Apostles as somewhere he does Christ is called a Bishop and that by a greater Man than Cyprian and yet I believe you will not infer from thence that the Bishops are Christs or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also That the Apostleship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the communication of the Names than for the same Reason That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so The Apostleship was an Episcopacy but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for any more than because it was called a Deaconry it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification for not to mention prophane Authors as Homer Plutarch Cicero c. in which we read the word It is certain Basil applies it often unto God Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles and therefore being a word of so general signification nothing is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy To be plain with you the Writers of the First Century Cyprian was in the Third had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship as you imagine even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops though he compares them sometimes to God and other times to Christ which I believe you insist not upon because you thought it a little too much yet he never that I can find compares them to the Apostles Their College if you will believe Ignatius was imitated not to say succeeded by the Presbytery I add That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us as Hierom also does That St. Mark ordained that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number though possibly not so early as to be an Institution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine not one word in Clemens Romanus a Writer of the First Age of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Office of the Apostleship He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution to wit the Bishops and Deacons of which more hereafter Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being by Office the first Preachers and Witnesses of Christ by whom they were immediately sent for that purpose then certainly that Work and Office as well as their Mission to it was extraordinary and but Temporary And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching and had framed them under perpetual standing Orders they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority either by way of Direction upon new Emergences or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages That was extraordinary too and by vertue of a Jurisdiction naturally arising and remaining in them as also in the Evangelists as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary is devolved upon any other Persons as Successors of the Apostles lyes on you to evince and I think it is an hard Province For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates while themselves were living or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living but only ordained That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church as their Successors but not before If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living I demand how that could be Can any come into the places of others even while these others possess them And again I demand whether there were or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction which I suppose you will not deny over the Prelates they instituted if they instituted any Then they transâ—erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates that is the Prelatâ—s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them for none does give that which he keeps I believe therefore you will say the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living but ordained that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches as their Successors But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded In what Scripture In what Fathers of the First Age or how came you to know of such an Order if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fathers transmits it All of any Aspect this way in any Father of the First Age is in Clemens Romanus and he is against you for having premised what is very remarkable and much to our purpose That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds that for that Cause to wit to end such strife they ordained Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed the forementioned Officers and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons of whom he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they namely the Apostles appointed the first fruits of those Cities and Countries where they had preached approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe This is a plain Testimony so plain that I see not how it can be evaded that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church of which one indeed was that of the Bishops But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others as in the sacred Scriptures it must be understood of the Presbyterian and not of the Prelatical Orders And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders which the Apostles had instituted to continue in the Church from time to time I did it with good Authority for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it He adds And moreover they gave it in direction That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had appointed should decease others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous
Quid â—usâ—quâ—m meâ—â—nit exortis iliius Episcoporum auctoritais quae Ecclesiae Consuetudine post Marci mortem Alex nâ—â—iae atque â—o Exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed-plaâ—è ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias Communi Prisbyteroâ—um qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur Consiâ—io â—uisse Gubenatas That Clement no where makes any mention in his Epistle of that Eminent Authority of Bishops that by the Custom of the Church began when Mark was dead to be introduced at Alexaâ—dâ—ia and after that Example in other places but he plainly shews as the Apostle Paul also does that the Churches were then governed by the Common Council of the Elders all of which are stiled Bishops by him as well as by S Paul By what I have said you may see how little Satisfaction I received in the Proofs you gave me of the early distinction between Bishops and Presbyters for none of them do reach home unto the First Age and to the Dâ—ocesan Prelatical Bishop and if they did would move me but little For as for Tertullian he more than seems to be on my side when speaking of the Christian Congregations both as to their Discipline and Government and to their Worship he says Praesident probati quique seniores Hon remistum non pretio sed Testimonio adepti That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them As for Clemens Alexandrinus his Imitations of the Angelical Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which you do imagine you have found the orders of the Celestial Hierarchy imitated in the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon this is but a Flourish of Rhetorick in that Father who though in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as also of Widows yet in his Stromata Lib. 6. 