of the Principal of the twelve Apostles and S. Iames was not so much as one of that number yet in the Church of Ierusalem he had the Priority of them both now considering that S. Iames is called an Apostle and considering the Preference he had in all these instances above the other Apostles at Ierusalem it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church of Ierusalem but if to all this evidence we add the most early Testimonies of Christian Antiquity we shall advance the Probability to a Demonstration for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical Writers S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem for so Hegesippus who lived very near the times of the Apostles tells us that Iames the Brother of our Lord called by all men the Iust received the Church of Ierusalem from the Apostles vid. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. so also S. Clement as he is quoted by the same Author l. 2. c. 1. tells us that Peter Iames and Iohn after the Assumption of Christ as being the men that were most in favour with him did not contend for the Honour but chose Iames the Just to be Bishop of Ierusalem and in the Apostolical Constistitutions that pass under the name of S. Clement which though not so ancient as is pretended yet are doubtless of very early Antiquity the Apostles are brought in thus speaking Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time we signifie to you that they were these Iames the Brother of our Lord was Ordained by us Bishop of Ierusalem c. so also S. Ierom. de script Eccles. tells us that S. Iames immediately after the Passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And S. Cyril who was afterwards Bishop of that Church and therefore a most Authentick Witness of the Records of it calls Saint Iames the first Bishop of that Diocess Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent Testimonies of S. Austin S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose and a great many others and S. Ignatius himself who was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles makes S. Stephen to be a Deacon of S. Iames Ep. ad Trall and therefore since Stephen was a Deacon of the Church of Ierusalem S. Iames whose Deacon he was must necessarily be the Bishop of it Upon this account therefore S. Iames is called an Apostle in Scripture because by being Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem he had the Apostolick Power and Authority conferred on him for since it is apparent he was none of the Twelve to whom the Apostleship was at first confined he could no otherwise become an Apostle than by deriving the Apostleship from some of the Twelve and therefore since that Apostleship which he derived from the Twelve was only Episcopal Superiority over the Church of Ierusalem it hence necessarily follows that the Episcopacy was the Apostleship derived and communicated from the Primitive Apostles The second Instance of the Apostles Communicating their Apostolick Superiority to others is Epaphroditus who in Phil. 2.25 is stiled the Apostle of the Philippians But I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and companion in labour and fellow souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but your Apostle for so S. Ierom Com. Gal. 1.19 Paulatim tempore precedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat Ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum c. i. e. by degrees in process of time others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen as that passage to the Philippians shews I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your Apostle And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the Apostle of the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he was intrusted with Episcopal Government as being their Bishop so that here you see Epaphroditus is made an Apostle by the Apostles and his Apostleship consists in being made Bishop of Philippi A third instance is that of Titus and some others with him 2 Cor. 8.23 Whether any do inquire of Titus he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our Brethren be inquired of they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ where it is plain they are not called the Apostles of the Churches merely as they were the Messengers of the liberality of the Churches of Macedonia for it was not those Churches but S. Paul that sent them vers 22. and therefore since they were not Apostles in relation to those Churches whose liberality they carried it must be in relation to some particular Churches over which they had Apostolical Authority and that Titus had this Authority over the Church of Crete is evident both from S. Pauls Epistle to him and from Primitive Antiquity As for Saint Pauls Epistle there are sundry passages in it which plainly speak him to be vested with Apostolical Superiority over that Church so Chap. 1. vers 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set things in order that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed thee For in the first place S. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting with an absolute power to reform and correct them which is a plain demonstration of his Superiority in that Church Secondly he Authorizes him to ordain Elders in every City and whether these Elders were Bishops or Presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate for first it is of undoubted certainty that there were Presbyters in the Church of Crete before Titus was left there by the Apostle and secondly it is as evident that those Presbyters had no Power to ordain Elders in every City as Titus had for if they had what needed S. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the Presbyters before him had sufficient power to do For if the Presbyters had before the power of Ordination in them this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain but mischievous it would have look'd like an invasion of the Power of the Presbyters for S. Paul to restrain Ordination to Titus if before him it had been common to the whole Presbytery and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention than an expedient of peace and good order From hence therefore it is evident that Titus had a Power in the Church of Crete which the Presbyters there before him had not and this Power of his extended not only to the establishment of good Order and the Ordaining of Elders but also to rebuking with all authority i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication chap. 2. vers 15. and taking cognisance of Heretical Pravity so as first to
