the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and cordial Reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more then himself hath done or to exclude those from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will vouchsafe not onely Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not Whether the things commanded and required be lawfull or no It is not Whether indifferencies may be determined or no It is not How far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise its self but Whether they do consult for the Churches peace and unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Lawes but of things supposed necessary When the Councel of Apostles met at Ierusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Acts 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the onely ground of their imposing those commands upon the Gentile-Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Lawes to which all parties should conform All that the Apostles required as to these was mutuall forbearance and condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not indifferencies at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all Controversie the main in-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of Church-Communion then Christ hath done Had the Church of Rome never taken upon her to add to the Rule of Faith nor imposed Idolatrous and superstitious practises all the injury she had done her self had been to have avoyded that fearful Schisme which she hath caused throughout the Christian World Would there ever be the less peace and unity in a Church if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent yea there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condiscension as to such things The Unity of the Church is an Unity of love and affection and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion This latter is extreamly desireable in a Church but as long as there are several ranks and sizes of men in it very hardly attainable because of the different perswasions of mens minds as to the lawfulness of the things required and it is no commendation for a Christian to have only the civility of Procrustes to commensurate all other men to the bed of his own humour and opinion There is nothing the Primitive Church deserves greater imitation by us in then in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other Original but Tradition much less to suspend men her his communion for not observing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sozomen tells us They judged it and that very justly a foolish and frivolous thing for those that agree in the weighty matters of Religion to separate from one anothers communion for the sake of some petty Customs and Observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Churches agreeing in the same Faith often differ in their Rites and Customes And that not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church for as he tells us many Cities and Villages in Egypt not onely differed from the Customes of the Mother-Church of Alexandria but from all other Churches besides in their publick Assemblies on the Evenings of the Sabbath and receiving the Eucharist after dinner This admirable temper in the Primitive Church might be largely cleared from that liberty they allowed freely to dissenters from them in matters of practice and opinion as might be cleared from Cyprian Austine Ierome and others but that would exceed the bounds of a Preface The first who brake this Order in the Church were the Arrians Donatists and Circumcellians while the true Church was still known by his pristine Moderation and sweetness of deportment towards all its members The same we hope may remain as the most infallible evidence of the conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive not so much in using the same rites that were in use then as in not imposing them but leaving men to be won by the observing the true decency and order of Churches whereby those who act upon a true Principle of Christian ingenuity may be sooner drawn to a complyance in all lawfull things then by force and rigorous impositions which make men suspect the weight of the thing it self when such force is used to make it enter In the mean time what cause have we to rejoyce that Almighty God hath been pleased to restore us a Prince of that excellent Prudence and Moderation who hath so lately given assurance to the World of his great indulgence towards all that have any pretence from Conscience to differ with their Brethren The onely thing then seeming to retard our peace is the Controversie about Church-Government an unhappy Controversie to us in England if ever there were any in the World And the more unhappy in that our contentions about it have been so great and yet so few of the multitudes engaged in it that have truly understood the matter they have so eagerly contended about For the state of the controversie as it concerns
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding CHAP. II. Six Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or Divine positive Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
