I come to examine the argument from Apostolical Succession Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them nor the whole Epistles to Timothy and Titus do determine any one form of Government to be necessary in the Church of God Thirdly Let us see whether the general Rules do require any one form which rules in that they are general can determine nothing of the authority it self as to its particular mode being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed And it is an evidence that nothing is particularly determined in this case when the Spirit of God only lays down such Rules for government which are applyable to distinct forms Otherwise certainly some Rule would have been laid down which could have been applyed to nothing but to that one form That none take the office of preaching without a Call nor go without sending will equally hold whether the power of Ordination lye in a Bishop with Presbyters or in Presbyters acting with equality of power That offenders be censured and complaints made to the Church in case of scandal determines nothing to whom the power of Jurisdiction doth solely belong nor what that Church is which must receive these complaints That all things be done with decency and order doth prescribe nothing wherein that Decency lyes nor how far that Order may extend nor yet who must be the Judges of that Decency and Order That all be done for edification and the common benefit of the Church doth no wayes restrain his Churches freedom in disposing of its self as to the form of its government so the aym of the Church be for the better edification of the body of the Church and to promote the benefit of it But methinks these general Orders and Rules for Discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the Church of God so that in all the several forms these general Rules be observed Whereas had Christ appointed a superiour Order to govern other subordinate Officers and the Church together Christs command for governing the Church would have been particularly addressed to them and again had it been the will of Christ there should be no superior Order above the Pastours of particular Churches there would have been some expresse and direct prohibition of it which because we no where read it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his Church So much shall serve in this place to shew how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of Government in his Church since he hath only laid down general Rules for the management of Church government But this will not yet suffice those who plead that Christ must determine one immutable form of Government in his Church but although it be a high presumption to determine first what Christ must do before we examine what he hath done yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pretences that are brought for this opinion The next thing then which is generally urged for it is the equal necessity of Christs instituting a certain form as for any other Legislator who models a Common-wealth Now for answer to this I say first That Christ hath instituted such an immutable government in his Church as is sufficient for the succession and continuance of it which is all which Founders of Common-wealths do look after viz. that there be such an Order and distinction of persons and subordination of one to the other that a Society may still be preserved among them now this is sufficiently provided for by Christs appointing Officers continually to rule his Church and establishing Laws for the perpetuating of such Officers so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of Government is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Untill then that it be proved that one form of government is in it self absolutely necessary for the being of a Church this argument can prove nothing for what is drawn from necessity will prove nothing but in a case of necessity Secondly I answer That those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church are left to Christs liberty whether he will determine them or no and are no further to be looked on as necessary then as he hath determined by his Laws whether they shall be or no in his Church The thing will be thus cleared When I read that Zaleucus Lycurgus or Numa did form a Common-wealth and make Laws for it I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this Common wealth and some rules whereby persons must be governed and whereby others must Rule But I cannot hence inferr that Zaleucus or Lycurgus did institute Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Government because any of these forms might be agreeable to their design and therefore what kind of government they did appoint can no otherwise be known then by taking a view of the Laws which they made in order thereto So it is in reference to Christ when we read that Christ hath instituted a Church alwayes to continue in the World we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that Society and Laws for the governing it but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his Officers to act in any one form because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of Government in his Church And therefore what Christ hath expresly determined in his positive Laws must be our Rule of judging in this case and not any presumption of our own that such a form was necessary and therefore Christ must institute and appoint it Which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this Objection As for those marvellous Discourses whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done I must confesse I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnesse herein When the question is Whether God have delivered in Scripture as they affirm he hath a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it But if there be no such thing apparent upon record they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force and vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth arguments from the Love and good will which alwayes the Testator bore imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no
from Philo Iudaeus Iosephus Appian Lucian and others But Secondly granting it used in the primary signification of the word yet it cannot be applied to the people but to Paul and Barnabas for it is not said that the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Paul and Barnabas did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now where ever that word is used in its first signification it is implyed to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may import no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out Which is onely a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent or one part for the whole action and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose Fourthly It seems strangely improbable that the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequenâ— to their ordination So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue The second thing we consider is The persons authorized to do it whom we consider under a double respect before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves and after First Before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty then the general rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Maimonides affirms To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said that in times of old every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples to which purpose many instances are there brought But it is generally agreed among them that in the time of Hillel this course was altered and they were restrained from their former liberty in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations or as they say out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a license obtained from him for that end and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin should be looked upon as null and void which is attested by the former Authors The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church for we may consider them in their first state and period as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common as Hierom tells us communi Presbyterorum conciâ—io Ecclesiâ— gubernabantur before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent in this instant doubtlesse the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists who are the hâ—ghest among the Papists for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy Yet Gratian himself confesseth Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant communia Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt distingui nomina officia Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom and the matter we are now upon in the first Primitive Church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order and not meeâ—ly from the power of jurisdiction It being likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters as to the power of order But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria of which Hierom speaks Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collâ—catum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent That learned Doctor who would perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person but the ordination was performed by other Bishops would do well first to tell us who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop of Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters especially while Aegypt remained but one Province under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis Secondly how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria for that which was common to all other Churches besides For the old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was Electio clericorum est consensus principis petitio plebis Thirdly this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted For first the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice as appears by his words Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters not to any Apostolical institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves Secondly it appears that by election he means conferring authority by the instances he brings to that purpose As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon who had no other power but what was meerly conâ—erred by the choice of the Coâ—ledge of Deacons To which we may add what Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria saith in
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
