you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church to bind or loose suspend or restore excommunicate or absolve and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel which is the Christian Church even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel Mat. 19.28 and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles ver 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones to denote their power and dignity in the Church ver 19 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits that is twelve times twelve to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church ver 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church and administring the Censures of it being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicated their Order for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed 1 Cor. 5.3 and what he orders them to do ver 4 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence and 2 Cor. 13.2 he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established which are the very words of our Saviour Matt. 18.16 when he instituted the power of Censuring and then ver 10. he tells them that he wrote these things being absent lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification and not to destruction by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating and 1 Cor. 4.21 he threatens to come to them with a Rod that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church and with this Rod as he himself tells he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete for so he orders Timothy against an Elder Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves when they were accused and to punish them if he found them guilty for so it follows Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 1 Tim. 5.19 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Tit. 3.10 which plainly implies that he had an Authority inherent in him as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete to Cite Examine Admonish and Censure persons of erronious Principles and the same Authority it is evident was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not and to convict them for Liars Rev. 2.2 and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church ver 14 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel ver 20. which plainly implies that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries was inherent in them else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular Churches and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus Augendus and others of his Presbyters Ep. 38 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon he tells him that pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate i. e. by his own Episcopal authority without appealing to the Synod he might have chastised him And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops to examine whether any person Lay or Clergy had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegatâ— power to their Presbyters both to excommunicate and absolve as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth but in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of
with each other And this being the standing Government and Discipline of the Catholick Church no particular Church or Community of Christians can refuse to communicate in it without dividing it self from the Communion of the Church Catholick I say refuse to Communicate in it because it is possible for a Church to be without this Government and Discipline which yet doth neither refuse it nor the Communion of any other Church for the sake of it A Church may be debarred of it by unavoidable necessities in despite of its power and against its consent and under this circumstance I can by no means think such a Church to be separated from the Church Catholick it is indeed an imperfect and defective part of the Catholick Church and if this defect of it be any way owing to its own negligence it is a very great fault in it as well as an unhappiness But though this instituted Government is necessary to the perfection of a Church yet it doth not therefore follow that it is necessary to the being of it For even in the Jewish Church wherein all things were determined by divine institution even to the minutest Circumstances there were sundry notorious deviations from that Institution which yet did not un-church them It was a great deviation in them to offer Sacrifice in their High Places after God had determined them to Sacrifice only at the Temple at Ierusalem It was another great deviation in them to make Priests out of other Families after God had determined them to the Family of Aaron and yet it is certain that neither the one nor the other did un-church them And if these deviations from divine Institution which were the effects of their negligence did not yet un-church them it is not to be imagined that such deviations from it as are the pure effects of necessity should un-church others For though no necessity can dispence with the Eternal Laws of good and evil because the observance of them depends wholly upon our Wills and there is no such necessity can happen to us as can put them out of the power of a willing mind yet as for positive Institutions there are a thousand necessities may occur any one of which may render them wholly unpracticable and then no man can be obliged to do that which is impossible as for instance the whole Family of Aaron might have been extinct and if it had it is evident that positive institution by which God required the Jews to chuse their Priests out of the Family of Aaron must have been wholly unpracticable and consequently the Obligation of it must have for ever expired and they must have been obliged notwithstanding that positive Institution either wholly to have dropt their Priesthood and with that their Publick Worship which was much more necessary to them than that their Priests should be all of such a Family or to have chosen their Priests out of other Families of the Tribe of Levi and if in this exigence they had done the later there is no doubt but that the Divine Providence which created the necessity must thereby have designedly dispensed with its own institution and so have left them free to make Priests out of other Families And by the same reason when ever the divine Providence doth by unavoidable necessity deprive any Church of its Episcopacy it thereby for the present at least and whilst the necessity continues releases it from the obligation of the Institution of Episcopacy and allows it to administer its Government and Disscipline by a Parity of Presbyters And therefore so long as it doth not renounce the Episcopacy but still continues in Communion with other Churches that enjoy it it ought to be look'd upon and communicated with as a true Member though a maimed one of the Church Catholick For the Catholick Church never denied her Communion to any Christian or Community of Christians upon any unavoidable deviation from positive Institution It was without doubt as great a deviation from positive Institution for Lay-men to Baptize as for a Parity of Presbyters to Govern or Ordain c. and yet in cases of necessity the Catholick Church always allowed the Baptism of Lay-men as deeming Baptism in it self more necessary than the administration of Baptism by persons in Holy Orders and therefore where such persons could not be had she thought meet rather to admit that Lay-men should administer it than to suffer such as were qualified for it to die unbaptized And why may we not reasonably suppose that the Catholick Church will admit Presbyters to Govern and Ordain where there are no Bishops to be had since it hath admitted Lay-men to Baptize where there are neither Bishops nor Presbyters to be had Since the later is as great a deflection from positive Institution as the former And if the Catholick Church may be reasonably presumed to allow it in such necessary cases we must acknowledge either that she hath not Authority enough to provide against her own necessities which supposes her to be very defective or that her allowance is sufficient to authorize such persons to Rule and Ordain as well as to Baptize in case of necessity as are not authorized by positive Institution But though a Community of Christians may be a true part of the Catholick Church and in Communion with it though it hath no Episcopacy yet it is plain case that if it rejects the Episcopacy and separates from the Communion of it it thereby wholly divides it self from the Communion of the Catholick Church For whether Episcopacy be of divine Institution or no this is matter of fact granted on all hands that for twelve hundred years at least all those Churches into which the Catholick Church hath been distributed have been subject to the Episcopal Government and Discipline and therefore they who now separate themselves from the Episcopal Communion as such must in so doing separate themselves from the Communion of all Churches for twelve hundred years together and then either all those Churches must be out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently during all that time there must be no such thing as a visible Catholick Church upon Earth or else those Communities of Christians which separate from all those Churches must be Schisms and Separations from the Catholick Church SECT IX Concerning the Ministers of the Kingdom of Christ. HAving in the foregoing Section treated at large concerning the Nature and Constitution of Christ's Kingdom I shall in the next place shew who the Ministers are by whom he Rules and Governs it And these are all included under a fourfold Rank and Order First The first and supreme Minister by which Christ rules his Kingdom is the Holy Ghost Secondly The second and next to him are the Angels of God. Thirdly The third are Princes and Civil Governours Fourthly The last are the Bishops and Pastors of the Church I. The supreme Minister by which Christ rules his Kingdom is the Holy Ghost or