home Our Saviour taking the word from common use but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense which is the custome of the Scriptures The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name So Casaubon who was sufficiently able to judg of the use of a Greek word In communi Graecorum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebantur certi homines qui negotii gerendi gratiâ magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur And so it is taken Iohn 13. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philippians 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messengers of the Churches Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament doe render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 King 21. 11. 1 King 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this Sense 1 King 14. 6. where Ahijah saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sad Messenger to thee for thus saith the Lord c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission in those remarkable words of Christ to them As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church to his Apostles upon his leaving the World not in a privative way so as to destroy his own authority over the Church but in a cumulative way investing them with that authority which they had not before for both Teaching and Governing the Church No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them because they had no power of Church-government before that time Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles First that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time not onely called to their Office but solemnly chosen to it yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet learning for their own instruction and fitting themselves for their future imployment and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage Baptize indeed they did before Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself being by as the chief in the action thence Christ in one place is said to baptize Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize but his Disciples Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively the Disciples ministerially Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews among whom onely a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint doth not follow it should be so after when all those scattered rayes and beam which were dispersed abroad before were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry and set up another instead of it and makes good that threatning That he was against the Shepherds and would require the flock at their hand and cause them to cease to feed the Flock c. Here then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry for which we see besides their former call and choice particular mission was after necessary Secondly we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now was onely a Temporary imployment confined as to work and place and not the full Apostolicall work The want of considering and understanding this hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry Whereas our Saviour onely suited these instructions to the present case and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment which was not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ it being onely to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Feast and to bid them to come in to him This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers This mission then being occasional limited and temporary can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it Thirdly we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onely the credibility but the certain truth of what they preached Therefore Christ when he now sent them out gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only a meer power to work miracles but a right conferrèd on them to do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City We begin with it in the Civil sense which is the foundation of the other It is confessed not to have been a Metropolis during its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being by Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Theophylact out of an old Geographer as it is supposed it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it not very improbable that so small a City as it is acknowledged to be by Dio and others should be the Metropolis of Macedonia where were at least one hundred and fifty Cities as Pliny and Pomponius Mela tell us by boâ—h whom Philippi is plâ—ced in Thracia and not in Macedonia But two arguments are brought to prove Philippi to have been a Metropolis the first is from St. Luke calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 12. The first City of that Part of Macedonia but rendred by the learned Doctor the prime City of the province of Macedonia but it would be worth knowing where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Notitiae of the Roman Empire was translated a Province and it is evident that Luke calls it the first City not ratione dignitatis but ratione 〈◊〉 in regard of its scituation and not its dignity So Camerarius understands Luke hanc esse primam coloniam paâ—tis seu Plagae Macedonicae nimirum a Thracia vicinia iter in Macedoniam ordiens It is the first City of that part of Macedonia when one goes from Thracia into it And so it appears by Dio describing the scituation of Philippi that it was the next town to Neapolis only the Mountain Symbolon comeing between them and Neapolis being upon the shore and Philippi built up in the plain near the Mountain Pangaeus where Brutus and Cassius incamped themselves its being then the first City of entrance into Macedonia proves no more that it was the Metropolis of Macodonia then that Calice is of France or Dover of England But it is further pleaded that Philippi was a Colonie and therefore it is most probable that the seat of the Roman Judicature was there But to this I answer first that Philippi was not the only Colonie in Macedonia for Pliny reckons up Cassandria Paria and others for which we must understand that Macedonia was long since made a Province by Paulus and in the division of the Roman Provinces by Augustus Strabo reckons it with Illyricum among the Provinces belonging to the Roman people and Senate and so likewise doth Dio. But it appears by Suetonius that Tiberius according to the custom of the Roman Emperours