tuos in justitiâ Did Irenaeus think that Bishops in a superiour order to Presbyters were derived by an immediate succession from the Apostles and yet call the Presbyters by the name of Bishops It is said indeed that in the Apostles times the names Bishop and Presbyter were comman although the Office was distinct but that was only during the Apostles life say some when after the name Bishop was appropriated to that order that was in the Apostles so called before but say others it was only till subject Presbyters was constituted and then grew the difference between the names But neither of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can draw forth the difficulty in these places of Irenaeus for now both the Apostles were dead and subject Presbyters certainly in some of these Apostolical Churches were then constituted whence comes then the community of names still that those who are said to succeed the Apostles are called Bishops in one place but Presbyters in another and the very succession of Episcopacy attributed to Presbyters Can we then possibly conceive that these testimonies of Irenaeus can determine the point of succession so as to make clear to us what that power was which those persons enjoyed whom he sometimes calls Bishops and sometimes Presbyters But it is not Irenaeus alone who tells us that Presbyters succeed the Apostles even Cyprian who pleads so much for obedience to the Bishops as they were then constituted in the Church yet speaks often of his compresbyteri and in his Epistles to Florentius Pupianus who had reproached him speaking of those words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me c. Qui dicit ad Apostoles aâ— per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt where he attrâ—butes Apostolical succession to all that were praepositi which name implies not the relation to Presbyters as over them but to the people and is therefore common both to Bishops and Presbyters for so afterwards he speaks nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plâ—bs Praepositum c. Ierome saith that Presbyters are loco Apostolorum and that they do Apostolico gradui succeders and the so much magnified Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of Apostles and elsewhere of Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read in the Florentine copy set out by Vossius but in the former Editions both by Vedelius and the most learned Primate of Armagh it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that of Vossius seems to be the true reading to which the old Latin version in Bishop Usher fully agrees Quoniam subjectus est Episcopo ut gratiâ— Dei Presbyterio ut legi Jesu Christi It might be no improbable conjecture to guess from hence at Ignatius his opinion concerning the original both of Episcopacy and Presbyterie The former he looks on as an excellent gift of God to the Church so a learned Doctor paraphraseth Gratiâ— Dei i. e. Dono à Deo Ecclesiae â—ndulto so Cyprian often Divina dignatione speaking of Bishops i. e. that they looked on it as an act of Gods special favour to the Church to find out that means for unity in the Church to pitch upon one among the Presbyters who should have the chief Rule in every particular Church but then for Presbyterie he looks on that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an institution and Law of Iesus Christ which must on that account alwayes continue in the Church And â—o Sotion did commendably in submitting to the Bishop as a Favour of God to the Church for preventing schismâ— on which account it is and not upon the account of divine institution that Ignatius is so earnest in requiring obedience to the Bishop because as Cyprian faith Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo coadâ—nata grex Pastori adhaerens and the Bishops then being Orthodox he layes such a charge upon the people to adherâ— to them for it is to the people and not to the Presbyters he speaks most which was as much as to bid them hold to the unity of the faith and avoid those pernicious heresies which were then abroad and so Ignatius and Ierome may easily be reconciled to one another both owning the Council of Presbyters as of divine institution and both requiring obedience to Bishops as a singular priviledge granted to the Church for preventing schisms and preserving unity in the Faith And in all those thirty five Testimonies produced out of Ignatius his Epistles for Episcopacy I can meet but with one which is brought to prove the least femblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy and if I be not much deceived the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too the place is Ep. ad Ephesios He is exhorting the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I suppose may be rendred to fulfill the will of God so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Apocalyps 17. 17. and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He begins to exhort them to concur with the will of God and concludes his Exhortation to concur with the will or counsel of the Bishop and in the middle he shews the ground of the connexion of these two together for Christ saith he who is our inseparable life is the counsel of the Father and the Bishops who are scattered abroad to the ends of the earth are the counsel of Iesus Christ i. e. do concur with the will of Christ therefore follow the counsel of your Bishop which also you do Every thing is plain and obvious in the sense here and very coherent to the expressions both before and after only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as plainly redundant and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be rendred determinati but rather disterminati because it refers to a place here and so it notes their being dispersed into several places and separated from one another thereby implying the unity of their faith and the coagulum fidei notwithstanding their distance from one another as to place in the World which in Cyprians words is Ecclesiae universae per totum mundum unitatis vinculo copulatae And certainly a stronger argument then this could not have been given for the Ephesians chearfull obedience to their Bishop which is the thing beaims at then the universal consent of all the Bishops in the Christian World in the unity of the faith of Christ so that as Christ is the will and counsel of the Father because of that Harmony and consent which is between their wills so the Bishops are the will and counsel of Christ as chearfully uniting in the profession of his Faith So that we see Ignatius himself cannot give a doubting mind satisfaction of the Divine institution of Bishops when in the only place brought to that purpose his sense is quite different from what it is brought for So that the Records of the Church are far from deciding this
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
themselves as one body and met together as occasion served them where either the chief of the Governours of the Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iustin Martyrs language did perform the solemn part of divine Worship or some other of the Elders that were present with them Is it not strange for men to dream of set-times and Canonical hours and publike places of assemblies at that time when their chief times of meeting were in the night or very early in the morning which Pliny calls conventus antelucanus whence they were called latebrosa lucifugax natio and were fain to make use of wax-lights which from that custome the Papists continue still in their Tapers alwayes burning upon the Altar from what reason I know not unless to shew the darkness of error and superstition which that Church lyes under still and the places of the Christians meetings were generally either some private rooms or some grotts or Cryptae Vaults under ground where they might be least discerned or taken notice of or in the Coemeteria the Martyrum memoriae as they called them where their common assemblies were Thence Pontius Paulinus speaking of the Edict of Valerian against the Christians Iussum est ut nulla conciliabula faciant neque coemeteria ingrediantur Indeed when they had any publick liberty granted them they were so mindful of their duties of publick profession of the Faith as to make use of publick places for the worship of God as appears by Lampridius in the life of Alexander Sâ—verus Quum Christiani quendam locum qui publicus fuerat occupassent contrà popinarii dicerent sibi cum deberi rescripsit melius esse ut quomâ—docunque illic Deus colatur quam popinariis dedatur But in times of persecution it is most improbable that there should be any fixed Congregations and places when the Christians were so much hunted after and inquired for as appears by the former Epistle of Pliny and the known Rescript of Trajan upon it so much exagitated by Tertullian They did meet often it is certain ad confaederandum disciplinam at which meetings Tertullian tells us Praesident probati quique seniores which he elsewhere explains by Consessus ordiâ—is the bench of officers in the Church which did in common consult for the good of the Church without any Cantonizing the Christians into severall distinct and fixed Congregations But after that believers were much increased and any peace or liberty obtained they then began to contrive the distribution of the work among the several Officers of the Church and to settle the several bounds over which every Presbyter was to take his charge but yet so as that every Presbyter retained a double aspect of his Office the one particular to his charge the other generall respecting the Church in common For it is but a weak conceit to imagine that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct presbytery to rule it which we find not any obseure footsteps of in any of the ancient Churches but there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better governing the affairs of the Church And thus we find Cornelius at Rome sitting there cum florentissimo Clero thus Cyprian at Carthage one who pleads as much as any for obedience to Bishops and yet none more evident for the presence and joint concurrence and assistance of the Clergy at all Church debates whose resolution from his first entrance into his Bâ—shoprick was to do all things communi concilio Clericorum with the Common-Council of the Clergy and sayes they were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti Victor at Rome decreed Easter to be kept on the Lords day collatione facta cum Presbyteris Diaconibus according to the Latine of that age as Damasus the supposed Authour of the lives of the Popes tells us In the proceedings against Novatus at Rome we have a clear Testimony of the concurrence of Presbyters where a great Synod was called as Eâ—sebius expresseth it of sixty Bishops but more Presbyters and Deacons and what is more full to our purpose not onely the several Presbyters of the City but the Country Pastours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did likewâ—se give their advice about that business At this time Cornelius tells us there were forty six Presbyters in that one City of Rome who concurred with him in condemning Novatus So at Antioch in the case of Paulus Samosatenus we find a Synod gathered consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and in their name the Synodal Epistle is penned and directed to the same in all the Catholick Church At the Council of Eliberis in Spain were present but ninteen Bishops and twenty six Presbyters The case between Sylvanus Bishop of Cirta in Africk and Nundinaris the Deacon was referred by Purpuriuâ— to the Clergy to decide it For the presence of Presbyters at Synods instances are brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Blondel in his Apology And that they concurred in governing the Church and not onely by their Counsel but Authority appears from the general Sense of the Church of God even when Episcopacy was at the highest Nazianzen speaking of the Office of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew not whether to call it Ministry or Superintendency and those who are made Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being ruled they ascend to be rulers themselves And their power by him is in several places called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome gives this as the reason of Pauls passing over from Bishops to Deacons without naming Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because there is no great matter of difference between a Bishop and Presbyters for these likewise have the instruction and charge of the Church committed to them which words Theophylact Chrysostomes Eccho repeats after him which the Council of Aquen thus expresseth Presbyterorum verô qui praesunt Ecclesiâ— Christi ministerium esse videtur ut in doctrina praesint populis in Officio praedicandi nec in aliquo desides invâ—nti appareant Clemens Alexandrinus before all these speaking of himself and his fellow-Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are Pastors and Rulers of the Churches And that proper Acts of Discipline were performed by them appears both by the Epistles of the Roman Clergy about their preserving Discipline to Cyprian and likewise by the Act of that Clergy in excluding Marcion from communion with them So the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus excommunicated Noetus for after they had cited him before them and found him obstinate in his Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they put both him and his Disciples out of the Church together Thus we see what the
