Bishops and they never claimed any Jurisdiction As for the Angels in the Revelation I see no Evidence in what is said tho' much is said to prove them to have been Diocesans It will not follow they were single persons because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who would say they are compared to Stars and not to Constellations for the Truth is both these Words are used promiscuously as well for the Constellations as for the single Stars so that no stress is to be laid upon the Word that is used for either side Besides some are of the Opinion That to the making of it clear that these Angels were only single Persons and for that cause compared but to single Stars and not to Constellations sufficient Reason ought to be given why the Holy Ghost who expresly limits the Number of the Churches doth not in like manner limit the Number of the Angels belonging to them For say they when the Holy Ghost said The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches had he intended to signifie that the Angels were but seven as the Churches were he would in like manner have said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of those seven Churches But as I am not satisfied that any great Stress should be laid in things of Moment upon such Critical Nicities so should I yield without granting that these Angels were Stars or single Persons yet I should also think it but equal to demand What Reason there is to perswade that these Stars were other than the seven President Presbyters who were Chair-men in the several Presbyteries of those seven Churches Which Churches I take to be single Congregations For I see as yet no Reason but that as a Letter intended for the Honourable House of Commons may be directed to the Speaker so these Epistles intended for the seven Churches for that they were Rev. 2. 7 11 17 c. might be superscribed for the Chief Pastor or President Presbyter who probably at that Time was stiled the Bishop by way of Appropriation In fine what if by the Name of Angel an Angel properly so called should be understood And that the Epistles intended for the Churches Pastors and People were sent to them under the Name of their Guardian Angels Should this â—e so then farewel to any Ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And that it should be so is very agreeable to the Prophetical Spirit in the Revelation For the Revelation goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Dan. 10. 13 20 21. Which is further confirmed in that it seems to have been an Hypothesis obtaining in the first Age of Christianity that the several Churches or Assemblies of Christians had their Guardian Angels for it is very probable that in Relation and Aspect unto this Hypothesis the Apostle Paul does tell Women 1 Cor. 11. 10. That they ought to have power over their heads Because of the ANGELS the Expression seems to imply That there were Angels Guardians of the Assemblies who observed the Demeanour of All and therefore they ought to be Circumspect Modest and Decent in their Behaviour and in their Fashions and Garbs out of Respect to those Guardians And indeed the former Account of the Title of Angels is a more agreeable and easie one than that which some others give who by Angel understanding a Bishop in the Modern Sense of that Word believe the Denomination given with reference to a Practice among the Jews who they say as from Diodorus attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel But should it be yielded that the Jews had any such Practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High-Priest what could this amount unto in our Case since every Bishop is not an High Priest in the Sense of the Jews For in their Sense there could be but one and then that one among Christians must be a Pope or a Sovereign Bishop over all the Bishops as among the Jews the High Priest was over all the Priests But in reality the Jews had no such Practice nor does the alledged Diodorus say they had to call their High Priest Angel they called him High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his name but indeed he adds That they had a Belief of him That he was often made a Messenger or Angel of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as really he was when he had the Urim on him and this is all that Diodorus affirms Your other Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy which you ground upon the Traditional Succession of Bishops in several Sees down from the Times of the Apostles and in the Seats of the Apostles has no more of cogency in it than the former I know Tertullian l. de praescript adv Hae etieos says Precurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsâ— adhus Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c. And I acknowledg the Apostles may well enough be said to have sate in Chairs and others to succeed in them if the Chairs be understood of Chairs of Doctrin in the same Sense in which the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses's for in this Sense All those Churches were Apostolical and had Apostolical Succession which being founded upon the Doctrin of the Apostles had such persoâ—s only in any Authority over them as did continue therein But else I cannot believe my self obliged to assent that the Apostles had Chairs in Particular Churches