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
Beza and Piscator renders the Text Quâ—mque ipsis per suffragia creassent c. I know that some have told us That Iosephus uses the Word with reference unto God he saying that God did chrirotonize Aaron thrice and therefore to chirotonize is not always to be taken for the Popular Suffrage Nor is chirotonizing always taken so But supposing that the Word Chirotonize was used by Iosephus as afterwards it came to be by others in a second Sense for any Creation of Officers in general yet in the primary and proper use it signifies the Popular Suffrage for Chirotonia in Suidas is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Election Ratification made by All. And this also was the common Use of the Word at that time when and in the Places most of them Republicks where the Apostles are said to chirotonize And certainly no Man can imagine with Reason That the making of Elders in its first Institution should be called Chirotonia and bear the Name of the Suffrage of the People especially in that time and in such places had these Elders been made in any other manner than by the popular Suffrage for then the name of the Action would have been distinctive or proper as all Original Names of things are used to be Besides what if it should be said as indeed it is by Mr. Harrington that when the Congregation or People of Israel upon the several miraculous Appearances in favour of Aaron did recognize him again and again for High Priest this Chirotonia of the People was the Chirotonia of God Why might not God as President of the Congregation in that Theocracy as well be said as he is by Iosephus to chirotonize when the People did as the Proedri who presided in the Assembly of the People at Athens be said by Demosthenes to make the Diachirotonia the Thesmothetae by Pollux to Chirotonize the Strategi and the Consul who presided at the Election of Officers at Rome be said by the Roman Historians to create these Officers As for the Diachirotonia tho' you think it the Act only of the Magistrates not of the People because Hesychius says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will give me leave to acquaint you that the Diachirotonia was as much the Act of the People or of those suffrageâ— as the Chirotonia it self was For those that suffraged or made the Chirotonia are said in cases of competition to Diachirotanize because then by their Suffrages they did distinguish one of the Competitors from the other and he of the Competitors that was distinguished to his Advantage as carrying the Office by most Voices was said to be Diachirotonized and a Declaration was made That he was elected which Declaration was called Crisis All this is evident from Plato who treating l. 6. de leg concerning the Election of the Strategi in case of Competition says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoever appears to be Diachirotonized or to have most Voices be it declared let the Crisis be that he is elected Here he distinguishes very plainly between the Diachirotonia which he attributes to those that suffraged and the Crisis or declarative Judgment which was the Act of those that presided But he does it afterward more plainly wheâ— ordaining that the same Rule that was observed in the making of the Strategi should be also observed in that of the Taxiarchi he says Let the same be observed both as to the Epichirotonia and the Crisis that is as to the Suffrage and to the Resolve So that Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be interpreted a Discrimination or preference made by Suffrage As for the Jurisdiction of the Apostles I make no doubt but that the Apostles who were Elders as well as Apostles 2 Pet. 5. 1. acted in setled Congregations where any of them happen'd to be or to reside with the Elders of such Congregations in that Capacity of Elders but as this Authority was not properly or purely Apostolical so that which was both that I call the Essential that was incident to the Apostles as they founded the Church and the Accidental that was incident to them as they founded particular Churches was Extraordinany and peculiar as being only for that emergent Occasion and not for Continuance To speak generally governing the Churches was as much an ordinary Work as â—reaching and was common to all the Elders whether Apostles or not but to do it in such a particular manner with such a Rod and with so large a Superintendence as in some cases the Apostles did was extraordinary and peculiar to them No Officers that are now can pretend to a Rod like that of the Apostles Acts 5. 3 4 5 c. 1 Cor. 4. 