to base Compliances with the lusts of men and the iniquities of times for a maintenance and that so Religion it self may not be exposed to contempt through their wretched Poverty and indigence who are the Ministers of it and who for want of a fair and honourable subsistence can never obtain Credit and Authority enough to do any considerable good in the World. And this is the food and sustenance of the Church without which it cannot long flourish either in true Knowledge or true Piety but must insensibly wither away and degenerate into Barbarity and Ignorance And accordingly if you consult Ecclesiastical History you will find that it was ever the practice of Pious Princes and Emperors to take care both for the erecting of decent and convenient Churches in all parts of their Dominions for the Celebration of Divine Worship and to furnish them with all the decent Accommodations and Ornaments that were proper thereunto and also for the endowing the Bishops and Pastors of the Church with such honourable subsistences as becomes the Port and Dignity of their several Orders and Offices in which they did no more than what they stood obliged to as they were the Viceroys of Jesus and the foster Fathers of his Church by vertue of which Relation to it they are bound in duty to supply it with decent Raiment and convenient Food And now having explained the subjection of the Sovereign Powers of the Earth to our Lord and Saviour and shewn what those Ministries are which they are obliged to render to him in his Kingdom I proceed to the Fourth and last sort of his Ministers by which he governs his Kingdom viz. the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Governours in treating of which I shall endeavor these three things First To shew that Christ hath erected a spiritual Government to minister to him in his Church Secondly To shew in what hands this spiritual Government is placed Thirdly To shew what are the proper Ministries of this Government I. That Christ hath erected a spiritual Government in his Church And indeed supposing the Church to be a regular and formed Society subsisting of it self distinct from all other Societies it must necessarily have a distinct Government in it because Government is essentially included in the very notion of all regular Society which without Rule and Subjection is not a formed Society but a confused multitude for what else do we mean by a Humane Society but only such a company of men united together by such and such Laws and Regulations But how can any company of men be united by Laws without having in it some Governing Power to rule by those Laws and exact obedience to them So that we may as well suppose a compleat Body without a Head as a Regular Society without a Government Now that the Church is a Regular Society utterly distinct from all Civil Society is as evident as the truth of Christianity which all along declares and Recognizes the Law or Covenant upon which it is founded and by which it is united to be Divine and consequently to be superior to and independent upon all Civil Laws and if that which constitutes the Church be Divine Law and not Civil then the Constitution of the Church must be Divine and not Civil for that which makes us Christians at the same time makes us parts of the Christian Church and that which makes all the parts of the Church makes the Church it self which is nothing but the whole or Collection of all the parts together and therefore as we are not made Christians so neither are we made a Christian Church by the Laws of the Commonwealth but by the Laws and Constitutions of our Saviour which were promulgated to the World long before there were any Laws of the Commonwealth to found a Christian Church on for there was a Christian Church for three hundred years together before ever it had the least favour or protection from the Laws of Nations In all which time it subsisted apart from all other Societies and was as much a Church or Christian Society as it is now and as it is now it is only a continued Succession of that Primitive Church and therefore as to the Constitution of it must necessarily be as distinct now from all other Societies as it was then when it subsisted not only apart from but against the Laws and Edicts of all other Societies in the World in short therefore since the Church of Christ is founded on a Charter and incorporated by a Law that is utterly distinct from the Charters and Laws of all Civil Societies it hence necessarily follows that it self is a distinct Society from them all because that which individuates any Society or makes it a distinct body from all other Societies is the Charter or Law upon which it is founded and accordingly our Saviour tells Pilate when he asked him whether he was a King that he was a King indeed but that his Kingdom was not of this world Joh. 18.36 i. e. though my Kingdom be in this World yet is it not of the World for neither are the Laws of it Humane but Divine nor the powers of it external but invisible nor the Rewards and Punishments of it temporal but Spiritual and eternal From the whole therefore these two things are evident First That Government is Essential to formed and regular Societies Secondly That the Church of Christ is in the Nature and Constitution of it a formed and regular Society distinct from all other Societies from both which it necessarily followeth that it must have a distinct Government included in the very essence and being of it And accordingly in the New Testament besides the Civil Magistrates we frequently read of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Governors so Heb. 13.17 there is mention made of the Rulers that watch for our souls and a strict injunction to obey and submit our selves to 'em and so again in the 7th and 24th Verses and in 1 Tim. 5.17 The Apostle speaks of the Elders that Rule well who are to be accounted worthy of double Honour And indeed the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Bishop or Overseer doth in Scripture always import a Ruler or Governour Vid. Hammond Acts 1. Note 1. and therefore being applied as it is frequently in the New Testament to a certain Order of Men in the Christian Church it must necessarily denote 'em to be the Rulers and Governors of it and this power to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Oversee and Rule and Govern the Church was derived to 'em from Christ the Supreme Bishop of our Souls even by that Commission he gave 'em John 20.21 As the Father hath sent me so send I you i. e. so I Commission you with the same Authority in kind to Teach and Govern in my Kingdom as I my self have received from the Father and accordingly as Christ is called the Pastor or Shepherd which name imports Authority to Govern his Flock for
of the Principal of the twelve Apostles and S. Iames was not so much as one of that number yet in the Church of Ierusalem he had the Priority of them both now considering that S. Iames is called an Apostle and considering the Preference he had in all these instances above the other Apostles at Ierusalem it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church of Ierusalem but if to all this evidence we add the most early Testimonies of Christian Antiquity we shall advance the Probability to a Demonstration for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical Writers S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem for so Hegesippus who lived very near the times of the Apostles tells us that Iames the Brother of our Lord called by all men the Iust received the Church of Ierusalem from the Apostles vid. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. so also S. Clement as he is quoted by the same Author l. 2. c. 1. tells us that Peter Iames and Iohn after the Assumption of Christ as being the men that were most in favour with him did not contend for the Honour but chose Iames the Just to be Bishop of Ierusalem and in the Apostolical Constistitutions that pass under the name of S. Clement which though not so ancient as is pretended yet are doubtless of very early Antiquity the Apostles are brought in thus speaking Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time we signifie to you that they were these Iames the Brother of our Lord was Ordained by us Bishop of Ierusalem c. so also S. Ierom. de script Eccles. tells us that S. Iames immediately after the Passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And S. Cyril who was afterwards Bishop of that Church and therefore a most Authentick Witness of the Records of it calls Saint Iames the first Bishop of that Diocess Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent Testimonies of S. Austin S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose and a great many others and S. Ignatius himself who was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles makes S. Stephen to be a Deacon of S. Iames Ep. ad Trall and therefore since Stephen was a Deacon of the Church of Ierusalem S. Iames whose Deacon he was must necessarily be the Bishop of it Upon this account therefore S. Iames is called an Apostle in Scripture because by being Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem he had the Apostolick Power and Authority conferred on him for since it is apparent he was none of the Twelve to whom the Apostleship was at first confined he could no otherwise become an Apostle than by deriving the Apostleship from some of the Twelve and therefore since that Apostleship which he derived from the Twelve was only Episcopal Superiority over the Church of Ierusalem it hence necessarily follows that the Episcopacy was the Apostleship derived and communicated from the Primitive Apostles The second Instance of the Apostles Communicating their Apostolick Superiority to others is Epaphroditus who in Phil. 2.25 is stiled the Apostle of the Philippians But I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and companion in labour and fellow souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but your Apostle for so S. Ierom Com. Gal. 1.19 Paulatim tempore precedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat Ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum c. i. e. by degrees in process of time others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen as that passage to the Philippians shews I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your Apostle And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the Apostle of the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he was intrusted with Episcopal Government as being their Bishop so that here you see Epaphroditus is made an Apostle by the Apostles and his Apostleship consists in being made Bishop of Philippi A third instance is that of Titus and some others with him 2 Cor. 8.23 Whether any do inquire of Titus he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our Brethren be inquired of they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ where it is plain they are not called the Apostles of the Churches merely as they were the Messengers of the liberality of the Churches of Macedonia for it was not those Churches but S. Paul that sent them vers 22. and therefore since they were not Apostles in relation to those Churches whose liberality they carried it must be in relation to some particular Churches over which they had Apostolical Authority and that Titus had this Authority over the Church of Crete is evident both from S. Pauls Epistle to him and from Primitive Antiquity As for Saint Pauls Epistle there are sundry passages in it which plainly speak him to be vested with Apostolical Superiority over that Church so Chap. 1. vers 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set things in order that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed thee For in the first place S. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting with an absolute power to reform and correct them which is a plain demonstration of his Superiority in that Church Secondly he Authorizes him to ordain Elders in every City and whether these Elders were Bishops or Presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate for first it is of undoubted certainty that there were Presbyters in the Church of Crete before Titus was left there by the Apostle and secondly it is as evident that those Presbyters had no Power to ordain Elders in every City as Titus had for if they had what needed S. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the Presbyters before him had sufficient power to do For if the Presbyters had before the power of Ordination in them this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain but mischievous it would have look'd like an invasion of the Power of the Presbyters for S. Paul to restrain Ordination to Titus if before him it had been common to the whole Presbytery and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention than an expedient of peace and good order From hence therefore it is evident that Titus had a Power in the Church of Crete which the Presbyters there before him had not and this Power of his extended not only to the establishment of good Order and the Ordaining of Elders but also to rebuking with all authority i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication chap. 2. vers 15. and taking cognisance of Heretical Pravity so as first to