7. where he treats of the Ecclesiastical Orders more at large he mentions but Two the Presbyters and Deacons and plainly intimates that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honoured with the first Seat But I am much surprized at your Citation of the Emperor Adrian his Epistle to Servianus recorded by Phlegon and related by Vopiscus for certainly it appears by that Epistle that Adrian had but little Acquaintance with the Egyptian Christians and then his Authority is of as little moment or else these Christians were of the worst of Men for he represents them as well as the other Inhabitants of Egypt to be a most seditious vain and most Injurious sort of Men and particularly says That those which Worship Serapis were Christians and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis He adds That the very Patriarch Ipse ille Patriarcha coming into Egypt was constrained of some to Worship Serapis and others to Worship Christ. Was ever any thing more virulently said of Christians and indeed more mistakingly for as for the Devotion of their Bishops to Serapis I cannot imagine any occasion that these Christians should give which with any Colour should render them suspected of that Idolatry but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross and this might it being a way of professing Christianity that at that Time was newly become the Mode and probably it had the Fate of New Modes which is to be approved of by some and be rejected and nick-named of others I am the more inclined to think that this Story of Serapis had some relation to the Christian Bishops who signed with the Sign of the Cross because I find in Pignorius in his Exposition of the Mensa Isaica that Serapis was used to be denoted by a Cross Vrceo says he superne infixa Crux Serapidem notat And says Rhodiginus Lect. ant l. 10. c. 8 9. figuram ejusmodi speaking of the Cross Serapidis pectori insculpâ—bant Egypâ—ii Adding out of Suidas That in the time of the Emperour Theodosius when the Temples of the Greeks were destroyed there were found in the Sacrary of Serapis certain Hieroglyphic Letters which resembled a Cross. But to let this pass I see no cogency in the Citation you make from the Emperour Adrian to evidence any such Distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter to have been in that time as is in ours and as you do plead for for in that Epistle there is only the Name of Bishop and Presbyter without any specification of Office signified by it either as to its Nature or Limits aâ—d possibly some will tell you That by the Coherence of tâ—e Epistle it is not so clear but that Adrian might intend the same Officers by Bishop and Presbyter But I have no list to engage in such a Dispute and therefore hasten to tell you what is above any that I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Expected that as I had essayed to set out a Scheme of Church-Government and such a one as I believed and do still believe to have been the Primitive and Original and of Apostolical Institution so you likewise would have given a Scheme according to your Sentiments and then by Comparing Scheme with Scheme and each with the Account of the Scriptures and other undoubted Accounts of the first Century we might at last come to have made a surer Judgment which was the Right and which the Wrong than now in the parcelling and retailing way you take it is possible to do Indeed to gain a true Light into the Nature and Frame of Church-Government in the whole extent of it one ought to distinguish the several States and Circumstances in which the Church hath been and accordingly consider the several Orders which were in it in those several States and the Grounds and Reasons of those several Orders Now the Church I speak of the Catholick or Evangelical Church may be considered either as it was a Constituting before it had received External Form and Shape as to Orders Or after it was Constituted and that the Apostles who had not only received Instructions from their Master what to do in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God but were likewise invited by the concidence of Events had put their last Hand unto it Again the Church after its being Constituted and Clothed with Orders undergoes a Double Consideration for it may be considered either as it subsisted and stood alone singly in a State of Separation from Secular Governments of the World or as it is united to them by the Laws and Ordinances that in several Countries are several which they have enacted and established about it Whosoever considers the Church whilst constituting before it had received its external Form and Orders ought at the same time to acknowledg That of necessity there must be persons to constitute it and cloth it with these Orders which persons if vested with Authority so to do are properly Officers but yet in that performance cannot be conceived to be or act as ordinary Officers these being permanent and standing and belonging to the Church as constituted whereas that Office had its place before the Constitution of the Church as being
