assist and help the Apostles in the Work of founding and settling the Churches for this cause left I there in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or left undone to wit by Paul and ordain Elders in every City T it 1. 5. In the Acts of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain Elders in every Church and here Titus is said to be left in Crete to do it Indeed both Timothy and Titus in what they did the one at Ephesus the other at Crete were only Deputies that acted as by Delegation of S. Paul according to the Instructions which he gave them for this Apostle saith to Titus I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders AS I HAD APPOINTED and sets out the Qualifications that Titus must observe in the Elders he ordained Tit. 1. verse 6 7 8 c. In like manner he instructs Timothy how he was to behave himself in the House of God in settling Elders and Deacons 1 Tim. from 1 to 15. so that if Bishops be not Evangelists as well as Apostles I do not see of what Advantage Timothy and Titus their Business at Ephesus and at Crete can be to your Cause 〈…〉 of our Lord was Bishop of Ierusalem 〈…〉 and that he is stiled Bishop by S. Luke who yet had a fair Occasion 〈◊〉 it in his Acts of the Apostles had Iames been indeed such a Bishop nor is he so styled by any other of the Sacred Writers and if we except the Râ—â— Clement in an Epistle said to be his the first that stiled him so was Hegesippus who lived at least a whole Century after Another Clement he of Alexandria is also cited by Theodorus Mitochita and by others to prove it but really the Story as Clement tells it if they represent him right carries its own Confutation for they make him say That Iames by Divine Appointment was ordained to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem to prevent any Emulation and Dispute that Peter Iohn and the other Iames might otherwise have had for that honour But however that was I do acknowledge for my own part that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem but I acknowledge it only in the sense in which he was Bishop of all the other Churches and he was no more in the Opinion of the first Clement if we credit Bishop Iewell for this Bishop in the Defence of his Apology Part 2. Page 98. brings in Clement speaking thus I send greeting unto Iames the Brother of our Lord and the Bishop of Bishops Governour of the Holy Church of the Jews at Ierusalem and also of all the Churches that by Gods Providence are every where founded here faith Bishop Iewell Iames is the Head of all Churches whatsoever By this Testimony it plainly appears that Iames the reputed Bishop of Ierusalem as he was Iames the Apostle so he was no otherwise Bishop of that City than as Peter was of Rome and how that was Dr. Reinolds has told us in his Conference with Hart where he saith But whether Eusebius or Hierom or Damasus or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop either they use the name of Bishop generally and so it proves not your purpose or if they meant it as commonly we do they missed the Truth for generally a Bishop is an Overseer in which Signification it reaches to all who are put in Trust with Oversight and Charge of any thing as Eliazer is called Bishop of the Tabernacle and Christ the Bishop of our Souls But in our common use of speech it notes him to whom the oversight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus Philippi and they whom Christ calls the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this latter sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to Preach to all the World wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to have meant it In fine it may not be amiss on this occasion to take notice of an Observation made by a learned Man and he too a Bishop in reference to the Testimony of Fathers to wit That they wrote things they saw not and so framâ— matters according to their own Conceits and many of them were taintâ— with Partial Humours which another more softly expresseth thus Tâ—â— they namely the Fathers finding the name of Bishop continued in the 〈◊〉 cession of one Paster after another judged 〈…〉 according to them that lived in their times An Observa◠〈…〉 use with respect to the Fathers that lived at a greater distance than 〈◊〉 be of Clement did from the Apostolical time Thus I have briefly touched the Arguments offered by you in affirmance of Diocesan Episcopacy only to that which is taken from the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation I have said nothing because I do not think it worthy of a particular Consideration for since these Angels for ought we know might be only so many several Presidents of the Presbyteries in Congregational Churches the instancing of them makes but little for your purpose who do affirm Diocesan Prelacy But as you have argued for Diocesan Authority which you would have of Apostolical Institution so others do for the Synodical which as