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
with the dispencers of the Word as appears from the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours Rulers Pastors all which necessarily imply a Governing power which having been largely proved by others and yeelded by me I pass over CHAP. III. The Question fully stated Not what form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of superiority nor the unlawfulnesse can be proved thence ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Controversie which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary and the Governours of the Church perpetuall Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed be determined by any positive Law of God which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it By Church here I mean not a particular Congregation but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government The forms of Government in controversie the Question being thus stated are only these two the particular officers of several Churches acting in an equality of Power which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution Which order is by an Antonomasia called Episcopacy The Question now is not which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice and the first Institution which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum that is be so determined by a positive Law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined without variation from it or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church provided there be some form of Government and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it left it to the prudence of every particular Church consisting of many Congregations to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here now we fix our selves and the first thing we do is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question whereby to come to an end of this debate And the most probable way to come to an issue in it is to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no for one of these forms The pleas then for such a divine Right are these Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice or the general sense of the Primitive Church to which we shall add by way of Appendix the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation if we go happily through these we may content our selves with having obtained the thing we aim at The first inquiry then is Whether any formal Law of God concerning a form of government for his Church either by persons acting in an equality of Power or subordination of one Order to another under the Gospel doth remain in force or no binding Christians to the observing of it The Reason why I begin with this is because I observe the Disputants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church derive commonly their first argument from the Pattern under the Law Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government yet being for a subordination of Courts they bring their first argument for that from the Jewish Pattern So that these latter are bound by their own argument though used in another case to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts then as to the superiority of Orders If it holds in one case it must in the other And if there be such a Law for Superiority standing unrepealed there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pattern and how far the argument drawn from thence is obligatory to us now For the practice then in the Jewish Church That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service is obvious in Scripture For there we find Priests above the Levites the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath one of the three sons of Levi to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families And it must be acknowledged that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority For God placed Eleazar over the Priests Elizaphan over the Cohathites Eliasaph over the Gershonites Zuriel over the Merarites and these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers over their several families for it is said of every one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was Ruler over the house of his Father Neither were these equal for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar who by reason of his authority over all the rest is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the several distinct families as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi the Levites first over them the heads of the Families over them the Rulers or the chief of the heads over them Ithamar over both Priests and Levites Eleazar Over all Aaron the High Priest There being then so manifest an inequality among them proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Gospel For that end it will be necessary to consider whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe If only common with other Tribes nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasticall government under the Gospel any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of government in all civil States We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self and
of the Governours acting in it but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching Paul saith he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters in every City had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled and what power did belong to those Presbyters and how they should act in the governing their Churches had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting We see here then that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God And whence can we inferr any necessity of it but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government when if ever this should have been expressed it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them But here it will be soon replyed That though nothing be expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches did determine the form of Government and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them To this â—answer First The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no or acted as such in that Superiority of that afterwards it is evident they might be so there being no convincing argument to the contrary And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition As Si posibile est hominem non esse animal then that Proposition is false Necesse est hominem esse animal For Necesse est esse and Non possibile est non esse being â—quipollents on the one side and Possibile est non esse Et non necesse est esse being â—quipollents on the other Possibile est non esse must be contradictory to Necesse est esse as Non possibile est non esse is to Non necesse est esse So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists that is by an extraordinary Commission be evicted which I know none will deny the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too which depends upon the former For if they acted not as Bishops nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church which Timothy and Titus were invested in yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches whether as Evangelists or as fixed Bishops These two things may be inferred First That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes only the continuance of this power â—â— disputed by many But if they had any such power at all it is enough for my present design viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it Secondly Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation For such a power Timothy and Titus had which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches we should never have read of in the first planted Churches So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people of personal knowledge care and inspection did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations they would likewise overthrow the nature end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches Whether their power was extraordinary or no I now dispute not but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no which from their practice is evident that it is not But then others who would make this office necessary urge further that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge To which I answer First What they might do is not the question but what they did as they might do it so they might not do it if no other evidence be brought to prove it for Quod possibile est esse possibile â—st non esse Secondly Neither what they did is the whole question but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it whether they were bound to do it or no and if so whether by any Law extant in Scripture and given them by Paul in his Epistles or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges If the former that Law and command must be produced which will hardly be if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture If the latter we must then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them But yet Thirdly Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed that would hold a Controversie still viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed when
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
as poor Ierome lies in by a wound he is supposed to have given himself when the priest and the Levite hath passed him by it will be a piece of Charity in our passing by the way a little to consider his Case to see whether there be any hopes of recovery We take it then for granted that Ierome hath already said that Apostolus perspiâ—uè docet eosdem esse Presbytsros quos Episcopos in the same Epistle which he proves there at large and in another place Siâ—â—t ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praeposiâ—us fuerit esse subjectos it a Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam disposition is Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere The difficulty now lyes in the reconciling this with what is before câ—ted out of the same Author Some solve it by saying that in Ieroms sense Apostolical Tradition and Ecclesiaestical Custome are the same as ad Marcellum he saith the observation of Lent is Apostolica traditio and advers Luciferian shith it is Ecclesiae consuâ—tudo so that by Apostolical Tradition he meant not an Apostolical Institution but an Ecclesiastical Custome And if Ierome speak according to the general Vogue this Solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it for according to that common rule of Austin Things that were generally in use and no certain Author assigned of them were attributed to the Apostles Two things therefore I shall lay down for reconciling Ierome to himself The first is the difference between Traditio Apostolica and Traditio Apostolorum this latter doth indeed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the Apostles themselves but the former may be applyed to what was in practice after the Apostles times and the reason of it is that what ever was done in the Primitive Church supposed to be agreeable to Apostolical practice was called Apostolical Thence the Bishops See was called Sedes Apostolicâ— as Tertullian tells us ob consangâ—iâ—itatem doctrinae So Sidonius Apollinaris calls the See of Lâ—pâ—s the Bishop of Tricassium in France Sedem Apostolicam And the Bishops of the Church were called Viri Apostolici and thence the Constitutions which goe under the Apostles names were so called saith Albaspinaeus ab antiquitate â—nam cum corum aliquot ab Apostolorum successoribus qui teste Tertullianâ— Apostolici viri â—omiâ—ahantur facti essent Apostolicorum primùâ—â— Canones deinde nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia aliquot literarum detractione Apostolorum dicti sunt By which we see what ever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the Church though it was not thought to have come from the Apostles themselves yet it was called Apostolioal so that in this sense Traditio Apostolica is no more then Traditio autiqua or ab Apostolicis viris profecta which was meant rather of those that were conceived to succeed the Apostles then of the Apostles themselves But I answer Secondly that granting Traditio Apostolica to mean Traditio Apostolorum yet Ierome is far from contradicting himself which is obvious to any that will read the words before and consider their coherence The scope and drift of his Epistle is to chastise the arrogance of one who made Deacons superiour to Presbyters Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret and so spends a great part of the Epistle to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same and at last brings in these words giving the account Why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no Presbyters Quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus ut Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur in quem crescat ex parvâ— aut si ex Diacono ordinatur Presbyter noverit se lucris minorem Sacerdoâ—iâ— esse majorem And then presently adds Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron Filii ejus atq Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ It it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Aposties times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles institution and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before Much as if one should go about to prove that the Prâ—fectus urbis and the Curatores urbis in Alexander Severus his timeâ— were the same Office and to that end should make use of the Constitution of that Emperour whereby he appointed 14. Curatores urbis and set the Praefectus in an Office above them Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals much less to such a one as Ierome is reputed to be The plain meaning then of Ierome is no more but this that as Aaron and his sons in the order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law So the Bishops and Presbyters in the order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel For the comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the Law and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel but between Aaron and his sonnes as one part of the comparison under the Law and the Levites under them as the other so under the Gospel Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison answering to Aaron and his Sonnes in that wherein they all agree viz. The Order of Priest hood and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law The Opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests but between the same power of Order which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters according to the acknowledgement of all to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them Thus I hope we have left Ierome at perfect Harmony with himself notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself which having thus done we are at liberty to proceed in our former course onely hereby we see how unhappily those arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priest hood to endeavour the setting up of a Ius Divinum of a parallel superiority under the Gospel All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon viz. that the orders and degrees under the Gospel were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple but to the Synagogue Which we now make out as to Ordination in three things the manner of conferring it the persons authorized to do it the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it First For the manner of conferring it that under the Synagogue was done by laying on of hands Which was taken up among
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
goods was used at first by the Church oâ— Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church but as far as we can find did neither perpetually hold in that Church nor universally obtain among other Churches as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-suiâ—â— by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lords Supper and by their personal contributions So the Apostles Preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency then of more publick places as free onely for Christians although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth viz. in its tendency the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased but may still continue â—s a rite of solemn Prayer and not by vertue of that practice Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols did hold as long as the ground of making them did which was condescension to the Jews although it must be withall acknowledged that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them and the Greek Church to this day and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still as Christ. Beckman Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable The arguments are too large here to examine although I see not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided Whatever is set in the shambles eat making no scruple for conscience sakâ— I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this Treatise that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it depending upon the several circumstances of Time Place and Persons but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chrâ—ist or from some such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all Times Places and Persons And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it Thirdly Offices that were of Apostolical appointment are grown wholly out of use in the Church without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church of which number Phoebe was one whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea so both Origen and Chrysostome understand it Of them and their continuance in the Church for some Centuries of years much is spoken by several Writers and resolved by several Councils and yet we see these are laid aside by the pâ—etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice if that binds certainly it doth in its plain institutions if it doth not bind in them how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice So that in the issue those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice do not think it obligatory for if they did how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected If it be answered that these are not usefull now then we must say that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful or the reason of it holds which is as much as to say of its self it binds not Fourthly Rites and customs Apostolical are altered therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind For if it did there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto Now let any one consider but these few particulars and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them as Dipping in baptism the use of Love Feasts community of goods the Holy kiss by Tertullian called Signaâ—ulum orationis yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand they change their opinion with the matter and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter which we have been the longer upon because the main hinge of this controversie did lyâ— in the practice of the Apostles which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government CHAP. VII The Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church-Power did in large as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclâ—siastical sense Several degrees of inlargemext of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour Territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between then Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarchs 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforâ—eing Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum HAving largely considered the actions of Christ and the practice of the Apostles so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of Government in the Church our next stage is according to our
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
proved by some who have undertaken it I know no opinion would bid so saiâ— for acceptance as Scepticism and that in reference to many weighty and important truthâ— for how weakly have some proved the existence of a Deity the immortality of the soul and the truth of the Scriptures by such arguments that if it were enough to overthroâ—â— an opinion to bee able to answer some Arguments brought for it Atheisme it self would become plausible It can be then no evidence that a thing is not true because some Arguments will not prove it and truly as to the matter in hand I am fully of the opinion of the excellent H. Grotius speaking of Excommunication in the Christian Church Neque adâ—am râ—m peculiare praeceptum desideratur eum Ecclestae coetu à Christo semel constituto omnia illa imperata censeri debent sine quibus ejus coeiûs puritas retineri non potest And therefore men spend needless pains to prove an institution of this power by some positive precept when Christs founding his Church as a peculiar Society is sufficient proof hee hath endowed it with this fundamental Right without which the Society were arena sino calce a company of persons without any common tye of union among them for if there bee any such union it must depend on some conditions to bee performed by the members of that Society which how could they require from them if they have not power to exclude them upon non performance 2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular Officers by Iesus Christ for the ruling of this Society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee Officers to Govern doth give them power to govern suitably to the Nature of their society Either then you must deny that Christ hath by an unalterable Institution appointed a Gospel Ministry or that this Ministry hath no Power in the Church or that their Power extends not to excommunication The first I have already proved the second follows from their appointment for by all the titles given to Church Officers in Scripture it appears they had a Power over the Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All which as you well know do import a right to Govern the Society over which they are set And that this power should not extend to a power to exclude convict Offenders seems very strange when no other punishment can be more suitable to the nature of the Society than this is which is a debarring him from the priviledges of that Society which the offender hath so much dishonoured Can there be any punishment less imagined towards contumacious offenders then this is or that carries in it less of outward and coactive force it implying nothing but what the offender himself freely yielded to at his entrance into this Society All that I can find replyed by any of the Adversaryes of the opinion I here assert to the argument drawn from the Institution and Titles of the Officers of the Church is that all those titles which are given to the Ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament that do import Rule and Government are all to be taken in a Spiritual sense as they are Christs Ministers and Ambassadors to preach his Word and declare his Will to his Church So that all power such persons conceive to lye in those Titles is only Doctrinal and declarative but how true that is let any one judge that considers these things 1. That there was certainly a power of Discipline then in the Churches constituted by the Apostles which is most evident not onely from the passages relating to Offenders in Saint Pauls Epistles especially to the Corinthians and Thessalonians but from the continued Practice of succeeding Ages manifested by Tertullian Cyprian and many others There being then a power of Discipline in Apostolical Churches there was a necessity it should be administred by some Persons who had the care of those Churches and who were they but the severall Pastors of them It being then evident that there was such a Power doth it not stand to common sense it should be implyed in such Titles which in their Naturall Importance do signifie a Right to Govern as the names of Pastors and Rulers do 2. There is a diversity in Scripture made between Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 11. Though this may not as it doth not imply a necessity of two distinct Offices in the Church yet it doth a different respect and connotation in the same person and so imports that Ruling carries in it somewhat more then meer Teaching and so the power implyed in Pastors to be more then meerly Doctrinal which is all I contend for viz. A right to govern the flock committed to their charge 3. What possible difference can be assigned between the Elders that Rule well and those which labour in the Word and Doctrine 1 Timothy 5. 