tho' Tertullian's Words at first Sight may seem to sound that way than to believe the Story of the Cells of the 70 Translators a Story that S. Hierom not only confutes but Ridicules tho' it has this to be said for it That Iustin Martyr affirms he saw the Ruins of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandri Tertullian flourished but in the beginning of the third Century by which Time many Fob Traditions past Current of which Truth too many Instances are obvious in the Writings of that Father as well as of other Fathers Indeed Eusebius has given us Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops in several Churches but these Catalogues are only Conjectural and Traditionary Himself in the Proem of his Ecclesiastical History tells us of a great Chasm that was in that kind of History for the three first Centuries and that being alone and solitary in this kind of Performance he had nothing but Fragments here and there to help him from any of those who preceeded him Ay in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the Persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were quorum nomina non est facile explicare per
singulos And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul Ex Apostoli tamen Pauli sermonibus colligere possumus c. so that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought I see deserve but little more of Credit as being but little better ascertained than the Catalogue of the British Kings deduced from Brute In truth the Task is a little uneasie to make it clear That the Apostles were properly Bishops in the Modern Sense of the Word and that they had fixed Seats which yet is the Basis upon which such Catalogues must stand sure I am Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms their Office to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare so that in the Judgment of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers a sort of Officers that were unfixed As for Epaphroditus I cannot be peswaded by the bare Authority of S. Hierom whom yet I take for a very Learned as well as Pious Father much less by that of Walo Messalinus to believe against the Analogy of the Text That he was Bishop of the Philippians only because he is called by S. Paul their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. The Observation Walo has made of the Word Apostle that it is never used by the Evangelists by S. Paul in any other Place or by the other Apostles but only De Sancto Ministerio will hold no Water for I take it that Iohn 13 16. in which Place the Word is used in a Common Promiscuous Sense and rendred so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable Instance against him Irenaeus is also cited to prove that such a superiority as the Apostles themselves had in the Church was transmitted by them unto Bishops for say you this Father who distinguishes between the Bishops and Presbyters affirms That the Apostles delivered to the Bishops suum ipsorum locum Magisterii their own Place of Magisteriality or Government Irenaeus flourished towards the End of the 2d Century and yet so near as he was to the Apostles own Times if he affirmed as he is ageed by the most tho' not by all to have done That our Lord Christ did undergo his Passion in the fiftieth Year of his Age we shall have little Reason to be fond of his Authority in Matters which he takes upon Trust and by meer Report But admitting Irenaeus's Authority which I am unwilling to lessen to be as unblemished and as tight as one could wish it yet on this occasion it will do you but small Service for the Force of the Testimony which you cite from him depends on the Word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as you understand it a Masterly Authority but teaching and Doctrin for in this latter Sense the Word is often used by other Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as you may see l. 1. ep 3. and in other Places but this is a Sense that maketh nothing for you for then Irenaeus means no other than what Tertullian also affirms and none will deny that the Apostles delivered over to the Bishops their own Chairs of Doctrin so that succeeding Bishops or Pastors were obliged to deliver no other Doctrin unto their Flocks but that same which themselves had first received from those that were the Founders of Christianity In fine as to what you mention but somewhat invidiously concerning the Judgment of the Assembly of Divines the Gangrene of Mr. Edwards and the overflow that was of Sects and Heresies in the Late Times of the Interreign which you would insinuate to be occasioned by the Intermission of Episcopacy I answer that there were Sects and Heresies even in the Times of the Apostles and that Irenaeus S. Ausrin Philastrius and Epiphanius have furnished the Christian World with large Catalogues of them and of some in their own times and yet I doubt not you will acknowledge there were Bishops in the Church even in those times So that Episcopacy if it be not Coercive is no such Remedy against Sects and Heresies as you would have us believe and if it be Coercive it is not purely Christian and Spiritual but in so much has something in it of Secular and Worldly Thus I have reinforced my main Argument and removed such Exceptions as you take against it and now I shall not