no wonder if Iure divino for the most part did carry the point especially before the Reformation This Error was the less Excusable because it was a departure from the great and in truth the only Example of a Holy Kingdom which such pious Politicians could propose to themselves I mean that of the Hebrews in which though matters that were purely mattes of Religion were distinguisht from matters purely Civil the matters of God from the matters of the King yet the Jurisdictions that related to them were not Divided the same Senate only in distinct Capacities as it was composed of Fathers as well as of Priests and Levites so it had the Cognizance of all matters nothing distinguished the Court in respect of the Two kinds of Causes Religious and Secular but that it had two Presidents which possibly were to take the Chair as the nature of the Cause required Amâ—ziah was over them in matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in matters of the King and all by an Authority and Power derived from the King as Sovereign and Supream in all Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set c. In truth the Church having submitted to receive Incorporation into the Civil State or being favoured with it for you may take it either way it was no longer obliged to continue a Divided Separate Jurisdiction for the Reason of the Churches separate Jurisdiction now failing the Magistrate being become Christian and consequently Ayding the Jurisdiction that it had before must fail with it and so revert to the Magistrate And Reason good it should and that by a reason taken even from the nature of Government for there ought to be and indeed there can be but one Spring and Fountain of Jurisdiction in one Kingdom and Government Besides Ecclesiastical Government cannot reach but to the External Actions of Men and therefore is very improperly called Spiritual since it is not Internal and the External Actions of Men as such do properly come under the Cognisance of the Magistrate he being ordained to be the Avenger of all evil doing as well as for the praise of them that do well and then nothing can remain for the Church to do unless the same Actions must be subjected to the Cognisance of divided unsubordinate Jurisdictions which should they be would breed a great Confusion which I must insist upon and be a great Injustice Breed great Confusion for that a Person in the same Cause should be absolved by one Jurisdiction and be condemned by another and this without any means of Composure for Example that he should be acquitted at the Assizes by Twelve of the Neighbourhood and yet be Convicted in the Bishops Court which may well happen where the Jurisdictions are divided and then no means is left neither of any Composure if they are also unsubordinated this is Confusion As that he should be twice Condemned and punish'd twice for one Fact would be great Injustice As for single Congregations they are only as so many little Fraternities Gilds or Corporations and consequently may have Constitutions and By-Laws of their own as these have without the least danger or other prejudice that can be thought of to the States that permit or protect them Certainly the Kingdom of Christ the true Hierarchy is a Kingdom that is not Secular or of this World that is it is not an External but a Spiritual Kingdom a Power erected in the Hearts and Consciences of Men in which he Rules and Governs by his Word and Spirit and therefore it doth not it cannot as such pretend to any Jurisdiction properly so called there being no Jurisdiction properly so called without Coercion and Compulsion and Coercion and Compulsion is a way that is not used by Christ. All the Subjects of Christ are Volunteers and Freemen whom as he brings into his Kingdom so he keeps in it only by Perswasions Exhortations Counsels and such like Methods And this Tertullian believed who in L. ad Scap. says Humani Iuris naturalis est unicuique quod put averit colere nec aliis aut obest aut predest alterius religio sed nec religonis est cogere religionem quae Sponte suscipi debeat non vi c. It is the first and chief right of humane nature for every man to worship what he thinks he ought nor does the Religion of one either hurt or profit another nor can it be any Religion to Compel Religion Religion ought to be taken up of Choice and not by force or constraint c. So far gone was that Father for Liberty of Conscience However it must be confessed That if any Persons refuse to observe the Rules of Christian Society and particularly the Rules of that Society of which they are Members it is but reason that they should leave it and if otherwise they will not that they be constrained to leave it But this by the by To be sure the Essential Church hath no one Form of External Government assigned to it in the whole and it was as great wisdom not to settle any in particular for National Churches for seeing the Church must be Extended into all Nations the Government and Policy of it must be of a nature either Ambulatory so as to be accommodated upon Occasion or it must be such an one as without interfering with them can consist with all the several Forms of Civil and Secular Government In my Judgment the Lord Bacon speaks excellently well to this matter when he says I for my part do confess That in revolving the Scriptures I could never find any such thing as one Form of Discipline in all Churches and that imposed by necessity of a Commandment and Prescript out of the Word of God but that God had left the like liberty to the Church-Government as he had done to the Civil Government to be varied according to Time and Place and Accidents which