17. if all their Ruling were meerly labouring in the Word and Doctrine and all their Governing nothing but Teaching I intend not to prove an Office of Rulers distinct from Teachers from hence which I know neither this place nor any other will do but that the formal conception of Ruling is different from that of Teaching 4. I argue from the Analogy between the Primitive Churches and the Synagogues that as many of the names were taken from thence where they carried a power of Discipline with them so they must do in some proportion in the Church or it were not easie understanding them It is most certain the Presbyters of the Synagogue had a power of Ruling and can you conceive the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church had none when the Societies were much of the same Constitution and the Government of the one was transscribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastor in Scripture imply a power of Governing distinct from meer Teaching such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a right to Govern Matth. 2. 6. Revel 12. 5. 19. 15. which word is attributed to Pastors of Churches in reference to their flocks Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to Ministers when they are so frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes praesidentiam cum potestate for Hesychius renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens had certainly a power of Government in them 6. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to those who have over-sight of Churches 1 Cor. 12. 8. by which it is certainly evident that a power more than Doctrinal is understood as that it could not then be understood of a power meerly civil And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate this Argument from the Titles of Church Officers in the New Testament that they are not insignificant things but the persons who enjoyed them had a right to govern the Society over which the
be a Power Governing is supposing a Society of the immutable Law of Nature because it is that without which no Society can be maintained And this is one of those things which are of the Law of Nature not in an absâ—lute state of Liberty but supposing some Acts of Men which once supposed become immutable and indispensable As supposing Propriety every Man is bound to abstain from what is in anothers Possession without his consent by an immutable Law of Nature which yet supposeth some Act of Man viz. the voluntary introducing of Propriety by consent So supposing a Society in being it is an immutable dictate of the Law of Nature that a Power of Government should be maintained and preserved in it So I say for the second thing Order This as it implies the Subordination of some in a Society to others as their Rulers is immutable and indispensable but as to the Form whereby that Order should be preserved that is whether the Government should be in the hands of one or more is no wise Determined by the Obligatory Law of Nature because either of them may be lawfull and usefull for the ends of Government and so neither necessary by that Law For as to the Law of Nature the Case is the same in Civil and Religious Societies Now who will say that according to the Law of Nature any form of Government Monarchy Aristocracy Democracy is unlawfull These things are then matters of Naturall Liberty and not of Naturall necessity and therefore must be examined according to positive Determinations of Divine and Humane Lawes where we shall speak of it This then is clear as to our purpose That a power in the Church must be constantly upheld and preserved fitly qualified for the ends of Government is an immutable Law so that this power be lodged in some particular Persons to act as Governours and so distinct from others as subordinate to them but whether the Power of Government come from People by Election or from Pastors by Ordination or from Magistrates by Commission and Delegation whether one two or all these wayes is not determined by Naturall Law but must be looked for in Gods positive Laws if not there neither to be found we must acquiesce in what is determined by lawful Authority The same I say again as to forms of Government whether the Power of sole Jurisdiction and Ordination be invested in one person above the rank of Presbyters or be lodged in a Colledge acting in a pâ—rity of Power is a plea must be removed from the Court of common Law of Nature to the Kings Bench I mean to the positive Lawes of God or the Supream power in a Common-wealth There being no Statutes in the Law of Nature to determine it it must be therefore Placitum Regis some positive Law must end the controversie We therefore traverse the Suit here and shall enter it at the other Court The second thing dictated by the Law of Nature is That the persons imployed in the immediate Service of God and entrusted with the Power of governing the Society appointed for that end should have respect paid them answerable to the Nature of their imployment This appears to have foundation in the Law of Nature being easily deducible from one of the first principles of that Law that God is to be worshipped if so then those whose imployment is chiefly to attend upon himself ought to have greater Reverence then others By the same Reason in Nature that if we do honour the King himself the nearer any are to the Kings Person in attendance and imployment the greater honour is to be shewed them The ground of which is that the honour given to servants as such is not given to their persons but to their Relation or to the one only upon the account of the other and so it doth not fix and terminate upon themselves but rebounds back and reflects upon the Original and Fountain of that Honour the Prince himself So if any be honoured upon the account of their immediate imployment in the service of God it is God who is chiefly honour'd and not they it being the way men have to expresse their honour to God by shewing it proportionably and respectively to those who either represent him or are imployed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome speaks in this very case The honour pâ—sseth through them to God himself Where he largely proves this very thing from the Egyptians sparing the Lands of their Priests and argues at least for an equality of honour from reason to be given to those who serve the true God Nay he is so far from looking upon it as part of their superstition that he mounts his argument à pari to one à minori ad majus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is As much as truth exceeds errour and the servants of God do the Idol-priests so much let the honour we give to them exceed that which was given by the Heathen to theirs But we have a further evidence of the honourablenesse of this imployment by the light of Nature from the persons imployed in this work before any positive Laws did restrain it For I say not that the Law of Nature doth dictate that the function of those imployed in this work should be differenced from all other that is done by Divine positive Laws but the honour of those in that function is from the Law of Nature which appears hence in that in the eldest times those who had the greatest authority civil had likewise the sacred conjoyned with it For as Aristotle rightly observes that the originall of civil Government was from private families so in those families before they came to associate for more publike worship the Master of the family was the Priest of it Thence we read of Noahs sacrificing Abrahams duty to instruct his family and his own command for offering up his Son we read of Iacobs sacrificing and Iobs and so of others Every Master of the family then was the High Priest too and governed his family not only as such but as a religious Society Afterwards from what institution we know not but certainly the reason of it if it were so was to put the greater honour upon the eldest son it is generally conceived that the first-born had the Priesthood of the Family in their possession till the time of the Leviticall Law The Jewish Doctors think that was the Birthright which Iacob procured from his Father and which Abraham gave to Isaac when it is said that he gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that he had For saith Postellus if it be meant in a literall sense how could he give those gifts to his other Sons which are mentioned before Wherefore he conjectures by that All is meant the spiritual knowledge of Christ which he calls Intellectus generalis which might be more proper to him as Priest of the family But the plain meaning is no more than
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
any such produced and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature To this I say that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution but onely to apply one to particular Cases because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding which it doth not in its own Nature do Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed which in its self is of an indifferent Nature and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind for what is not in its own Nature moral binds only by vertue of a command which command must be made known by the Will of Christ so that we may understand its Obligatory nature So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church 2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government are equally applyable to several Forms All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government may be referred to these three heads Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government such as require a right management of their Office and such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to Timothy and Titus prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker c. All these and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned are equally required as necessary in a Bishop whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters or else only for a single Presbyter however that be if he hath a hand in Church-government he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul do equally respect and concern them whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in which must now be examined The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God c. that thou keep this commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered For first it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith others of the precept of Love others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle which I confesse implies in it as being one great part of the Epistle Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office but granting that the command respects Timothy's Office yet I answer Secondly It manifestly appears