the Twelve he was the Minister of the Gentiles and as these were a kind of Proselytes to the Jewish Church so he was a kind of Proselyte or super added Apostle Himself expresses it That he was one born out of due season 1 Cor. 15. 18. And for the Offices of Apostleship and Episcopacy I have shewed in my former Letter how much they differ 'T is true you say that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles and that too by the Fathers but you may remember I acquainted you they were not stiled so by any Fathers of the first Century or till towards the latter end if then of the Second Else that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles I know and Dr. Cave hath many Citations to that purpose to which you have added some and might have added more but the Sense in which they were called Apostles is that only which is of any concern to us And certainly notwithstanding all that you have said to the contrary it doth not as yet appear that those Bishops that were called by the Antient Fathers Apostles were Diocesan Bishops for they might be and really for all that glorious Denomination they were but Congregational Prelates who because in a sense they were Successors of the Apostles and the same in some Proportion unto particular Churches that the Apostles themselves were to the general even for that reason they were called Apostles and all as well as any Diocesans That the Bishops compared to the Apostles by S. Cyprian who is one of the first that compares them so were only Presbyterical and Congregational Bishops is evident in that even there where he so compares them he doth plainly Contradistinguish them to the Deacons for even there he mentioneth but Two Orders as S. Paul to Timothy doth and therefore must be understood to mean as he doth the one of the Bishops and Praepositi which he compares to Apostles and the other of the Deacons who he saith were appointed by the Apostles as indeed they were Acts 6. to be their and the Churches Servants Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos id est Episcopos praeposiâ—os Dominus eligit Diâ—conos autem post assensum domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus sui Ecclesiae ministres And 't is plain in that Citation which I made before from S. Cyprian that his Bishop or Praepositus for both in him are Expressions of one and the same Office was a Preaching Minister ordained unto a certain People ed eam plebem cui Praeposiâ—us ordinatur c. Again that the preaching Ministers or Pastors of Congregations were considered as in a Sense Successors of the Apostles and compared to them on that Account is farther evidenced from the Testimony of Nilus who in his Book of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then may one say is not the Pope entirely the Successor of Peter Yes he is but 't is as he is a Bishop and is no more than what every Bishop that was ordained by Peter may easily challenge But there were may that by his namely Peters Hand received this Grace of Episcopacy Ay every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood and thus there are many Successors as well of Peter as of other Apostles but in other Respects they have no Successors Thus he speaketh plainly That Bishops and Pastours succeeded the Apostles but not in the Apostleship of this there is no Succession and Dr. Reinolds is fully of the same Opinion and speaks home Indeed it is a Point saith he well worth the noting that as you do notoriously abuse the Church of Christ speaking to Hart for you perswade the Simple and chiefly young Scholars who trust your Common-Place Books that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peter's Successors in the same meaning That the Pope doth when he saith That Peter and Peter's Suceessor is the Head of the Church and bindeth by solemn Oath to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peter's Successors them whom Christ doth put in Trust to seed his Sheep as the Master of the Sentences and Thomas of Aquin do give the Name of Peters Successors to all Priests and Prelates as they term them that is to all Pastors and Doctors of the Church as S. Augustin teacheth That it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou love me feed my sheep As S. Ambrose writeth That he and all Bishops have received the Charge of the Sheep with Peter as the Roman Clergy apply it to the rest of the Disciples of Christ and the Clergy of Carthage too Thus Dr. Reinolds But I stay too long on a matter that in no degree deserves it for to inferr that all Bishops are properly Apostles because they have the Name of Apostles is to imply That Identity of Names will inferr an Identy of Offices at which Rate Ioseph the Mittendary in Epiphanius whom he calleth an Apostle would have the Honour of being a Bishop and indeed on that Account his Title is all as good as Bishop Epaphroditus's 'T is true you tell me you believe as S. Hierome likewise did That Epaphroditus was really the Bishop because he is called the Apostle of the Philippians Phi. 2. 25. But as it is true that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle so it may well be acknowledged That our English Translators do render that Expression very well your messenger since nothing is more evident than this That the Coherence and Connexion of the Text will carry it to that Sense I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and companion in labour and fellow soldier but your messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and minster of my necessities Which indeed he was as appears by Chap. 4. 15 18. Now the Philippians know that no Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you but my God shall supply all your need c. to wit as you by him have supplied mine That the Apostles exercised a Jurisdiction over particular formed Churches and over those particularly which themselves had founded is as little to your purpose if Bishops are not which they are not either of the Order of the Apostles or else Founders of Churches as these were as in it self it is a Truth and not to be questioned The Jurisdiction of the Apostles over particular Churches undergoes a Double Consideration in neither of which it symbolizeth with the Diocesan or Episcopal for it may be considered either as it was an Appurtenance and Incident to the Office of the Apostleship to wit as the Apostles were Founders of the Church Essential and thus all the Apostles as they had one Commission so they had equal Authority equal Jurisdiction over all the
