of Deut. XVII 18. the Jews need not tell us as they doe Maimoni by name Tit. de Syncdrio that they were not bound to observe that in their dispersions for how could there be Consistories for the Jews in all Cities all over the world but this they tell us withall in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init that thereby they hold themselves bound to erect Consistories in the chief Cities of their dispersions In this condition what is the difference between the state of the Synagogue and the Church setting aside that essentiall difference between the Law and the Gospel by which Judaism was confined to one Nation but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles By reason whereof the Law ceased as it was proper to the Jews and Christians became obliged only to the perpetual Law of God besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord as of Baptism the Eucharist and the Power of the Keys by virtue whereof and by the generall Commission of the Apostles all Ordinances whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church were to be received as the Commandements of God Here is the reason for which it is probable that the Apostles in designing the Government of the Church should follow no other pattern then that which they saw in use by the Law in the Synagogue For the design in both being to maintain the Law of God and the unity of his people in his service saving the difference between them what form should they follow but that which the Law had taught their Fore-fathers But when the effect hereof appears in the first lines of this modell traced by the Apostles and filled up by their Successors it is manifest that these Laws were the pattern but the Order of the Apostles the Act which put it in being and force The Churches of Jerusalem Antiochia Rome and Alexandria no man can deny were planted by the Apostles in person and by their Deputies That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them is no more then that which the Consistories planted at Jerusalem or Tiberias and in the chief Cities of the Jews dispersions were to the Synagogues underneath them by virtue of the Law This is therefore the Originall of the dependence of Churches upon the greatest Mother Churches And therefore it is no marvell that Jerusalem once the Mother City of Christianity became afterwards the seat of a Patriarch indeed in remembrance of that privilege but inferiour in dignity and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest because it was none of the greatest and most Capitall Cities The Rule of the Apostles design being this that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches And that Constantinople when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire was put in the next place to the Chief as it was no act of the Apostles so it is an argument of the Rule by which the rest had been ordered for the same reason As for the other Law of Deu. XVI 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it then that Rule of the ancient Church which is to be seen not only in those few ancient Canons alledged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers that Cathedrall Churches and Cities be convertible that is both of the same extent Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romanes is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The presidence here expressed argueth the eminence of that Church above the rest of the Churches about it But Clemens directeth his Epistle from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we understand that the Country lying under the City belonged to the Church founded in the City and was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which we now call the Diocese in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears because Polycarp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians in this style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Country adjoining belonged to the Church of that City This reason therefore was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antiochians in Ignatius his name granting it to be of an age much inferiour to his For he inscribeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifying thereby that all the Christians of Syria belonged to the Church of Antiochia for which reason Ignatius himself in his Epistle to the Romanes calls himself Bishop of Syria not of Antiochia because being Bishop of the Head City Church the Christians of Syria either belonged to his Church or to the Churches that were under it A thing so necessary to be beleeved that there are many marks in his Epistles to shew that the Churches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time and as the reason of the civile Government required those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached having continued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia And thus are the words of Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians fulfilled where he saith that the Apostles having preached the Gospel in Cities and Countries constituted Bishops and Ministers of those that should beleeve to wit according to the Cities and Countries adjoining to them Those marks come from the ancientest Records the Church hath after the writings of the Apostles Of the rest there would be no end if a man would allege them If any man object that it cannot be made to appear how this Rule was ever observed in the Church the extent of Cathedrall Churches being in some Countries so strait in other so large The answer is that it ceaseth not to be a Rule though the execution of it was very different in severall Countries either because not understood so well as it should have been or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it so as that of others For the East we have these words of Walafridus Strabo libs de Rebus Ecclesiasticis Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas Vrbes Praefecturas singulas esse Episcoporum gubernationes Whereby we understand that Cathedrall Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts then in the West For thereupon it became observable to Walafridus In Africk if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine we shall finde hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Councell In Ireland alone S. Patrick is said by Ninius at the first plantation of Christianity to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishopricks On the other side in England we see still how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln and yet if we look into Almain and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great we