nevertheless his high and Divine Providence doth order and dispose for all Civil Governments are restrained from God to the several Grounds of Justice and Manners but the Policies and Forms of them are left free so that Monarchies and Kingdoms Senates and Signories Popular States and Communalties are lawful and where they are planted ought to be maintained inviolate So likewise in Church matters the substance of Doctrin is immutable and so are the General Rules of Government but for Rites and Ceremonies and for the particular Hierarchies Policies and Discipline of Churches they be left at large and therefore it is good we return unto the Ancient bounds of Unity in the Church of God which was one Faith one Baptism and not one Hierarchy one Discipline and that we observe the League of Christians as it is penned by our Saviour which is in substance of Doctrin thus He that is not with us is against us but of things indifferent and of Circumstance he that is not against us is with us Bacon's Considerations touching Pacification in Resuscit fol. 237 238 This
THE NATURE OF Church-Government Freely Discussed and set out IN THREE LETTERS LONDON Printed for S. G. in the Year MDCXCI To My Noble Friends SVV Y.B. T.R. EN ME. SIRS I Present you in the following Letters the true Idea as I take it of Church-Government which could it be received by all others with the same degree of Candour I assure my self it shall by you would be of infinite Advantage to end those fatal Controversies that for many Ages have perplexed and in this last almost destroyed the Church I prefer the way of Letters to set out the Notion for two Reasons One because it is the more Insinuative and a way that is much taken at this Time The other because really there were Letters sent by a Non-con to a Conf. in which most of the things were said that are in these only now they come refined from all the Reflections that were Personal and from some Mistakes For my own part I have nothing of Fondness in me for any Opinions nor do I hold my self obliged unto these in the Letters further than as they shall endure the Tests of Truth I am very willing they should undergo them all by strict Examination though I confess I am as loth they should be put to Torture If upon the severest Enquiry any thing can be found in them or duly inferred from them as to the Main that will not stand with good Authority sound Reason good Order of Policy or Christian Piety I shall soon shake Hands with them But till then I cannot believe it any Crime to own what I am fully perswaded of and what I am sure is no Popery That Ecclesiastical Government is a Prudential thing and Alterabl◠and that the only True English of Jure Divino in the present Case is by Law Established I am Iune 8th 1690. SIRS Your most Humble and Obliged Servant THE FIRST LETTER SIR IT must be acknowledged that you took a very right Method in the Business of Church Government to search as you say you did into its very Original and had not some of the Prejudices of your Education or of your Circumstances stuck too fast to you I suppose that way you would at least have discovered the Institution of the twelve Apostles at first before our Lord's Passion and of the seventy Disciples to have been only Temporary as well as in Accommodation to the Mosaical Policy in which were twelve Philarchs or Heads of Tribes and seventy Elders After our Lords Passion when he was risen again from the Dead and about to Ascend into Heaven concerning himself no further with the seventy of whom under that Denomination we read nothing afterwards in the Christian Church he gives a new and large Commission to the twelve Apostles and assigns them two Works The First the making of Disciples or Christians all the World over by declaring and publishing every where what upon their own Knowledge they were certain of in reference to Christ that so by being Witnesses unto him they might both aver the Truth of Christianity and being many even compel Belief of it And after they had made Christians to put them under Orders according to the Rules which Christ had given them Acts 1. 3. In two Words the Apostles were first to make Christians and then to frame them into Churches In this properly the nature of an Apostle consisted that he was a Person authorized to preach the Gospel of Christ upon his own Knowledge as being himself a Witness of him and in this his Office differed from that of an Evangelist for though an Evangelist as such did preach the Gospel where it was not heard of before and consequently made Christians and planted Churches in which his Office agrees with that of an Apostle yet herein it differs That to be an Evangelist it was not necessary as it was to be an Apostle that he should be a Witness to Christ it was enough to qualifie an Evangelist for Evangelizing that he had certain Tradition but to be qualified for an Apostle he must by the Evidences of his own Senses have had certain Knowledge of Christ. This Notion of the Apostleship is not only couched by our Saviour in what he tells the Apostles Iohn 14. 26. and at his Ascension Acts. 1. 