21 and therefore none that are now can exercise such a Discipline as they did Those that will truly evidence that the Prelatical Hierarchy is Apostolical ought to demonstrate that besides the Officers setled in all particular Churches to feed and govern them the Apostles and Evangelists setled others as a kind of Visitors General over all or over many Churches together with the same Authority that themselves had exercised and this for continuance without this nothing is done to any purpose As for the Transaction 1 Cor. 5. I am still of the mind it was wholly extraordinary and that it cannot be drawn into Example The Apostle says When you are gathered together and my Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with the Authority but with the mighty power of the Lord Christ to the end to deliver such an one unto Satan Whence it follows very clearly That without the Apostles Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ the Corinthians were unable to deliver that Incestuous to Satan for else I see no Reason why they should have the Conjunction and Assistance of these the Apostles Spirit and Christ's Power for that end since then there would be no need of it And if they could not deliver the Incestuous to Satan without the Assistance of the Apostolical Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ it also follows that to deliver to Satan was not meerly to excommunicate eject or suspend him since this was so much in their own Power that they might have done it of themselves without such Extraordinary and Miraculous Aids To be sure this Effect whatever it was if it bore as every Effect must do proportion unto its cause it must be something that was Extraordinary for it came not only from the Spirit of the Apostle but also from the Miraculous Power of Christ for such a Power that is which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as is evident Acts 1. 8. 'T is true you infer from 1 Cor. 5. 2. That the Corinthians could not put away the Incestuous without a new Commission from the Apostle who was their Bishop and consequently you understand the Power was given to them only of a Commission or Authority But on the contrary the Word used for Power is as I have said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
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
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
no wonder if Iure divino for the most part did carry the point especially before the Reformation This Error was the less Excusable because it was a departure from the great and in truth the only Example of a Holy Kingdom which such pious Politicians could propose to themselves I mean that of the Hebrews in which though matters that were purely mattes of Religion were distinguisht from matters purely Civil the matters of God from the matters of the King yet the Jurisdictions that related to them were not Divided the same Senate only in distinct Capacities as it was composed of Fathers as well as of Priests and Levites so it had the Cognizance of all matters nothing distinguished the Court in respect of the Two kinds of Causes Religious and Secular but that it had two Presidents which possibly were to take the Chair as the nature of the Cause required Amâ—ziah was over them in matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in matters of the King and all by an Authority and Power derived from the King as Sovereign and Supream in all Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set c. In truth the Church having submitted to receive Incorporation into the Civil State or being favoured with it for you may take it either way it was no longer obliged to continue a Divided Separate Jurisdiction for the Reason of the Churches separate Jurisdiction now failing the Magistrate being become Christian and consequently Ayding the Jurisdiction that it had before must fail with it and so revert to the Magistrate And Reason good it should and that by a reason taken even from the nature of Government for there ought to be and indeed there can be but one Spring and Fountain of Jurisdiction in one Kingdom and Government Besides Ecclesiastical Government cannot reach but to the External Actions of Men and therefore is very improperly called Spiritual since it is not Internal and the External Actions of Men as such do properly come under the Cognisance of the Magistrate he being ordained to be the Avenger of all evil doing as well as for the praise of them that do well and then nothing can remain for the Church to do unless the same Actions must be subjected to the Cognisance of divided unsubordinate Jurisdictions which should they be would breed a great Confusion which I must insist upon and be a great Injustice Breed great Confusion for that a Person in the same Cause should be absolved by one Jurisdiction and be condemned by another and this without any means of Composure for Example that he should be acquitted at the Assizes by Twelve of the Neighbourhood and yet be Convicted in the Bishops Court which may well happen where the Jurisdictions are divided and then no means is left neither of any Composure if they are also unsubordinated this is Confusion As that he should be twice Condemned and punish'd twice for one Fact would be great Injustice As for single Congregations they are only as so many little Fraternities Gilds or Corporations and consequently may have Constitutions and By-Laws of their own as these have without the least danger or other prejudice that can be thought of to the States that permit or protect them Certainly the Kingdom of Christ the true Hierarchy is a Kingdom that is not Secular or of this World that is it is not an External but a Spiritual Kingdom a Power erected in the Hearts and Consciences of Men in which he Rules and Governs by his Word and Spirit and therefore it doth not it cannot as such pretend to any Jurisdiction properly so called there being no Jurisdiction properly so called without Coercion and Compulsion and Coercion and Compulsion is a way that is not used by Christ. All the Subjects of Christ are Volunteers and Freemen whom as he brings into his Kingdom so he keeps