rather then by the neighbour Bishops of the Romane Empire from whence they received Christianity The Head of a Monastery in Aegypt being a Presbyter is said by Cassiane Collat. IV. 2. to have promoted a Monk whom he loved to the Priesthood Is not this done by recommending him to his Bishop for that purpose though he Ordained him not himself The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield are said by Bede Eccles Hist Angl. III. 3 5. to come from the Monastery of Hy governed by a Priest And it is true that the Monks of that Monastery having great reputation of holinesse swaied the Church there But withall Bede mentions expresly the Synod of the Province and therefore we need ask no further who Ordained them Bishops knowing that by the Primitive Rules of the Church it is the Act of a Synod Some seem to conceive this to be the meaning of the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 11. where he saith that at first the eldest of the Presbyters succeeded the Bishop but that afterwards the course was changed ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum which they understand thus That his merit and not the Bench of Presbyters should make the Bishop thenceforth and therefore that formerly the Presbyters did it But this is nothing For it is plain that Ordo here signifies not the Bench of Presbyters but a mans Rank in it according to the time of his promotion to it These others of his slight Objections are easily wiped away But there are two which seem to most men to create some difficulty The one is the ninth Canon of the Councell of Ancyra which if the reading be true which he produces and Walo Messalinus presses intimates plain enough that City Presbyters might Ordain Presbyters at that time when it was made The other is the Antiquities of the Church of Alexandria published not long since out of Eutychius his History who was Patriarch there in his time and affirms that from S. Mark to Demetrius the Bishop there was not only chosen but Ordained by Imposition of the Hands of twelve Presbyters of that Church To the Canon of Ancyra I acknowledge that the reading which they follow is beside the Copies which they allege found in a very ancient written one of the Library at Oxford as well as in the old Latine Translation of Dionysius Exiguus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it be not lawfull for Country Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons Nor for the City Presbyters without leave granted from the Bishop by Letters in every Parish But I cannot grant this reading to be true which so many circumstances render questionable First in an Arabick Paraphrase now extant in the same Library there is nothing to be found of that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Isidore Mercators Translation which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus wherewith that Copy agreed which Hervetus translated as also Fulgentius his Breviate Can. XCII and the Copy of Dionysius Exiguus which Pope Adriane the I. followed hath onely this Vicariis Episcoporum quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconas Ordinare Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere Thirdly can the reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable to reasonable persons what consequence of sense is there in saying unlesse license be granted by letters in every Parish Which is plain in this reading when it is said That the City Presbyters do nothing in the Parish that is in the Country or Diocese without authority by the Bishops letters Fourthly seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for by the Councel of Laodicea Ca. LVI in the same subject it seems very probable that this should be the provision which the Councell of Ancyra intended as all Ignatius his Epistles and other Canons Apost XL. Arelat XIX expresse it Though for my part I do not beleeve that we have the true reading of this Canon in any Copy that I have heard of or seen Because the Arabick Paraphrase aforesaid deduces the clause of the Country Bishops at large that it is not granted them Vt faciant Presbyteros neque Diaconos omnino neque in Villa neque in Vrbe absque mandato Episcopi Nisi rogatus fuerit Episcopus hac de re permiserit eis ut faciant eos necnon scripserit eis scriptum quod authoritatem dabit eis eadem de re Whereupon I do beleeve that the Canon is abridged and curtailed in all Copies and that the true intent of it consists in two clauses The first that Country Bishops Ordain neither Presbyters nor Deacons without leave under the Bishops hand The second that the City Presbyters do nothing in the Diocese without the like leave Though I undertake not to give you the words of mine own head As for Eutychius I cannot admit his relation to be Historicall truth having forfeited his credit in that part of it where he says that there were no Bishops in Aegypt beside him of Alexandria before Demetrius The contrary whereof appears by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 1. where he says of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That then lately Demetrius after Julian had undertook the Bishoprick of the Dioceses there For where there were Dioceses there were Bishops And if Demetrius after Julian governed the Dioceses of Aegypt because Bishop of Alexandria then were there other Episcopall Churches in that Province besides Alexandria before Demetrius Indeed if there had been no Bishops under Alexandria it could not reasonably be avoided that the Bishop should be Ordained by the Presbyters Otherwise forein Bishops that should be called to Ordain them a Bishop must by so doing purchase a Power over that Church which never any can be said to have had over those Capitall Churches of Antiochia Rome Alexandria or Constantinople But supposing that there were Bishops under him of Alexandria it is a greater inconvenience to grant that their Chief should be made without their consent which Ordination implies by the often quoted rule of S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. by the Presbyters of Alexandria And therefore when S. Hierome says Epist LXXXV that Bishops were set over the Presbyters by custome of the Church to avoid Schism because that Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist till Heraclas and Dionysius were Bishops the Presbyters were wont to choose one of their number and placing him in a higher degree named him their Bishop I am not to grant that he intends by these words that he was Ordained also by the Presbyters For instance Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 29. relating that at the Ordination of Fabianus