admonish Hereticks and in case of Pertinacy to reject them from the Communion of the Church chap. 3. vers 10. from all which it is evident that this Apostolate of Titus consisted in his Ecclesiastical Superiority which was the very same in the Church of Crete that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches that were planted by them And accordingly he is declared by the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity to be the first Bishop of that Church so Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have received Episcopal Authority over the Churches of Crete So also Theodoret. in Argum. Ep. ad Tit. tells us that he was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Crete and so also S. Chrysostom S. Ierom and S. Ambrose and several others of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers This Episcopal Authority therefore which S. Paul gave Titus over the Church of Crete is another plain instance of the Apostles making Apostles or deriving to others their Apostolick Power and Superiority over particular Churches The fourth and last Instance I shall give is that of Timothy who as it appears by S. Pauls Epistles to him had Episcopal Authority over the Church of Ephesus and this not only over the Laity to command and teach 'em 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive Widows into the Churches Service or reject and refuse 'em 1 Tim. 5.4.9.16 and to oblige the Women to go modestly in their Apparel and keep silence in the Church 1 Tim. 2.11 12. but also over the Clergy to take care that sutable provision should be made for 'em 1 Tim. 5.17 that none should be admitted a Deacon till after competent trial nor Ordained an Elder till after he had well acquitted himself in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over 'em to receive Accusations against 'em and if he found 'em guilty to put 'em to open shame 1 Tim. 5.19 20. and S. Paul charges him to exercise this his Jurisdiction without preferring one before another and without partiality ibid. ver 21. which if he had no Jurisdiction over 'em had been very impertinent and as he had Jurisdiction over the Clergy concredited to him so had he also the Authority of Ordaining 'em for the due exercise of which S. Paul gives him that necessary rule 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man neither be partaker of other mens sins And that this Authority of his in the Ephesian Church over both the Laity and Clergy was given by S. Paul for a standing form of Government there is evident from hence because it was conferred on him after the Presbytery was formed and setled in that Church for in planting and cultivating this large and populous Church which extended it self over all the Proconsular Asia S. Paul had laboured for three years together with incredible diligence which is a much longer time than he spent in any other Church and therefore by this time to be sure he had not only constituted a Presbytery in it as he did in all other Churches Acts 14.23 but also reduced it to much greater perfection than any other that so in the constitution of it it might be a pattern to all other Churches and if so then to be sure the Government which he had now at last established in it was such as he intended should continue viz. by a single Person presiding over both Clergy and Laity And that de facto it was so we have not only the Authority of S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy but also the concurrent Testimony of all Ecclesiastical Antiquity for so Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. tells us he was the first Bishop of the Province or Diocess of Ephesus and the Anonimous Author of his life in Photius that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus and that he was Ordained and Enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great S. Paul and in the Council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that Chair from Timothy who was the first and Saint Chrysostom Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5.19 tells us that it is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a Church or rather with a whole Nation viz. that of Asia upon which account he is stiled by Theodoret in 1 Tim. 3.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy the Apostle of the Asiatiques and to name no more of the great numbers of Authorities that might be cited in the Apostolical Constitutions we are expresly told that he was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. This therefore is another evident instance of the Apostles deriving down their Apostolick Authority Other instances might be given but these are sufficient to shew that the Apostles did not look upon our Saviours institution of a superiour Order of Ecclesiastical Officers as a temporary thing that was to expire with 'em but as a standing Model of Ecclesiastical Government since they derived to others that superiority over the Churches of Christ which he communicated to them For from all these instances it is most evident both that the Apostolical Office did not expire with the Twelve but was transferred by 'em to others and that that which is now called the Episcopacy was nothing else but the Apostolical Office derived from the Apostles to their successors for in the Primitive Language of the Church Bishops are generally stiled Apostles for which no other reason can be assigned but that they succeeded in the Apostolical superiority Thus as hath been shewn before S. Iames Epaphroditus Titus and Timothy are stiled Apostles in Scripture and by the Primitive Writers Clemens Bishop of Rome who was a Disciple of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Clemens the Apostle vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle and Bishop by S. Chrysostom and Thaddaeus who was sent b◠S. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and so are also S. Mark and S. Luke by Epiphanius and Theodoret lays it down for a general rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. those whom we now call Bishops were anciently called Apostles but in process of time the name of Apostle was left to them who were more strictly Apostles viz. the Twelve and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles If therefore the practice of the Apostles proceeding upon the express institution of our Saviour be sufficient to found a Divine Right we have this you see to plead for a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Offices since the Apostles did not only Ordain Presbyters and Deacons in the several Churches they planted but also Apostles or Bishops to preside over 'em and if their Ordaining of Presbyters be an argument of the perpetuity of the Office of a Presbyter as the Presbyterians themselves contend it is why should not their Ordaining Bishops also be as good an Argument of the perpetuity of the
veneration as I know your holy Presbyters do according to the appointment of God the Father And in his Epistle to the Ephesians Let us be careful saith he that we do not oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more for every one that the Master of the Family appoints to be his Steward we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is evident we ought to respect the Bishop as our Lord himself from whence I infer first that at the writing of these Epistles which was not above eight or nine years after the decease of S. Iohn there were Bishops every where constituted over the Churches of Christ for he not only mentions several Churches that had Bishops actually presiding over them but declares Bishops to be of Divine Ordination and that they were to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the appointment of God the Father and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they had their promotion not from men but from God and not only so but in his Epistle to the Trallians he bids them obey their Bishop as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them in which he necessarily supposes Bishops to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles and then he goes on He who is within the Altar that is within the Communion of the Church is clean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He is without the Altar who doth any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons and if any Christian acting without the Bishop c. was without the Communion of the Church then to be sure no Community of Christians that did so could be esteemed a part or Member of the Church and therefore since according to the Doctrine of this Primitive Age Bishops were a Divine Ordinance and were looked upon as necessary to the very Constitution of Churches we may from hence justly conclude that there were then no Churches without them And secondly we may from hence also infer that since there were Bishops in this early Age presiding over the Churches of Christ several of them at least received their Episcopal Orders immediately from the hands of the Apostles For at the time when these Epistles were written Ignatius himself had been above forty years Bishop of Antioch at which time sundry of the Apostles were living and therefore considering the singular Eminence of the Church of Antioch whereof he was Bishop as being immediately planted by S. Peter and S. Paul and that wherein the Disciples of Iesus first received the name of Christians and considering also that it was the constant practice of the Apostle to Ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted it is highly probable that he received his Ordination immediately from their hands and so S. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Edit Savil. p. 499. expresly tells us that he did not so much admire Ignatius for that he was accounted worthy of so great a Dignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. but because he obtained his dignity from those holy men and the sacred hands of the blessed Apostles had been laid upon his head And the same may be said of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna of whom Ignatius makes honourable mention and indeed it is not to be imagined that the Christian Churches would ever have so universally admitted of Bishops as it is apparent they did in Ignatius's time when the Apostles were living had not some of them at least derived their Authority from the Apostles immediately and considering how much S. Iohn who survived the Apostles was reverenced to the last through all the Christian Churches what likelihood is there that those very Churches should so far contemn both him and them even whilst they were living among them as to admit of a new order of men without their Authority to Oversee and Govern them but that de facto the Apostles did with their own hands Ordain several Bishops to preside over several Churches is most certain if any credit may be given to Ecclesiastical History which assures us that they ordained Dionysius the Areopagite Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archyppus of Colosse Onesimus of Ephesus Antipas of Pergamus Euphroditus of Philippi Crescens of the Gauls Erastus of Macedonia Trophimus of Arles Iason of Tarsus Titus of Corinth Onisiphorus of Colophon Quartus of Berytus Paul the Proconsul of Narbona Vid. Bishop Tailor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. But then thirdly and lastly from hence I also infer That the Bishops of this Age were look'd upon as a Superiour Order to all other Ecclesiastical Officers for Ignatius not only enjoyns the Presbyters and Deacons to obey their Bishops but also presses them thereunto by the Command of Christ and if by Christs Command they were to obey their Bishops then by Christs Institution their Bishops were their Superiours Thus much therefore we are assured of by the Testimony of Ignatius that in the Apostolick Age Bishops were universally admitted in the Churches of Christ that they derived their Authority from the hands of the Apostles and that by vertue of that Authority they were Superiour to all other Ecclesiastical Officers and this is all we contend for And now let us proceed to the Testimony of the Writers of the next Age who conversed with those that were Conversant with the Apostles of which number are Iustin Martyr Hegesippus Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus The first of which was converted to Christianity about the year of our Lord 133. which is not above twenty five years after the death of S. Iohn This Writer in his Apology for Christianity to the Emperour Antoninus giving an account of the manner of their Publick Worship makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a President or presiding Ecclesiastick in the Mother Church who did there Consecrate the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and give it to the Deacons to distribute it to such as were present and carry it to such as were absent and who did receive the Charities of the People and dispose and manage the Stock of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Bishops Title is evident for so Dionysius Bishop of Corinth who was Iustin Martyrs Cotemporary uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously stiling Publius Bishop of Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President and Quadratus his Successor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. Next after him we have the Testimony of Hegesippus who as S. Ierom de script Eccles. tells us lived very near to the Apostolick Age he wrote five Books of Commentaries some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius his History in which he not only makes mention of several Bishops with whom he conversed in his Journey from Iudea to Rome and of Primas Bishop of Corinth by name and afterwards of Anicetus Soter
and Elutherius Bishops of Rome successively but also tells us that after Iames the Iust who was the first Bishop of Ierusalem had suffered Martyrdom Simeon Cleophae was made Bishop of that Church because he was of the Kindred of our Lord vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Not long after him Dionysius Bishop of Corinth makes mention in several Epistles of several Bishops by name and particularly of Publius and Quadratus successive Bishops of Athens of Dionysius the Areopagite the first Bishop of that Church of Philip Bishop of Gortyna in Crete of Palma Bishop of Amastris in Pontus of Pinytus Bishop of the Gnossians and of Soter Bishop of Rome vid. Euseb lib. 4. cap. 23. About the same time lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who as himself tells us in his Epistle to Florinus had often seen Polycarp the Disciple of S. Iohn and did very well remember his person and behaviour when he discoursed to the Multitude the intimate conversation he had with S. John and the rest of the Apostles who had seen our Lord. And from him we have this express Testimony concerning the matter in debate We can reckon up those who were Ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches who they were that succeeded them even down to our times for the Apostles would have them to be in all things perfect and unreprovable whom they left to be their Successors and to whom they delivered their Apostolick Authority And then he goes on and gives us a Catalogue of Eleven Bishops of Rome by name beginning from Linus to whom he tells us S. Peter and S. Paul Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt i. e. delivered the Episcopal power of Governing that Church and ending with Elutherius who was the twelfth and did then actually preside in the Episcopal Chair and that by Bishops in this Age was meant such as presided over Presbyters as well as Laicks is evident by the demonstration Clemens Alexandrinus makes who was Irenaeus his Cotemporary between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 6. i. e. the Processes of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and a little before speaking of the dignity of the Presbytery he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that it was not honoured with the first Seat or placed in the first Class of the Ecclesiastick Orders which plainly shews that then there was an Order above the Presbytery viz. the Bishops whom presently after he mentions as the first Order of Ecclesiasticks And that passage which Eusebius quotes from him out of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lately published is a plain Argument that in his time Bishops were look'd on as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy for he tells us that when S. Iohn returned from Patmos to Ephesus he visited the neighbouring Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. partly that he might ordain Bishops and partly that he might set apart such for the Clergy as were pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit by which it is evident that in Clement's time at least and if he be not mistaken in S. Iohn's too the Bishops were a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy viz. the Presbyters and Deacons Thus both in the Apostolick Age and that succeeding it we have abundant Testimony of the derivation of the superiority of the Apostolick Order from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Churches of Christ. And then for the next Age we have the concurrent Testimonies of Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian not only of the continuance of this Apostolick superiority in the Church but also of the derivation of it from the Apostles themselves but we need not cite their words it being granted by the most learned Advocates of the Presbyterian Government that for several years before these Fathers viz. about the year of our Lord 140. the Episcopacy was every where received in the Church for they tell us that though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Ecclesiastical Orders yet they left none behind to succeed them in that power but the Church was every where governed by a Common Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and Divisions it was at last universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to preside over all the rest and this say they was the beginning of the Episcopacy for which they cite that famous passage of S. Ierom Antequam Diaboli instinctu c. i. e. Before such time as through the instinct of the Devil divisions in Religion began and it was said among the People I am of Paul I am of Apollo and I of Cephas the Churches were Governed by Common Councils of Presbyters but afterwards every Presbyter reckoning such as he baptized to be his and not Christs it was decreed over all the World that one from among the Presbyters should be chosen and set over all the rest to whom should belong all the care of the Churches that so the seeds of Schisms might be destroyed which universal Decree as they guess was made about the year 140. Now not to dispute with them the sense of this passage but allowing it to bear their sense I shall only desire the Reader to consider First That it is the Testimony of one who lived long after the afore-cited Witnesses and so far less capable of attesting so early a matter of fact for some of the Witnesses above-cited were such as lived in the days of the Apostles others such as lived in their days who lived in the days of the Apostles and certainly these were much more competent Witnesses of what was done in the Apostles days than S. Ierom who was not born till about the year 330. almost one hundred years after Origen the latest and three hundred years after Clemens the earliest of the above-cited Witnesses and certainly to prefer the Authority of one single Witness who lived so long after the matter of fact to the unanimous attestations of so many earlier Witnesses is both immodest and irrational II. It is also to be considered that S. Ierom was a witness in his own cause in which case men of his warmth and passion are too too apt to exceed the limits of truth for the design of that passage was to curb the insolence of some Pragmatical Deacons who would needs advance themselves above the Presbyters which Saint Ierom being a Presbyter himself takes in high disdain and as the best of men are too prone to do when their own concerns are at stake bends the stick too much t'other way and depresses the Deacons too low and advances the Presbyters too high For III. In other places where he is not Biassed by partiality to his own Order he talks at a quite different rate so in Dial. advers Luciferian dost thou ask why one that is not Baptized by the Bishop doth not receive the Holy Ghost why it proceeds from hence that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles
Where it is plain he places the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles so also in Ep. 1. ad Heliodor speaking of the Bishops of his time they stand saith he in the place of S. Paul and hold the place of S. Peter and in Psal. 45.16 Now because the Apostles are gone from the World thou hast instead of those their Sons the Bishops and these are thy Fathers because thou art Governed by 'em and Ep. ad Nepot What Aaron and his Sons were that we know the Bishops and the Presbyters are And therefore as Aaron by Divine Right was superiour to his Sons the Priests so is the Bishop above his Presbyters all which are as plain contradictions to that famous passage of his understanding it as the Presbyterians do as one proposition can be to another and whether is a man more to be credited when he speaks without Bias or Partiality or when he speaks in his own cause and under the influence of his own Interest VI. It is further to be considered that the Decree of which S. Ierom here speaks by which the Government of the Church was translated from a Common Council of Presbyters to a single Bishop must according to his own words be Apostolick and consequently much earlier than the Presbyterians will allow it for it was made at that time when it was said among the People I am of Paul and I am of Apollos and I of Cephas and this as S. Paul tells us was said in his time and therefore this Decree must be made in his time and that S. Ierome did mean so we are elsewhere assured from his own words for so in his Book de Eccles. Script he tells us that immediately after the ascension of our Lord S. James was Ordained by the Apostles to be Bishop of Jerusalem Timothy by S. Paul Bishop of Ephesus Titus Bishop of Crete and Polycarp by S. John Bishop of Smyrna So that either he must here expresly contradict himself or else the Decree of which he speaks must have been made immediately after the Ascension of our Lord and consequently be a Decree Apostolick V. It is yet farther to be considered that if any such Decree of changing the Church Government from Presbyterial to Episcopal had been made by the Apostles it is strange we should not find the least mention of it in Scripture and if it had been made after the Apostles about the year 140. it is as strange we should have no mention of it in Ecclesiastick Antiquity for an universal Change of the Government of the Church from one kind to another is a matter of such vast moment that had the Apostles made a Decree concerning it they would doubtless have been very solicitous to publish it through all the Churches and to have transmitted down to Posterity some standing record of it which yet they were so far from doing that they have not given us the least intimation of it in all their Writings And had it been made afterwards about the year 140. to be sure all Primitive Antiquity would have rung of such a publick and important alteration but on the contrary you see both Clemens and Ignatius who lived before that period testifie that the Church was not Governed in their time by a Common Council of Presbyters but by Bishops Hegesyppus Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth who lived in that period are so far from taking notice of any such Decree of alteration that they testifie the Government of the Church by an uninterrupted Succession of Bishops even from the Apostles themselves and as for Irenaeus who gives us an account of the Succession of the Roman Bishops from S. Peter down to the time when he himself was at Rome it was as easie for him to know who they were that succeeded from S. Peter as it is for us to know who succeeded from Arch-Bishop Whitgift in the Chair of Canterbury he being no farther distant from the one than we are from the other and though through the Ambiguity or defect of the Records of some Churches this succession be not equally clear in all yet in the most eminent Churches such as Ierusalem Rome Antioch and Alexandria the successions are as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastical History and is it not much more reasonable to conclude what was the Government of those Churches that are not known from what we find was the Government of those that are than to question those Ecclesiastical Records that are preserved because of the uncertainty of those that are not for though we do not find in all Churches an exact Catalogue of all their Bishops yet we cannot produce any one instance in any one ancient Church of any other form of Government than the Episcopal and therefore we may as well question whether ever there was any such thing as an ancient Monarchy in the World because many of the Histories of the Monarchs are defective as to their Names and the Order of their Succession as whether there was ever any such thing as a Primitive Episcopacy in the Church because the Records of several Churches are defective as to the Names and Successions of their Bishops Since therefore this Story of S. Ieroms universal Decree is not only altogether unattested but also directly contradictory to the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity how can we reasonably look upon it otherwise than as a mere figment of his own fancy especially considering VI. And lastly How odiously this conceit of his reflects upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles for the Apostles devolving the Government of the Church upon Common Councils of Presbyters was as he himself tells us the occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions for the removal of which the Church afterwards found it necessary to dissolve those Presbyteries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room and this S. Ierom approves as a very wise and prudent action for saith he the safety of the Church depends upon the Authority of the High-Priest or Bishop to whom if there were not given by all supreme Authority there would be as many Schisms in the Churches as there are Priests So that according to him had the Church continued under that Government which the Apostles left in it it must unavoidably have been torn in pieces with endless Schisms and Divisions and if so either the Apostles were very imprudent in not foreseeing this or very neglective in not preventing it so that had not the after-age taken care to supply the defect of their Conduct by erecting a wiser-form of Government than they left the Church had infallibly run to ruin This is the unavoidable consequence of S. Ieroms Hypothesis which therefore I can look upon no otherwise than as a mere device of his own brain snatched up in hast to defend his Order against the Insolence of those Factious Deacons that flew in the face of the Presbytery This therefore being removed which is the main and indeed the only considerable Objection against the
universal conformity of the Primitive Church to the Episcopal Government it remains that if any credit may be given either to those Writers that lived in the Apostolick age or to those who immediately succeeded 'em it is evident from their unanimous Testimonies that the Episcopacy is nothing else but only the Apostolick superiority derived from the hands of the Apostles in a continued succession from one Generation to another and to reject their Testimony is not only very unreasonable there being at least as much reason why we should reject all ancient History but also of very dangerous consequence since 't is from thence that we derive the very Canon of Scripture and so we may as well reject it in this instance as in the other IV. And lastly That the rightful Government of the Church of Christ is Episcopal is evident also from our Saviours declared allowance and approbation of the Primitive practice in this matter viz. in those seven Epistles which he sent by S. Iohn to the seven Churches of Asia all which he directs particularly to the seven Angels of those Churches whom he not only stiles the seven Stars in his own right hand or the seven lights of those seven Churches Vid. Rev. 1.20 and Rev. 2.1 but in every Epistle particularly owns 'em for his Angels or Messengers if therefore we can prove that these seven Angels were at that time the seven Bishops that presided over both the Clergy and Laity of those seven Churches they will be an unanswerable instance of our Saviours allowance and approbation of the Episcopal Order In order therefore to the clearing this matter I shall shew First That they were single persons Secondly That they were persons of great Authority in those Churches Thirdly That they were the Presidents or Bishâ—ps of those Churches First That they were single Persons is evident because they are all along mentioned as such the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in the singular number the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and so of all the rest and so every where in the Body of the Epistles they are all along addrest to in the singular number I know thy works and thy labour nevertheless I have a few things against thee remember whence thou art fallen repent and do thy first works and the like in all which our Saviour plainly writes to 'em as to single persons It is true what he writes to them he writes not only to them personally but also to the People under their Government and inspection and therefore sometimes he mentions the People Plurally so Chap. 2. ver 10. The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison and so ver 13. and ver 23. but this is so far from arguing that these Angels were not single persons that it argues the quite contrary since if they had not what reason can there be assigned why our Saviour should not mention them plurally as well as the People I know it is objected that the Angel of the Church of Thyatira is mentioned Plurally Chap. 2. ver 24. but unto you I say and unto the rest of Thyatira where by you it is supposed must be meant the Angel and by the rest of Thyatira the People To which I answer that in the ancient Greek Manuscripts and particularly in that at S. Iames's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and is left out and so the words run thus but unto you the rest of Thyatira or to the rest of you at Thyatira which is set in opposition to those of Thyatira that had been seduced into the Sect of Iezebel and therefore cannot be understood of the Angel who is all along mentioned in the singular number wherefore had he not been a single person no account can be given why he should be mentioned singly and the rest of Thyatira Plurally But then Secondly That these single persons were of great Authority in those Churches is evident not only by that honourable title of Angel that is given them which plainly shews them to be persons of Office and Eminence and that not only by our Saviours directing his Epistles to them to be communicated by them to their several Churches but also from that authority which the Angel of Ephesus