make your trouble much longer but to elucidate some Incident and By Passages which I will do with all the Brevity I can and without formality of Method only as they come to my Mind Peter is first named where ever the whole Colledge of the Apostles is called over but I do not inâ—er nor does it enforce that any Primacy was due unto him other than that of Precedence which All Protestants generally speaking allow him It doth not appear that Iames at the Council of Hierusalem spake with more Authority than the other Apostles as Bishop of the Place and President of the Synod Iesephus indeed takes notice of him under an eminent Character for Piety but not a word in that Author of his eminent Dignity as a Prelate As for Paul he calls him but plain Iames not Bishop Iames And though he put him before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. that preference might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother Gal. 1. 19. and consequently is no great Argument of his Prelacy in the modern sense of that word So Zomen's Censure of the practice of having more Bishops than one in one City does prove that practice though he did not approve it Epiphanius also is cited by many to evidence that practice I yield not that 1 Cor. 14. 34. which may be translated in the Assemblies will demonstrate that there were at that time several separate Meetings for Christian Offices in one City or Town where was but one Church And yet I grant it might happen to be so upon Occasion for our Experience Evinces it has been so of late in a time of Persecution among the Dissenting Churches and what has been in our time might on like Occasions have been before it However this Accident would not prove nor indeed do I find any other proof that there were in the first times of Christianity Pastors who had the Care of several Churches or that any Church at that time did take in several Cities or Towns which were remote a Church properly being a Coagregation and consequently the People of a Vicinage or Neighbourhood under Orders Cenchrea though one of the Ports of Corinth had a Church of its own distant from that at Corinth and none I think will say That that Church was Diocesan The Council of Chalcedon prohibited absolute Ordinations That the end of the World Matth. 28. 20. is literally to be understood of the end of the Jewish Policy or the Mosaical seculum
Ignatius which as I shall shew hereafter was Congregational but by the Express Testimony of Clement who blames the Church of Corinth for raising a Sedition and Stir against their Presbyters and therefore there were many in that Church only upon the Account of one or two Persons so that it is plain there was a College of Presbyters in the Ancient Apostolical Church of Corinth Again in the Presbytery or College which was ordained in every Church though all the Presbyters were equal the Institution making no Difference for Paul and Barnabas are said to Constitute Elders but not to Constitute Elders and a Bishop as a Superiour over them yet it being requisite for Order-sake that some one in every Assembly should have the Direction and that Honour naturally falling on the Eldest Presbyter unless some other Course be resolved it is most probable that at first the Eldest Presbyter as he had the first Place so he had the first Direction of Matters But afterwards it being found by Experience that the Eldest was not always the Worthiest and Fittest for that purpose it came to pass that the place devolved not any longer by Seniority but was conferred by Election And in this S. Ambrose if it be he and not rather Hillary in his Comment on the fourth to the Ephesians is plain Vid. Sixt. Senens Bibl. Sanct. l. 6. annot 324. And admitting that all the Presbyters were called Bishops as undoubtedly at first they were it is easie to conceive how the first Presbyter came to be called the Bishop and at last for Distinction-sake to have the Name of Bishop so appropriated to him that the rest retained only the Denomination of Presbyters But all this while the Bishop was but the first Presbyter and had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is allowed to S. Peter in the College of the Apostles by all Protestants Even Epiphanius himself if we may believe Danaeus was at last compelled to confess That in the Time and Age of the Apostles no such Distinction as that is which you contend for was to be found between the Bishops and Presbyters Again though all the Presbyters in every Church had like Authority to Preach and Rule both Functions being comprehended in the Episcopacy assigned to them 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. yet some of them being better qualifyed for the one and some for the other it is probable that they exercised their different Talents accordingly some of them more in the one and some more in the other This as strange as you may make it seems plainly intimated in that Injunction of the Apostles 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrin For here is a plain Distinction of Elders of which some being better at Ruling and some at preaching they exercised themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrin And since Labouring in the Word and Doctrin had the special Honour no Question but the first Presbyter as most honourable was