8. but is intimated also in the History of the Election of Matthias unto the Apostleship Acts 1. from 15 to the 26. and most plainly set out in all of them taken together in conjunction for so they make it demonstrable Iudas was once numbred with the Apostles as being one of the twelve but he fell from that Degree and Honour by his Transgressions and therefore that the Scripture might be fulfilled which had said another should succeed him Peter at an Assembly of the Believers proposes the Ordination of one in his Room And the better to regulate the Election he first instructs them in the Nature of the Office and Work of the Apostleship to which that Ordination was to be made and this he says is with the rest of the Apostles to be a Witness unto Christ and particularly to his Resurrection and then informs them how a person must be qualified to become capable of being ordained to this Office to wit that he must be one of those that had accompanied with them all the while the Lord Jesus went in and out among them even from beginning to end from first to last Beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from them He must it seems be such an one as had always been with the Lord or else he could not be qualified to be one of the twelve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Peter therefore must one of these Men that have accompanied with us c. And why must one of these but that it was the proper Business and Work of such an Apostle as was one of the twelve to be a Witness of Christ to all that he had said and done and suffered and none could be such a Witness but one that had been always with him from first to last And if the former is the true Idea of an Apostle as you may plainly see it is then no Diocesan Bishop or any Body else indeed can be one now for whoever is an Apostle must be a Witness to Christ and must have seen him and that too after his Resurrection And to be one of the twelve must also have been always with him from first to last even to S. Paul himself who having not conversed with Christ upon the Earth and therefore could not properly be one of the twelve our Lord appeared in an extraordinary manner to qualifie him for the Apostleship so that as all the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers it might be said of Paul that he was an extraordinary superadded Apostle It is true the Apostles were called Bishops by S. Cyprian but it had been more though even then not much to your purpose if he had called Bishops
was done by one was done by All All did censure if one did the Expulsion made by one Bishop out of any Church was in effect an Expulsion from all the Churches and so a cutting off entirely from Christianity and all Communion of Saints Thus they aimed in a General Bishoprick at what the Church of Rome doth in a personal in affirming which I do not impose upon you for S. Cyprian is plain Hoc â—rant utique says he in his Tractate de simplicitate Praelatorum caeteri Apostoli quid fuit Petrus pariconsoriio praediti honoris potestatis sed Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur c. quam unitatem firmiter tenere vindicâ—re debemus maximè Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum utque Indivisum probemus Thence also came the Rails about the Table I mean the Differences of Communions Clerical and Laical to wit to raise the Reputation and Credit of the Clergy and withal to make their Ceusures the more solemn and awful as also that the Clergy who were obliged to a stricter and more exemplary life if they did not live it might have a peculiar Punishment which was to be thrust from the Clerical Communion and be degraded to that of the Laity In fine hence Publick Confessions and rigorous shaming Penances in all the Decrees of them Fletus Auditio Substractio Consistentia had their beginning and also solemn Absolutions by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop and of the Presbyters Which things as being only Human and Politick tho' not unnecessary for the Time are all of them alterable and some actually altered Again as Controversies arose in the Churches either about Matters of Doctrin or of Discipline the Apostles while they lived and were in a Condition those especially which founded such particular Churches where they arose did take care to end such Differences and were accordingly repaired unto for that purpose Thus in the Business of Antioch Appeal is made unto all the Apostles and for the Corinthians Galatian c. S. Paul particularly cared But after the Decease of the Apostles or a Failure of the Apostolical Infallible Guidance by other means the Controversies that arose in any Church became determined by the Common Counsel and Advice of other Churches either by their Letters or by a solemn Discussion and Debate in an Assembly of Bishops and Elders in Provincial Councils We do not read indeed of any Rule for this Practice but the Light of Nature or Common Reason directed it and there was something too that did lead unto it in the first Assembly at Ierusalem For as the Apostles and Elders were appealed unto by them of Antioch so the whole Church was convented and the Business considered and debated by the whole and by the whole resolved In sum the Churches of Christ in this separate State subsisted by themselves like so many little Republicks as being only in the World but not of it and therefore concerned not themselves in any Business with the Secular Powers And yet seeing their Members were Men as well as others and in the World as well as others and consequently liable to Passions and Misgovernment to Common Accidents of Providence and to Differences too arising in Worldly Matters it was absolutely necessary that some Provision should be made in all these Respects in the Church it self by Officers on purpose or else since there was no other Remedy all would run to Confusion Hence as the Ancient Christians had Deacons for the Poor so they had Wisemen as the Apostle calls them or Elders who to prevent the Scandal of their going to Law before the Heathen determined Matters by way of Arbitration and likewise restrained and suppressed exorbitant and evil Manners by censuring them Out of