at Rome a Dove lighting upon his head the people crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tooke him presently and set him in the Bishops Throne And yet it cannot be said that therefore the people Ordained him Bishop So likewise the Presbyters of Alexandria seated one of their number in the Bishops Chair saith S. Hierome This installing must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops assembled to the Ordination which regularly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops that their choice was never known to have been void before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument though ineffectuall But seeing Eusebius shews us that there were other Bishops in Aegypt seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith that he planted Churches in Pentapolis which seem to be those over which the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is established by the Councell of Nice Can. IX I must not grant that they received their chief from the Presbyters of Alexandria without their own consent expressed by Imposition of Hands This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages in point of Historicall truth But supposing not granting them both I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them prejudiciall to the Order of Bishops and the necessity thereof above Presbyters For seeing it is acknowledged that S. Mark Ordained a Bishop always to be Head of that Church and that by virtue of this Ordinance the Presbyters finde themselves obliged to proceed to create one which they did sooner at Alexandria then in other Churches after the vacancy saith Epiphanius Haer. LXIX 11. it is manifest that the authority of a Bishop is necessary to the validity of all Acts of the Church by S. Marks Ordinance when they acknowledge themselves necessitated to make one in the first place that the Acts thereof may be valid Again as to the Canon of Ancyra suppose Presbyters were Ordained by Presbyters upon Commission from the Bishop is this any prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bishop Or is it any advantage to them that would have no Bishops and so do all against the Bishop To my reason it seems necessary to distinguish between the solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudiciall to any Power to doe that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it The dependence of the Church being safe by the Commission acknowledged and the Unity of the Church by that dependence Some acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this distinction As the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City Church which is the Apostolicall Rule for Episcopall Churches For the aforesaid Arabick Paraphrase of the Canon of Ancyra describes them thus Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum hoc est Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas qua fuerint in universa operatione id est Diocesi The meaning of Country Bishops is that they are Bishops of Villages that is the Bishops Vicars in the best inhabited Villages of all the Diocese So it seems that they were set over the greater Villages or Bodies of Villages which in regard of some secular Right resort to some one Village lying within the Territory of some Episcopall City Therefore the Councell of Antiochia saith expresly Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern are both subject to the Bishop of the City Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop and so not properly Bishops which are Ordained by a Synod or the Representatives of it and that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Canon there mentions And this is the reason why they are called Vicarii Episcoporum Bishops Deputies in the ancient Translation of the Canons as you have seen So if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Ordain Presbyters within their own precinct for that must be the meaning of it when it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying part of the Territory of the City assigned to their peculiar care it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop not to be exercised without Letters under his hand and seal as the Canon expresseth Again I suppose no man will deny that all Ordinations in Schism are meer nullities though made by persons rightly Ordained because against the Unity of the Church And yet we finde such Ordinations made valid by the meer Decree of the Church without Ordaining anew As the Meletians in Aegypt by the Councell of Nice in Epiphanius and the Ecclesiasticall Histories and as Pope Melchiades much commended for it by S. Augustine offered to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks besides divers others that might be produced Among which that expressed in the Canons Antioch XIII Apost XXXVI deserves to be remembred whereby Ordinations made in another Bishops Diocese are made void For the only reason why some things though they be ill done yet are to stand good is because the Power that doth them extendeth to them but is ill used So when the Power is usurped as in all Schism or when that is done which the Law makes void it can be to no effect Therefore when the act of Schism is made valid it is manifest that the Order of Bishop Presbyter is conferred in point of Right by the meer consent of the Church which by the precedent Ordination was conferred only in point of Fact being a meer nullity in point of Right Adde hereunto that of the Apostolicall Constitutions VIII 27. that a Bishop may be Ordained by one Bishop being inabled by an Order of the rest of the Province when they cannot assemble in case of persecution or the like For here the Power is derived from all though the solemnity be executed by one By the same reason it is that Confirmation in Aegypt was done by the Presbyters As the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. agreeing with the Author of the Quaestions in Vet. Novum Testam Quaest CI. among S. Augustines Works witnesseth For that is it which the one of them means by consignant the other by consecrat because both limit their assertion that it was onely done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops For seeing it was done onely in the absence of the Bishop by consequence it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop by which the custome was established And therefore cannot be prejudiciall to that Power by virtue whereof it was done as by authority derived from it And to my understanding this is the reason of that which we finde done Acts XIII 1 where