in the danger of War in the Provinces took it into his own hands but it was reâ—urned by Claudius to the Senatâ— again together with Achaia thence Dio speaking of Macedonia in the time of Tiberius saith it was governed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the praefecti Casaris such as were sent by the Emperour to be his Presidents in the provinces the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Proconsuli who were chosen by lot after their Consulship into the several Provinces and therefore Dio expresseth Claudius his returning Macedonia into the Senates hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he put it to the choyce of the Senate again Now Macedonia having been thus long a Province oâ— the Roman Empire what probability is there because Philippi was a Colonie therefore it must be the Metropolis of Macedonia Secondly We find not the least evidence either in Scripture or elsewhere that the Proconsul of Macedonia had his residence at Philippi yea we have some evidence against it out of Scripture Acts 16 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and brought them to the Magistrates if there had been the Tribunal of a Proconsul here we should certainly have had it mentâ—oned as Gallio Proconsul of Achaia is mentioned in a like case at Corinth Acts 18. 12. Two sorts of Magistrates are here expressed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seem to be the Rulers of the City the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Duumviri of the Colonie or else the Deputies of the Proconsul residing there but I incline rather to the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only a Duumvir but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Praetor as Heinsius observes from the Glossary of H. Stephen For every Colonie had a Duumvirate to rule it answering to the Consuls and Praetors at Rome But all this might have been spared when we consider how evident it is that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia as appears by Antipater in the Greek Epigram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Praefectus prâ—torio Illyâ—ici had 〈…〉 dence aâ— Thâ—ssalonica as Theodoreâ— tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thâ—ssalonica was a great populous City where the Leiutenant of Illyricum did reside and so in probability did the Viâ—arius Macedonia It is called the Metropolis of Macedonia likewise by Socrâ—â—â—s and in the Ecclesiastical sense it is so called by Aetius the Bishop thereof in the Council of Sardicaâ— and Carolus à Sancto Paulo thinks it was not only the Metropolis of the Province of Macedonia but of the whole Diocèâ—s which in the East was much larger then the Province I suppose he means that which answered to the Vâ—carius Macedoniae And thence in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the subscription of the Bishop of Thâ—ssalonicâ— waâ— next to the Patriarchs But for Philippi the same Author acknowledgeth it not to have been a Metropolitan Church in the first six Centuries but after that Macedonia was divided into prima and secunda which was after the divâ—sion of it in the Empire into prima and salutaris then Philippi came to have the honorary Title of a Metropolitan although in Hierocles his Notitia Philippi is placed as the twenty first City under the Metropoles of Thâ—ssalonica So much to evidence the weakness of the first pillar viz. that these Cities were Metropoles in the civil sense and this being taken away the other falls of its self for if the Apostles did model the Ecclesiastical Government according to the Civil then Metropolitan Churches were planted only in Metropolitan Cities and these being cleared not to have been the latter it is evident they were not the former But however let us see what evidence is brought of such a subordination of all other Churches to the Metropolitans by the institution of the Apostles The only evidence produced out of Scripture for such a subordination and dependance of the Churches of lesser Cities upon the greater is from Actâ— 16. 1 4 compared with Acts 15. 23. the argument runs thus The
question was started at Antioch Acts 14. 26. with Acts 15. 2. from thence they sent to Ierusalem for a resolution the decree of the Council there concerns not only Aâ—tioch but Syria and Cilicia which were under the Jurisdiction of Antioch and therefore Metropolitan Church 〈…〉 e jure divino I am afraid the argument would sc 〈…〉 ow its self in the dress of a Syllogism Thus it runs If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles made at Ierusalem concern all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then all these Churches had a dependance upon the Metropolis of Antioch but the anâ—ecedent is true therefore the consequent Let us see how the argument will do in another â—orm If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles concerned all the Churches of Christians conversing with Jews then all these Churches had dependance upon the Church of Antioch But c. How thankfull would the Papists have been if onely Rome had been put instead of Antiochâ— and then the conclusion had been true what ever the premises were But in good earnest doth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia being bound by this Decree prove their subordination to Antioch or to the Apostles Were they bound because Antioch was their Metropolis or because they were the Apostles who resolved the question but were not the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia bound to observe these decrees as well as others For of these it is said that the Apostles went through the Cities of them delivering the decrees to keep as it is expressed Acts 16. 