the Church to provide for the Poor to end Controversies between Man and Man and to punish evil doing was the Business of the Magistrate And this reminds me of the Third State of the Church when Magistrates and Powers becoming Christians the Christian Religion was taken by them into Civil Protection and became incorporated into the Laws as that of Israel was into theirs so that now States became Churches a State professing Christianity being a National Church and a National Church nothing but a Christian Nation in a Word a Holy Commonwealth Great was the Alteration that was made in the Government and Face of the Church in this Condition from what it was before for after the time that Emperours became Christian and that they shewed Kindness to the Church the Hierarchy became a Secular thing it being in this State that That and the Power of Councils attained to their full Growth but yet in several Countries by several Steps and Occasions Lavius in his Commentary of the Roman Commonwealth lib. 1. fol. 22. tells us That the Episcopal Diocesses of the Christian Religion do by many very great Tokens represent the Roman Antiquity and well he might for it is plain the Form of Civil Administration after the Roman Empire became Christian and in some degrees before was imitated in the Church and that both in the Provinces and Bounds of the Empire and in the City it self For as the Roman Empire was divided into several Pretories which Pretories were called Pretorian Diocesses or Sees and these Pretories again were subdivided into Provinces and that in every Pretory there was a Prefect of the Pretory who resided in the Metropolis called Sedes prima to administer and rule the Diocess and under the Prefect in the several Provinces there were other Principal Officers called Presidents to rule and govern them So in the Church there were the Metropolitan Primates or Archbishops who were seated in the Metropolis or Capital Cities and answered to the Prefects of the Pretories and there were Bishops that resided in the Inferious Citie who were called Suffragan Bishops and those resembled the Presidents of the Provinces l and the Parallel holds out further since a Person as Ioseph Scaliger observes might be a Bishop with Archiepiscopal Ornaments and yet not be an Archbishop in like manner as one might be an Officer with Consular Ornaments and yet not be a Consul The same Scaliger in his Epistles hb. 2. ep 184. also acquaints us That in the Time of Constantine the Great there were four Prefects of pretories the Prefect of the Pretorium of Constantionople the Illirian Prefect the Prefect of the Pretorium of Rome and the Prefect of the Pretorium in the Gallia Adding that seeing the Prefect of the Pretorium was of the same Degree that at this Day a Vice-Roy is he had under him Vicars and the Vicar he saith was the Governour of a Diocess or one that had under him a whole Diocess and a Diocess was a Government that contained under it several Metropolies or Capital Cities as a Metropolis had under it several Cities He further adds That the
one Church and therefore that Titus may be a Bishop of the Cretians all the Churches of Crete must be Consolitated into one else among all the Churches in Crete I would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where Titus resided If Titus was Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops and at least a Metropolitan which indeed would be most in favour of the Hierarchy could it be Evidenced But this could not be the settlement that was made in Crete For it would be strange that the Apostle should appoint a Hierarchy in Crete that should differ from the form of Government setled upon the Continent by himself and Barnabas who constituted Elders in every Church without appointing that we read of any Superiour Bishop or Metropolitan that should have a General Care and Inspection over the several Churches For my part I could not see how Titus should understand his Commission which was to ordain Elders in every City to carry any other Intention with reference to Crete than the very same words do when they are used to signifie what Paul himself who gave him this Commission had done upon the Continent where he and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church And therefore as Paul and Barnabas established single Congregations only and Organized them with Elders and then left them to govern themselves by their own Intrinsick powers So in the like manner Titus established Churches in every City and Organized them with Elders which having done it is very probable that he returned again unto S. Paul to give an account of his Commission Thus Titus his business in Crete has the very Idea and Signature of that of an Evangelist or a Secundary Apostle without the least Mark of an ordinary Bishop nor is there any hint in all the Authentick Scriptures of his being ordained Bishop of Crete or indeed of any place else And the like must be said of Timothy with reference to Ephesus who was sent to the Church there as a Visitor only with Apostolical Authority and so as S. Paul's Delegate Nor it Titus his ordaining of Elders a good Argument for sole Ordination for the word Tit. 1. 5. is the same that is used in Acts 6. 