in it only by Perswasions Exhortations Counsels and such like Methods And this Tertullian believed who in L. ad Scap. says Humani Iuris naturalis est unicuique quod put averit colere nec aliis aut obest aut predest alterius religio sed nec religonis est cogere religionem quae Sponte suscipi debeat non vi c. It is the first and chief right of humane nature for every man to worship what he thinks he ought nor does the Religion of one either hurt or profit another nor can it be any Religion to Compel Religion Religion ought to be taken up of Choice and not by force or constraint c. So far gone was that Father for Liberty of Conscience However it must be confessed That if any Persons refuse to observe the Rules of Christian Society and particularly the Rules of that Society of which they are Members it is but reason that they should leave it and if otherwise they will not that they be constrained to leave it But this by the by To be sure the Essential Church hath no one Form of External Government assigned to it in the whole and it was as great wisdom not to settle any in particular for National Churches for seeing the Church must be Extended into all Nations the Government and Policy of it must be of a nature either Ambulatory so as to be accommodated upon Occasion or it must be such an one as without interfering with them can consist with all the several Forms of Civil and Secular Government In my Judgment the Lord Bacon speaks excellently well to this matter when he says I for my part do confess That in revolving the Scriptures I could never find any such thing as one Form of Discipline in all Churches and that imposed by necessity of a Commandment and Prescript out of the Word of God but that God had left the like liberty to the Church-Government as he had done to the Civil Government to be varied according to Time and Place and Accidents which nevertheless his high and Divine Providence doth order and dispose for all Civil Governments are restrained from God to the several Grounds of Justice and Manners but the Policies and Forms of them are left free so that Monarchies and Kingdoms Senates and Signories Popular States and Communalties are lawful and where they are planted ought to be maintained inviolate So likewise in Church matters the substance of Doctrin is immutable and so are the General Rules of Government but for Rites and Ceremonies and for the particular Hierarchies Policies and Discipline of Churches they be left at large and therefore it is good we return unto the Ancient bounds of Unity in the Church of God which was one Faith one Baptism and not one Hierarchy one Discipline and that we observe the League of Christians as it is penned by our Saviour which is in substance of Doctrin thus He that is not with us is against us but of things indifferent and of Circumstance he that is not against us is with us Bacon's Considerations touching Pacification in Resuscit fol. 237 238 This
Sentiment of that Excellent Person will be much confirmed if we consider Church Policy but in one Important Instance the calling of Bishops for this as it has received frequent Alteration and been very different in different times and Countries so it was All upon prudential regards In Cyprian's time as in that of the Apostles it was as it were Iussu populi Authoritate Senatus by Choice of the People and appointment of other Bishops How it is now All know and in the intermediate times it has not always been after one manner but various according unto various times and occasions In short the business of Pastors and Teachers who are permanent and standing Officers in the Church of Christ is to feed the Flock by preaching and administring the Sacraments and on occasion to denounce Eternal Torments the true Spiritual Censure And this will be their business to the Worlds endâ— But for External Rule and Jurisdiction this being but accidental to their Office and arising only from the particular Circumstance in which the Church was while separate from the State now that the Magistrate is Christian it doth entirely devolve upon him the Christian Magistrate is the Ruling Presbyter and whom he appoints as Overseers of the Poor may be called the Deacons It is certain that in our English Constitution not to speak of the French and that of other Foreign Kingdoms however some may talk of Iure divino all Government or Jurisdiction the Spiritual as they call it as well as the Temporal is derived from the King who in this sense is supream Ordinary Bishop and Governour in all Causes and therefore in all Courts and Jurisdictions This is evident both as to the Legislative part of the Government and to the strictly Jurisdictive for as my Author tells me out of the British Councils All the Church Laws in the time of the Saxons were made in the Micklemote And indeed it were easie to evince that most of the Ancient Synods and Councils in England as well as in other Countries were meer Parliaments As for the Consistory Court which every Archbishop and the Bishop of the Diocess hath as holden before his Chancellor or Commissary this seems not to have been divided from the Hundred or County Court before a Mandate was given to that purpose by William the Conqueror the Exemplification of which Mandate is in Mr. Dugdale in his Appendix ad Hist. Eccles. Cathol St. Pauli f. 196. Before the Normans entrance says Mr. Dugdale from Sir