Apostles shall it be without the compasse of any Secular Power to dissolve it And therefore the consequence hereof in the present state of Christianity among us is further to be deduced because many men may be perswaded of their obligation to the Church upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops who perhaps perceive not the former reason of their obligation to them here asserted as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church To proceed then out of the premises to frame a judgement of the state and condition of Christianity in England at the present and from that judgement to conclude what they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians are to doe or to avoid in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church Put the case that an Ecclesiasticall Power be claimed and used upon some perswasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity and pretending thereby to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of those Ordinances which God requireth to be served with by his Church according to the same perswasion I suppose no man will deny this to be the crime of Heresie containing not onely a perswasion contrary to the foundation of Faith but also an Ecclesiasticall Power founded upon it and thereby a separation from the Communion of the Church which acknowledgeth not the same Put the case again that an Ecclesiasticall Power is claimed and used not upon a perswasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians as the foundation of Faith and all that belongeth to it is but upon a perswasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated thereby and this with a pretense to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of all Ecclesiasticall Ordinances according to it this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism And this God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England but in consequence to the premises I must say that this is it which hath been and is endevoured to be done in it and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism I doe not deny that Presbyters have an interesse in the Power of the Keys and by consequence in all parts of Ecclesiasticall Power being all the productions thereof But I have shewed that their Interesse is in dependence upon their respective Bishops without whom by the Ordinance of the Apostles and the practice of all Churches that are not parties in this cause nothing is to be done When as therefore Presbyters dividing among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops presume to manage it without acknowledgement of them out of an opinion that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles or that not being contrary to the same it is lawfull for Presbyters to take it out of the hands either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters had they been so possessed of it When as they joyn with themselves some of the People in the quality of Lay Elders or what ever they will have them called and of these constitute Consistories for all severall Congregations endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same though in dependence upon greater Assemblies out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord his Apostles and this not to manage the Interesse of the People that nothing passe contrary to the Laws given the Church by God which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies but in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories and in a right equall to them man for man so that it may truly be said that the whole Power of Clergy and People is vested in these Lay Elders that one quality consenting being able to conclude the whole When as the determination who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion returneth at last to a number of Secular persons making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity and enabling them thereby to give and take away the Ecclesiasticall being of any member of the Church in those cases to which that power extendeth and investing a Civile Court with the Power of the Keys in the same All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establishment of the Presbyteries I say then that by that Ordinance an Ecclesiasticall Power is erected upon so many perswasions of things concerning the publick Order of the Society of the Church contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles by a Secular Power interessed onely in point of Fact in Church matters without any ground of Right to do it and that therefore the endevouring to establish these Presbyteries is an act of Schism which particular Christians though they never by any expresse act of their own tied themselves to be subject to Bishops are neverthelesse bound not to communicate in because they are bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church and the Unity of the Church established upon these Laws whereof the Succession of Bishops is one As for the design of the Congregations it is easily perceived to come to this effect That to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws but such as the Spirit of God which is in them convinces them to be established upon the Church by the Scripture and that thereupon the ordering of all matters concerning the Society of the Church may proceed upon conviction of every mans judgement Therefore every Congregation of Christians assembling to the Service of God to be absolute and independent on any other part or the whole Church the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders as aforesaid And that therefore every Congregation constituting it self a Church constitutes by consequence and destitutes Pastors Elders and Members So that by this design an Ecclesiasticall Power being erected upon so many perswasions contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles the act of Schism is more visible Though for the claim and Title by which this Ecclesiasticall Power is erected in both ways that of the Congregations is more sutable to Christianity because that of the Presbyteries more forcible both equally destructive to the right of the Church For that a Parliament by which Power the Assembly of Divines was called not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England but supposing it to be as great for the purpose as any Christian State can exercise should erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from those that have it and giving it to those that have it not is without the Sphere of any Power which stands not by the Constitution of the Church For if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian by a Power vested by our Lord in