of Mark So that it was not as Euâ—ichius reports it an Institution of this Evangelist But what way soever this Alteration had its beginning one may be tempted if the Epistles going under the name of Ignatius be indeed his to think that it had it very early for this Father doth every where speak of the Bishop in respect of the Presbyters as of God in respect of Christ and of Good or Christ in respect of the College of the Apostles and these are such Magnificent Expressions of Superiority that though they proceeded not from any Elation of mind in him that used them at first and used them perhaps but as Rhetorick yet they could not but occasion other Sentiments in others viz. as of the Bishops being of a Superiour Order so of something of Domination and Lordship in his Office And yet how great soever the Degeneracy was in the Time of Ignatius or very near it it was not so great then as in the following Ages Ignatius his Bishop for all the Gawdiness in which he dresses him was only a Congregational not a Diocesan Bishop those first Times knew nothing of the Diocesan Princely Prelate even the President that Iustin Martyr mentions was but a Congregational Pastour That Ignatius his Bishop was only Pastour of a single Congregation is evident in many Passages but I will cite but two or three to evince it The first is in his Epistle to the Ephesians where he speaks of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church ascending in Consort unto God so that the Bishop was the Mouth of the Congregation And afterward in the same Epistle in an Exhortation to these Ephesians when he presses them to obey their Bishop he speaks of them as of a single Congregation that could meet together for Acts of Worship Again in his Epistle to the Magnesians whom he also presses to obey their Bishop for this indeed is the Burthen of all his Epistles he plainly speaks of them as of a single Congregation Do you all assemble and meet saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together for so that Expression is rendred 1 Cor. 14 23. I have shewed what the Primitive Institution was as to Church-Orders and have shewed also how and how early the Alteration that was made in Congregations came on It was first a Presbytery and the Senior Presbyter the President then a Presbytery and the President elected but still a Presbyter afterward a President and no Presbyter not an Ab Beth din but a Nasi not a Senior Presbyter but a Prince or chief over the Presbytery And certainly one need to have but a little Experience in the Course of things to make a clear and distinct Conception of what hath been said upon this Subject That which remains to compleat the Discourse is to shew the same way from Common Principles how the Ecclesiastical Prelate or that Bishop over several Congregations of the better fort such as Cyprian Augustin c. if indeed they were such did first spring up I conceive with submission to better Judgments that this Bishop of whom we read nothing that I know of in the first Age or till towards the end if then of the second arose from the large Progression and spreading of Christianity for then in great Cities and their Appendages the number of Professors grew so great that all could no longer meet together in one place to Celebrate Divine Offices so that necessity compelled them to divide into several Congregations which if settled must have several Officers as Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet still the Bishop of the Mother Congregation as he had the main hand which is to be presumed in forming and settling the Daughter Churches so he still pretended to keep an Authority and Jurisdiction over them And this indeed had something of a Resemblance unto the Apostles who as they planted many Churches so they had always a Care of them but how far the Analogy will hold or where it strikes out I shall not trouble you now to say It is enough for the present to have shewed that Ecclesiastical Prelates had not Apostolical Institution and that at best they arose but by Occasions and Prudentially only upon the Increase of Believers What confirms this Notion is That we never read in the first Age and but rarely if ever in the second of Bishops that pretended it of themselves or that were affirmed by others to be the Successors of the Apostles In those first times no such Pretentions had place but afterwards when necessity arose in the Churches of sending out their Colonies then the Bishops of those Churches that sent them out soon found in the Jurisdiction of the Apostles something that by way of Analogy and with a little stretching might serve to countenance theirs over those that they had settled These are the Sentiments I have as to the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy in which I have made evident what Episcopacy it is I do believe is â—ure Divino and what not But I intend not to Discourse now of the Ius Ecclesiasticum by which only a Diocesan Bishop or of the Ius Civile by which the Lord Bishop is Constituted My Province now is only to shew what I have shewed that the Presbyter is the only Bishop Iure Divino Apostolico and that Prudential Considerations only made the Prelate first the Congregational and afterward the Diocesan Prelate of the better sort And in these Assertions I have my Vouchers and those Fathers and Fathers as learned and as Pious as any Churches ever owned and cited too by Bishop Iewell Verily saith he Chrysostom saith Inter Episcopum Presbyterum interest fermè nihil Between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference S. Hierom saith somewhat in a rougher sort Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret cum Apostolus perspicue doceat â—osdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is to say before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests and Bishops are all one S. Augustin saith Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Prepbyter hoc est summus Sacerdos What is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the High Priest So saith S. Ambrose Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est There is but one Consecration of Prieâ—â— and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first And to what these Fatâ—ers say we may add the Testimony of Learned Grotius who for the Reputation he hath justly gained in the World oâ— great Knowledge and exact Criticism may possibly signifie somewhat with you He in his Epistle to Bignoâ—ius commending that of Clâ—ment which I have often cited among other Considerations that induced him to approve thereof as Genuine notes this as a main one
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