Office of a Bishop If either be perpetual why not both if not both why either and how can we argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus for instance as the Presbyterians do Vide Ius Divin p. 159.167 if the Office they were Ordained to were not perpetual and if it were perpetual then so is Episcopacy which is in nothing different from that which they exercised in their Churches III. That the true Government of the Church is Episcopal is evident also from the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church thereunto It is objected by the Adversaries of the Episcopal Government that though our Saviour indeed Instituted a superior Order of Church Officers viz. his Twelve Apostles to precide over the rest and Govern his Church yet this was an extraordinary Commission which he never intended they should derive down to the Church as a perpetual Model of Government but was limited to the persons of the Apostles and was to expire with ' em Now that it was not limited to the persons of the Apostles is evident since as it hath been shewn before the Astles derived it to others which they could not have done without violating their trust and exceeding the bounds of their Commission had it been appropriated to their persons so that it must be allowed either that they proceeded irregularly in transferring their superiority to others or that their Commission did impower them to transfer it and therefore if it appear not only that they might transfer it to some for the Government of some Churches by vertue of their Commission of which the above cited instances are a full demonstration but also that they Universally transferred it to others for the Government of all other Churches then it is certain that either they mistook the intent of our Saviours Commission or the intent of it was to impower 'em to transfer it unversally as a standing and perpetual Form of Ecclesiastical Government in short if they understood the intendment of their own Commission as to be sure they did being guided by the Spirit into all Truth to be sure they would never have communicated their Apostolick Superiority to any had it not been our Saviours intention when he Commissioned 'em to Authorize 'em so to do and for the same reason we may be sure that so far forth as they did communicate it it was our Saviours intention that they should now as was shewn before to some they did communicate it for the Government of some Churches as to Timothy and Titus for instance for the Government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete from whence it is evident that it was our Saviours intention that they should communicate it to some and for the same reason if it be made appear that they did communicate it universally for the Government of all other Churches it will necessarily follow that it was our Saviours intention they should communicate it as an universal form of Church-Government Now whether they did communicate it universally or no is a question about matter of Fact and as such is decidable only by the Testimony of the most competent witnesses and the most competent witness in this case is the Christian Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles which Church attests with one universal consent the universal derivation of a Superiour Order of Ecclesiastick Officers from the Apostles to preside over the Churches of Christ. And some Christian Writers we have who were living in the very days of the Apostles and were their immediate Scholars and Disciples others again who lived in their days and were their Disciples who lived in the Apostles and others who immediately succeeded these from all which we have ample Testimonies of the continued Succession of this superiour Order even from the Apostles to whom our Saviour first derived it Out of all which I shall only produce some few instances out of an infinite number that might be given Of the first sort are S. Clement Bishop of Rome and S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch S. Clement who as Frenaeus tells us saw the Apostles and conversed familiarly with 'em makes mention in his Epistle to the Corinthians of three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers in his time whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levites which words can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and the Deacons S. Ignatius who was the Disciple of S. Peter and in his life-time Bishop of Antioch is so full and express in all those six Epistles he wrote on the way to his Martyrdom for the derivation of this superiour Order from the Apostles that the adversaries of this Order have no other way to evade him but by condemning those Epistles for Counterfeits from which injurious sentence they have of late been so triumphantly vindicated by a Learned Pen of our own that I dare say no man of Learning for the future will so far expose the Reputation of his Understanding and Modesty as to call 'em in question again Now in all these Epistles the holy Martyr not only distinguishes the Clergy into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons but strictly injoyns the two latter as well as the Laicks to be Dutiful and Obedient to the former and particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians what is the Bishop saith he but he that hath all Authority and Power what is the Presbytery but a sacred Constitution of Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop what are the Deacons but imitators of Christ and Ministers to the Bishop as he was to the Father and as he every where enjoyns obedience to the Bishops as to the supreme Order in the Church of Christ so in the beginning of his Epistle to the Philadelphians he tells them that so many as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop and that so many as depart from him and his Communion and associate themselves with the accursed shall be cut off with them And in his Epistle to the Magnesians he tells them that it highly became them to obey their Bishop and not to contradict him in any thing for it is a terrible thing to contradict him because in so doing you do not so much despise him who is visible as the invisible God who will not be despised for his promotion is not from men but from God. And several of his Cotemporary Bishops he mentions by name viz. Onesimus Bishop of the Ephesians Policarp of the Smyrnians Polybius of the Trallians and Damas of the Magnesians and still as he mentions them he highly commends the Presbyters and Deacons for their obedience to them So in the beginning of his Epistle to the Magnesians Having been so happy as to see you by your worthy Bishop Damas and your worthy Presbyters viz. Bassus and Apollinus and Zotion your Deacon whom I cannot but commend for his obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytery you ought not to contemn the youth of your Bishop but to pay him all