4. compared with the 6. verse Or do the decrees of the Apostles concern only those to whom they are inscribed and upon whose occasion they are penned Then by the same reason Pauls Epistles being written many of them upon occasions as that to the Corinthians being directed to the Metropolis of Corinth doth only concern the Church of that City and those of Achaia that were subject to the jurisdiction of the City and so for the rest of the Epistles A fair way to make the Word of God of no effect to us because for sooth we live not in obedience to those Metropoles to which the Epistles were directed From whence we are told how many things we may understand by this notion of Metropolitans Especially why Ignatius superscribes his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which preâ—ides in the place of the Roman region or the suburbicariâ—n Provinces But let us see whether this place may not be understood better without the help of this notion Casaubon calls it locutionem barbarâ—m Vedelius is more favourable to it and thinks si non elegans saltem viâ—ii libera est and explains it by the suburbicarian Provinces and makes the sense of it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place which is the Roman region and parallels it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 10. Bellarmine thinks he hath â—ound the Popes universal power in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but methinks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should hardly be rendred Orbis universus unless Bellarmine were no more skil'd in Greek then Casaubon thinks he was whom he calls in the pâ—ace forecited hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most ingenuous conjecture concerning this place is that of our learned Mr. Thorndike The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Acts 27 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain it signifies the countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the Fields as a suburb to Rome and being the place where St. Peter was buried and where the Iews of Rome then dwâ—lt as we learn by Philo legatione ad Caium out of whom he produceth a large place to that purpose and so makes this the Church of the Jewish Christians the Vaticane being then the Iewry of Rome but there being no clear evidence of any such distinction of Churches there and as little reason why Ignatius should write to the Church of the Jewish Christians and not to the Church of the Gentile Christians I therefore embrace his sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Vatican but explain it in another way viz. as we have already shewed that the chief places of meeting for the Christians in Gentile Rome was in the Coemeteries of the Martyrs now these Coemeteria were all of them without the City and the Coemeteria where Peter Linus Cletus and some other of the Primitive Martyrs lay interr'd in the Vatican beyond the River Tiber. So Damasus in the life of Cletus Qui etiam sepultus est juxta corpus B. Petri in Vaticano The Church then in the pâ—ace of the region of the Romans is the Christian-Church of Rome assembling chiefly in the Coemeteries of the Vatican or any other of those Vaults which were in the Fields at a good distance from the City But yet there is one argument more for Metropolitans and that is from the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken to signifie both the City and Countrey and so the inscription of Clemens his Epistle is explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church of God dwelling about Rome to the Church dwelling about Corinth whereby is supposed to be comprehended the whole Territories which being these were Metropoles takes in the whole Province And so Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all this ariseth from a mistake of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not so much accolere as incolere and therefore the old Latin Version renders it Ecclâ—siae Dei quae est Philippis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that removes from one City to sojourn in another And the ground of attributing that name to the Christian Churches was either because that many of the first Christians being Jews they did truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as strangers out of their own countrey or else among the Christians because by reason of their continual persecutions they were still put in mind of their flitting uncertain condition in the World their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 countrey citizenship being in Heaven Of this the Apostles often tell them from hence iâ— came to signifie the Society of such Christians so living together which as it encreased so the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 encreased and so went from the City into the countrey and came not from the countrey into the City for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for accolere then it necessarily follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the Church of Rome and the Territories belonging to it but the Church adjacent to