H. Spelman the Bishops sate in the Hundred Court with the Lord of the Hundred as he did in the County Court with the Earls in the Sheriffs Turn with the Sheriff But to set out the matter by more Authentick Records In the Statute of Provisors it is affirmed That the Church of England was founded in the State of Prelacy by Edward the First Grand-father to Edward the Third and his Progenitors And in 25th of Henry the Eighth Chap. 19. in the Submission of the Clergy these acknowledge as they say according to Truth That the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be Assembled only by the King 's Writ and farther promise in Verbo Sacerdoâ—is that they will never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or exact any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever name they shall be called in the Convocation unless the King 's most Royal Assent and Licence may to them be had to make promulge and exact the same and that his Majesty do give his most Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf And it was then enacted That the King should at his pleasure assign and nominate 32 Persons of his Subjects whereof 16. to be of the Clergy and 16 of the Temporality of the upper and lower House of Parliament who should have Power and Authority to view search and examine the Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal heretofore made and with his Majesty's Assent under his Great Seal to continue such as they judge worthy to be kept and to abolish and abrogate the residue which they shall Judge and Deem worthy to be abolished It was also provided in the same Act That no Canons Constitutions or Ordinances shall be made or put in Execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which shall be contrary to the King's Prerogative Royal or to the Customs Laws or Statutes of this Realm there the Ecclesiastical Legislation is subjected to the King And enacted That it shall be lawful for any Party grieved in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm to appeal to the King's Majesty in the Court of Chancery upon which Appeal a Commission is to be directed under the Great Seal to Persons named by the King his Heirs or Successors which Commissioners have full power to hear and finally determine upon such Appeal And here the Jurisdiction of the Church is acknowledged to be originally in the King and derived from him for there the Sovereign Supream Power lodges where the last appeal the last Resort is Add that in the first Year of Edward VI. in an Act entituled An Act for Election of Bishops it was enacted That none but the King by his Letters Patents shall collate to any Archbishoprick or Bishoprick It was also declared That the use of Archbishops and Bishops and other Spiritual Persons to make and send out Summons in their own names was contrary to the form and order of the Summons and Process of the Common Law used in this Realm seeing that All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland and so Justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realms It was therefore enacted That all Courts Ecclesiastical within the said Two Realms be kept by no other Power or Authority either Foreign or within this Realm but by the Authority of the King's Majesty and that all Summons and Citations and other Process Ecclesiastical be made in the name and with the Style of the King as it is in his Writs Original and Judicial at the Common Law And it is further enacted That all manner of Persons that have the Excercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have the King's Arms in their Seals of Office c. This Act was passed in a Parliament of the Profession of the Church of England in 1 Eward 6th and though it were repealed by one of another Character in 1 Mariae yet this repealing Statue being again repealed in 1st of Iames 1. 25. it seems plain that that of the first Year of Edward the Sixth is revived But supposing it is not yet in that case though the Constitutive part remain void the Declarative will still stand good as shewing the Common Law Nor doth the late Act of 13 Car. 2. ch 12. that restored
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-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
one Church and therefore that Titus may be a Bishop of the Cretians all the Churches of Crete must be Consolitated into one else among all the Churches in Crete I would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where Titus resided If Titus was Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops and at least a Metropolitan which indeed would be most in favour of the Hierarchy could it be Evidenced But this could not be the settlement that was made in Crete For it would be strange that the Apostle should appoint a Hierarchy in Crete that should differ from the form of Government setled upon the Continent by himself and Barnabas who constituted Elders in every Church without appointing that we read of any Superiour Bishop or Metropolitan that should have a General Care and Inspection over the several Churches For my part I could not see how Titus should understand his Commission which was to ordain Elders in every City to carry any other Intention with reference to Crete than the very same words do when they are used to signifie what Paul himself who gave him this Commission had done upon the Continent where he