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
Quid â—usâ—quâ—m meâ—â—nit exortis iliius Episcoporum auctoritais quae Ecclesiae Consuetudine post Marci mortem Alex nâ—â—iae atque â—o Exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed-plaâ—è ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias Communi Prisbyteroâ—um qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur Consiâ—io â—uisse Gubenatas That Clement no where makes any mention in his Epistle of that Eminent Authority of Bishops that by the Custom of the Church began when Mark was dead to be introduced at Alexaâ—dâ—ia and after that Example in other places but he plainly shews as the Apostle Paul also does that the Churches were then governed by the Common Council of the Elders all of which are stiled Bishops by him as well as by S Paul By what I have said you may see how little Satisfaction I received in the Proofs you gave me of the early distinction between Bishops and Presbyters for none of them do reach home unto the First Age and to the Dâ—ocesan Prelatical Bishop and if they did would move me but little For as for Tertullian he more than seems to be on my side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quique seniores Hon remistum non pretio sed Testimonio adepti That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them As for Clemens Alexandrinus his Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which you do imagine you have found the orders of the Celestial Hierarchy imitated in the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon this is but a Flourish of Rhetorick in that Father who though in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as also of Widows yet in his Stromata Lib. 6. 7. where he treats of the Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but Two the Presbyters and Deacons and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honoured with the first Seat But I am much surprized at your Citation of the Emperor Adrian his Epistle to Servianus recorded by Phlegon and related by Vopiscus for certainly it appears by that Epistle that Adrian had but little Acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of Men for he represents them as well as the other Inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most Injurious sort of Men and particularly says That those which Worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds That the very Patriarch Ipse ille Patriarcha coming into Egypt was constrained of some to Worship Serapis and others to Worship Christ. Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians and indeed more mistakingly for as for the Devotion of their Bishops to Serapis I cannot imagine any occasion that these Christians should give which with any Colour should render them suspected of that Idolatry but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross and this might it being a way of professing Christianity that at that Time was newly become the Mode and probably it had the Fate of New Modes which is to be approved of by some and be rejected and nick-named of others I am the more inclined to think that this Story of Serapis had some relation to the Christian Bishops who signed with the Sign of the Cross because I find in Pignorius in his Exposition of the Mensa Isaica that Serapis was used to be denoted by a Cross Vrceo says he superne infixa Crux Serapidem notat And says Rhodiginus Lect. ant l. 10. c. 8 9. figuram ejusmodi speaking of the Cross Serapidis pectori insculpâ—bant Egypâ—ii Adding out of Suidas That in the time of the Emperour Theodosius when the Temples of the Greeks were destroyed there were found in the Sacrary of Serapis certain Hieroglyphic Letters which resembled a Cross. But to let this pass I see no cogency in the Citation you make from the Emperour Adrian to evidence any such Distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter to have been in that time as is in ours and as you do plead for for in that Epistle there is only the Name of Bishop and Presbyter without any specification of Office signified by it either as to its Nature or Limits aâ—d possibly some will tell you That by the Coherence of tâ—e Epistle it is not so clear but that Adrian might intend the same Officers by Bishop and Presbyter But I have no list to engage in such a Dispute and therefore hasten to tell you what is above any that I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Expected that as I had essayed to set out a Scheme of Church-Government and such a one as I believed and do still believe to have been the Primitive and Original and of Apostolical Institution so you likewise would have given a Scheme according to your Sentiments and then by Comparing Scheme with Scheme and each with the Account of the Scriptures and other undoubted Accounts of the first Century we might at last come to have made a surer Judgment which was the Right and which the Wrong than now in the parcelling and retailing way you take it is possible to do Indeed to gain a true Light into the Nature and Frame of Church-Government in the whole extent of it one ought to distinguish the several States and Circumstances in which the Church hath been and accordingly consider the several Orders which were in it in those several States and the Grounds and Reasons of those several Orders Now the Church I speak of the Catholick or Evangelical Church may be considered either as it was a Constituting before it had received External Form and Shape as to Orders Or after it was Constituted and that the Apostles who had not only received Instructions from their Master what to do in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God but were likewise invited by the concidence of Events had put their last Hand unto it Again the Church after its being Constituted and Clothed with Orders undergoes a Double Consideration for it may be considered either as it subsisted and stood alone singly in a State of Separation from Secular Governments of the World or as it is united to them by the Laws and Ordinances that in several Countries are several which they have enacted and established about it Whosoever considers the Church whilst constituting before it had received its external Form and Orders ought at the same time to acknowledg That of necessity there must be persons to constitute it and cloth it with these Orders which persons if vested with Authority so to do are properly Officers but yet in that performance cannot be conceived to be or act as ordinary Officers these being permanent and standing and belonging to the Church as constituted whereas that Office had its place before the Constitution of the Church as being