3. in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the People And one might well admire that the same word which is Translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordained in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if there were a plain Text for sole Ordination But what if Timothy and Titus had a power of sole Jurisdiction and a power too of making Canons for the Government of the Church which latter yet is an Authority that every Bishop will not pretend unto after their Example The Church then was in a State of Separation from Secular Government and among Heathen just as the Jews are now among Christians so that all it could do at that time was to perswade it could not compel And therefore it will not follow now that the Church is protected and not only protected by but Incorporated into the State that the Officers of it must have the same powers and Exercise them in the same manner as before or as Mr. Selden expresses it That England must be Governed as Ephesus or Crete It is certain that Kings would gain but little by the Bargain not to say they must depart with their Sovereignty to Incorporate the Christian Religion should this be admitted that Church-Authority Church-Power must be still the same after such Incorporation as before For a separate National Jurisdiction Exercised by one or many is a Solecism in State especially if it claim by the Title of Iure divino a Title that renders it Independent upon as well as unboundable and uncontroulable by all that is human Such a Jurisdiction would weaken that of Kings and other States All their Subjects would be but half Subjects and many none at all and it is no more nor less but that very same thing that heretofore was found so inconvenient and burden some under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie A Clergy imbodied within it self and independent on the State is in a Condition of being made a powerful Faction upon any Occasion and easie to be practised upon as being united under one or a few Heads who can presently convey the Malignity to all their Subordinates and these to the People So that I lay it down as a Maxim that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government than a National Hierarchy that does not depend upon it or is not in the Measures and Interests of it Fresh Experience has learned us this I know not with what Design it was said by Padre Paulo Sarpio of Venice but his Words are very remarkable as I find them cited from an Epistle of his to a Counsellor of Paris in the Year 1609. I am afraid says he in the behalf of the English of that great power of Bishops though under a King I have it in Suspicion when they shall meet with a King of that goodness as they will think it easie to work upon him or shall have any Archbishop of an high Spirit the Royal Authority shall be wounded and Bishops will aspire to an Absolute Domination Methinks I see a Horse Sadled in England and I guess that the old Rider will get on his Back But all these things depend on the Divine Providence Thus he very prudently as to the main though perhaps with some mistake as to his Conjecture For my part I think it but reason that such Persons as have the Benefit of Human Laws should in so much be guided by them and that the Sword which owns no other Edge but what the Magistrate gives it should not be used but by his Direction As indeed the practice in England has always been For as Mr. Selden observes Whatever Bishops do otherwise than the Law permits Westminster-Hall can controul or send them to absolve c. He also says very well That nothing has lost the Pope so much in his Supremacy as not acknowledging what Princes gave him 't is a scorn says he on the Civil Power and an unthankfulness in the Priest But adds he the Church runs to Iure divino lest if these should acknowledge what they have by positive Laws it might be as well taken from them as given to them Ay This excellent Person goes further so much further as to tell us That a Bishop as a Bishop had never any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England for as soon as he was Electus Confirmatus that is after the Three Proclamations in Bow-Church he might Exercise Jurisdiction before he was Consecrated and yet till then that he was Consecrated he was no Bishop neither could he give Orders Besides says he Suffragans were
Bishops and they never claimed any Jurisdiction As for the Angels in the Revelation I see no Evidence in what is said tho' much is said to prove them to have been Diocesans It will not follow they were single persons because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who would say they are compared to Stars and not to Constellations for the Truth is both these Words are used promiscuously as well for the Constellations as for the single Stars so that no stress is to be laid upon the Word that is used for either side Besides some are of the Opinion That to the making of it clear that these Angels were only single Persons and for that cause compared but to single Stars and not to Constellations sufficient Reason ought to be given why the Holy Ghost who expresly limits the Number of the Churches doth not in like manner limit the Number of the Angels belonging to them For say they when the Holy Ghost said The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches had he intended to signifie that the Angels were but seven as the Churches were he would in like manner have said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of those seven Churches But as I am not satisfied that any great Stress should be laid in things of Moment upon such Critical Nicities so should I yield without granting that these Angels were Stars or single Persons yet I should also think it but equal to demand What Reason there is to perswade that these Stars were other than the seven President Presbyters who were Chair-men in the several Presbyteries of those seven Churches Which Churches I take to be single Congregations For I see as yet no Reason but that as a Letter intended for the Honourable House of Commons may be directed to the Speaker so these Epistles intended for the seven Churches for that they were Rev. 2. 