at large Propter quod saith he diligenter de Traditione divinâ Apostolicâ servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per provincias universas teneâ—ur ut ad ordinationes rise celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praeposâ—us ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit quod apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostii ordinatione ut de universae fraternitatis Suffragio de Episcoporum qui in praesentia Convenerant quique de eo ad vos Litteras fecerant Iudicio Episcopatus is deferretur manus ei in Locum Basilidis imponeretur or imponerentur Wherefore it ought diligently to be observed and maintained as a thing of Divine Tradition and of Apostolical practice the which also is observed by us and almost in all the Provinces that to the end Ordinations may be rightly made the Bishops of the same Province which are nearest to that People for whom a Minister is ordained do all meet and that the Bishop be chosen the People being present who have a perfect Knowledge of the Life that every one hath led and also do throughly understand his ability by his Conversation And this we see you also have observed in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague on whom as well by the Suffrage of the Brotherhood as the Judgment of all the Bishops both those that were then present and those that sent you their Letters about him the Bishoprick was conferred and hands imposed in place of Basilides Those learned Men that have told us that the Christian Church was formed after the Fashion of the Synagogues and not of the Temple or rather the Tabernacle did certainly own a true Idea of this business There was but one Temple in all Iudea as but one Church and one High Priest to whom the other Priests as also the Levites in severel orders were subordinated as well as one to another in a certain line of Dependance But the Synagogues were many and many in one City even some Hundreds in Ierusalem and in every Synagogue if all had one form there were many Rulers Now particular Churches are unto the Catholick Church the same in proportion that Synagogues were to the Jewish To be sure this is manifest to whosoever considers it That Christ and his Apostles did carefully avoid the Imitation and Similitude of the Tabernacle in all their Institutions and all their Orders The Apostles were never called Chief Priests nor the Presbyters Priests the Ministers the Clergy nor the People the Laity no National Form of Church Government was ever Established no Consecration of Officers no Garments or Holy days or other such like Observances were ever appointed by them in Conformity to those of the Tabernacle But when the Judaizing Opinion which prevailed mightily even in the days of the Apostles had after their decease diffused and spread it self farther so that Christians came into an Admiration of the Orders Beauty and Pomp of the Temple which was but a fixed Tabernacle and Christianity it self became considered as by some it is this day but as another kind of Judaism then Ministers were turned into Priests Deacons to Levites and Ordination to Consecration the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was turned into a Sacrifice the Table to an Altar The Tabernacle Times and Seasons of Easter and Whitsuntide became generally observed only with some little Bowing and bending of themselves to Christianity and the Tabernacle Maintenance in time became insisted upon also as well as the Tabernacle Title Thus began the Defection which upon the Tabernacle Grounds and by pretences of some Analogy unto the Orders of that Fabrick did afterwards grow up to a great height in most Countries in a National Form and Dependance but in none to that Perfection as under the Papacy which as it doth divide its Rites and Observances almost all from the Tabernacle so it can pretend to very little Authority for them but what conceited Analogies and some Congruities of Reason taken from the Tabernacle Orders and the Tabernacle Worship do afford unto them but Christ and his Apostles appointed not any National Forms as that under the Tabernacle was Indeed had the Apostles owned any Pretentions of a Design to erect a National much more an Universal Hierarchy or Form of External Government in the Church or had they done any thing to Occasion a Just Suspition of such a Design it would have much obstructed the true Design and End of their Mission which was the planting and spreading of Christianity For then Magistrates and Rulers in their own Defence and for Preservation of their own Inherent Prerogatives and Rights must have always opposed it since the Permission of such an Authority such a Power over their Subjects that would not only possess an Interest in their Consciences but be strengthened as a Secular Empire by a close Connection of all the parts of it and an exact Dependance and Subordination would render their own precarious such a pretence must needs have awakened the Jealousie of Kings as indeed it did when Christ but spake of a Kingdom though Spiritual and but in Hearts much more then had it been an External and Visible Kingdom for then Reason of State would for ever oppose Christianity But notwithstanding all that I have said I doubt not but you will tell me That the Government of the Church is Universal and that there is a Catholick Hierarchy that the Apostles were ordinary standing Officers and that as Apostles they were the very same in the Primitive Church that Diocesan Bishops are now and Dioccsan Bishops the same now the Apostles were then that the Apostles exercised Juridiction over the Particular Churches which they instituted And that Timothy and Titus who were Bishops not Congregational but Diocesan Bishops were ordained such by S. Paul And as you will tell me these and the like very plausible things of Bishops so I make no question but others will tell me as plausible of the Council at Ierusalem and of the Government of the Catholick Church by Councils and Synods of Bishops in Correspondence to that That the Apostles as Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops and that Diocesan Bishops as such should be Apostles seems so strange an Assertion and so much against the Common Sense of most Believers that I would rest the Controversie on that Issue Sure I am Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica tells us expreâ—ly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Pope is no Apostle for the Apestles did not make or ordain Apostles but Pastors or Teachers much less the Chief of the Apostles Thus he And indeed there were but twelve Apostles originally which number was so stated that it gave Denomination to their Order they were called the Twelve As for Paul who also was an Apostle and not of
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
