apostles and all as well as any Diocesans That the Bishops compared to the Apostles by S. Cyprian who is one of the first that compares them so were only Presbyterical and Congregational Bishops is evident in that even there where he so compares them he doth plainly Contradistinguish them to the Deacons for even there he mentioneth but Two Orders as S. Paul to Timothy doth and therefore must be understood to mean as he doth the one of the Bishops and Praepositi which he compares to Apostles and the other of the Deacons who he saith were appointed by the Apostles as indeed they were Acts 6. to be their and the Churches Servants Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos id est Episcopos praeposiâ—os Dominus eligit Diâ—conos autem post assensum domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus sui Ecclesiae ministres And 't is plain in that Citation which I made before from S. Cyprian that his Bishop or Praepositus for both in him are Expressions of one and the same Office was a Preaching Minister ordained unto a certain People ed eam plebem cui Praeposiâ—us ordinatur c. Again that the preaching Ministers or Pastors of Congregations were considered as in a Sense Successors of the Apostles and compared to them on that Account is farther evidenced from the Testimony of Nilus who in his Book of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then may one say is not the Pope entirely the Successor of Peter Yes he is but 't is as he is a Bishop and is no more than what every Bishop that was ordained by Peter may easily challenge But there were may that by his namely Peters Hand received this Grace of Episcopacy Ay every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood and thus there are many Successors as well of Peter as of other Apostles but in other Respects they have no Successors Thus he speaketh plainly That Bishops and Pastours succeeded the Apostles but not in the Apostleship of this there is no Succession and Dr. Reinolds is fully of the same Opinion and speaks home Indeed it is a Point saith he well worth the noting that as you do notoriously abuse the Church of Christ speaking to Hart for you perswade the Simple and chiefly young Scholars who trust your Common-Place Books that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peter's Successors in the same meaning That the Pope doth when he saith That Peter and Peter's Suceessor is the Head of the Church and bindeth by solemn Oath to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peter's Successors them whom Christ doth put in Trust to seed his Sheep as the Master of the Sentences and Thomas of Aquin do give the Name of Peters Successors to all Priests and Prelates as they term them that is to all Pastors and Doctors of the Church as S. Augustin teacheth That it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou love me feed my sheep As S. Ambrose writeth That he and all Bishops have received the Charge of the Sheep with Peter as the Roman Clergy apply it to the rest of the Disciples of Christ and the Clergy of Carthage too Thus Dr. Reinolds But I stay too long on a matter that in no degree deserves it for to inferr that all Bishops are properly Apostles because they have the Name of Apostles is to imply That Identity of Names will inferr an Identy of Offices at which Rate Ioseph the Mittendary in Epiphanius whom he calleth an Apostle would have the Honour of being a Bishop and indeed on that Account his Title is all as good as Bishop Epaphroditus's 'T is true you tell me you believe as S. Hierome likewise did That Epaphroditus was really the Bishop because he is called the Apostle of the Philippians Phi. 2. 25. But as it is true that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle so it may well be acknowledged That our English Translators do render that Expression very well your messenger since nothing is more evident than this That the Coherence and Connexion of the Text will carry it to that Sense I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and companion in labour and fellow soldier but your messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and minster of my necessities Which indeed he was as appears by Chap. 4. 15 18. Now the Philippians know that no Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you but my God shall supply all your need c. to wit as you by him have supplied mine That the Apostles exercised a Jurisdiction over particular formed Churches and over those particularly which themselves had founded is as little to your purpose if Bishops are not which they are not either of the Order of the Apostles or else Founders of Churches as these were as in it self it is a Truth and not to be questioned The Jurisdiction of the Apostles over particular Churches undergoes a Double Consideration in neither of which it symbolizeth with the Diocesan or Episcopal for it may be considered either as it was an Appurtenance and Incident to the Office of the Apostleship to wit as the Apostles were Founders of the Church Essential and thus all the Apostles as they had one Commission so they had equal Authority equal Jurisdiction over all the