may finde perhaps larger then it The Rule notwithstanding all this is the same that Cathedrall Churches be founded in Cities though Cities are diversly reckoned in severall Countries nay though perhaps some Countries where the Gospel comes have scarce any thing worth the name of Cities Where the Rule must be executed according to the discretion of men that have it in hand and the condition of times This we may generally observe that Churches were erected in greater number when they were erected without indowment established by temporall Law So that in one of the Africane Canons it is questionable whether a Bishop have many Presbyters under him Fewer still where they were founded by Princes professing Christianity upon temporall endowments And upon this consideration it will be no prejudice to this Rule that in Aegypt till the time of Demetrius there was no Cathedrall Church but that of Alexandria If it be fit to beleeve the late Antiquities of that Church published out of Eutychius because they seem to agree with that which S. Hierome reporteth of that Church As to this day if we beleeve the Jesuites whose relation you may see in Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum I. 32. there is but one for all Prester Johns Dominion or the County of the Abassines For though men would not or could not execute the Rule so as it took place in more civile Countries yet that such a Rule there was is easie to beleeve when we see Christianity suffer as it does in those Countries professing Christ by the neglect of it Before I leave this point I will touch one argument to the whole question drawn from common sense presupposing Historicall truth For they that place the chief power in Congregations or require at all severall Presbyteries for the government of severall Congregations are bound at least to shew us that Congregations were distinguished in the times of the Apostles if they will entitle their design to them Which I utterly deny that they were I doe beleeve the Presbyterians have convinced those of the Congregations that in S. Pauls time the Churches to whom he writes contained such numbers as could by no means assemble at once But severall Churches they could not make being not distinguished into severall Congregations but meeting together from time to time according to opportunity and order given About S. Cyprians time and not afore I finde mention of Congregations setled in the Country For in his XXVIII Epistle you have mention of one Gaius Presbyter Diddensis which was the name of some place near Carthage the Church whereof was under the cure of this Gaius and in the life of Pope Dionysius about this time it is said that he divided the Dioceses into Churches and in Epiphanius against the Manichees speaking of the beginning of them under Probus about this time there is mention of one Trypho Presbyter of Diodoris a Village as it seems by his relation there under Archelaus then Bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia Likewise in an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria reported by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 24. there is mention of the Presbyters and Teachers of the brethren in the Villages And those Churches of the Country called Mareotes hard by Alexandria which Socrates Eccles Hist I. 27. saith were Parishes of the Church of Alexandria in the time of Constantine must needs be thought to have been established long before that time whereof he writes there After this in the Canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea and those writings that follow there is oftentimes difference made between City and country Presbyters In Cities this must needs have been begun long afore as we find mention of it at Rome in the life of Pope Cains where it is said that he divided the Titles and Coemiteries among the Presbyters and the distribution of the Wards of Alexandria and the Churches of them mentioned by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII LXIX seems to have been made long before the time whereof he speaks But when Justin Martyr says expresly Apol. II. that in his time those out of the Country and those in the City assembled in one farre was it from distinguishing setled Congregations under the Apostles Which if it be true the position which I have hitherto proved must needs be admitted that the Christians remaining in severall Cities and the Territories of them were by the Apostles ordered to be divided into severall distinct Bodies and Societies which the Scripture calls Churches and are now known by the name of Cathedrall Churches and the Dioceses of them constituting one whole Church This being proved I shall not much thank any man to quit me the Position upon which the Congregations are grounded to wit the chiefe Power of the people in the Church Though it seems they are not yet agreed themselves what the Power of the people should be Morellus in the French Churches disputed downright that the State of Government in the Church ought to be democratick the people to be Soveraign Wherein by Bezaes Epistles it appears that he was supported by Ramus For the man whom Beza calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes by other circumlocutions who put the French Churches to the trouble of divers Synods to suppresse this Position as there it appears can be no other then Ramus Perhaps Ramus his credit in our Universities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cried up in them Brown and Barow published it Unlesse it be more probable to fetch it from the troubles of Francford For those that would take upon them to exercise the Power of the Keys in that estate because they were a Congregation that assembled together for the Service of God which power could not stand unlesse recourse might be had to Excommunication did by expresse consequence challenge the publick power of the Church to all Congregations which I have shewed to be otherwise And the contest there related between one of the people and one of the Pastors shews that they grounded themselves upon the Right of the people So true it is that I said afore that the Presbyterians have still held the stirrup to those of the Congregations to put themselves out of the saddle As now the Design of the Congregations is refined they will not have it said that they make the People chief in the Church For they give them power which they will have subject to that Authority which they place in the Pastors Elders which serves not the turn We have an instance against it in the State of Rome after they had driven away the Tarquins They placed Authority in the Senate and Power in the People and I suppose the successe of time shewed that which Bodine disputes against Polybius De Repub. II. 2. to be most true that the State was thereby made a Democraty So the Congregations challenging to themselves Right to make themselves Churches and by consequence whom they please Pastors must needs by