to be something personal and not successive or at least nothing can be inferr'd for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it And therefore thirdly Christs appearing here is not meant of his second coming to judgement but it only imports the time of Timothy's decease So Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Estius understands it usque ad exitum vitae and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine Tun◠unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini cum venerit ei dies ut talis hinc exeat qualis judicandus est illo die And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and from him Theophylact observes to incite him the more both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings from the consideration of Christs appearance The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that Revel 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a Crown of life Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office whatever it is supposed to be Secondly The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right management of the work are equally applyable to either form Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers is equally a duty whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus or the adjacent Churches of Asia Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others or all joyning together in an equality So exhorting reproving preaching in season and out of season doing all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without rash censures and partiality watching over the flock as they that must give an account Laying hands suddenly on no man rebuking not an Elder but under two or three witnesses And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government There being no precept occurring in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over Neither doth the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists as some pretend or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops as others any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed or no nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment Which would seem to be a strange omission were either of these two forms so necessary taken exclusively of the other as both parties seem to affirm For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
wanting is looked on onely as a Village and thought unworthy to have a Sanhedrin of twenty three So that by this it appears the number of the Decemvirate for the Synagogue was distinct from the persons imployed in the civil Courts To the same purpose Maimonides gives the account of the number of 120. who likewise requires the ten for the Synagogue as a distinct and peculiar number Atque hi erant viri qui vacabant tantum rebus divinis nimirum lectioni legit sessioni in Synagogis as Mr. Selden quotes it from another place in him Whereby it is evident that those who were imployed in the Synagogue did make a peculiar Bench and Consistory distinct from the civil Judicature of the place And therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not the civil Rulers but some peculiar Officers belonging to the service of the Synagogue And thence when all civil Power and government was taken from the Jews yet they retained their Archisynagogues still Whence we read of Archisynagogues Patriarchs and Presbyters among the Jewes in the time of Arcadius and Honorius when all civil Power and Jurisdiction was taken from them The Second Reason is from the peculiar Ordination of those who were the Rulers of the Synagogues This I know is denyed by many because say they Ordination was proper onely to the Presbyters among the Jewes who were thereby made capable of being members of the Sanhedrin thence it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinatio Presbyterorum i. e. Impositio manuum quâ Presbyteri fiunt This Ordination was I grant primarily used in order to the making men Members of the great Sanhedrin and therefore the Jewes derive the custome of ordaining them from Moses his first constituting the LXX Elders which say they was done by imposition of hands which was seconded by the example of Moses laying his hands on Ioshua from whence the custome was continued down among them till the time of Adrian who severely prohibited it by an Edict that whosoever should ordain another should forfeit his life and so every one that was so ordained Thence the Jewes tell us that R. Iehuda Ben Baba is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordainer because in the time of that Edict he ordained five Presbyters without which they had wholly lost their succession of Presbyters for Courts of Judicature But though it be thus evident that their Ordination was chiefly used in Order to the fitting men to be members of the Sanhedrin yet that besides this there was a peculiar Ordination for persons not imployed in civil matters will appear First from the different Forms of their Ordination some were general without any restriction or limitation at all which power was conferred in words to this purpose Ordinatus jam sis sit tibi facultas judicandi etiam causas poenales He that was thus ordained was â—it for any Court of Judicature but there was another Form of Ordination which was more particular and restrained a Form limiting the general power either to pecuniary Cases or criminal or onely to the power of binding and loosing without any judiciary power at all Now those that were thus Ordained were the Jewish Casuists resolving men onely in forâ— conscientiae of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of things propounded to them This they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Facultas decernendi circa ligatum solutum that is a power of Decreeing what was lawful or unlawfull For in that sense binding and loosing is used by the Jewish Writers In which sense they tell us commonly that one School as that of Hille◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binds that is judgeth a thing unlawful another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 looseth as that of Schammai that is judgeth it lawful and free to be done Now the persons thus ordained with this power onely were thereby no Members of any civil Court of Judicature nor thereby made capable of it it appears then that this Ordination was peculiar to a particular function which exactly answers to the Ministerial Office under the Gospel And that those who were thus ordained either might not or did not exercise that Office of theirs in the Synagogue I can see no reason I am sure it was most suitable to that place or at least to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there was such a one distinct from the Synagogue But a clearer evidence of the particular ordination of those imployed in the Synagogue we have from Benjamin in his Itinerary for granting his palpable mistakes about the civil power of the Jewes in his time which was about the middle of the twelfth Century sufficiently discovered by the Learned L'Empereur yet as to the ordaining of persons for the severall Synagogues we have no ground to suspect his Testimony which is very plain and evident For speaking of R. Daniel Ben Hasdai who was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Head of the Captivity then residing at Bagdad He tells us the Synagogues of Babylon Persia Choresan Sheba Mesopotamia and many other places derived power from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of ordaining a Rabbi and Preacher over every Synagogue which he tells us was done by laying on his hands upon them These two the Rabbi and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes to be the fixed Officers of every Synagogue and the Office of the latter lay chiefly in expounding the Scriptures The like he hath of R. Nathaniel the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Egypt to whose Office it belonged to ordain in all the Synagogues in Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th 〈…〉 bbies and Lecturers of the Synagogue by which we see 〈…〉 arly that there was a peculiar Ordination for the Ministers belonging to the Synagogue Thence Scaliger wonders how Christ at twelve years old should be permitted to sit among the Doctours asking Questions when he was no ordained Rabbi to whom that place belonged But although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may possibly mean no more then sitting on one of the lower seats belonging to those who were yet in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minority where they sat at the feet of their Teachers which was not within the Temple its self but as Arias Montanus thinks was at the East-gate of the Temple where the Doctors sat yet this is evident by Scaliger that he looked on an Ordination for that end as necessary to those who sat in the Synagogues as the Doctors there which is likewise affirmed by Grotius who tell us that among the Jews not onely all publick civil Offices were confer'd by imposition of hands Sed in Archisynagogis senioribus Synagogae idem observatum unde mos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Christianos transiit But likewise all the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue were so ordained from whence the custome was translated into Christianity of which afterwards Thus now we have cleared
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exsors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes Where nothing can be more evident than that he would have some supereminent power attributed to the Bishop for preventing schisms in the Church But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other writings I would fain know whether a mans judgment must be taken from occasional and incidental passages or from designed and set discourses which is as much as to ask whether the lively representation of a man by picture may be best taken when in haste of other business he passeth by us giving only a glance of his Countenance or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented Besides it is well known that Hierom in his Commentaries on Scripture where he doth not expresly declare his own opinion doth often transcribe what he finds in others without setting down the name of any Authour he had it from For which we have his ingenuous confession in his Epistle to Augustine Itaque ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia speaking of former Commentaries in mente mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum memor A strange way of writing Commentaries on Scripture wherein a man having jumbled other mens notions together in his brain by a kind of lottery draws out what next comes to hand without any choice yet this we see was his practice and therefore he puts Austin to this hard task of examining what all other men had writ before him and whether he had not transcribed out of them before he would have him charge him with any thing which he finds in his Commentaries How angry then would that hasty Adversary have been if men had told him he had contradicted himself in what he writes on the forty fifth Psalm about Bishops if it be compared with his Commentaries on Titus where he professeth to declare his opinion or his Epistles to Evagrius and Oceanus But yet some thing is pleaded even from those places in Hierom wherein he declares his opinion more fully as though his opinion was only that Christ himself did not appoint Episcopacy which they say he means by Dominica dispositio but that the Apostles did it which in opposition to the former he calls Ecclesiae consuetudo but elsewhere explains it by traditio Apostolica and this they prove by two things First The occasion of the institution of Episcopacy which is thus set down by him antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae guber nabantur Thence it is argued that the time of this Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was certainly