and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church And therefore as Paul and Barnabas established single Congregations only and Organized them with Elders and then left them to govern themselves by their own Intrinsick powers So in the like manner Titus established Churches in every City and Organized them with Elders which having done it is very probable that he returned again unto S. Paul to give an account of his Commission Thus Titus his business in Crete has the very Idea and Signature of that of an Evangelist or a Secundary Apostle without the least Mark of an ordinary Bishop nor is there any hint in all the Authentick Scriptures of his being ordained Bishop of Crete or indeed of any place else And the like must be said of Timothy with reference to Ephesus who was sent to the Church there as a Visitor only with Apostolical Authority and so as S. Paul's Delegate Nor it Titus his ordaining of Elders a good Argument for sole Ordination for the word Tit. 1. 5. is the same that is used in Acts 6. 3. in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the People And one might well admire that the same word which is Translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordained in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if there were a plain Text for sole Ordination But what if Timothy and Titus had a power of sole Jurisdiction and a power too of making Canons for the Government of the Church which latter yet is an Authority that every Bishop will not pretend unto after their Example The Church then was in a State of Separation from Secular Government and among Heathen just as the Jews are now among Christians so that all it could do at that time was to perswade it could not compel And therefore it will not follow now that the Church is protected and not only protected by but Incorporated into the State that the Officers of it must have the same powers and Exercise them in the same manner as before or as Mr. Selden expresses it That England must be Governed as Ephesus or Crete It is certain that Kings would gain but little by the Bargain not to say they must depart with their Sovereignty to Incorporate the Christian Religion should this be admitted that church-Church-Authority church-Church-Power must be still the same after such Incorporation as before For a separate National Jurisdiction Exercised by one or many is a Solecism in State especially if it claim by the Title of Iure divino a Title that renders it Independent upon as well as unboundable and uncontroulable by all that is human Such a Jurisdiction would weaken that of Kings and other States All their Subjects would be but half Subjects and many none at all and it is no more nor less but that very same thing that heretofore was found so inconvenient and burden some under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie A Clergy imbodied within it self and independent on the State is in a Condition of being made a powerful Faction upon any Occasion and easie to be practised upon as being united under one or a few Heads who can presently convey the Malignity to all their Subordinates and these to the People So that I lay it down as a Maxim that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government than a National Hierarchy that does not depend upon it or is not in the Measures and Interests of it Fresh Experience has learned us this I know not with what Design it was said by Padre Paulo Sarpio of Venice but his Words are very remarkable as I find them cited from an Epistle of his to a Counsellor of Paris in the Year 1609. I am afraid says he in the behalf of the English of that great power of Bishops though under a King I have it in Suspicion when they shall meet with a King of that goodness as they will think it easie to work upon him or shall have any Archbishop of an high Spirit the Royal Authority shall be wounded and Bishops will aspire to an Absolute Domination Methinks I see a Horse Sadled in England and I guess that the old Rider will get on his Back But all these things depend on the Divine Providence Thus he very prudently as to the main though perhaps with some mistake as to his Conjecture For my part I think it but reason that such Persons as have the Benefit of Human Laws should in so much be guided by them and that the Sword which owns no other Edge but what the Magistrate gives it should not be used but by his Direction As indeed the practice in England has always been For as Mr. Selden observes Whatever Bishops do otherwise than the Law permits Westminster-Hall can controul or send them to absolve c. He also says very well That nothing has lost the Pope so much in his Supremacy as not acknowledging what Princes gave him 't is a scorn says he on the Civil Power and an unthankfulness in the Priest But adds he the Church runs to Iure divino lest if these should acknowledge what they have by positive Laws it might be as well taken from them as given to them Ay This excellent Person goes further so much further as to tell us That a Bishop as a Bishop had never any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England for as soon as he was Electus Confirmatus that is after the Three Proclamations in Bow-Church he might Exercise Jurisdiction before he was Consecrated and yet till then that he was Consecrated he was no Bishop neither could he give Orders Besides says he Suffragans were