then common Presbyters CHAP. III. THat it is no new reason that here is rendred p. 91. why the name of Episcopus under the Apostles was common to those that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis quoted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles produced by Salmasius In Apparatu quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis illis primis exaequari non poterant neque miraculorum testimonium par illis habere sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati hique Ordinationis praediti potestate ita ut plenissimè iidem praepositos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon For saith he because the blessed Apostles deceasing those that were ordained to be over Churches after them could not be equalled to those first nor attain to the like grace of miracles but appeared to be beneath them in many other things it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles Hereupon they divided the names and left them the name of Presbyters and the others were called Bishops and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches in the fullest right I marvell what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage which if it be admitted is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath said in this point For first he supposeth as the received Doctrine of the Church that Bishops in their severall Churches succeeded the Apostles Secondly he answers all S. Hieromes reasons to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures by giving another reason even that which you have here Lastly he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè in the fullest right and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them which is to say that in all things they have a speciall Interesse but especially Ordination is their peculiar And with this reason agrees Theodoret when he says that at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters those who were called Bishops afterwards were called Apostles extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ This is then a sufficient reason why the name of Bishops should be afterwards appropriated to that rank wherein they succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their respective Churches because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine which seemed difficult in the Councell of Trent because the opinion which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope was so strong there Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit in multis tamen Augustinus Episcopus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence and the property of his words shall enforce no more then I say He knew well enough how stiffely S. Hierome had argued that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion because it is plain he intends not to crosse S. Hierome in it having other differences with him afore On the contrary it hath been shewed by other passages of his writings that his opinion was otherwise To use therefore that civility which his meeknesse prompted him to condescend to S. Hierome with he granteth his premises neither refusing nor admitting the consequence saying Though according to the titles of honour which now have prevailed in the Church a Bishop be greater then a Presbyter notwithstanding in many things Jerome the Priest is greater then Augustine the Bishop Where by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church he insinuates the reason for which I here maintain that they were thus distinguished afterwards and therefore supposes the ground of it Otherwise he might as easily have granted S. Hieromes consequence and pleased him more And yet I conceive that when he says a Priest may be greater then a Bishop it may very well be admitted not onely as a condescension of humility but as an expression of truth not onely in respect of learning or other personall considerations but of authority in the Church by reason of the dependence of Churches here premised The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen contra Celsum VII to the State of Greekish Commonalties the Bishop bearing the place of the Magistrate and the Bench of Presbyters of the Senate as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories and as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ The poore Senate of Christ in the City of Rome In this estate and condition the eminence of the Bishop above the Presbyters is visible though not by the humility of Pope Pius who perhaps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate yet by the comparison of Origen the eminence of the Magistrate above his Councell in all Commonalties being so visible as it is But when congregations come to be distinguished as well as Churches and a greater flock assigned to some Presbyters then to Bishops in other parts of the Church and those Presbyters to doe all Offices to their Flock which those Bishops did saving that they depended on the City Church whereas those Bishops depended onely on the Church of the Mother City and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches which Presbyters never could doe what hinders in this case I say not S. Augustine for I suppose he names himself but for an instance being indeed Bishop of an eminent City to be lesse then S. Hierome but some Bishop to be lesse then some Priest even for his lawfull authority in the Church A consideration of great consequence to the right constitution of Councels especially the most Generall and for which there is not wanting a valuable reason intimated in the proceedings of divers of the ancient Councels of the Church that is that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes as the Councell of Trent imposes upon us but by the consideration of Christian Nations and Provinces of the Church represented in those Councels For as we see that in the ancient Councels a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their
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