one in the greatest City and the most populous for number of Christians that is mentioned in all the Scriptures Though no common reason can question but there were more Congregations considering that it cannot be thought that all the Christians contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities could assemble together at once for the common service of God Upon these premises it is necessary to inferre that the Apostles Order was that which we see was the Rule of their practice that the severall Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity within severall Cities and the Territories thereof should constitute severall Churches to be governed by the severall Presbyteries thereof constituted and regulated as shall be declared in the consequences Which being established it will not be difficult to inferre that the Power of the Keys and the consequences thereof are deposited in the said Churches that is trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches To which if you adde this that the Churches of particular Cities were to depend upon the Churches of Mother Cities upon which particular Cities depended for the civile Government you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government designed by the Apostles as generall as could be given to a Society that was to consist of severall Nations and Soveraignties without limits but not more generall then the Originall constitution of the whole Church derived from their design will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it which are here produced out of the Scriptures This Position is liable to an Objection from those which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Councels call Chorepiscopi which we may translate Country Bishops because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth the Country in opposition to or in difference from the City For if Churches constituted in Cities have their severall Presbyteries the Heads whereof being Bishops are by consequent Governors in chief of their respective Churches how are Bishops constituted in the Country that is in any of the chief Villages under any City For by this means either we have a Church in a Village or a Bishop without a Church and so the practise of the Church not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apostles if either be true The answer to this in generall must come from that which you have here afterwards p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms as any Rule generall to those cases that may fall out so divers For the generall intent and reason of it is to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof to and from other parts and so the Whole If some particular provision prove necessary some time and place to attain this end it is not to be thought that the generall Rule holds not therefore For the particular here in hand one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact and matter of Historicall Truth concerning these Country Bishops which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of For in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia it is said that they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordination of Bishops In the end of it it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject The first clause seems to intimate that they have the same Ordination with other Bishops which is by the Synod of the Province or those that represent the same Besides that we finde by the subscriptions of the Councels that they were called to Councels as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces By the second clause it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum the Bishops Deputies as you see in the place afore named What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it For howsoever they were Ordained and from whomsoever they received their trust it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quoted that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City which otherwise Bishops were not but immediately to the Synod of the Province and the Bishop of the Mother City Neither is it contrary to the ground of that generall Rule which I maintain that it should be within the Power of the Church contained in any Province that is to say the Synod of the same to Ordain that in regard some Village under some City of that Province grew considerable for the extent of it and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it therefore it should have a Bishop beside the Bishop of the City Alway provided that the dependence of Churches might be preserved wherein the Unity of the whole consisted But it is manifest that this dependence might be maintained two severall ways supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village First Ordaining him to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City Which is the case of those whom we speak of whose Power is tied up as you have seen by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea But should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop then were they absolute Bishops and their Churches though in Villages and therefore lesse yet for their respective Power and right the same with other Churches constituted in Cities Which seems to be the case of the Churches of Africk where Bishops were so plentifull that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopall Church Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain that Cities and Churches were originally convertible but argues that Villages in some Countries had that privilege which in others was proper to Cities To that which is said p. 53. of the difference between Prophesies and between Apostles and Prophets I adde this consideration That the Apostles of our Lord were necessarily Prophets because of the promise of the Holy Ghost to lead them into all truth to remember them of our Lords Doctrine and to make them understand the Scriptures all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesie though the originall thereof import onely foretelling things to come as it is manifest by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV But all Prophets are not necessarily Apostles that is sent by God to declare their Commission to his people or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves I grant that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed and therefore giveth a Rule how to discern between true and false Prophets Deut. XVIII 18. And hereupon it is that their writings are the Word of God and that Prophesie is said to have failed after those whose Writings we