they apprehend is grounded upon the Synod so they call the Assembly at Ierusalem that was convened upon the appeal made by the Believers at Antioch For say they this Controversie was absolutely and finally decided by that0 Synod and a Decree or Canon made and this sent not only to the Church at Anticch but to all the Churches besides of Syria and Cilicia I deny not that the former Practice was the Occasion of Synods or Assemblies of Bishops but I affirm that that Assembly though it had something in it of more resemblance to a Synod properly so called than is in meer Convocations of the Clergy the Brethren as well as the Apostles and Elders being in that Assembly who generally are Excluded from Convocations yet it was not properly a Synod A Synod properly whether Diocesan Provincial or National being but an Ecclesiastical Parliament of the one sort or of the other in which all that are obliged by the Determinations and Resolutions of it must be understood to be in Person or by Representation as either being there themselves or else electing those that do Compose it to represent and stand for them The Controversie at Antioch was about a Doctrinal Subject of great Concernment whether Circumcision and Obedience to all the Mosaical Laws was necessary to Salvation for This some of Iudea taught the Brethren and were opposed for it by S. Paul and Barnabas but the Contention running high and neither side yielding all agreed to send to Ierusâ—lem to the Apostles and Elders â— to the Original Deliverers of the Christian Doctrin which being a Doctrin â—f Faith and not of Discourse and Ratiocination they rightly judged that it â—ust be
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word that commonly signifies Strength not Authority Besides if this putting away v. 2. must be understood as certainly it must of the same putting away with that v. 13. nothing can be plainer than that it was a Censure the People could and ought to have made of themselves without expecting any new Commission as being in a matter that by the Apostles own Concession they had a proper Cognisance of and over a Person too whose competent Judges they were as the same Apostle tells them Do not you judge them that are within therefore put away c. putting away is grounded on the Peoples Judgment but delivery unto Satan upon the Apostles And yet however putting away may well be called an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rebuke and be a kind of Punishment for to be excluded from the Common Society and Conversation of the Faithful cannot deserve a milder Expression You still insist That there is and ought to be a Disparity of Ministers because there was a Disparity between the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples and with Blondel think that the 70 continued in the same Office after the Ascension of our Lord that they had before for you say You cannot believe they withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men. But tho' you do not believe as I know no need you should that the 70 withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men yet if their Office was only occasional that is if they were sent by our Saviour to the House of Israel as Messengers upon some particular Occasions and about a particular Business then their Office ceased of Course at their Return like that of a Prince's Envoy whose Office ends with his Business that is as soon as his Message is done and he returned with the Account of it I know of no Jurisdiction the 12 Apostles had over the 70 but am sure the Office and Work of the 70 whatever it was related but to the Jews as being a Business only for that Time a Time that was the Crepusculum or Twi-light between the Law and Gospel Judaism and Christianity while as yet the Kingdom of Heaven was only at hand but not come Luke 10. 9. I add That the Office of the 70 is not reckoned in the number of the Ascension Gifts Eph. 4. 11. And which is more that the Apostles themselves had they not received another a new Commission after the Reâ—urrection of Christ they by their former old one which confirmed them unto Iudaea as that of the 70 also did them and which was only for a preliminary Work Matth. 10. 7. as that of the 70 also was could not have had an Authority to preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles and so to lay the Foundation of the Catholick Church And therefore the first Commission as it was limited so it was Temporary and expired at furthest when a second was given them Matth. 28 18 19. Acts 1. 