exercised there and which the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira ought to have exercised but did not For as for the Angel of Ephesus he is commended for trying them which said they were Apostles and were not and discovering them to be liars which words plainly denote a Iuridical Trial and Conviction of some person or persons who pretended to Apostolical Authority but upon examination were found to be Cheats and Impostors and then as for the Angel of the Church of Pergamus he is blamed for having in his Church those that held the Doctrine of Balaam or of the Nicolaitans which plainly shews that he had power to remedy it by casting them out of the Church for if he had not how could he have been justly blamed for suffering them And the same may be said of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira who is also blamed for suffering the woman Jezebel which was not in his power to prevent unless we suppose him to have Authority to eject her and her Followers But then Thirdly and lastly That these single persons were the Presidents or Bishops of those Churches is also evident from the most Primitive Antiquity for so in the Anonymus Tract of Timothy's Martyrdom recorded in Biblioth Pat. n. 244. we are told that when S. Iohn the Apostle returned from his Exile in Patmos which was two or three years after he wrote his Revelations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the government of it Now that these seven Bishops were the same with those seven Angels he wrote to in his Revelations is evident because all those seven Churches in which those seven Angels presided lay within the Circuit of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was the Metropolis and therefore who else can we so fairly suppose these seven Bishops to be by whom he governed the Province of Ephesus as the seven Angels of those seven Churches which were all of them within that Province and S. Austin expresly calls the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Proepositus Ecclesiae i. e. the Governour of the Church Ep. 162. and speaking of those seven Angels he stiles them Episcopi sive praepositi Ecclesiarum the Bishops or Governours of the Churches Comment in Revel so also the Commentaries under the name of S. Ambrose referring to these Angels in 1 Cor. c. 11. expresly tells us that by those Angels he means the Bishops and that they were so is most indubitably evident of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in particular who could be no other than S. Polycarp who was most certainly made Bishop of Smyrna some years before the writing these Epistles and continued Bishop of
Ministries Common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy is the administration of the Evangelical Sacraments for it was to his Apostles and in them to their Successors that our Saviour gave the Commission of Baptizâ—ing all Nations in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and of doing this i. e. of consecrating and administring the holy Eucharist in remembrance of me but yet it is evident that this Ministry was not so confined to the Apostolick Order as that none but they were allowed to exercise it for even in the Apostles days Philip and Ananias who were no Apostles Baptized and S. Peter commanded the Brethren with him who were no Apostles neither to Baptize those Gentile Converts upon which the Holy Ghost descended Acts 10.48 and there is no doubt but when those three thousand Souls Acts 2. were all Baptized at one time there were a great many other Baptizers besides the Apostles and that passage of S. Paul 1 Cor. 1.13 14 15 16 17. where he tells us that he baptized none in the Church of Corinth though it were of his own planting except Crispus Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanus is a plain Argument that when the Apostles had converted men to the Christian Faith they generally ordered them to be baptized by the inferiour Ministers of the Church that attended them and then as for the Consecration of the holy Eucharist though when any of the Apostles were present it was doubtless ordinarily performed by them yet considering how fast Christianity encreased and how frequently Christians did then partake of this Sacrament it is not to be supposed that the Apostles could be present in all places where it was administred nor consequently that they could consecrate it in every particular Congregation For though it was a very early Custom for the Bishop to consecrate the Elements in one Congregation and then send them abroad to be administred in several others yet this was only upon special occasions but ordinarily they were consecrated in the same places where they were administred in all which places it was impossible either for the Apostles at first or after them for their Successors the Bishops to be present at the same time and therefore there can be no doubt but the Consecration as well as the Administration was ordinarily performed by the inferiour Presbyters in the absence of the Apostles and Bishops But it is most certain that none were ever allowed in the Primitive Church to consecrate the Eucharist but either a Bishop or a Presbyter And as for Baptism because it is in some degree more necessary than the Eucharist as being the sign of admission into the New Covenant by which we are first intitled to it not only Bishops and Presbyters but in their absence or by their allowance Deacons also were Authorized to administer it for so even in the Apostles days Philip the Deacon baptized at Samaria Acts 8.12 and afterwards not only Deacons but Lay-men too were allowed to administer it in case of necessity when neither a Deacon nor Presbyter nor Bishop could be procured that so none might be debarred of admission into the New Covenant that were disposed and qualified to receive it but the Churches allowing this to Lay-men only in cases of necessity is a plain Argument that none had a standing Authority to administer it but only persons in holy Orders For that authority which a present necessity creates is only present and ceases with the necessity that created it III. And lastly Another of the Ministries common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy is to offer up the Publick Prayers and intercessions of Christian Assemblies For to be sure none can be authorized to perform the publick Offices of the Church but only such as are set apart and ordained to be the publick Officers of it Now Prayer is one of the most solemn Offices of Christian Assemblies and therefore as in the Jewish Church none but the High Priest and Priests and Levites who were the only publick Ministers of Religion were authorized to offer up the publick Prayers of the Congregation vid. 2 Chron. 39.27 so in the Christian none but Bishops Priests and Deacons who alone are the publick Ministers of Christianity are authorized to offer up the publick addresses of Christian Assemblies it is their peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to perform the publick Offices to the Lord Acts 13.2 for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Publick Service and is used to denote those publick services of which one was offering up the Common Prayers of the People which the Priests in their turns performed in the Temple Vid. Luk. 1.23 and hence it is that the Ministers of Christian Religion are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.16 because it is their proper business to officiate the publick services of the Christian Church and accordingly in Rev. 5.10 the four and twenty Elders that is the holy Bishops of the Church as appears by their having Crowns of Gold or Mitres on their heads in allusion to the High Priests Mitre Chap. 4. ver 4. are said to have every one of them Harps and golden Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of Saints referring to the Incense which the Priests were wont to offer in the Sanctuary which Oblation was a mystical offering up the Prayers of the People vid. Luk. 1.10 which plainly intimates that as it was one part of the Office of those Iewish Priests to offer the Incense and therewithall the Prayers of the People so is it also of the Publick Ministers of Christianity to offer up the Prayers of Christian Assemblies And as in the Jewish Church not only the Priests but the Levites also Communicated with the High Priest in this Ministry of offering up the Prayers of the Congregation so in the Christian Church not only the Presbyters but the Deacons also always Communicated in it with their Bishop Having thus given an account of those Religious Ministries which are common to the Bishops with the inferiour Officers of the Church I proceed in the next place to shew what those Ministries are which are peculiar to the Bishops or Governours of the Church all which are reducible to four particulars 1. To make Laws for the peace and good order of the Church 2. To Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices 3. To execute that spiritual Jurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church 4. To confirm such as have been instructed in Christianity I. One peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to make Laws and Canons for the security and preservation of the Churches peace and good order and this is implied in the very Essence of Government which necessarily supposes a Legislative power within it self to command and oblige the Subject to do or forbear such things as it shall judge conducive to the preservation or disturbance of their Common-weal without which power no Government can be enabled to obtain its end