always of the number of those that laboured that way so that the Bishop was the Pastour also or Preaching Elder that is the Preaching Spiritual Work became appropriated to him at first Eminently but afterwards entirely and then nothing lay in Common between him and the Presbyters but only Rule And this is what I can gather from Scripture of the Apostolical Settlement Upon the whole it is evident That a Diocesan Bishop was unknown in the first Age of the Church and the only Bishop to be found then was the Presbyter which is further confirmâ—d in that the Scotâ— who received the Knowledg of Christianity very early even in that Age had not any Knowledge for many Ages after that appears oâ— any but Presbyterian Jurisdiction Even Bishop Spotiswood in his History of the Church of Scotland tells us out of Boethius and Boethius from Ancient Annals of the Culdees or Ancient Scottish Priests and Monks who he believes were called Culdees not because Culteres Dei as most think but because they lived in Cells their Names as he says being Kele-Dei and not Culdei in old Bulls and Rescripts He says of these Culdees That they were wont for their better Government to elect one of their Number by common Suffrage to be the Chief and Principâ—l among them without whose Knowledge and Consent nothing was done in any Matter of Importance and the Person so Elected was called Scotorum Episcopus a Scots Bishop and this was all the Bishop that he could find in the first Times But Bâ—chaâ—an is plainer who tells us That no Bishop to wit an Order superiour to that of the Presbyters ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Paliadius his Time the Church says he unto that Time was Governed by Monks without Bishops with less Pride and outward Pomp but greater Simplicity and Holiness Thus I have Eâ—idenced what the Sâ—aâ—e of Things was in the first Times of the Christian Churches to wit that those were governed by Presbyteries in which all the Presbyters were equal and all Bishops only for Order-sake there was a first Presbyter who having more Care and more Work had yet no more Authority and Power than any other but as the best Men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions lyable to Rust and Canker so these were not exempted there was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own Times and those that followed him improved upon the Example The first Presbyter soon became advanced into another Order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters We are told by Dâ—naeus who citeth Epiphanius and he might have cited others that this Departure from the Primitive Institution began in Alexandâ—ia and it is very probable That the Appointment of twelve Presbyters besides a President for so Eutichius assures us it was there did give occasion to the President who easily took the Hint to challenge to himself the Place and Authority of Christ when the very Number of Presbyters over whom he presided made it manifest that they were an Imitation of the Apostles But whether other Churches took their Pattern from that of Alexandria or no 't is easie to conceive in what manner and by what means the Mistake might gain upon them For after the first Presbyter became elected and consequently was separate by Prayer and Imposition of Hands no wonder he was â—oon taken for an Officer of another Order much Superiour unto that of the Presbyters who was distinguished from them by that Token of a new Ordination and was in place above them Ay it is highly probable That the first Recess from the Primitive Institution even in Alexandria began this way if that be true that Grotius hath observed That the Election of the President Presbyter came not in use there but after the Death
ordained to constitute it This Office as I evinced in my former Paper appertained to the Apostles it being their Work to lay the Foundation of the Christian Church by preaching the Doctrin of Christ as true upon their own Knowledg and consequently making Believers or Disciples which was to gather the Church as also by instituting of Officers and giving Rules about them which was to put the Church under Orders and to settle its Government On this Account the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and the New Jerusalem the City of God or the Evangelical Church in its most reformed State is described in the Revelations to have twelve Foundations answering to the twelve Apostles who by the Doctrin which they preached and witnessed and the Order which they setled did indeed lay the Foundation of the Christian Church and set it on foot It is true the Evangelists as well as the Apostles were in part at least the Founders of particular Churches But the Apostles only with the Prophets have the Honour of being stiled Founders of the Church these being the only persons that were commissioned by our Lord Christ for that end He immediately sending and directing his Apostles but these sending and directing the Evangelists who are therefore called by some and not unfitly Apostoli Secondarii Apostles of the Second Order So that I do distinguish between the Founding of the Church which was done by the Apostles only and that of particular Churches which was performed by the Evangelists as well as by the Apostles By the Church which for distinction sake I call