his Angels as the XII Standards of Israel is camped without the Tabernacle which is the Church containing all Christians But the XII Apostles and LXX Disciples must needs be understood to hold correspondence with the XII Heads of the Tribes and LXX Elders And the whole reason and ground of this correspondence to consist in the whole Power of governing the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church to remain in their hands as the Rulers and as the Counsell thereof while it was altogether in one Body from thence to be propagated into the like when it came to be divided into severall Bodies by the founding of severall Churches as you have seen that it was among the Jews in Palestine Aegypt and Babylonia Wherefore as there can no question be made that the Jews by virtue of Gods Law created themselves that Government which they established in their dispersions by sufferance of their Soveraigns according to the form designed by the Law by a Consistory in the Mother Cities of their dispersions with inferiour Consistories where the number of Jews was so great as to require a form of Government No more can it be doubted that when Churches were founded in the greatest Residences concurring with Churches founded in the like and depending on those of the Mother Cities for the maintenance of Unity in the Whole all this though executed by humane discretion was done by virtue of the Rule designed by the Apostles And as all Israel had no power to adde or take from the Law yet was to be concluded in that which the Law had not determined by the Consistory so all the Church having no Power to make any thing of divine Right that was not so from the beginning hath Power to determine what the Church shall either do or acknowledge for the preservation of Unity in it self in all matters not determined by Divine Right As for the Priests Office from which most men desire to derive the preeminences of the Clergy although it were manifestly peculiar to Israel after the flesh and to cease with the same seeing the Church hath no other Sacrifice but that one of Christ upon the Crosse not repeated but represented continually by the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Eucharist as the reason which must make all those Prayers effectuall by the peculiar Covenant of Christianity it follows that those that are intrusted with the Government and maintenance of Christianity are by consequence intrusted with the offering of this Sacrifice and of these Prayers of the Church unto God by the same reason for the which I said afore that the Consecration of the Eucharist floweth frō the Power of the Keys So that whether they be called Elders or Priests they have both denominations from the quality of Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostles are by their Commission the XII Patriarchs of the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church and so the Chief Governours of the same let not the Presbyterians imagine that they can degrade them to the rank of their buckram Elders or shew us what particulars mentioned in the Scriptures the Apostles acted as Apostles and what as Elders as that they concurred in the Councell at Jerusalem in the common quality of Elders unlesse they can produce other Scriptures of other Apostles superiour to these that appoint it All these recording the acts of chief Governours of the whole Church as founders of it by their Originall Commission and Lawgivers to it in whatsoever our Lord had not determined afore And though their proceedings are throughout a pattern of meeknesse and condescension to all ranks in the Church using their Power with that humility which our Lord had commanded to his Chief Disciples to give satisfaction to all of the reasonablenesse of their proceedings because there was then just presumption that others would use the like reverence to them in receiving satisfaction as they in tendring it yet by S. Paul to the Corinthians we see how far it reached when any pretense opposed it self against it Suppose now for the purpose that Barnabas was one of the LXX as Epiphanius affirms shall we indure it to be affirmed that when he is sent by the Church at Jerusalem to Antiochia Acts XI 20. he is sent by the appointment of certain of the people who had a Commission from our Lord before they were Christians even for the founding of that Church wherein they who are thought to send then received Christianity Surely the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 18 extendeth to the LXX as well as to the XII though in dependence on them as the XII Princes of Israel And therefore as it is manifest that Barnabas was sent to Antiochia because those that had made Christians at Antiochia had not power to found a Church there by ordering their Assemblies which Barnabas is said there to have done so is it manifest that he could not receive this power from the people of the Church at Jerusalem which may better challenge it then any Lay Elders whose Title must come from the People as I have shewed Chap III. and will shew by Gods help by and by more at large but that he must be understood to be sent by the Church because by the XII and by the LXX with the consent and concurrence of the Clergy and People And sent so to order a new plantation of the spirituall Israel that notwithstanding one of those that sent him taking the charge afterwards into his own hands might become Patriarch of that Tribe which should be planted in and under that City As also Barnabas himself to become the Head of another plantation in Cyprus or Paul who by virtue of the Power received by Barnabas at Jerusalem was by him assumed to his assistance being afterwards acknowledged to be called by God into the rank of the XII to become a Patriarch of those plantations which received Christianity by his means And thus it is no inconvenience which some of the Fathers have incurred by affirming that the XII have the rank of Bishops and the LXX of Presbyters if we refer them to the whole Church not to any particular Church but onely by correspondence For so were the XII Patriarchs to the people of Israel as the LXX were Presbyters and Elders to the same as I said of the Consistory Every part of the Church planted in and under any City having neverthelesse according to one and the same form a Ruler of a Bishop and a Councell of Presbyters And yet is it nothing inconvenient in another regard that the Councell of Neocaesarea Can. XIII compares Country Bishops to the LXX the City Bishops being by correspondence consequently compared to the XII Because on the one side those Country Bishops were to be subordinate to the Bishops of their Cities as the LXX were to the XII On the other side the LXX being answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel must needs be understood to be of a higher quality