Churches Or it may be considered as accruing to the Apostles from more particular Respects to wit as they were the Fathers and Founders of particular Churches The former I call Essential the latter Accidental Jurisdiction of the Apostles Take the Jurisdiction of the Apostles in the first Consideration and then Diocesan Bishops can no more pretend thereto than they can to the Office of the Apostleship which was oecumeuical for its extent as well as Infallible for its Execution it being an Appurtenance and Incident only unto this and dyed with their Persons Or take it more particularly for that Authority which they assumed and were understood to have in a more particular manner over the Persons they had converted and the Churches they founded between which and themselves on that foot there was a more particular Relation than between others and them although in this Consideration the Jurisdiction of the Apostles was no other than what was common to them with the Evangelists or any other Persons that planted Christianity made Conversions and setled Churches in any particular Regions or Places yet even this is as far from being Diocesan as from being ordinary A Founder that institutes a College settles Orders and makes Statutes though he doth not constitute himself as rarely any does a Visitor yet on extraordinary Occasions and in Difficulties arising about the Meaning of Statutes or their Application upon incident Emergencies he would think it but a Duty while himself lived and the Founded should think it theirs to have recourse unto him and to take his Directions but he dying that Authority as being incident only unto his Person dyes with him Founders as such have no Successors I touched in my former Letter on this latter Jurisdiction in respect whereof in a right sense one Apostle may well be affirmed to have had an Authority and Power in some places and over some Persons more than another for thus in a particular manner Paul was stiled the Apostle of the Uncircumcision as Peter was of the Circumcision The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 4. Expostulates with the Corinthions on this Account he assereth the Authority he had over them and shews the ground of that Authority for he affirms That as he was their Father in Christ so he had an Authority over them as a Father over his Children ver 14 15 16. I write not these things to shame you but as my beloved Sons I warn you for though you have ten thousand Instructors in Christ yet have you no many Fathers for in Christ Iesus I have begotten you through the Gospel Thus he claims an Authority over them as being their Father or one that had Converted them which Authority he plainly distinguishes from theirs who were only Instructors Now Bishops as such are but Instructors of Churches not Fathers they may Convert and Proselite single Persons but as Bishops they do not Found Churches but only Feed the Churches already founded In vertue of this Authority as he was their Father and Founder the Apostle Exercised that Jurisdiction over the Church at Corinth which you call Episcopal a thing so evident that nothing can be more to one that observes the Connexion for in the latter end of the Fourth Chapter he evinced as I said that he had a paternal Authority over them as well as Care for them and immediately in the beginning of the 5th as an Instance of that Authority he gives them that Direction about the Incestuous Person upon which you i◠sist. So that in this Transaction with the Corinthians the Apostle acted not as an ordinary Bishop but acting by vertue of that Authority which he had over them as he was the Person that had Converted them and was their Father and Founder The Quality he acted in was Extraordinary and particular Again the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary too he was present in Spirit and not in Care and Affection only affectu et sollicitudine as by a supposed Parallel in the Expression Coloss. 2. 5. you would have me believe for he makes his presence the ground of his proceeding in the Censure or Judgment which he pronounced for I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have Iudged already and all Judgment must proceed upon Evidence by View or Proof not Affection and therefore his presence which is the Ground of his proceeding must be a Spiritual view The Report or general Scandal which is mentioned ver 1. on which you insist was but a Motive to the Apostle to invite him to consider the matter it was not the Ground on which he proceeded in his Censure this as he plainly affirms was his Spiritual view or presence in Spirit And what Spirit but that same Spirit mentioned afterwards in the same Text which Spirit you must yield to be Extraordinary and Apostolical when you come together and Mr SPIRIT it being but reason that the same Spirit which gave in Evidence should also assist at the Execution But this latter Spirit you say was but a Letter or Authority conveyed by the Apostles Letter and why say I the latter Spirit not the same with the former and where I pray you is Spirit taken for a Letter or for Anthority conveyed by it I am sure this same Apostle distinguishes Letter Word and Spirit 2 Thess. 2. 2. and therefore and my Spirit should not be and my Letter especially when joyned in the manner it is here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ which what it is may more particularly be understood by Act. 1. 8. But you shall receive the POWER of the Holy Ghost coming upon you And the Sentence passed by S. Paul was as Extraordinary as the Cognisance whereon he grounded it for To deliver to Satan was not to Excommunicate either with the lesser Excommunication which is Suspension from the Sacrament or with the greater which is a solemn Excision from the Church Some will tell you it was a Censure wholly unknown unto the Jews who yet had all the Forms of Excommunication Nidui Cberem and Maranatha and that in the whole New Testament nothing in the least is said to support this thought that Tradition to Satan is Excommunication The delivery to Satan as many of the the Antient Fathers believed some of whom your self do cite was certainly a Judiciary giving the Dilinquent to the Devil as to a Tormentor for so the Apostles Phrase doth carry it when he saith it It was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Destruction of the Flesh and it was practised only by the Apostles by their Apostolical Power of which see Petrus Molineus in his Vates l. 2. c. 11. You do indeed acknowledg at last that Corporal Asfliction or Pains inflicted by the Devil as by a Tormentor had Place in the first Times and by virtue too of Apostolical Censure but then by way of Qualification you say also That it was a Consequent of Excommunication But this is a thing that
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
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-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