Churches Or it may be considered as accruing to the Apostles from more particular Respects to wit as they were the Fathers and Founders of particular Churches The former I call Essential the latter Accidental Jurisdiction of the Apostles Take the Jurisdiction of the Apostles in the first Consideration and then Diocesan Bishops can no more pretend thereto than they can to the Office of the Apostleship which was oecumeuical for its extent as well as Infallible for its Execution it being an Appurtenance and Incident only unto this and dyed with their Persons Or take it more particularly for that Authority which they assumed and were understood to have in a more particular manner over the Persons they had converted and the Churches they founded between which and themselves on that foot there was a more particular Relation than between others and them although in this Consideration the Jurisdiction of the Apostles was no other than what was common to them with the Evangelists or any other Persons that planted Christianity made Conversions and setled Churches in any particular Regions or Places yet even this is as far from being Diocesan as from being ordinary A Founder that institutes a College settles Orders and makes Statutes though he doth not constitute himself as rarely any does a Visitor yet on extraordinary Occasions and in Difficulties arising about the Meaning of Statutes or their Application upon incident Emergencies he would think it but a Duty while himself lived and the Founded should think it theirs to have recourse unto him and to take his Directions but he dying that Authority as being incident only unto his Person dyes with him Founders as such have no Successors I touched in my former Letter on this latter Jurisdiction in respect whereof in a right sense one Apostle may well be affirmed to have had an Authority and Power in some places and over some Persons more than another for thus in a particular manner Paul was stiled the Apostle of the Uncircumcision as Peter was of the Circumcision The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 4. Expostulates with the Corinthions on this Account he assereth the Authority he had over them and shews the ground of that Authority for he affirms That as he was their Father in Christ so he had an Authority over them as a Father over his Children ver 14 15 16. I write not these things to shame you but as my beloved Sons I warn you for though you have ten thousand Instructors in Christ yet have you no many Fathers for in Christ Iesus I have begotten you through the Gospel Thus he claims an Authority over them as being their Father or one that had Converted them which Authority he plainly distinguishes from theirs who were only Instructors Now Bishops as such are but Instructors of Churches not Fathers they may Convert and Proselite single Persons but as Bishops they do not Found Churches but only Feed the Churches already founded In vertue of this Authority as he was their Father and Founder the Apostle Exercised that Jurisdiction over the Church at Corinth which you call Episcopal a thing so evident that nothing can be more to one that observes the Connexion for in the latter end of the Fourth Chapter he evinced as I said that he had a paternal Authority over them as well as Care for them and immediately in the beginning of the 5th as an Instance of that Authority he gives them that Direction about the Incestuous Person upon which you i◠sist. So that in this Transaction with the Corinthians the Apostle acted not as an ordinary Bishop but acting by vertue of that Authority which he had over them as he was the Person that had Converted them and was their Father and Founder The Quality he acted in was Extraordinary and particular Again the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary too he was present in Spirit and not in Care and Affection only affectu et sollicitudine as by a supposed Parallel in the Expression Coloss. 2. 5. you would have me believe for he makes his presence the ground of his proceeding in the Censure or Judgment which he pronounced for I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have Iudged already and all Judgment must proceed upon Evidence by View or Proof not Affection and therefore his presence which is the Ground of his proceeding must be a Spiritual view The Report or general Scandal which is mentioned ver 1. on which you insist was but a Motive to the Apostle to invite him to consider the matter it was not the Ground on which he proceeded in his Censure this as he plainly affirms was his Spiritual view or presence in Spirit And what Spirit but that same Spirit mentioned afterwards in the same Text which Spirit you must yield to be Extraordinary and Apostolical when you come together and Mr SPIRIT it being but reason that the same Spirit which gave in Evidence should also assist at the Execution But this latter Spirit you say was but a Letter or Authority conveyed by the Apostles Letter and why say I the latter Spirit not the same with the former and where I pray you is Spirit taken for a Letter or for Anthority conveyed by it I am sure this same Apostle distinguishes Letter Word and Spirit 2 Thess. 2. 2. and therefore and my Spirit should not be and my Letter especially when joyned in the manner it is here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ which what it is may more particularly be understood by Act. 1. 8. But you shall receive the POWER of the Holy Ghost coming upon you And the Sentence passed by S. Paul was as Extraordinary as the Cognisance whereon he grounded it for To deliver to Satan was not to Excommunicate either with the lesser Excommunication which is Suspension from the Sacrament or with the greater which is a solemn Excision from the Church Some will tell you it was a Censure wholly unknown unto the Jews who yet had all the Forms of Excommunication Nidui Cberem and Maranatha and that in the whole New Testament nothing in the least is said to support this thought that Tradition to Satan is Excommunication The delivery to Satan as many of the the Antient Fathers believed some of whom your self do cite was certainly a Judiciary giving the Dilinquent to the Devil as to a Tormentor for so the Apostles Phrase doth carry it when he saith it It was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Destruction of the Flesh and it was practised only by the Apostles by their Apostolical Power of which see Petrus Molineus in his Vates l. 2. c. 11. You do indeed acknowledg at last that Corporal Asfliction or Pains inflicted by the Devil as by a Tormentor had Place in the first Times and by virtue too of Apostolical Censure but then by way of Qualification you say also That it was a Consequent of Excommunication But this is a thing that
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