the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those Arguments by which positive Lawes are proved immutable The reason of the appointment of it continues the dream of a seculum Spiritûs Sancti discussed first broached by the Mâ—ndicant Friers It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 19. explained A novell Interpretation largely refuted The world to come what A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4. 12. explained and vindicated SEcondly That the Government of the Church ought to be Administred by Officers of Divine appointment is another thing I will yield to be of Divine Right but the Church here I take not in that latitude which I did in the former Concession but I take it chiefly here for the Members of the Church as distinct from Officers as it is taken in Acts 15. 22. So that my meaning is that there must be a standing perpetuall Ministry in the Church of God whose care and imployment must be to oversee and Govern the People of God and to administer Gospel-Ordinances among them and this is of Divine and perpetuall Right That Officers were appointed by Christ in the Church for these ends at first is evident from the direct affirmation of Scripture God hath set in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. 1 Corinth 12. 28. Eph. 4. 8 11. and other places to the same purpose This being then a thing acknowledged that they were at first of Divine Institution and so were appointed by a Divine positive Law which herein determines and restrains the Law of Nature which doth not prescribe the certain qualifications of the persons to govern this Society nor the instalment or admission of them into this employment viz by Ordination The only enquiry then left is Whether a standing Gospel-ministry be such a positive Law as is to remain perpetually in the Church or no which I shall make appear by those things which I laid down in the entrance of this Treatise as the Notes whereby to know when positive Laws are unalterable The first was when the same reason of the command continues still and what reason is there why Christ should appoint Officers to rule his Church then which will not hold now Did the people of God need Ministers then to be as Stars as they are call'd in Scripture to lead them unto Christ and do they not as well need them now Had people need of guides then when the doctrine of the Gospel was confirmed to them by miracles and have they not much more now Must there be some then to oppose gainsayers and must they have an absolute liberty of prophecying now when it is foretold what times of seduction the last shall be Must there be some then to rule over their charge as they that must give an account and is not the same required still Were there some then to reprove rebuke exhort to preach in season out of season and is there not the same necessity of these things still Was it not enough then that there were so many in all Churches that had extraordinary gifts of tongues prophecying praying interpretation of tongues but besides those there were some Pastors by office whose duty it was to give attendance to reading to be wholly in these things and now when these extraordinary gifts are ceased is not there a much greater necessity then there was then for some to be set apart and wholly designed for this work Were Ordinances only then administred by those whom Christ commissioned and such as derived their authority from them and what reason is there that men should arrogate and take this imployment upon themselves now If Christ had so pleased could he not have left it wholly at liberty for all believers to have gone about preaching the Gospel or why did he make choice of 12. Apostles chiefly for that work were it not his Will to have some particularly to dispense the Gospel and if Christ did then separate some for that work what Reason is there why that Office should be thrown common now which Christ himself inclosed by his own appointment There can be no possible Reason imagined why a Gospel-Ministry should not continue still unless it be that Fanatick pretence of a Seculum Spiritus Sancti a Dispensation of the Spirit which shall evacuate the use of all means of Instruction and the use of all Gospel-Ordinances which pretence is not so Novell as most imagine it to be for setting aside the Montanistical spirit in the Primitive Times which acted upon Principles much of the same Nature with these we now speak of The first rise of this Ignis fatuus was from the bogs of Popery viz. from the Orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans about the middle of the twelfth Century For no sooner did the Pauperes de Lugduno or the Waldenses appear making use of the Word of God to confute the whole Army of Popish Traditions but they finding themselves worsted at every turn while they disputed that ground found out a Stratagem whereby to recover their own Credit and to beat their adversaries quite out of the field Which was that the Gospel which they adhered to so much was now out of date and instead of that they broached another Gospel out of the Writings of the Abbot Ioachim and Cyrils visions which they blasphemously named Evangelium Spiritus Sancti Evangelium Novum and Evangelium Aeternum as Gulielmus de Sancto Amore their great Antagonist relates in his Book de periculis noviss temporum purposely designed against the Impostures of the Mendicant Friers who then like Locusts rose in multitudes with their shaven crowns out of the bottomless pit This Gospel of the Spirit they so much magnified above the Gospel of Christ that the same Author relates these words of theirs concerning it Quod comparatum ad Evangelium Christi tanto plus perfectionis ac dignitatis habet quantum Sol ad Lunam comparatus aut ad nucleum testa that it exceeded it as much as the kernell doth the shell or the Light of the Sun doth that of the Moon We see then from what quarter of the World this new Light began to rise but so much for this digression To the thing it self If there be such a dispensation of the Spirit which takes away the use of Ministry and Ordinances it did either commence from the time of the effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles or some time since Not then for even of those who had the most large portion of the Spirit poured upon them we read that they continued in all Gospel ordinances Acts 2. 42 and among the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Apostles Ministry it may be better rendred than in the Apostles Doctrine And which is most observable the Prophecy of Ioel about the Spirit is then said to be fulfilled Acts 2. 17.