in rank after Rome which is here touched p. 59. And it is that of the power of Eusebius and of Nicomedia the City of his Bishoprick For because during the time of Diocletian Nicomedia was as it were the Seat of the Empire he having made it his main Residence with an intent to have it so continue thereupon saith the History Eusebius growing to great eminence in the Church undertook the support of Arius against Alexander of Alexandria If therefore the Bishop of Nicomedia had attained such authority in the Church by the ambulatory residence of the Empire there since the time of Diocletian well might the preeminence settle at Constantinople when Constantine had fixed the Seat of the Empire there and that by the virtue of the Rule given by the Apostles though the effect thereof come after the act of Constantine To that which I have said from p. 62. of the great difference that is to be found in the execution of the Apostles Rule that Churches should be planted in Cities or in the greatest Residences in severall Counties that is to be added which Sozomenus Eccles Hist VI. 20. hath recorded concerning that Province which he cals Scythia the Romanes Moesia Inferior in which at the time of the Emperour Valens there was but one Bishop of the Mother City Tomi the place of Ovids banishment For this is the same case with that which is related by Eutychius of Aegypt before Demetrius was Bishop of Alexandria that there was no more Bishops in it besides that one the same which Godignus relates of the Abassines that there is to this day but one Bishop in all that Dominion as you have it here p. 64. To all the reasons here produced for the Dependence of Churches adde the consideration of the Unity of the Church how it was commanded by God in point of right and how provided and maintained in point of Fact by the Church For if the Church be a Visible Society commanded to live in Unity then is the Unity thereof commanded to be Visible That is it is commanded that Christians preserve Unity with all Christians not onely in Faith and Love inwardly in the minde but also in the outward Communion of all those Ordinances wherein God hath appointed his Service under the Gospel to consist And this is manifest by the words of S. Paul to the Ephesians exhorting them to continue in Unity because they have one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of All Eph. IV. 4. For if these motives and reasons were proper to the Church of the Ephesians then might it very well be thought that Christians are obliged thereby onely to live in Unity with those of the same Church But since they are common to all Christians of all Churches never so remote it followeth that the Precept of upholding the Unity of the Church obligeth all Christians visibly to communicate with all Christians By which reason the same may be proved by all or most of those Scriptures which recommend or which onely mention the Unity of the Church But it is most peremptorily proved by that which hath been produced in the first Chapter to shew the condition upon which all men are to be admitted to the Communion of the Church which is the Profession of Christianity For seeing that is one and the same in all parts and Climates of the World as introduced by the same Power and derived from the same Fountain it follows that no Church hath any further to enquire about any mans right of communicating with the Church but whether his Profession be allowed by his own Church and whether that hold Communion with the Whole And truly because it is the same condition which entitles all men to the Communion of the Church all over the world that is to Professe the substance of Christianity therefore all Churches are to procure that there be nothing to hinder this Communion when that condition is performed and every person of those Churches in their severall qualities that nothing else be demanded But when some Churches or some parts of one and the same Church demand for the condition of communicating with others something more then was appointed for the condition of it from the beginning separation and Schism follows the cause whereof is commonly doubtfull because it appears not how farre severall Churches or parts of the same are to yeeld to the acts of others which would conclude the whole if they should yeeld when it appears not how the matter of them agrees with that condition of Communion with the Church that was delivered from the beginning But when both sides charge the blame on the contrary party they shew that they are both agreed that the blame must lie on one side and therefore that the unity of the Church is such as hath been said because Schism in the Church no more then War in civile Society can be just on both sides Now it is very manifest that in the Primitive Church this unity was actuated by intercourse of letters from Church to Church begun first and established by the Apostles themselves whose writings are almost all Epistles For by their Epistles as the matter of Christianity is more and more declared so the intercourse and correspondence of the Church is preserved in as much as it is manifest that their Epistles require nothing of the Churches to which but the same which they require of the Churches from which they write so that there must needs be correspondence between all that acknowledge the Apostles holding correspondence The same course was continued not onely by the Epistles of the Primitive Bishops which are a great part of their writings still remaining but a great deal more by the intercourse of their Formatae or letters of mark which every Christian that travelled into a strange Country taking with him from his own Church found not onely the Communion of the Church open to him wheresoever he came but also that assistance in his affairs which Christians are to expect from the charity of Christians And of this kinde the Epistle to the Romanes may be accounted because of the recommendation of Phoebe XVI 2. as of a Deaconesse in the Church of Cenchreae near Corinth The effect of this course is visible in all the proceedings of the Primitive Church whereof we have some memorable instances here afore related When by the result of a Councell such or such Bishops are removed from their Churches it is ordinarily signified to other Churches by the letters of the Councell with this warning That none of them from thenceforth write to the persons so sentenced nor receive letters from them as Bishops Marcion being put out of his Fathers Church of Pontus is refused to be admitted to Communion at Rome lest the unity of the Church should be dissolved if the act of a Church so far distant should not be made good by that of Rome being an act in the Power of that Church to doe Therefore