7 11 17 c. might be superscribed for the Chief Pastor or President Presbyter who probably at that Time was stiled the Bishop by way of Appropriation In fine what if by the Name of Angel an Angel properly so called should be understood And that the Epistles intended for the Churches Pastors and People were sent to them under the Name of their Guardian Angels Should this â—e so then farewel to any Ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And that it should be so is very agreeable to the Prophetical Spirit in the Revelation For the Revelation goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Dan. 10. 13 20 21. Which is further confirmed in that it seems to have been an Hypothesis obtaining in the first Age of Christianity that the several Churches or Assemblies of Christians had their Guardian Angels for it is very probable that in Relation and Aspect unto this Hypothesis the Apostle Paul does tell Women 1 Cor. 11. 10. That they ought to have power over their heads Because of the ANGELS the Expression seems to imply That there were Angels Guardians of the Assemblies who observed the Demeanour of All and therefore they ought to be Circumspect Modest and Decent in their Behaviour and in their Fashions and Garbs out of Respect to those Guardians And indeed the former Account of the Title of Angels is a more agreeable and easie one than that which some others give who by Angel understanding a Bishop in the Modern Sense of that Word believe the Denomination given with reference to a Practice among the Jews who they say as from Diodorus attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel But should it be yielded that the Jews had any such Practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High-Priest what could this amount unto in our Case since every Bishop is not an High Priest in the Sense of the Jews For in their Sense there could be but one and then that one among Christians must be a Pope or a Sovereign Bishop over all the Bishops as among the Jews the High Priest was over all the Priests But in reality the Jews had no such Practice nor does the alledged Diodorus say they had to call their High Priest Angel they called him High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his name but indeed he adds That they had a Belief of him That he was often made a Messenger or Angel of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as really he was when he had the Urim on him and this is all that Diodorus affirms Your other Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy which you ground upon the Traditional Succession of Bishops in several Sees down from the Times of the Apostles and in the Seats of the Apostles has no more of cogency in it than the former I know Tertullian l. de praescript adv Hae etieos says Precurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsâ— adhus Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c. And I acknowledg the Apostles may well enough be said to have sate in Chairs and others to succeed in them if the Chairs be understood of Chairs of Doctrin in the same Sense in which the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses's for in this Sense All those Churches were Apostolical and had Apostolical Succession which being founded upon the Doctrin of the Apostles had such persoâ—s only in any Authority over them as did continue therein But else I cannot believe my self obliged to assent that the Apostles had Chairs in Particular Churches tho' Tertullian's Words at first Sight may seem to sound that way than to believe the Story of the Cells of the 70 Translators a Story that S. Hierom not only confutes but Ridicules tho' it has this to be said for it That Iustin Martyr affirms he saw the Ruins of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandri Tertullian flourished but in the beginning of the third Century by which Time many Fob Traditions past Current of which Truth too many Instances are obvious in the Writings of that Father as well as of other Fathers Indeed Eusebius has given us Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops in several Churches but these Catalogues are only Conjectural and Traditionary Himself in the Proem of his Ecclesiastical History tells us of a great Chasm that was in that kind of History for the three first Centuries and that being alone and solitary in this kind of Performance he had nothing but Fragments here and there to help him from any of those who preceeded him Ay in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the Persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were quorum nomina non est facile explicare per
singulos And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul Ex Apostoli tamen Pauli sermonibus colligere possumus c. so that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought I see deserve but little more of Credit as being but little better ascertained than the Catalogue of the British Kings deduced from Brute In truth the Task is a little uneasie to make it clear That the Apostles were properly Bishops in the Modern Sense of the Word and that they had fixed Seats which yet is the Basis upon which such Catalogues must stand sure I am Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms their Office to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare so that in the Judgment of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers a sort of Officers that were unfixed As for Epaphroditus I cannot be peswaded by the bare Authority of