at large Propter quod saith he diligenter de Traditione divinâ Apostolicâ servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per provincias universas teneâ—ur ut ad ordinationes rise celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praeposâ—us ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit quod apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostii ordinatione ut de universae fraternitatis Suffragio de Episcoporum qui in praesentia Convenerant quique de eo ad vos Litteras fecerant Iudicio Episcopatus is deferretur manus ei in Locum Basilidis imponeretur or imponerentur Wherefore it ought diligently to be observed and maintained as a thing of Divine Tradition and of Apostolical practice the which also is observed by us and almost in all the Provinces that to the end Ordinations may be rightly made the Bishops of the same Province which are nearest to that People for whom a Minister is ordained do all meet and that the Bishop be chosen the People being present who have a perfect Knowledge of the Life that every one hath led and also do throughly understand his ability by his Conversation And this we see you also have observed in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague on whom as well by the Suffrage of the Brotherhood as the Judgment of all the Bishops both those that were then present and those that sent you their Letters about him the Bishoprick was conferred and hands imposed in place of Basilides Those learned Men that have told us that the Christian Church was formed after the Fashion of the Synagogues and not of the Temple or rather the Tabernacle did certainly own a true Idea of this business There was but one Temple in all Iudea as but one Church and one High Priest to whom the other Priests as also the Levites in severel orders were subordinated as well as one to another in a certain line of Dependance But the Synagogues were many and many in one City even some Hundreds in Ierusalem and in every Synagogue if all had one form there were many Rulers Now particular Churches are unto the Catholick Church the same in proportion that Synagogues were to the Jewish To be sure this is manifest to whosoever considers it That Christ and his Apostles did carefully avoid the Imitation and Similitude of the Tabernacle in all their Institutions and all their Orders The Apostles were never called Chief Priests nor the Presbyters Priests the Ministers the Clergy nor the People the Laity no National Form of Church Government was ever Established no Consecration of Officers no Garments or Holy days or other such like Observances were ever appointed by them in Conformity to those of the Tabernacle But when the Judaizing Opinion which prevailed mightily even in the days of the Apostles had after their decease diffused and spread it self farther so that Christians came into an Admiration of the Orders Beauty and Pomp of the Temple which was but a fixed Tabernacle and Christianity it self became considered as by some it is this day but as another kind of Judaism then Ministers were turned into Priests Deacons to Levites and Ordination to Consecration the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was turned into a Sacrifice the Table to an Altar The Tabernacle Times and Seasons of Easter and Whitsuntide became generally observed only with some little Bowing and bending of themselves to Christianity and the Tabernacle Maintenance in time became insisted upon also as well as the Tabernacle Title Thus began the Defection which upon the Tabernacle Grounds and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick did afterwards grow up to a great height in most Countries in a National Form and Dependance but in none to that Perfection as under the Papacy which as it doth divide its Rites and Observances almost all from the Tabernacle so it can pretend to very little Authority for them but what conceited Analogies and some Congruities of Reason taken from the Tabernacle Orders and the Tabernacle Worship do afford unto them but Christ and his Apostles appointed not any National Forms as that under the Tabernacle was Indeed had the Apostles owned any Pretentions of a Design to erect a National much more an Universal Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church or had they done any thing to Occasion a Just Suspition of such a Design it would have much obstructed the true Design and End of their Mission which was the planting and spreading of Christianity For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own Defence and for Preservation of their own Inherent Prerogatives and Rights must have always opposed it since the Permission of such an Authority such a Power over their Subjects that would not only possess an Interest in their Consciences but be strengthened as a Secular Empire by a close Connection of all the parts of it and an exact Dependance and Subordination would render their own precarious such a pretence must needs have awakened the Jealousie of Kings as indeed it did when Christ but spake of a Kingdom though Spiritual and but in Hearts much more then had it been an External and Visible Kingdom for then Reason of State would for ever oppose Christianity But notwithstanding all that I have said I doubt not but you will tell me That the Government of the Church is Universal and that there is a Catholick Hierarchy that the Apostles were ordinary standing Officers and that as Apostles they were the very same in the Primitive Church that Diocesan Bishops are now and Dioccsan Bishops the same now the Apostles were then that the Apostles exercised Juridiction over the Particular Churches which they instituted And that Timothy and Titus who were Bishops not Congregational but Diocesan Bishops were ordained such by S. Paul And as you will tell me these and the like very plausible things of Bishops so I make no question but others will tell me as plausible of the Council at Ierusalem and of the Government of the Catholick Church by Councils and Synods of Bishops in Correspondence to that That the Apostles as Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops and that Diocesan Bishops as such should be Apostles seems so strange an Assertion and so much against the Common Sense of most Believers that I would rest the Controversie on that Issue Sure I am Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica tells us expreâ—ly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Pope is no Apostle for the Apestles did not make or ordain Apostles but Pastors or Teachers much less the Chief of the Apostles Thus he And indeed there were but twelve Apostles originally which number was so stated that it gave Denomination to their Order they were called the Twelve As for Paul who also was an Apostle and not of