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist And therefore that there are no Lay Elders The Right of the Bishop Presbyters and People in Church matters THese things premised I shall here suppose that the reasons heretofore advanced are sufficient to prove that by Ordinance of the Apostles the Government of every such Church consisting of the Body of Christians in a City and the Territory thereof is to rest in a Bishop and a Company or College of Presbyters his Counsell and Assistants in the exercise of the Chief Power thereof to whom are added the Deacons to attend them in executing their commands Adding onely for the present in confirmation of those reasons as followeth First that there is an ordinary Power of Governing Churches of their own planting in the Apostles easily to be distinguished from the power of other Apostles because whereas the generall Commission extends the power of every Apostle to the whole Church those things which we finde recorded either in the Scriptures or in other monuments of Historicall truth which common sense cannot refuse to credit do shew manifest arguments of the speciall exercise thereof de facto in speciall places either by contract when a Christian may think that an agreement might be requisite among such holy persons as we see Gal. II. 9. Or otherwise by occupation and use And this ordinary Power of the Apostles is as easie to be distinguished from the Power of Bishops by the extent of it this of Bishops reaching onely to the Church whereof they are made Bishops Now to make good the proof that Iames Bishop of Jerusalem was one of the Apostles I must here answer two questions which seem to make this opinion hard to beleeve The first because Hegesippus in Eusebius oftentimes mentioning Simeon the son of Cleopas and that he succeeded this James in the Government of that Church never mentions in one syllable any relation of his to this James whom he succeeded which if they had been so near as brothers it seems he would have done The second is this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly a Greek name being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore nothing to Alphaeus which hath another both Originall and signification in the Hebrew The first makes no proof because we have not Hegesippus and therefore cannot presume that he no where said this because we finde it not in those shreds which Eusebius hath related out of him Neither are we bound to presume that either he would write or Eusebius relate out of him that which we at this present conceive to be most necessary to be related because of the dispute presently on foot which to them perhaps was no dispute In fine from that which he says not we cannot conclude the negative but from that which he says we may conclude the tantamount of the affirmative For when Hegesippus in Eusebius Eccles Hist IV. 22. says that Simeon was the second of our Lords Cousins that was made Bishop of Jerusalem to them that knew by the Gospel that the Cousins of our Lord which it cals brothers were James and Joses Judas and Simon Mat. XIII 55. he says in effect that James and Simon were brothers especially Eusebius making the same Simeon the son of Cleopas and Mary Eccles Hist III. 32. which he seems to have from Hegesippus For seeing Mary Cleopas John XIX 25. is in all probability Mary the mother of James the lesse and Joses Mar. XV. 40. Mat. XXVII 55. because we read but of two Maries in the Gospel that followed our Lord beside the blessed Virgin Mat. XXVII 61. And seeing S. Jude cals himself the brother of James Jude 1. And seeing James and Simeon Bishops of Jerusalem are both Cousins to our Lord that is brothers in the language of the Scripture according to Hegesippus it is to be thought that he intended there to signifie that Simeon the son of Cleopas and James Bishop of Jerusalem were brothers The age of Simeon suffering an hundred and twenty years old Euseb Eccles Hist III 32. being so great that he might well succeed his brother in the charge Now James the son of Alphaeus might well be also son of Cleopas and the same mans name Alphaeus and Cleopas because of the custom which we find to have been among the Jews of calling themselves by one name among their own Country men and by another oftentimes near the other in sound among the Greeks and Romanes For if Jason in the Maccabees were called Jesus among the Jews as it appears by Josephus Antiq. XII 6. if Saul and Paul were one Apostle if the first Bishop of Alexandria who is called Ananias in the Antiquities of that Church out of Eutychius be called Anianus in Eusebius if Silas be nothing else but Sylvanus Luke Lucius as learned men cannot choose but beleeve why shall we not beleeve that the same man was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew then used as his name is now written in the Syriack Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinary proper name at that time And thus it cannot be contradicted that the Church of Jerusalem had one of the Apostles for the first Bishop of it Now whereas it is said that Timothy and Titus had that power which the Scripture witnesseth as Evangelists it is to be demanded by what Scripture it can appear that Evangelists as Evangelists had any Power in any Church That they were near in rank and esteem to the Apostles I grant because of the Scriptures 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. that Titus was an Evangelist as well as Timothy 2 Tim. IV. 5. I do beleeve because S. Paul says there that he was gone into Dalmatia which being part of Illyricum whither S. Paul had purpose to advance the Gospel as you saw afore there is great appearance that being in durance he imploied Titus to Preach the Gospel and plant Churches there as well as to govern the Churches already setled in Crete And that by the same reason as himself governed all the Churches of his Charge But having shewed such probabilities to think that Evangelists were no more then a secondary rank of Apostles that is men imploied by the Apostles upon any work it cannot be said that by the quality of Evangelists they had power to govern any Church unlesse it can be shewed that the work on which they were imploied was the governing of setled Churches Which cannot be shewed of any but Timothy and Titus by the Epistles to them which shew that they two were appointed in that quality at Ephesus and in Crete For Epaphras that is Epaphroditus for the names are both one that was imploied by the Philippians to S. Paul Phil. II. 25 30. was also imploied no doubt by S. Paul or by some other of the Apostles unlesse we will say that he depended not on them contrary to that which hath