S. Hierom whom yet I take for a very Learned as well as Pious Father much less by that of Walo Messalinus to believe against the Analogy of the Text That he was Bishop of the Philippians only because he is called by S. Paul their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. The Observation Walo has made of the Word Apostle that it is never used by the Evangelists by S. Paul in any other Place or by the other Apostles but only De Sancto Ministerio will hold no Water for I take it that Iohn 13 16. in which Place the Word is used in a Common Promiscuous Sense and rendred so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable Instance against him Irenaeus is also cited to prove that such a superiority as the Apostles themselves had in the Church was transmitted by them unto Bishops for say you this Father who distinguishes between the Bishops and Presbyters affirms That the Apostles delivered to the Bishops suum ipsorum locum Magisterii their own Place of Magisteriality or Government Irenaeus flourished towards the End of the 2d Century and yet so near as he was to the Apostles own Times if he affirmed as he is ageed by the most tho' not by all to have done That our Lord Christ did undergo his Passion in the fiftieth Year of his Age we shall have little Reason to be fond of his Authority in Matters which he takes upon Trust and by meer Report But admitting Irenaeus's Authority which I am unwilling to lessen to be as unblemished and as tight as one could wish it yet on this occasion it will do you but small Service for the Force of the Testimony which you cite from him depends on the Word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as you understand it a Masterly Authority but teaching and Doctrin for in this latter Sense the Word is often used by other Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as you may see l. 1. ep 3. and in other Places but this is a Sense that maketh nothing for you for then Irenaeus means no other than what Tertullian also affirms and none will deny that the Apostles delivered over to the Bishops their own Chairs of Doctrin so that succeeding Bishops or Pastors were obliged to deliver no other Doctrin unto their Flocks but that same which themselves had first received from those that were the Founders of Christianity In fine as to what you mention but somewhat invidiously concerning the Judgment of the Assembly of Divines the Gangrene of Mr. Edwards and the overflow that was of Sects and Heresies in the Late Times of the Interreign which you would insinuate to be occasioned by the Intermission of Episcopacy I answer that there were Sects and Heresies even in the Times of the Apostles and that Irenaeus S. Ausrin Philastrius and Epiphanius have furnished the Christian World with large Catalogues of them and of some in their own times and yet I doubt not you will acknowledge there were Bishops in the Church even in those times So that Episcopacy if it be not Coercive is no such Remedy against Sects and Heresies as you would have us believe and if it be Coercive it is not purely Christian and Spiritual but in so much has something in it of Secular and Worldly Thus I have reinforced my main Argument and removed such Exceptions as you take against it and now I shall not make your trouble much longer but to elucidate some Incident and By Passages which I will do with all the Brevity I can and without formality of Method only as they come to my Mind Peter is first named where ever the whole Colledge of the Apostles is called over but I do not inâ—er nor does it enforce that any Primacy was due unto him other than that of Precedence which All Protestants generally speaking allow him It doth not appear that Iames at the Council of Hierusalem spake with more Authority than the other Apostles as Bishop of the Place and President of the Synod Iesephus indeed takes notice of him under an eminent Character for Piety but not a word in that Author of his eminent Dignity as a Prelate As for Paul he calls him but plain Iames not Bishop Iames And though he put him before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. that preference might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother Gal. 1. 19. and consequently is no great Argument of his Prelacy in the modern sense of that word So Zomen's Censure of the practice of having more Bishops than one in one City does prove that practice though he did not approve it Epiphanius also is cited by many to evidence that practice I yield not that 1 Cor. 14. 34. which may be translated in the Assemblies will demonstrate that there were at that time several separate Meetings for Christian Offices in one City or Town where was but one Church And yet I grant it might happen to be so upon Occasion for our Experience Evinces it has been so of late in a time of Persecution among the Dissenting Churches and what has been in our time might on like Occasions have been before it However this Accident would not prove nor indeed do I find any other proof that there were in the first times of Christianity Pastors who had the Care of several Churches or that any Church at that time did take in several Cities or Towns which were remote a Church properly being a Coagregation and consequently the People of a Vicinage or Neighbourhood under Orders Cenchrea though one of the Ports of Corinth had a Church of its own distant from that at Corinth and none I think will say That that Church was Diocesan The Council of Chalcedon prohibited absolute Ordinations That the end of the World Matth. 28. 20. is literally to be understood of the end of the Jewish Policy or the Mosaical seculum