which is the good of the Publick Since therefore the Church by Christs own institution is a governed Society of men we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles who as all agree had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour for so in Acts 15.6 we are told that upon occasion of that famous Controversie about Circumcision the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter where by the Elders by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things ver 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were it seems laid upon them as a burthen i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities they wrote to viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches to which they were more peculiarly related Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper tells them that other things he would set in order when he came among them 1 Cor. 11.34 but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices so also 1 Cor. 16.1 the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon which he gave to the Churches of Galatia which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in charge to his Church ver 7. so also Tit. 1.5 he tells Titus that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage unless it were by deputation from his Bishop and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority and Suffrage and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters or by the Bishops in Council among themselves was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true this Legislative Power of the Church as was shewn before extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign who is next to and immediately under God in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity than he was by the Laws of natural Religion and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth such as preaching the Gospel administring the Evangelical Sacraments c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World to perform those Ministries in his absence but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations for this is necessarily implied in the Commission he gave them Iohn 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you that is I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him but I also send you with the same authority to send others that I now exercise in sending you for unless this be implied in their Mission he did not send them as his Father sent him unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father which he then exercised in sending them Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36 Mar. 16.14 Mat. 28.16 in all which places we are expresly told that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission and consequently it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order no others could have right to transfer it to others but only such as were admitted of that Order none could give it to others but only those to whom Christ gave it and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles none but Apostles could derive it and accordingly we
participation of the blessed immortality of Heaven so also Rev. 3.21 To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me on my Throne even as I have overcome and am sate down with my Father on his Throne And he promises the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna in particular Be thou faithful to the death and I will give thee a crown of life Rev. 2.10 In all which places he expresly declares his Royal Authority to reward his faithful Subjects when they leave this World with the joys and felicities of the World to come and this Authority he is continually exercising in his heavenly Kingdom For when ever any faithful and obedient Souls depart from their bodies he presently sends forth his Angelick Messengers to conduct them safe to the immortal Regions and there to lodge them in some one of those blissful Mansions in his Fathers House which he went before to prepare for them where free from all the disturbances of flesh and blood and of a vexatious and tumultuous World they live in continued ease content and joy wrapt up with the ever-growing delights of contemplating loving and imitating God and of the most wise and amicable Society and Communication with each other in the enjoyment of an endless bliss and pleasure for so we are assured from Scripture that the happiness of the righteous doth commence from the moment of their departure hence So Rev. 14.13 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours and their works do follow them and with St. Paul it was the same thing to depart from hence and to be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which necessarily implies that upon his departure he expected to be immediately with Christ and elsewhere he teaches that to be at home in the body was to be absent from the Lord and to be absent from the body to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.6 8. neither of which can be true if the Souls of good men go not to Heaven immediately when they go from hence but that they do so is as plain as words can express it in that promise of our Saviour to the Penitent Thief Verily verily I say unto thee this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise Luke 23.43 From whence it evidently follows that even in the very Article of a true Penitents death Heavens joys do attend his departing Soul to receive it immediately when it is dislodged from the body Thus in the very moment of its departure hence the Pious Soul is transported to those blessed abodes beyond the Stars which are the proper seat and pure Element of Happiness where the blessed inhabitants live in a continued fruition of their utmost wishes being every moment entertained with fresh and enravishing Scenes of pleasure where all their happiness is eternal and all their eternity nothing else but only one continued Act of Love and Praise and Ioy and Triumph where there are no sighs or tears no intermixtures of sorrow or misery but every heart is full of joy and every joy is Quintessence and every happy moment is crowned with some fresh and new enjoyment But of this blessed state I have given an account at large Part. 1. Chap. 1. and 3. And this is that blessed reward with which our Saviour crowns his faithful Subjects immediately upon their departure hence so that he doth not permit them to lie sleeping in the dust unrewarded till the end of the World but as soon as they have finished their work upon Earth admits them to the joy of their Master to all the felicities that their separated spirits are capable of in those several degrees and measures of perfection which they there arrive to in which happy state they remain during their separation from the body expecting the farther completion of their happiness in a glorious Resurrection by which their Bodies and Souls being reunited their whole Humane Nature shall be filled with bliss to the utmost stretch of its Capacity And now having shewn what those Regal Acts are which Christ hath always performed and doth always continue to perform I proceed in the III. And last place To shew what those Regal Acts are which are yet to be performed by him before he surrenders up his Kingdom and these are reducible to three Heads First He is yet farther to extend and enlarge his Kingdom by the Conquest of its enemies Secondly He is yet to destroy Death the last Enemy by giving a general Resurrection Thirdly He is yet to judge the World. I. He is yet farther to extend and enlarge his Kingdom by a more universal conquest of its Enemies For if we consult the ancient Prophesies concerning the vast extent of our Saviours Kingdom we shall find that there are a great many of them which as yet were never accomplished So Psal. 2.8 9. Ask of me and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt break them with a Rod of Iron thou shalt dash them in pieces like a Potters Vessel whereas hitherto it is certain Christ was never possessed of the uttermost parts of the earth nor did he ever yet break his incorrigible opposers with a Rod of Iron or dash them in pieces like a Potters Vessel so also Dan. 7.4 it is foretold of Christ that there should be given him Dominion and Glory and Kingdom that all People Nations and Languages should serve him and that all Dominionâ— should serve and obey him ibid. ver 27. so also Dan 2.34 35 44 45. that the stone cut out without hands by which all agree is meant the Kingdom of Christ should become a great Mountain and fill the whole earth and that it should break in pieces and consume all those other Kingdoms Thus also it is foretold that the Lord should be King over all the Earth Mich. 5.4 and that there should be but one Lord and his name one Zech. 14.9 and that he should have Dominion from Sea to Sea and from the Rivâ—r to the 〈◊〉 of the Earth Psal. 72.8 and that all Kings should fall down before him and all Nations serve him ibid. ver 11. and that all the ends of the earth should remember and turn to the Lord and all the kindreds of the Nations worship before him because the Kingdom shall be the Lords and he shall govern among the Nations These and sundry other such like Prophesies there are which as yet it is certain were never accomplished according to the full import and intent of them Wherefore we may certainly conclude that there is a time yet to come before the consummation of all things wherein our Saviour will yet once more display the victorious Banner of his Cross and like a mighty man of War march on conquering and to conquer till he hath confounded or converted his Enemies and finally consummated his victories in a glorious Triumph over all the Powers
Office of a Bishop If either be perpetual why not both if not both why either and how can we argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus for instance as the Presbyterians do Vide Ius Divin p. 159.167 if the Office they were Ordained to were not perpetual and if it were perpetual then so is Episcopacy which is in nothing different from that which they exercised in their Churches III. That the true Government of the Church is Episcopal is evident also from the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church thereunto It is objected by the Adversaries of the Episcopal Government that though our Saviour indeed Instituted a superior Order of Church Officers viz. his Twelve Apostles to precide over the rest and Govern his Church yet this was an extraordinary Commission which he never intended they should derive down to the Church as a perpetual Model of Government but was limited to the persons of the Apostles and was to expire with ' em Now that it was not limited to the persons of the Apostles is evident since as it hath been shewn before the Astles derived it to others which they could not have done without violating their trust and exceeding the bounds of their Commission had it been appropriated to their persons so that it must be allowed either that they proceeded irregularly in transferring their superiority to others or that their Commission did impower them to transfer it and therefore if it appear not only that they might transfer it to some for the Government of some Churches by vertue of their Commission of which the above cited instances are a full demonstration but also that they Universally transferred it to others for the Government of all other Churches then it is certain that either they mistook the intent of our Saviours Commission or the intent of it was to impower 'em to transfer it unversally as a standing and perpetual Form of Ecclesiastical Government in short if they understood the intendment of their own Commission as to be sure they did being guided by the Spirit into all Truth to be sure they would never have communicated their Apostolick Superiority to any had it not been our Saviours intention when he Commissioned 'em to Authorize 'em so to do and for the same reason we may be sure that so far forth as they did communicate it it was our Saviours intention that they should now as was shewn before to some they did communicate it for the Government of some Churches as to Timothy and Titus for instance for the Government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete from whence it is evident that it was our Saviours intention that they should