Provinces as having Commission to conclude them in which case they must needs be considerable according to the Provinces for which they stood So in all things which may concern the Whole not onely every mans rank of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon is to be considered but also the eminence of the Church in which he bears the same So that by this reason nothing hinders a Presbyter of some chief Church to be of more consideration to the Whole then a Bishop of some mean Church such as we spoke of in Africk And therefore it would be inconsequent that the determinations of Synods should passe indifferently by the Votes of Bishops unlesse we suppose that consideration is had of the chief Churches and this consideration answered in the eminence of that respect which the Bishops of those chief Churches enjoy inswaying the determinations of those Synods to which they concur And this consideration might perhaps have served to take off part of S. Hieromes displeasure against Bishops grounded upon the Power which their Deacons had by their means above Presbyters which he in regard of the great difference between the two degrees in generall thinks to be so great an inconvenience Epist LXXXV ad Euagrium For though it is most true in regard of the Presbyters and Deacons of the same Church that it was a disorder that Deacons in regard of their neernesse to the Bishops should take upon them above Presbyters yet if we compare the Deacon of a chief Church with the Presbyter of a small country Parish no man can say that he is of lesse consideration to the Whole Church in regard of his rank unlesse he mean to make Steven or Philip Titus or Timothy or any of those that waited on the Apostles in person and were properly their Deacons as I have said in assisting them to preach the Gospel where they came to be meaner persons in the Church then one of those Presbyters which Paul and Barnabas Titus or Timothy Ordained in the Churches of those Cities where they came To that which I say p. 92. to prove that the word Angel in the Epistle to the VII Churches Apoc. II III. being an obvious and proper metaphor to signifie a Bishop or Presbyter cannot therefore be used to signifie a College of Presbyters the word being no collective nor any construction inforcing it to be used for a collective in all that Epistle I adde here the comparison of two passages by which it may be gathered for what reason and in what consideration the Spirit speaketh to the Body of those Churches in the Epistle directed to the Angels of them and by consequence who those Angels are The first is that of S. Paul to Titus II. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid For is it S. Pauls purpose to command that onely Titus avoid those whom he should declare Hereticks Surely that would be to no great effect unlesse we understand that by virtue of this precept both Titus is enabled to charge the Churches under him to avoid them and they thereupon obliged to doe it The other is the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to Polycarpus wherein after such advise as he thought fit for Polycarpus without turning his speech from him to another person he proceeds to exhort his people with such instructions as he found to bee most requisite Which feems to be the reason why many count that Epistle counterfeit and none of Ignatius his own though for my part I confesse I am not yet perswaded to think so not onely because of the character both of the matter and language of it which seemeth to me to carry the stamp of Apostolicall upon it as the rest of Ignatius but also particularly because of the example of this Epistle of S. John to the VII Churches wherein it is plain he involves both Pastor and flock in the same praises reproofs advises and exhortations the reasons being the same in both because both sent to be read to the People in the Church as the Epistle to the Colossians and the Laodiceans Coloss IV. 15. and as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians Eusebius says was wont to be read in that Church in his time Now if the instructions concerning the people be addressed to Titus and Polycarp is it not because of some eminence of authority in them by which they might be brought into effect among their people How much more that which is addressed unto the Angels of VII Churches being a style apt to signifie a person of eminent authority over others but never used to signifie a Body of persons much lesse with parallel authority among themselves It is commonly conceived that the Souls under the Altar which we reade of Apoc. VI. 10. were seen by S. John lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices at the foot whereof the rest of the blood that was not sprinkled on the Altar was poured out and the blood being the life or Soul of living creatures in the language of the Scriptures that therefore the souls of those that were slain for the profession of Christianity are seen by S. John under the Altar Against this apprehension I allege p. 95. that it is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices but the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle but without the Vail which is represented in these Visions correspondent to the Primitive fashion of Churches where the Communion Table called also the Altar because of the Sacrifice of the Crosse represented upon it stood in the midst of that compasse which the Seats of the Bishop and Priests did enclose For though in the Temple the people prayed without the Sanctuary the Priest whose Office it was at the same time offering Incense with their Prayers yet in the Church where all the people are within the Sanctuary as Priests the XXIV Presbyters are described with golden Vials full of Incense which is the peoples prayers as David saith Let my prayer be set forth in thy presence as the Incense Apoc. V. 8. and besides the Angel puts Incense upon his Censer to the prayers of the Saints Apoc. VIII 3. therefore his fire is from the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle though without the Vail Besides it is not imaginable how the souls of those that were slain could appear to S. John in Vision of Prophesie lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices where the bloud of Sacrifices was poured out and that in such a multitude as we know there was of the Primitive Martyrs Especially seeing the circumstances of the Text inforces that they are the same Souls which first cry for vengeance and have long white Robes given them because they are not presently satisfied Apoc. VI. 9 10 11. and which are afterwards described standing and praising God in the white Robes that were given them afore Apoc. VII 9. And therefore when they are said to be seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is not that they were seen lying