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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
Apostles as somewhere he does Christ is called a Bishop and that by a greater Man than Cyprian and yet I believe you will not infer from thence that the Bishops are Christs or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also That the Apostleship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the communication of the Names than for the same Reason That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so The Apostleship was an Episcopacy but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for any more than because it was called a Deaconry it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification for not to mention prophane Authors as Homer Plutarch Cicero c. in which we read the word It is certain Basil applies it often unto God Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles and therefore being a word of so general signification nothing is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy To be plain with you the Writers of the First Century Cyprian was in the Third had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship as you imagine even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops though he compares them sometimes to God and other times to Christ which I believe you insist not upon because you thought it a little too much yet he never that I can find compares them to the Apostles Their College if you will believe Ignatius was imitated not to say succeeded by the Presbytery I add That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us as Hierom also does That St. Mark ordained that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number though possibly not so early as to be an Institution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine not one word in Clemens Romanus a Writer of the First Age of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Office of the Apostleship He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution to wit the Bishops and Deacons of which more hereafter Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being by Office the first Preachers and Witnesses of Christ by whom they were immediately sent for that purpose then certainly that Work and Office as well as their Mission to it was extraordinary and but Temporary And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching and had framed them under perpetual standing Orders they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority either by way of Direction upon new Emergences or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages That was extraordinary too and by vertue of a Jurisdiction naturally arising and remaining in them as also in the Evangelists as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary is devolved upon any other Persons as Successors of the Apostles lyes on you to evince and I think it is an hard Province For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates while themselves were living or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living but only ordained That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church as their Successors but not before If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living I demand how that could be Can any come into the places of others even while these others possess them And again I demand whether there were or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction which I suppose you will not deny over the Prelates they instituted if they instituted any Then they transâ—erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates that is the Prelatâ—s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them for none does give that which he keeps I believe therefore you will say the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living but ordained that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches as their Successors But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded In what Scripture In what Fathers of the First Age or how came you to know of such an Order if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fathers transmits it All of any Aspect this way in any Father of the First Age is in Clemens Romanus and he is against you for having premised what is very remarkable and much to our purpose That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds that for that Cause to wit to end such strife they ordained Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed the forementioned Officers and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons of whom he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they namely the Apostles appointed the first fruits of those Cities and Countries where they had preached approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe This is a plain Testimony so plain that I see not how it can be evaded that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church of which one indeed was that of the Bishops But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others as in the sacred Scriptures it must be understood of the Presbyterian and not of the Prelatical Orders And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders which the Apostles had instituted to continue in the Church from time to time I did it with good Authority for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it He adds And moreover they gave it in direction That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had appointed should decease others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous
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