in Apostol cal times But to this it is answered First That it is impossible Hieroms meaning should be restrained to that individual time because the arguments which Hierom brings that the name and office of Bishops and Presbyters were the same were from things done after this time Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians wherein he reproves their schisms was written according to Ludovicus Cappellus in the tweâ—fth year of Claudius of Christ fifty one after which Paul writ his Epistle to Titus from whose words Hierom grounds his discourse but most certainly Pauls Epistle to the Philippians was not written till Paul was prisoner at Rome the time of the writing of it is placed by Cappellus in the third of Nero of Christ 56. by Blondell 57. by our Lightfoot 59. by all long after the former to the Corinthians yet from the first verse of this Epistle Hierom fetcheth one of his arguments So Pauls charge to the Elders at Miletus Peters Epistle to the dispersed Jews were after that time too yet from these are fetched two more of Hieroms arguments Had he then so little common sense as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon the schism at Corinth and yet bring all his arguments for parity after the time that he sâ—â—s for the Institution of Episcopacy But secondly Hierom doth not say cum diceretur apud Corinthios Ego sum Pauli c. but cum diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli c so that he speaks not of that particular schism but of a general and universal schism abroad among most people which was the occasion of appointing Bishops and so speaks of others imitating the schism and language of the Corinthians Thirdly had Episcopacy been instituted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth certainly of all places we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it and yet almost of all places those Heralds that derive the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times are the most plunged whom to fix on at Corinth And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them about another schism as great as the former which certainly had not been according to their opinion if a Bishop had been there before must have better eyes and judgement than the deservedly admired Grotius who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as one argument of the undoubted antiquity of that Epistle Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum auctoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas What could be said with greater freedom that there was no such Episcopacy then at Corinth Fourthly They who use this argument are greater strangers to St. Ierom's language than they would seem to be whose custome it is upon incidental occasions to accommodate the phrase and language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of Chrysostom's fall Cecidit Babylon cecidit of the Bishops of Palestine Multi utroque claudicant pede of the Roman Clergy Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus but which is most clear to our purpose he applyes this very speech to the men of his own time Quando non id ipsum omnes loquimur alius dicit Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae dividimus spiritûs unitatem eam in partes membra discerpimus All which instances are produced by Blondell but have the good fortune to be past over without being taken notice of But supposing say they that it was not till after the schism at Corinth yet it must needs be done by the Apostles else how could it be said to be
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
ordination of a Bishop Subscriptio clericorum Honoratorum testimonium Ordinis consensus plebis and in the same chapter speaking of the choyce of the Bishop he saith it was done subscribentibus plus minus septuagintâ— Presbyteris And therefore it is observed that all the Clergy conâ—urred to the choyce even of the Bishop of Rome till after the time of that Hildebrand called Greg. 7. in whose time Popery came to Age thence Casaubon calls it Haeresin Hildebrandinam Cornelius Bishop of Rome was chosen Clericoram pene omnium testimonio and in the Council at Rome under Sylvâ—ster it is decreed that none of the Clergy should be ordained nisi cum tota adunata Ecclesia Many instances are brought from the Councils of Carthage to the same purpose which I pass over as commonly known It was accounted the matter of an accusation against Chrysostom by his enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained without the Council and assistance of his Clergy The pâ—esence of the Clergy at Councils hath been already shewed Thus we see how when the Church of the City was enlarged into the Countrey the power of the Governours of the Churches in the City was extended with it The next step observable in the Churches encrease was when several of these Churches lying together in one Province did associate one with another The Primitive Church had a great eye to the preserving unity among all the members of it and thence they kept so strict a correspondency among the several Bishops in the Commercium Formatarum the formula of writing which to prevent deceit may be seen in Iustellus his Notes on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae and for a maintaining of nearer correspondency among the Bishops themselves of a Province it was agreed among themselves for the better carrying on of their common work to call a Provincial Synod twice every year to debate all causes of concernment there among themselves and to agree upon such wayes as might most conduce to the advancing the common interest of Christianity Of these Tertullian speaks Aguntur praeceptâ— per Gracias illas certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecclesâ—is per quae altiora quaeque in communi tractantur ipsa repraesentatio nominis Christiani magna vâ—neratione celebratur Of these the thirty eighth Canon Apostolical as it is called expresly speaks which Canons though not of authority sufficient to ground any right upon may yet be allowed the place of a Testimony of the practice of the Primitive Church especially towards the third Century 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice a year a Synod of Bishops was to be kept for discussing matters of faith and resolving matters of practice To the same purpose the Council of Antioch A. D. 343 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To these Councils the Presbyters and Deacons came as appears by that Canon of the Council of Antioch and in the seventh Canon of the Nicene Council by Alphon us Pisanus the same custome is decâ—eed but no such thing occurrs in the Codex Canonum either of Tilius or Iustellus his Edition and the Arabick ediâ—â—â—â— of that Council is conceived to have been compiled above four hundred years after the Council set But however we see evidence enough of this practice of celebrating Provincial Synods twice a year now in the assembling of these Bishops together for mutual counsel in their affairs there was a necessity of some order to be observed There was no difference as to the power of the Bishops themselves who had all equal authority in their several Churches and none over one another For Episcopatus unus â—st cujus â— singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaks and as Ierome Ubicunq Episcopus fuerit sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Râ—egii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem est meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt There being then no difference between them no man calling himself Episcopum Episcoporum as Cyprian elsewhere speaks some other way must be found out to preserve order among them and to moderate the affairs of the Councils and therefore it was determined in the Council of Antioch that he that was the Bishop of the Metropolis should have the honour of Metropolitan among the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the great confluence of people to that City therefore he should have the prâ—heminence above the rest We see how far they are from attributing any Divine Right to Metropolitaus and therefore the rights of Metropolitans are called by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had been a dishonourable introduction for the Metropolitan Rights had they thought them grounded upon Apostolical institution Nothing more evident in antiquity then the honour of Metropolitans depending upon their Sees thence when any Cities were raised by the Emperour to the honour of Metropoles their Bishop became a Metropolitan as is most evident in Iustiniana prima and for it there are Canons in the Councils decreeing it but of this more afterwards The chief Bishop of Africa was only called primae sedis Episcop 〈…〉 thence we have a Canon in the Codex Ecclesiae African◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of the chief See should not be called the Exarch of the Priests or chief Priest or any thing of like nature but only the Bishop of the chief seat Therefore it hath been well observed that the African Churches did retain longest the Primitive simplicity and humility among them and when the voyce was said to be heard in the Church upon the flowing in of riches Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam by the working of which poyson the spirits of the Prelates began to swell with pride and ambition as is too evident in Church History only Africa escaped the infection most and resisted the tyrannical incroachments of the Roman Bishop with the greatest magnanimity and courage as may be seen by the excellent Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Boniface Bishop of Rome in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae So thaâ— however Africa hath been alwayes fruitfull of Monsters yet in that ambitious age it had no other wonder but only this that it should escape so free from that typhus saecularis as they then called it that monstrous itch of pride and ambition From whence we may well rise to the last step of the power of the Church which was after the Empire grew Christian and many Provinces did associate together then the honour and power of Patriarchs came upon the stage And now began the whole Christian world to be the Cock pitt wherein the two great Prelates of Rome and Constantinople strive with their greatest force for mastery of one another and the whole world