Essential to discriminate it from particular Constituted Churches I mean nothing but the whole Multitude or Company of the Faithful as they are united to Christ and hold Communion with him as well as one with another by one Common Faith and by the participation of the Holy Spirit And of this Church all that do believe in and make a true Profession of Christ though as yet they are not ranked in any particular one are Members and have their several Uses according to the Measure of the Dispensation given them from which Measure some are Principal and some are less Principal Members He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. This Essential Church though it is a kind of a Body Society and City yet it is not a Secular Politick Body I mean not a Body united in it self under one External Visible Head by any Universal Politick Orders and Dependencies that run throughout it such as are in Secular Governments whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical to make them one But it is a Spiritual Mystical Body a Body united unto Christ the Head by the Spirit of Faith and Love under the Laws and Rules of Christianity a Religion which obliges all its Members to Communion one with another as much as is possible for mutual Edification and Comfort Could all the Members of the Christian Church have held Communion one with another and ordinarily have met together for the Discharge of Common Duties and Offices and all have been subject unto one External Government common to them there would still have been but one Congregation of them as there was at first and consequently but one Church as to External Orders But the Christian Church in the nature of it being Catholick and Univers◠that is not walled in and confined by distinguishing Rites and Customs as the Jewish was unto a particular People but lying in common to all Nations as much as unto any so that such External Communion and Government was absolutely impracticable in the whole as taken together therefore it was necessary that it should be practised as indeed it was only by Parts each of which Parts was to bear the Denomination of the Whole as being the whole in Little This is the Original of particular Churches in reference to which Churches it may be observed That as the Jewish Church which some call the Synagogue was founded in a Nation so the Christian Church eminently stiled the Church was founded in a particular Assembly the Mother Church at Ierusalem was only a single Congregation It was for the former Reason as well as for others that the Apostles when they instituted Church-Government did not give any General Scheme that should relate to the Catholick Church as to an External Body or to Provincial or to National Churches but they only setled Particular Churches as Homogenecal Parts of the Whole And these in this Order That as the whole Church was a free People that had not one only but many Apostles who by the Original Institution were to take the Care of it so in every particular Church which was to be a Vicinage under Orders or a Company of Professing People that could conveniently meet together for the Discharge of Christian Offices there should be not one only but many Presbyters a College of Presbyters answering to the College of the Apostles who should Rule and Govern but as over a Free People and therefore in all material Businesses with their Approbation and Suffrage Thus in the Mother-Church at Ierusalem besides the Apostles which were Extraordinary there was a Senate or College of Elders as the ordinary standing Officers and these with the whole Church or Body of the People and Brethren are convented upon the Business of Antioch And thus the Apostles Paul and Barnabas every where in every Church or Congregation are said to have established a Senate or Presbyters and that too by the Suffrage or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People So that the Original Government of the Church of Apostolical Institution was only Congregational which Congregational Government consisted of the People or Brethren and of the Presbyters or Senate in which Senate he that presided tho' in process of Time he was called Bishop by appropriation of the Name which all the Presbyters enjoyed at first in Common yet in the Original Institution he was no more than the first-named Presbyter and so no otherwise distinguished in it than as Peter was in the Institution of the College of the Apostles who is still first named in it And such a Bishop I do acknowledg to have been from great Antiquity namely a Congregational Bishop that had the first Direction of Matters a Person that was Primus Presbyter a Presbyter only in Order and the first of that Order in the College of Presbyters But a Diocesan Bishop invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction and he a Suffragan too for this is the Bishop that is in Controversie between us this Bishop you must prove if you can and nothing is done if you do not prove him to be Apostolical Sure I am that S. Cyprian considered himself but as a first Presbyter and therefore as his Name for the Bishop is always prepositus in respect of the People So he calls the Presbyters his Compresbyters Ep. l. 4. ep 8. Ques ed primitivum Compresbyterum nostrum Et
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