and Elutherius Bishops of Rome successively but also tells us that after Iames the Iust who was the first Bishop of Ierusalem had suffered Martyrdom Simeon Cleophae was made Bishop of that Church because he was of the Kindred of our Lord vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Not long after him Dionysius Bishop of Corinth makes mention in several Epistles of several Bishops by name and particularly of Publius and Quadratus successive Bishops of Athens of Dionysius the Areopagite the first Bishop of that Church of Philip Bishop of Gortyna in Crete of Palma Bishop of Amastris in Pontus of Pinytus Bishop of the Gnossians and of Soter Bishop of Rome vid. Euseb lib. 4. cap. 23. About the same time lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who as himself tells us in his Epistle to Florinus had often seen Polycarp the Disciple of S. Iohn and did very well remember his person and behaviour when he discoursed to the Multitude the intimate conversation he had with S. John and the rest of the Apostles who had seen our Lord. And from him we have this express Testimony concerning the matter in debate We can reckon up those who were Ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches who they were that succeeded them even down to our times for the Apostles would have them to be in all things perfect and unreprovable whom they left to be their Successors and to whom they delivered their Apostolick Authority And then he goes on and gives us a Catalogue of Eleven Bishops of Rome by name beginning from Linus to whom he tells us S. Peter and S. Paul Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt i. e. delivered the Episcopal power of Governing that Church and ending with Elutherius who was the twelfth and did then actually preside in the Episcopal Chair and that by Bishops in this Age was meant such as presided over Presbyters as well as Laicks is evident by the demonstration Clemens Alexandrinus makes who was Irenaeus his Cotemporary between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 6. i. e. the Processes of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and a little before speaking of the dignity of the Presbytery he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that it was not honoured with the first Seat or placed in the first Class of the Ecclesiastick Orders which plainly shews that then there was an Order above the Presbytery viz. the Bishops whom presently after he mentions as the first Order of Ecclesiasticks And that passage which Eusebius quotes from him out of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lately published is a plain Argument that in his time Bishops were look'd on as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy for he tells us that when S. Iohn returned from Patmos to Ephesus he visited the neighbouring Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. partly that he might ordain Bishops and partly that he might set apart such for the Clergy as were pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit by which it is evident that in Clement's time at least and if he be not mistaken in S. Iohn's too the Bishops were a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy viz. the Presbyters and Deacons Thus both in the Apostolick Age and that succeeding it we have abundant Testimony of the derivation of the superiority of the Apostolick Order from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Churches of Christ. And then for the next Age we have the concurrent Testimonies of Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian not only of the continuance of this Apostolick superiority in the Church but also of the derivation of it from the Apostles themselves but we need not cite their words it being granted by the most learned Advocates of the Presbyterian Government that for several years before these Fathers viz. about the year of our Lord 140. the Episcopacy was every where received in the Church for they tell us that though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Ecclesiastical Orders yet they left none behind to succeed them in that power but the Church was every where governed by a Common Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and Divisions it was at last universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to preside over all the rest and this say they was the beginning of the Episcopacy for which they cite that famous passage of S. Ierom Antequam Diaboli instinctu c. i. e. Before such time as through the instinct of the Devil divisions in Religion began and it was said among the People I am of Paul I am of Apollo and I of Cephas the Churches were Governed by Common Councils of Presbyters but afterwards every Presbyter reckoning such as he baptized to be his and not Christs it was decreed over all the World that one from among the Presbyters should be chosen and set over all the rest to whom should belong all the care of the Churches that so the seeds of Schisms might be destroyed which universal Decree as they guess was made about the year 140. Now not to dispute with them the sense of this passage but allowing it to bear their sense I shall only desire the Reader to consider First That it is the Testimony of one who lived long after the afore-cited Witnesses and so far less capable of attesting so early a matter of fact for some of the Witnesses above-cited were such as lived in the days of the Apostles others such as lived in their days who lived in the days of the Apostles and certainly these were much more competent Witnesses of what was done in the Apostles days than S. Ierom who was not born till about the year 330. almost one hundred years after Origen the latest and three hundred