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
of Mark So that it was not as Euâ—ichius reports it an Institution of this Evangelist But what way soever this Alteration had its beginning one may be tempted if the Epistles going under the name of Ignatius be indeed his to think that it had it very early for this Father doth every where speak of the Bishop in respect of the Presbyters as of God in respect of Christ and of Good or Christ in respect of the College of the Apostles and these are such Magnificent Expressions of Superiority that though they proceeded not from any Elation of mind in him that used them at first and used them perhaps but as Rhetorick yet they could not but occasion other Sentiments in others viz. as of the Bishops being of a Superiour Order so of something of Domination and Lordship in his Office And yet how great soever the Degeneracy was in the Time of Ignatius or very near it it was not so great then as in the following Ages Ignatius his Bishop for all the Gawdiness in which he dresses him was only a Congregational not a Diocesan Bishop those first Times knew nothing of the Diocesan Princely Prelate even the President that Iustin Martyr mentions was but a Congregational Pastour That Ignatius his Bishop was only Pastour of a single Congregation is evident in many Passages but I will cite but two or three to evince it The first is in his Epistle to the Ephesians where he speaks of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church ascending in Consort unto God so that the Bishop was the Mouth of the Congregation And afterward in the same Epistle in an Exhortation to these Ephesians when he presses them to obey their Bishop he speaks of them as of a single Congregation that could meet together for Acts of Worship Again in his Epistle to the Magnesians whom he also presses to obey their Bishop for this indeed is the Burthen of all his Epistles he plainly speaks of them as of a single Congregation Do you all assemble and meet saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together for so that Expression is rendred 1 Cor. 14 23. I have shewed what the Primitive Institution was as to Church-Orders and have shewed also how and how early the Alteration that was made in Congregations came on It was first a Presbytery and the Senior Presbyter the President then a Presbytery and the President elected but still a Presbyter afterward a President and no Presbyter not an Ab Beth din but a Nasi not a Senior Presbyter but a Prince or chief over the Presbytery And certainly one need to have but a little Experience in the Course of things to make a clear and distinct Conception of what hath been said upon this Subject That which remains to compleat the Discourse is to shew the same way from Common Principles how the Ecclesiastical Prelate or that Bishop over several Congregations of the better fort such as Cyprian Augustin c. if indeed they were such did first spring up I conceive with submission to better Judgments that this Bishop of whom we read nothing that I know of in the first Age or till towards the end if then of the second arose from the large Progression and spreading of Christianity for then in great Cities and their Appendages the number of Professors grew so great that all could no longer meet together in one place to Celebrate Divine Offices so that necessity compelled them to divide into several Congregations which if settled must have several Officers as Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet still the Bishop of the Mother Congregation as he had the main hand which is to be presumed in forming and settling the Daughter Churches so he still pretended to keep an Authority and Jurisdiction over them And this indeed had something of a Resemblance unto the Apostles who as they planted many Churches so they had always a Care of them but how far the Analogy will hold or where it strikes out I shall not trouble you now to say It is enough for the present to have shewed that Ecclesiastical Prelates had not Apostolical Institution and that at best they arose but by Occasions and Prudentially only upon the Increase of Believers What confirms this Notion is That we never read in the first Age and but rarely if ever in the second of Bishops that pretended it of themselves or that were affirmed by others to be the Successors of the Apostles In those first times no such Pretentions had place but afterwards when necessity arose in the Churches of sending out their Colonies then the Bishops of those Churches that sent them out soon found in the Jurisdiction of the Apostles something that by way of Analogy and with a little stretching might serve to countenance theirs over those that they had settled These are the Sentiments I have as to the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy in which I have made evident what Episcopacy it is I do believe is â—ure Divino and what not But I intend not to Discourse now of the Ius Ecclesiasticum by which only a Diocesan Bishop or of the Ius Civile by which the Lord Bishop is Constituted My Province now is only to shew what I have shewed that the Presbyter is the only Bishop Iure Divino Apostolico and that Prudential Considerations only made the Prelate first the Congregational and afterward the Diocesan Prelate of the better sort And in these Assertions I have my Vouchers and those Fathers and Fathers as learned and as Pious as any Churches ever owned and cited too by Bishop Iewell Verily saith he Chrysostom saith Inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest fermè nihil Between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference S. Hierom saith somewhat in a rougher sort Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret cum Apostolus perspicue doceat â—osdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops are all one S. Augustin saith Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Prepbyter hoc est summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the High Priest So saith S. Ambrose Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est There is but one Consecration of Prieâ—â— and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first And to what these Fatâ—ers say we may add the Testimony of Learned Grotius who for the Reputation he hath justly gained in the World oâ— great Knowledge and exact Criticism may possibly signifie somewhat with you He in his Epistle to Bignoâ—ius commending that of Clâ—ment which I have often cited among other Considerations that induced him to approve thereof as Genuine notes this as a main one
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
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