same common sense of all men that assures the truth of the Scriptures must assure it The knowledge of originall languages the comparison of like passages the consideration of the consequence and text of the Scripture the records of ancient Writers describing affairs of the same times and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by they are but the means to improve common sense to convince or be convinced of it If that will not serve to procure resolution there remains nothing else but the consent of the Church testifying the beleef and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them as the intent of all Laws is evidenced by the originall practice of the same So that this whole question What Laws God hath given his Church fals under the same resolution by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Councels in which that which originally and universally had been received in the Church that was ordained by them to be retained for the future as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles by the same kinde of evidence for which we receive Christianity though not so copious as of lesse importance And therefore it will not serve the turn to object that the mystery of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles as S. Paul saith 2 Thess II. 7. to cause the beleef and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect as the means to bring in Antichrist For it is not enough to say that Antichrist was then a coming unlesse a man will undertake to specifie and prove by the Scriptures that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against For if we will needs presume that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles is that wherein Antichristianism consists because the mystery of iniquity was a work under the Apostles why shall not the Socinians argue with as good right that the beleef of the Trinity and Incarnation is that wherein Antichristianism consists being received likewise in the next age to the Apostles under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work Or rather why is either the one or the other admitted to argue from such obscure Scriptures things of such dangerous consequence unlesse they will undertake further to prove by the Scriptures that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down Which I doe not see that they have endevoured to doe for the things in question among us about the Government of the Church Besides this my reason carries the answer to this objection in it because it challenges no authority but that of historicall truth to any record of the Church Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge whether that which is so evidenced to have been first in practice agreeing with that which is recorded in the Scriptures be not evidently the meaning of those things which we finde by the Scriptures to have been instituted by our Lord and his Apostles And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse Which being spent chiefly in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures which have been otherwise understood in this businesse confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the originall generall and perpetuall practice of the Church determining the matters in difference by the same evidence as Christianity stands recommended to us proportionably to the importance of them Which as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiasticall authority without and against the succession of the Apostles upon the ground of a contrary perswasion without incurring the crime of Schism I will not leave this point without saying something of their case that have Reformed the Church without authority of Bishops that have abolished the Order and vested their Power in which I have shewed that they succeed the Apostles as to their respective Churches w th dependence on the whol upon Presbyteries or whatsoever besides Which to decline here might make men conceive that I have a better or worse opinion of them then indeed I have For a Rule and modell or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case suppose we that which is possible in nature the terms being consistent together though not at all likely to come to passe in the course of the world a Christian people greater or lesse destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief authority left by the Apostles in all Churches I suppose in this case no man can doubt but they are bound to admit the same course as those that are first converted to be Christians That is to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches and to unite them to the Communion of the whole Church which is no lesse authority then that of a Synod of Bishops that onely or the equivalent of it in the person of an Apostle or Commissary of an Apostle being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church But suppose further that this authority cannot be had shall we beleeve that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiasticall communion When it is agreed that as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith necessary to the salvation of all so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to is to live in the Society of a Church For where severall things are commanded by God whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained it is manifest that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end and that which commandeth the means subordinate to the other Now it is manifest that all Powers and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church are Ordained by God and enjoined the Church to the end that good Order may be preserved in the Church And good Order is enjoined as the means to preserve Unity and the Unity of the Church commanded as the being of that Society whereby Christians are edified both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity by communicating with the Church especially in the Service of God and in those Ordinances wherein he hath appointed it to consist Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsisteth and all Pastors and Officers ordained as means to procure it as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means when both are possible so I conceive it would be Sacrilege not to seek the end without the means when both are not Now it is manifestly possible that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually by those that receive not their Power or their Office from persons endowed with