esse Episcoporum gubernationes In Africk if we look but into the writings of Augustine we may find hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Council In Ireland alone Saint Patrick is said by Ninius at the first Plantation of Christianity to have founded 365. Bishopricks So Sozomen teâ—ls us that among the Arabians and Cyprians Novatians Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Villages had Bishops among them The next evidence that the Church did not look upon it self as by a Divine Law to observe any one model of Government is the conforming the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil For if the Obligation arose from a Law of GOD that must not be altered according to civil coâ—stitutions which are variable according to the different state and conditions of things If then the Apostles did settle things by a standing Law in their own times how comes the model of Church-Government to alter with the civil Form Now that the Church did generally follow the civil Government is freely acknowledged and insisted on by Learned Persons of all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great The full making out of which is a work too large to be here undertaken and hath been done to very good purpose already by Berterius Salmasius Gothofred Blondel and others in their Learned discourses of the suburbicarian Provinces Which whether by them we understand that which did correspond to the Praefecture of the Provost of Rome which was within a hundred miles compass of the City of Rome or that which answered to the Vicarius Urbis whose jurisdiction was over the ten Provinces distinct from Italy properly so called whose Metropolis was Milan or which is most probable the Metropolitan Province answering to the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Urbis and the Patriarchate of the Roman Bishop to the Vicarius Urbis which way soever we take it we see it answered to the Civil Government I shall not here enter that debate but onely briefly at present set down the Scheme of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government as it is represented by our Learned Breerwood The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII Dioceses whereof â—even belonged to the East Empire and six beside the Praefecture of the City of Rome to the West Those thirteen Dioceses together with that Praefecture contained among them 120. Provinces or thereabout so that to every Diocess belonged the administration of sundry Provinces Lastly every Province contained many Cities within their Territories The Cities had for their Rulers those inferiour Judges which in the Law are called Defensores Civitatum and their seats were the Cities themselves to which all the Towns and Villages in their several Territories were to resort for Justice The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsuls or Consulares or Praesides or Correctores four sundry appellations but almost all of equal authority and their Seats were the chiefest Cities or Metropoles of the Provinces of which in every Province there was one to which all inferiour Cities for Judgement in matters of importance did resort Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs the Lieutenants called Vicarii and their Seats were the Metropoles or Principal Cities of the Diocess whence the Edicts of the Emperour or other Lawes were publâ—shed and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocess and where the Praetorium and chief Tribunal for Judgement was placed to deâ—ermiue Appeals and minister Justice as might be occasion to all the Provinces belonging to that Jurisdiction And this was the Disposition of the Roman Governour And truly it is wonderful saith that Learâ—ed Authour how nearly and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this Civil Ordination of the Roman Magistrates For first in every City as there was a Defensor Civitatis for secular Government so was there placed a Bishop for Spiritual Regiment in every City of the East and in every City of the West almost a several Bishop whose Jurisdiction extended but to the City and the places within the Territory For which cause the Jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying not as many ignorant Novelists think a Parish as now the word is taken that is the places or habitations near a Church but the Towns and Villages near a City all which together with the City the Bishop had in charge Secondly in every Province as there was a President so there was an Arch-Bishop and because his Seat was the principal City of the Province he was commonly known by the name of Metropolitan Lastly in every Diocess as there was a Lievtenant-General so was there a Primate seated also in the principal City of the Diocess as the Lieutenant was to whom the last determining of Appeals from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy and the soveraign care of all the Diocess for sundry points of Spiritual Government did belong By this you may see that there were XI Primates besides the three Patriarchs for of the XIII Dioceses besides the Praefecture of the City of Rome which was administred by the Patriarch of Rome that of Egypt was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia and all the rest by the Primates between whom and the Patriarchs was no difference of Jurisdiction and power but onely of some Honour which accrued to them by the Dignity of their Sees as is clearly expressed in the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Constantinople is advanded to the honorary Title of a Patriarch next to Rome because it was New Rome Whereby it is evident that the Honour belonging to the Bishop of old Rome did arise from its being the Imperial City The Honour of the Bishop rising as Austin saith that of the Deacons of Rome did propter magnificentiam urbis Romanae quae caput esse videour omnium civitatum Hereby we now fully see what the Original was of the power of Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the Church viz. the contemperating the Ecclesiastical-Government to the civil The next Evidence that the Church did not look upon its self as bound by a Divine Law to a certain Form of Government but did order things itself in order to Peace and Unity is that after Episcopal Government was setled in the Church yet Ordination by Presbyters was looked on as valid For which these instances may suffice About the year 390. Iohannes Cassianus reports that one Abbot Daniel inâ—eriour to none of those who lived in the Desart of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paâ—hnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero In tantum enim virtutibus ipsius adgaudebat ut quem vitae meritis sibi gratiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotti Honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum ministerio diutius immorari optansque sibiâ—et successâ—rem dignissimum providere superstes eum
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
is expresly and fully the judgement of that most Reverend and Learned man Th. Beza as he declares it himself Essentialefuit in eo de quo hic agimus quod ex Dei Ordinatione perpetud necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit cum eo quod ipsi divinitus attributum est jure Accidentale autem fuit quod Presbyteri in hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii aliis per vices initio succedebant qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modus paulatim postea visus est mutandus ut unus quispiam judicio caeterorum compresbyterorum delectus Presbyterio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esset permaneret It will be worth our while truly to state the Question of Church Government between the Church of England and that of Geneva in the time of Queen Elizabeth and thereby we shall see how small the difference was between them That the Churches in the Primitive times did take in the Christians in whole Cities and adjoyning Territories is acknowledged on both sides Calvin and Beza being both express in it and the Constitution of the Church of Geneva speaks as much Vnicuique civitati saith Calvin erat attributa certa regio quae Presbyteros inde sumeret velut corpori Ecclesiae illius accenserentur In oppido cujusque Dioeceseos saith Beza praecipuo primus Presbyter c. in quotidianâ communi jurisdictione praeerat caeteris tum urbanis tum aliis ejus regionis compresbyteris i. e. toti Dioecesi That the Government of the City did take in the City and Territories is likewise acknowledged by them That for more convenient order there was one to preside over the Ecclesiastical Senate is confessed as essential by Beza and Calvin acknowledgeth that even in Apostolical times non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praeâ—sset There was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church but that some one was over the rest in authority and counsell Wherein then lay the difference For we have already seen that our Great Divines then did not look upon their form of Government as necessary but only lawfull and Calvin and Beza would not be thought to prescribe their form to other Churches All the difference then was not Whether their form of Government was founded on Divine Right not Whether Episcopacy in the Church was lawfull or no not Whether Diocesan Churches were unlawfull or Whether every Congregation should have an Ecclesiastical Senate But Whether it were more agreeable to the Primitive form that the President of the Ecclesiastical Senate should have only an order among or a degree above the Senate its self But chiefly it was Whether in the present state of the Reformed Churches it were more convenient wholly to lay aside the form of Government by Bishops which had been so much abused in the Roman Church and to reduce all Ministers of the Gospel to an equality with only a Presidency of order thereby to free themselves from the imputation of Ambition and to prevent it in others or else it were more prudent only to retrench the abuses of Episcopacy under the Papacy and to reduce it to that form wherein it was practiced in the Church before the tyranny and Usurpation of the Roman Bishop had ingrossed all Ecclesiastical power into his own hands The former part was embraced generally by the Reformed Churches the latter by our Church of England so that the Question was not about Divine Right but about a matter of prudence not What form was setled by a Law of Christ but what form was suitable to the present state of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore we see none of these forraign Divines did charge the Government of this Church with unlawfulness but inconveniency as it was a step to pride and ambition and an occasion whereby men might do the Church injury by the excess of their power if they were not men of an excellent temper and moderation Thence that prediction of Padre Paule that the Church of England would then find the inconveniency of Episcopacy when a high-spirited Bishop should once come to rule that Church and so Beza when he had freed the Bishops of the Reformation from that imputation of Lording it over their Brethren which he had charged the Roman Bishops with yet he adds that he would beg them rather to lay down their power then to transmit that power to those after them hanc ipsorum moderationem aequitatem minimè forsan sequuturis Who it may be were not like to succeed them in their meekness and moderation What just reason there was for such fears or may be still let those judge who are fittest to do it those I mean who have the power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular power It was not then any unlawfulness in the Government of Episcopacy its self but its lyableness to abuses which made the Reformed Churches reduce Modern Episcopacy into a meer Presidency of Order which was not so lyable to the same inconveniences A clear evidence that they judged not the Government unlawfull is their often profession of a ready and chearfull obedience to Bishops if they would embrace the Gospel and stand up in defence of the true Doctrine For which we have the testimony of George Prince of Anhalt in the Preface to his Sermon about false Prophets speaking of Bishops and Arch-Bishops Utinam sicut nomina gerunt titulos ita se reipsa praestarent Episcopos Ecclesia Utinam Evangelio docerent consona ipsoque Ecclesias fideliter regerent O quam libenter quantaque cum cordis laetitia pro Episcopis ipsos habere revereri morem gerere debitam jurisdictionem ordinationem eis tribuere eaque sine recusatione frui vellemus id quod nos semper D. Lutherus etiam saepissime tam ore quam scriptis imo in concione publica in Cathedrali Templâ— Marsburgensi contestati promisimusâ— He professeth it to be both his own judgement and Luthers that if Bishops would but teach and rule their Churches according to the Word of God they would obey them with all chearfulness and joy of heart To the same purpose Melancthon writing to Camerarius By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical Polity if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawful for us so to do yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion The same is professed by Calvin and that according to his temper in a higher manner Verum autem nobis si contribuant Hierarchiam in qua emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua si fraternam charitatem inter se colant
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of church-Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so