the Bishops only to their ordinary and lawful Jurisdiction Invest them in any new or any that is unlawful at the Common Law or that is contrary to the Prerogative of our Kings All that I have said on this Occasion might receive a further Confirmation were there need of more by the famed Character of King Kenulphus made to the Abbot of Abington in which was a grant of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction as there also was in that of King Off a made to the Monastry of S. Albans by the Title of King Edgar who stiled himself Vicar of God in Ecclesiasticals by the Offering that Wolstan made of his Staff and Ring the Ensigns of his Episcopacy at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor by the Petition of the Archbishop and Clergy at the Coronation of our Kings by the form of the King 's Writ for Summoning a Convocation and of the Royal Licence that is commonly granted before the Clergy and Convocation can go upon any particular Debates In fine by the Statutes relating to Excommunication that do both direct and limit the Execution of that Censure and the proceedings upon it as to Capias's c. And thus much for Church-Government in the Third State of the Church as it is become incorporated by Civil Powers In discoursing of which I have made it plain That as no National Draught is of our Lord Christ's or his Apostles designing so that National Churches are all of Human Institution and their Government Ambulatory that is Alterable according as Times and Occasions and as the Forms of Civil Governments in States that do incorporate the Church oblige it to be to make it fit and suitable I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE THIRD LETTER SIR I Have always acknowledged some Episcopacy to be of Primitive Antiquity but you will please to remember I have likewise shewed that that Episco pacy was Presbyterial not Prelatical Congregational not Diocesan And that the Primitive Bishop was only a first Presbyter that is a Chairman in the College of Presbyters and not as in the Diocesan Hierarchy a Prelate of a superior Order that presided over several Congregational Churches and was invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction much less was he an Officer that kept Courts that had under him Chancellours Commissaries Officials Registers Apparitors c. and that judged per se aut per alium in certain reserved Cases To make this out I presented to you a Scheme of the Government of the Church both as it was established and settled by the Apostles and as it was afterwards I shewed That the Apostles in all their Institutions did carefully avoid any Imitation of the temple-Temple-Orders to which Orders the Prelatical Hierarchy doth plainly conform I shewed also That the Government settled by the Apostles was only Congregational the Apostles in planting of Churches proceeding only after the Model and Way of the Synagogues Ay! all the Churches that we read of in Scripture that were constituted by the Apostles were only Congregational not National or Provincial that is they were as so many little Republicks each consisting of a Senate or Eldership with the Authority and of a People with the Power but all independant one of another and all possessed of all that Jurisdiction and Authority over their Members that was to be standing and ordinary For this Reason tho' every Congregation was but a part and a small one yet it had the Denomination of the whole every particular Congregation was stiled a Church This will appear more evident if we consider That the Interest of the People had at first and long after for above 150 Years in the Ordination of Officers was very great It is true the Word Ordination or that which answers to it in the Greek is never used throughout the whole New Testament for the making of Evangelical Officers nor did it in this Sense come into use among Christians till after the Christian Church began to accommodate to the Language as well as to the Orders of the Jewish But then as the People was called Laity and Plebs so the Clergy was called Ordo and this in the same Sense of the Word as when we read of the Order of Aaron and of that of Melchisedeck and then too the calling of any Person to the Ministry as it was a calling of him to be of the Clergy or Order so it was stiled an Ordination Ordination being nothing but the placing of a Person in the Order of the Clergy But tho' the Word Ordination was not as yet in use in the first Times the Thing was which is the Creation of Officers in the Church and in this the People possess'd so great a share which is a very good Argument of the Church's being framed at first after the Model and Way of Republicks that even the Action it self is called Chirotonia by S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and ever since by the Greek Fathâ—rs Ay the Creation of Officers is not usually called Chirothesia for this with the Greek Fathers was the Word that was mostly if not always used for Confirmation not for Ordination tho' Imposition of Hands the Ceremony signified by that Word was the Rite which was used by the Jews in creating of Rabbies and Doctors the Act of Ordination is usually if not always denominated Chirotonia or Extension of Hands which in the Greek Republicks was the Name or Word for the Popular Suffrage Indeed Paul and Barnabas are said to Chirotonize or as our Translators render the Word Acts 14. 23. To ordain them Elders in every Church But says Mr. Harrington they are said to do so but in the same Sense that the Proedri who were Magistrates to whom it belonged to put the Question in the Representative of the People of Athens are in Demosthenes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the Suffrage and the Thesmothetae who were Presidents in the Creation of Magistrates are in Pollux said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chirotonize the Strategi who yet ever since the Institution of Cliethenes that distributed the People into ten Tribes were always used to be elected and made by the Popular Suffrage Nor was this manner of Speaking peculiar unto the Greeks but as Calvin in his Institutions l. 4. c. 4. f. 15. observes it was a common Form used also by the Roman Historians who say That the Consul created Officers when he only presided at the Election and gathered the Votes of the People Et c'est uniforme commune de parler comme les Historiens disent quun Consul creoit des Officiers quand il recevoit le voix du peuple presedoit sur l' election So plain it is that S. Luke in saying that Paul and Barnabas did chirotonize the Elders intended to signifie no more but that the Elders were made by the Suffrage of the People Paul and Barnabas presiding