Ecclesiastical Bishop of a Diocess who was in the same degree with an Imperial Vicar was called by the Greeks a Patriarch and among the Latines was a Primate of Primates as the Bishop of Vienna who had under him two Primates the Primate of Aquitain and the Primate of Narbona Igitur saith Scaliger codem ordine gradu Patriarchs quo Vicarius praefectus Imperatoris uterque enim Diaecosios est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Canones loquintur ille 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And says Barlaam and indeed the whole Greek Church the Deference and Respect that was rendred to the See of Rome by the Fathers was so in this regard and only in this because that City was the principal Seat of the Empire Mr. Thorndick in his Book De rat jure fin controv c. 22. agrees in this Sentiment and is very particular Regiminis forma saith he quam in Imperium à Constantino introductam diximus in praefectorum praetorio potestate Iuris dicundi supremo loco à principali sita fuit Nam praefecto praetorio Galliarum suber at Galliarum Vicarius qui Treviris sedebat Vicarius Hispaniarum qui ut videtur Tarracone Vicarius Britannarum qui Eboraci proprerea enim concilio Arelatensi primus subscribit Eboracensis c. The sense of which I find in Dr. Stilling fleet now Bishop of Worcester when he says in his Rational Account part 2. ch 5. f. 394 395. For our better understanding the Force and Effect of this Nicene Canon we must cast our Eye a little upon the Civil Disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantine then lately altered from the former Disposition of it under Augustus and Adrian He therefore distributed the Administration of the Government of the Roman Empire under four Praefecti Praetorio but for the more convenient Management of it the whole Body of the Empire was cast into several Jurisdictions containing many Provinces within them which were in the Law called Diocesses over every one of which there was appointed a Vicarius or Lieutenant to one of the Praefecti Praetorio whose Residence was in the chief City of the Diocess where the Pretorium was and Justice was administred to all within that Diocess and thither Appeals were made under these were those Pro-consuls or Correctores who ruled in the particular Provinces and had their Residence in the Metropolis of it under whom were the particular Magistrates of every City Now according to this Disposition of the Empire the Western Parts of it contained in it seven of these Diocesses as under the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum was the Diocess of Gaul which contained seventeen Provinces The Diocess of Britain which contained five afterwards but three in Constantine's Time the Diocess of Spain seven Under the Praefectus Praetorio Italiae was the Diocess of Africa which had six Provinces the Diocess of Italy whose seat was Millain seven the Diocess of Rome ten Under the Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici was the Diocess of Illyricum in which were seventeen Provinces In the Eastern Division were the Ciocess of Thrace which had six Provinces the Diocess of Pontus eleven and so the Diocess of Afia the Oriental properly so called wherein Antioch was fifteen All which were under the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis The Aegyptian Diocess which had six Provinces was under the Praefectus Augustalis in the time of Theodosius the elder Illyricum was divided into two Diocesses the Eastern whose Metropolis was Thessalonica and had eleven Provinces the Western whose Metropolis was Syâ—mium and had six Provinces According to this Division of the Empire we may better understand the Affairs and Government of the Church which was modelled much after the same way unless where Ancient Custom or the Emperour's Edict did cause any variation For as the Cities had their Bishops so the Provinces had their Archbishops and the Diocesses their Primates whose Jurisdiction extended as far as the Diocess did and as the Convenius Iuridici were kept in the Chief City of the Diocess for Matters of Civil Judicature so the Chief Ecclesiastical Councils for the Affairs of the Church were to be kept there too for which there is an express Passage in the Codex of Theodosius whereby Care is taken that the same Course should be used in Ecclesiastical which was in Civil Matters so that such things which concerned them should be heard in the Synod of the Diocess This Adjustment of the Church to the Civil State in those times might happily be furthered by a Consideration That even in the first and best there was something that resembled it for what the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church Titus when he did the same is said to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City as if to ordain Presbyters in every Church and to do it in every City was but one thing and that Churches at that Time were only settled in Cities and but one Church in one City as indeed at first before the enlarging and spreading of Christianity it seems to have been ordâ—narily But whatever induced it it is certain that Christian Emperours and Kings particularly the famous Constantine and Charles the Great did out of a pious Zeal incorporate the Church into the State strengthen it with Laws and accomodate it and conform it but yet so that notwithstanding that Incorporation the two Jurisdictions were still kept too much divided the Church had Officers of its own linked each to other by a mutual Dependance Courts of its own and Councils of its own too as well as the State I say too much divided for as it is true That the Church at first did hold its Politick Administration in some subordination unto Emperours and Kings that these both called and directed Councils gave Investiture to Bishops and at last claimed Homage from them And that Archbishops that received their Palls from the Pope did yet receive their Ferulae the Ensigns of their Jurisdiction from the Emperours so tho' this were something it seems however to have been an Errour in the first Projectors that they made not this Subordination and Dependance greater since by this Omission Empires and Kingdoms were in a manner put into a State of War by setting up in them divided separate Jurisdictions I acknowledg the Errour though great and pardonable only to the Zeal and unexperience of the Times remained undiscovered for a while to wit till the Church had found its own Legs but then changing Tenure and claiming Iure Divim the Hierarchy began to strike at the Heads of those who had raised and exalted it and then Emperours and Kings themselves must be bearded and threatned too on all Occasions with the Spiritual Sword by Men who but for the Temporal might still have lived upon Alms. In fine the Kingdom and Priesthood every where contended for Superiority and not a Government but had its Guelfs and its Gibellines and then
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
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