so at first for as to this division of the Jews and Gentiles between Paul and Peter it cannot be understood exclusively of others for what work then had the rest of the Apostles to do neither taking them distributively was Paul excluded from preaching to â—he Iews or Peter to the Gentiles We see Paul was at first chosen to be a Vessel to bear Christs name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel We see hereby he was appointed an Apostle as well to Jews as Gentiles and accordingly we find him presently preaching Christ in the Synagogues and confounding the Iews So in all places where Paul came he first preached to the Jewâ— in the Synayogues and when they would not hearken to him then he turned to the Gentiles Neither was this done only before the Apostles meeting at Ierusalem supposed to be that spoken of Acts 15 but after at Ephesus we find him entring into the Synagogues there and preaching to the Jews So likewise he did at Corinth Acts 18. 4. And he reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath and perswaded the Iews and the Greeks Paul then we see thought not himself excluded from preaching to the Jews because they were St. Peters Province Neither did Peter think himself excluded from the Gentiles he was the first that opened the door of Faith to them by preaching to them in which respect it is not altogether improbably conceived by some that the power of the Keys was peculiarly given to him And afterwards in the open Council at Ierusalem he owns himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles God made choyce among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe This then evidently destroys any such early distinction of Provinces when Peter whose Province seems most expresse in Scripture viz. the Circumcision yet we find him acting as an Apostle to the Gentiles too I deny not but at the meeting of Paul and Peter at Ierusalem when they observed how God did blesse the one most in the circumcision the other in the uncircumcision there was an agreement between them for the one to lay out his pains chiefly upon the Iews and the other upon the Gentiles and in probability where they met in any City the one gathered a Church of the Iews and the other of the Gentiles but this makes no such distinction of Provinces as to exclude the one from the others charge and further this agreement between Paul and Peter then after both had preached so many years makes it fully clear that the pretended division of Provinces so early among the Apostles is only the wind-egge of a working Fancy that wants a shell of Reason to cover it As for the division of Provinces mentioned in Ecclesiastical Writers though as to some few they generally agree as that Thomas went to Parthia Andrew to Scythia Iohn to the lesser Asia c. yet as to the most they are at a losse where to find their Provinceâ— and contradict one another in reference to them and many of them seem to have their first original from the Fable of Dorotheus Nicephorus and such Writers Having shewed that the Apostles observed no set-order for distributing Provinces we come to shew what course they took for the setling of Churches in the places they went to In the clearing of which nothing is more necessary then to free our judgements of those prejudices and prepossessions which the practice either of the former ages of the Church or our own have caused within us For it is easie to observe that nothing hath been a more fruitful mother of mistakes and errours then the looking-upon the practice of the primitive Church through the glass of our own customs Especially when under the same name as it is very often seen something far different from what was primarily intended by the use of the word is set forth to us It were no difficult task to multiply examples in this kind wherein men meeting with the same names do apprehend the same things by them which they now through custome signifie without taking notice of any alteration in the things themselves signified by those names Thus since the name Missa was appropriated by the Papists to that which they call the Sacrifice of the Altar wherever they meet among ancient Writers with that Name they presently conceive the same thing was understood by it then Whereas it was then only taken for the publike Service of the Church so called from the dismission of the people after it with an Ite Missa est and from the different forms of Christians they had two several Services the one called Missa Catechumenorum because at the end of that the Catechumeni were dismissed out of the Assembly the other Missa fidelium at which they received the Lords Supper which afterwards the former discipline of the Church decaying ingrossed the name Missa to its self and when the Sacrifice of the Altar came up among the Papists it was appropriated to that For though they innovated things never so much yet it hath been alwayes the Policy of that Church not to innovate names that so the incautelous might be better deceived with a pretence of antiquity and thus under the anciently simple name of Missa lyes at this day couched a Masse of errours So after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was applyed by them to that Sacrifice wherever they meet that word in Scripture they interpret it in that sense and hence when we only read of the Teachers at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no other rendring of the words will be taken but Sacrificantibus illis although it be not only contrary to the sense of the word in the New Testament but to the Exposition of Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius who expound it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus when publike Liturgies were grown into use in the Church after the decay of the gifts of the first primitive Church Eusebius his bare calling S. Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he relates only to his Ministry in the Church of Jerusalem is enough to entitle him Father to a Liturgy which soon crept forth under his name by an argument much of the same strength with that which some have brought for reading Homilies because it is said of St. Paul Acts 20. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the same stamp is Bellarminâ—s argument for Invocation of Saints because of Iacobs saying Invocetur super eos nomen meum But we need not go far for examples of this kind The businesse we are upon will acquaint â—s with some of them As the argument for popular Election of Pastors from the Grammatical sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Lâ—y-Elders from the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and modern Episcopacy from the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scriptures Names and Things must then be accurately distinguished