at the Election and declaring or making the Crisis and so the New Latin Translation in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word that commonly signifies Strength not Authority Besides if this putting away v. 2. must be understood as certainly it must of the same putting away with that v. 13. nothing can be plainer than that it was a Censure the People could and ought to have made of themselves without expecting any new Commission as being in a matter that by the Apostles own Concession they had a proper Cognisance of and over a Person too whose competent Judges they were as the same Apostle tells them Do not you judge them that are within therefore put away c. putting away is grounded on the Peoples Judgment but delivery unto Satan upon the Apostles And yet however putting away may well be called an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rebuke and be a kind of Punishment for to be excluded from the Common Society and Conversation of the Faithful cannot deserve a milder Expression You still insist That there is and ought to be a Disparity of Ministers because there was a Disparity between the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples and with Blondel think that the 70 continued in the same Office after the Ascension of our Lord that they had before for you say You cannot believe they withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men. But tho' you do not believe as I know no need you should that the 70 withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men yet if their Office was only occasional that is if they were sent by our Saviour to the House of Israel as Messengers upon some particular Occasions and about a particular Business then their Office ceased of Course at their Return like that of a Prince's Envoy whose Office ends with his Business that is as soon as his Message is done and he returned with the Account of it I know of no Jurisdiction the 12 Apostles had over the 70 but am sure the Office and Work of the 70 whatever it was related but to the Jews as being a Business only for that Time a Time that was the Crepusculum or Twi-light between the Law and Gospel Judaism and Christianity while as yet the Kingdom of Heaven was only at hand but not come Luke 10. 9. I add That the Office of the 70 is not reckoned in the number of the Ascension Gifts Eph. 4. 11. And which is more that the Apostles themselves had they not received another a new Commission after the Reâ—urrection of Christ they by their former old one which confirmed them unto Iudaea as that of the 70 also did them and which was only for a preliminary Work Matth. 10. 7. as that of the 70 also was could not have had an Authority to preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles and so to lay the Foundation of the Catholick Church And therefore the first Commission as it was limited so it was Temporary and expired at furthest when a second was given them Matth. 28 18 19. Acts 1. 8. Not but that the 70 as well as the 12 had Business in the Kingdom of Heaven or the Evangelical State but they had it not under the Denomination of the 70 or in vertue of their first Commission or Mission but only as they came to be Officers in this Kingdom by being constituted Evangelists or Prophets or Pastors and Teachers or Deacons c. You offer again in Confirmation of your Notion of the Apostleship of Bishops that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation were Bishops constituted by the Apostles with the same Authority themselves had and that the Twelve Apostles and Paul were not all the Apostles that the Scripture speaks of for Barnabas and others were Apostles too as well as they I acknowledge Barnabas to be an Apostle but I cannot acknowledge that he was an Apostle of the same Rank with the Twelve and Paul for as Paul himself distinguishes Gal. 1. 1. All Apostles were not of the same Rank but some were in the first some in the second Order that is some were Apostles sent immediately by Christ himself and so were Legates à latere and some were sent not immediately by Christ himself but by Men. Now Paul insists That himself was an Apostle of the first Order and in the same Rank with the Twelve Gal. 1. 17. whereas it is plain that Barnabas and all the others who are called Apostles can pretend to be but of the second they being sent not immediately by Christ himself as those of the first were but only by Man either by the Apostles that were of the first Order as Timothy and Titus by Paul or by some Church as Barnabas Acts 11. 22. for here the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him as the word Imports that is used Acts 13 3. Apostles of the second Order are called also Evangelists and it was their business to be Assistant unto those of the first if not always to their Persons yet at least to their Work which was to plant Churches by making of Conversions and setling Orders And of this sort of Apostles I again acknowledge Timothy and Titus to have been I proved in my former Paper that Timothy and Titus were Evangilists but it seems the Argument I used loses all its force with you because its strength like that of the Arch-work lies in the Combination and Concurrence and you consider it only in pieces not as a whole and all its parts together and United but only separately and part by part As for Timothy methinks we do too often find him with S. Paul in his Perambulations to have any reason to conceive that he was resident Bishop of Ephesus and for Titus his Diocess seems too large for any ordinary Bishop Crete is famed to have had an hundred Cities in old time and Pliny assures us L. 4. c. 12. that in his there were forty which were enough for so many Bishopricks Titus had it in Charge Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City and to ordain Elders in every City was to settle a Church in every City so that if every Church must have a Bishop as some are confident it must then every City in Crete that had a Church had also a Bishop and so possibly there were as many Bishops and Bishopricks in Crete as there were Cities This Consideration if well weighed will much abate of the Authority of the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus in which this Evangelist is stiled the Ordained Bishop in the Church of the Cretians for according to the Language of that time had Titus been indeed the Bishop of that whole Island he ought to have been stiled Bishop of the Churches and not of the Church of the Cretians But it seems it is taken for granted that a Bishop must have but