communicate it to some and for the same reason if it be made appear that they did communicate it universally for the Government of all other Churches it will necessarily follow that it was our Saviours intention they should communicate it as an universal form of Church-Government Now whether they did communicate it universally or no is a question about matter of Fact and as such is decidable only by the Testimony of the most competent witnesses and the most competent witness in this case is the Christian Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles which Church attests with one universal consent the universal derivation of a Superiour Order of Ecclesiastick Officers from the Apostles to preside over the Churches of Christ. And some Christian Writers we have who were living in the very days of the Apostles and were their immediate Scholars and Disciples others again who lived in their days and were their Disciples who lived in the Apostles and others who immediately succeeded these from all which we have ample Testimonies of the continued Succession of this superiour Order even from the Apostles to whom our Saviour first derived it Out of all which I shall only produce some few instances out of an infinite number that might be given Of the first sort are S. Clement Bishop of Rome and S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch S. Clement who as Frenaeus tells us saw the Apostles and conversed familiarly with 'em makes mention in his Epistle to the Corinthians of three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers in his time whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levites which words can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and the Deacons S. Ignatius who was the Disciple of S. Peter and in his life-time Bishop of Antioch is so full and express in all those six Epistles he wrote on the way to his Martyrdom for the derivation of this superiour Order from the Apostles that the adversaries of this Order have no other way to evade him but by condemning those Epistles for Counterfeits from which injurious sentence they have of late been so triumphantly vindicated by a Learned Pen of our own that I dare say no man of Learning for the future will so far expose the Reputation of his Understanding and Modesty as to call 'em in question again Now in all these Epistles the holy Martyr not only distinguishes the Clergy into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons but strictly injoyns the two latter as well as the Laicks to be Dutiful and Obedient to the former and particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians what is the Bishop saith he but he that hath all Authority and Power what is the Presbytery but a sacred Constitution of Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop what are the Deacons but imitators of Christ and Ministers to the Bishop as he was to the Father and as he every where enjoyns obedience to the Bishops as to the supreme Order in the Church of Christ so in the beginning of his Epistle to the Philadelphians he tells them that so many as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop and that so many as depart from him and his Communion and associate themselves with the accursed shall be cut off with them And in his Epistle to the Magnesians he tells them that it highly became them to obey their Bishop and not to contradict him in any thing for it is a terrible thing to contradict him because in so doing you do not so much despise him who is visible as the invisible God who will not be despised for his promotion is not from men but from God. And several of his Cotemporary Bishops he mentions by name viz. Onesimus Bishop of the Ephesians Policarp of the Smyrnians Polybius of the Trallians and Damas of the Magnesians and still as he mentions them he highly commends the Presbyters and Deacons for their obedience to them So in the beginning of his Epistle to the Magnesians Having been so happy as to see you by your worthy Bishop Damas and your worthy Presbyters viz. Bassus and Apollinus and Zotion your Deacon whom I cannot but commend for his obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytery you ought not to contemn the youth of your Bishop but to pay him all
the Church is to Confirm such as have been Baptized and instructed in Christianity which Ministry was always performed by Prayer and laying on of hands upon which the Party so Confirmed received the gift of the Holy Ghost It is true upon the first institution of this Imposition of hands the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit such as speaking with Tongues c. were many times consequent but from hence it doth no more follow that it was intended only for an extraordinary Ministry that was to cease with those extraordinary Gifts that accompanied it than that Preaching was so which at first was also attended with miraculous operations The great intendment of those extraordinary effects was to attest the efficacy of the Function and doth it therefore follow that the Function must cease because those extraordinary effects did so after they had sufficiently attested its efficacy and consequently were of no farther use If so then all the other Ministries of Christianity must be expired as well as this And what though those extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit are ceased Yet since our Saviour hath promised a continual Communication of his Spirit to his Church is it not highly reasonable to believe that he still continues to communicate it by the very same Ministry of Prayer and Imposition of hands whereby he communicated it first and that he now derives to us the ordinary operations of it in the same way that he first derived the extraordinary ones Especially considering that this laying on of hands is placed by the Apostle in the same Class with Baptism and made one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.1 2. and therefore must without all doubt be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church and as such the Church of Christ in all Ages has thought her self obliged to receive and practise it but as for the administration of it it was always appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops So in Acts 19.5 6. it was S. Paul that laid his hands on the Ephesians after they were Baptized in the name of Jesus whereupon it is said that the Holy Ghost came upon them and in Acts 8. we read that when S. Philip by his Preaching and Miracles had converted the Samaritans and afterwards Baptized them S. Peter and S. Iohn two of the Apostles were sent to lay hands on them upon which it is said that they received the Holy Ghost ver 17. by which it appears that this Ministry of Confirmation appertained to the Apostles since S. Philip though a worker of Miracles a Preacher a Prime Deacon and if we may believe S. Cyprian one of the seventy two Disciples would not presume to assume it but left it to the Apostles as their peculiar Province And accordingly in the Primitive Church it was always performed by the hands of the Bishops for though from later Ages some probable instances are produced of some Presbyters that Confirmed in the Bishops absence or by his delegation yet in all Primitive Antiquity we have neither any one Canon nor example of it from whence we may fairly conclude that this imposition of hands for Confirmation was peculiar to the Apostles in the Original and to their Successors the Bishops in the continuation of it SECT X. Of Christ's Regal Acts in his Kingdom HAving in the foregoing Section given an account of the several Ministers which Christ imploys in the Administration of his Kingdom we proceed in the next place to inquire what those Acts of Royalty are which he himself exerts in his Kingdom and by which he perpetually rules and governs it and these may be distributed into three Orders First Such as he hath performed once for all Secondly Such as he hath always performed and will still continue to perform Thirdly Such as are yet to be peformed by him before the surrender of his Kingdom First One sort of the Royal Acts of our Saviour are those which he hath performed once for all and these are reducible to three particulars 1. His giving Laws to his Kingdom 2. His Mission of the Holy Spirit to subdue mens minds to the obedience of those Laws and to govern them by them 3. His erecting an External Polity or Form of Government in his Kingdom I. One of those Regal Acts which Christ hath performed in his Kingdom once for all is giving Laws to it and this he performed while he was upon Earth in those excellent Sermons and Discourses which he then preached and delivered to the World. For though he preached as a Prophet yet it was as a Royal Prophet as one that had Regal authority to Enact what he delivered into Laws for he was a King while he was upon Earth vid. p. 853 854 c. so that all his Prophesies were inforced with his Regal Authority and he commanded as he was a King whatsoever he taught as he was a Prophet Indeed had he been a mere Prophet he could not have obliged men by any Legislative Authority of his own to believe and obey him his Declarations had had no farther Force in them than as they expressed the Will and Command of the Almighty Sovereign of the World and if what he declared had not been Law before it could not have been made Law by his declaring it But being a Royal Prophet his words were Laws and all his Declarations carried a commanding power in them And hence the Gospel is called the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 and the Law of the Spirit of life in or by Christ Iesus Rom. 8.2 and that command of loving our Neighbour as our self is called the Royal Law i. e. the Law of Christ our King Iam. 2.8 for this our Saviour calls his Commandment John 15.12 and his new Commandment viz. that ye love one another even as I have loved you Joh. 13.34 and not only this but all other duties of the Gospel are called his Commandments Ioh. 14.21 and Matt. 28.20 by all which it is evident that in revealing his Gospel to the World he did not only perform the part of a Prophet but also of a Legislator and that by his own inherent Authority as he was a King he stamp'd those Doctrines into Laws which he taught and delivered as a Prophet And such as his Kingly power is such are his Laws and Commandments he is a spiritual King a King of Souls of Wills and of Affections and accordingly his Laws are spiritual and do extend their obligation to the Souls and Wills and Affections of his Subjects For they not only oblige our outward man but also the inmost motions of our heart they lay their reins upon our thoughts and desires as well as upon our words and actions and give directions to our inward intentions as well as to our outward actions so that to satisfie their demands it is not sufficient that we do well unless we also intend well that the matter of our actions be good unless the aim and design of them be so also for according