8. Not but that the 70 as well as the 12 had Business in the Kingdom of Heaven or the Evangelical State but they had it not under the Denomination of the 70 or in vertue of their first Commission or Mission but only as they came to be Officers in this Kingdom by being constituted Evangelists or Prophets or Pastors and Teachers or Deacons c. You offer again in Confirmation of your Notion of the Apostleship of Bishops that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation were Bishops constituted by the Apostles with the same Authority themselves had and that the Twelve Apostles and Paul were not all the Apostles that the Scripture speaks of for Barnabas and others were Apostles too as well as they I acknowledge Barnabas to be an Apostle but I cannot acknowledge that he was an Apostle of the same Rank with the Twelve and Paul for as Paul himself distinguishes Gal. 1. 1. All Apostles were not of the same Rank but some were in the first some in the second Order that is some were Apostles sent immediately by Christ himself and so were Legates à latere and some were sent not immediately by Christ himself but by Men. Now Paul insists That himself was an Apostle of the first Order and in the same Rank with the Twelve Gal. 1. 17. whereas it is plain that Barnabas and all the others who are called Apostles can pretend to be but of the second they being sent not immediately by Christ himself as those of the first were but only by Man either by the Apostles that were of the first Order as Timothy and Titus by Paul or by some Church as Barnabas Acts 11. 22. for here the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him as the word Imports that is used Acts 13 3. Apostles of the second Order are called also Evangelists and it was their business to be Assistant unto those of the first if not always to their Persons yet at least to their Work which was to plant Churches by making of Conversions and setling Orders And of this sort of Apostles I again acknowledge Timothy and Titus to have been I proved in my former Paper that Timothy and Titus were Evangilists but it seems the Argument I used loses all its force with you because its strength like that of the Arch-work lies in the Combination and Concurrence and you consider it only in pieces not as a whole and all its parts together and United but only separately and part by part As for Timothy methinks we do too often find him with S. Paul in his Perambulations to have any reason to conceive that he was resident Bishop of Ephesus and for Titus his Diocess seems too large for any ordinary Bishop Crete is famed to have had an hundred Cities in old time and Pliny assures us L. 4. c. 12. that in his there were forty which were enough for so many Bishopricks Titus had it in Charge Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City and to ordain Elders in every City was to settle a Church in every City so that if every Church must have a Bishop as some are confident it must then every City in Crete that had a Church had also a Bishop and so possibly there were as many Bishops and Bishopricks in Crete as there were Cities This Consideration if well weighed will much abate of the Authority of the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus in which this Evangelist is stiled the Ordained Bishop in the Church of the Cretians for according to the Language of that time had Titus been indeed the Bishop of that whole Island he ought to have been stiled Bishop of the Churches and not of the Church of the Cretians But it seems it is taken for granted that a Bishop must have but
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
will not be received meeâ—ly upon your Authority or upon the Authority of any Men that lived in Times remote from the first for it requires a Proof either from some Text of the Holy Scriptures or from some other Record of that same Time It is clear to me That the Exaresis the separation or taking away from among them is the only Excommunication that is mentioned by the Apostles in 1 Cor. 5. and yet I fancy since it answered to the Jewish Nidui which excluded not from the Temple it is not that which you intend However it is plain that this Exeresis was not a Delivery unto Satan for the Apostle speaks of the Separation or taking away of the Man from among them as of a thing they ought to have done of themselves without any Interposition of his Verse 2. And you are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed night be taken away from among you to wit according to the purport of a former Epistle v. 9. whereas the delivery unto Satan was the Apostle's own proper Act effected by his Apostolical Spirit and by the mighty Power of the Lord Jesus Christ verse 3 4 5. Again it is plain that this Exaresis was nothing but their Noncommunicating and Nonconversing with the Incestuous the Corinthians being obliged in point of Duty to have excluded him from their Society so as ordinarily not to keep him Company for such a Direction had bin given to them by the Apostle in a former Epistle v. 9. as a Rule of their Deportment towards the Ungodly which Rule he yet found himself obliged to Explain and Qualifie in thi as which was only to be understood of their Demeauour towards Professouâ—s and indeed unless they would go out of the World practicable only towards these and so not to be understood absolutely and unlimitedly of all verse 11. And having touched their Remisness verse 2. and reinscrced his Direction with its due Limitation and Qualification verse 10 11. â—e presses them to follow it in their Carriage towards this incestuous Person verse 13. THEREFORE put away from among your selves that wicked person THEREFORE to wit because I did write unto you in a former Epistle not to accompany with Fornicators which now I tell you must be understood of Professors that are such therefore put away from among your selves that wicked Fornicator and so purge out the old Leaven by avoiding Conversation and Society with him as much as is posfible The connexion sheweth That not accompanying with this Wicked one is the same with purging out the Old Leaven and not accompanying with him was their putting him away from among themselves Not accompanying with him was their Judgment upon him but the Delivery of him unto Satan was the Apostle's no Instance can be given of any Persons that gave up any unto Satan but the Apostles Thus if you please to take the Trouble of reviewing the Text a second time with its intire Coherence you cannot but observe That it shews that something must be done by the Apostle's own Power and something by the People's in what relates unto the Apostle's there is first the Motive or Inducement he had to consider the Matter and this was the general Scandal of it verse 1. Secondly The Evidence whereupon he did proceed to pass this Sentence which was his own Spiritual View though he was absent in body yet he was present in spirit the Antithesis must be marked and therefore he judgeth verse 2. Thirdly The Sentence which he passed and that was That the Criminal should be delivered to Satan verse 5. Fourthly The manner how this Sentence was to be executed and that was in a full congregation in the name of Christ with the apostolical Spirit and by the mighty Power of the Lord Iesus Christ verseâ— And shew me the Diocesan that can do all this What follows in the Chapter relates to the Judgment of the People and their putting of the Incestuous away which as I have shewed and that by the Reference and Coherence is quite another thing than the delivery of him to Satan By this Time I believe it is very manifest That Diocesan Jurisdiction cannot be founded with any clearness of Title upon the Instance alledged this being plainly Apostolical and grounded on that Authority which S. Paul had in a particular manner over the Church of Corinth both as he was an Apostle and as their Apostle and Founder and no Example must be pressed further than the Ground and Reason thereof will carry it As for Timothy and Titus who are honoured by you as well as by other with the Title of Bishops there is foâ— much said toward the unbishoping of them by Mr. Prinne and by Smectymnuus c. that I need say nothing wherefore I will only offer that neither of them is stiled a Bishop in the Holy Scripture for the Epistolary Postscripts are none when-ever it mentions the being of them at their reputed Bishopricks the one at Ephisus the other at Crete Again Timothy in effect is stiled an Evangelist by S. Paul for when this Apostle exhorts Timothy to make a faithful Discharge of the Office committed to him his Expression is do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. And indeed as an Evangelist was a Secondary Apostle that is not a settled standing Officer fixed in any one planted constituted Church but an Assistant to the Apostles in planting and settling Churches so we find Timothy as an Itinerant Officer often going from Place to Place upon occasion as he was Invited or Imployed by Paul The Stay he makes even at Ephesus was only upon the Desire of that Apostle and not from any Obligation arising from the Duty of his Place as had he been a Bishop it would certainly have been for 1 Tim. 1. 3. Paul is said to request Timothy to stay at Ephesus but is not said to have ordained him Bishop there In short the Tenor of the Epistle that mentions the being of Timothy at Ephesus as it directs him in the Choice of Officers and gives him Disciplinary Rules so it sheweth plainly that his Business there was to perfect the Work of the Settlement of the Church begun by Paul and this is the more probable because his Stay and Business is limited to that Apostle's Return 1 Tim. 1. 3. compared with Chap. 3. 14 15. Chap. 4. 13. And for Titus it is as evident that all his Business at Crete was that of an Evangelist as that Timothy's was so at Ephesus for he was left at Crete that is the Expression he is not said to be ordained Bishop or Metropolitan there no more than Timothy is said to be ordained the Bishop of Ephesus but as the latter is affirmed to be requested to stay and not to have been settled as Bishop there fo the former is only said to be left at Crete And what for but to do the Work of an Evangelist for so it was to
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