years after Clemens the earliest of the above-cited Witnesses and certainly to prefer the Authority of one single Witness who lived so long after the matter of fact to the unanimous attestations of so many earlier Witnesses is both immodest and irrational II. It is also to be considered that S. Ierom was a witness in his own cause in which case men of his warmth and passion are too too apt to exceed the limits of truth for the design of that passage was to curb the insolence of some Pragmatical Deacons who would needs advance themselves above the Presbyters which Saint Ierom being a Presbyter himself takes in high disdain and as the best of men are too prone to do when their own concerns are at stake bends the stick too much t'other way and depresses the Deacons too low and advances the Presbyters too high For III. In other places where he is not Biassed by partiality to his own Order he talks at a quite different rate so in Dial. advers Luciferian dost thou ask why one that is not Baptized by the Bishop doth not receive the Holy Ghost why it proceeds from hence that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles
find in Scripture that all Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of some of those first Apostles who received their Commission immediately from our Saviour or else by some of those secondary Apostles that were admitted into Apostolick Orders by them which secondary Apostles as was shewn before were the same with those whom we now call Bishops for so in Acts 6.3.6 the seven first Deacons we read of were Ordained by the Apostles the whole number of the Disciples being present but the Apostles only appointing and laying their hands on them and in Acts 14.23 we are told that Paul and Barnabas two of the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church that is of Lystra Iconium and Antioch and though these two were Ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13.1.3 yet there is no doubt but those Prophets and Teachers where such as had received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of the Churches of Syria for otherwise how could they have derived it For so Iudas and Silas are called Prophets Acts 15.32 and yet ver 22. they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers among the Brethren or Bishops of Iudea and afterwards we find that Ordination was confined to such as had been admitted to the Apostolate for so the power of laying on of hands in the Church of Ephesus was committed by S. Paul to Timothy whom he himself by the laying on of hands had ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 1.6 so also the power of Ordaining in the Church of Crete was by S. Paul committed to Titus whom he had also Ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church Tit. 1.5 for this cause left I thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Thus all through the whole Scripture History we find the power of Ordination administred by such and none but such as were of the Apostolick Order viz. either by the Prime Apostles or by the secondary Apostles or Bishops And if we consult the Primitive Antiquities which to be sure in matters of fact at least are the best Interpreters of Scripture we shall always find the power of giving Orders confined and limited to Bishops which is so undeniable that S. Ierom himself who endeavours his utmost to equalize Presbyters with Bishops is yet fain to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ep. ad Evagr. Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat What can the Bishop do except Ordaining that the Presbyter may not do also III. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to execute that spiritual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in it i. e. to Cite such as are accused of scandalous offences before their Tribunals to inspect and examine the Accusation and upon sufficient evidence of the truth of it to admonish the offender of his fault and in case he obstinately persist in it to exclude him from the Communion of the Church and from all the Benefits of Christianity till such time as he gives sufficient evidence of his Repentance and amendment and then to receive him in again For that Christ hath established such a jurisdiction in his Church is evident from that passage Mat. 18.16 17 18. Moreover if thy Brother shall trespass against thee go tell him his fault between him and thee alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gain'd thy Brother but if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established i. e. that thou mayst be able in case he doth not then amend to produce sufficient testimony of his guilt before the Churches Tribunal to which thou art next to apply thy self and if he shall neglect to hear them i. e. to promise amendment upon their admonition take them along with thee and tell it to the Church that so she may examine the matter and upon thy proving his guilt by sufficient witness may Authoritatively admonish him to amend but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican i. e. give him over for a desperate sinner as one that is to be ejected from the Communion of the Church and no longer to enjoy the common benefits of a Christian for verily I say unto you that it is to you of the Church before whom this obstinate Offender is cited and accused for now he speaks no longer in the singular number Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven i. e. whomsoever ye shall for just cause eject from the Communion of the Church into the state of a Heathen man and a Publican I will certainly exclude out of Heaven unless he reconcile himself to you by Confession and promise of amendment and if thereupon you pardon him and receive him into the Churches Communion I will most certainly pardon him too if he perform his promise for that by binding and loosing upon Earth our Saviour means excluding out of the Church and receiving in again is evident from that Parallel passage Mat. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven where by the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven is plainly meant the Authority of a Steward to govern his Church or Family for so Isa. 22.21 22. God promises Eliachim that he would cloath him with the Robe of Shebna who was over the Houshold ver 15. i. e. Steward of the Kings Family and that he would commit Shebna 's Government into his hand c. and then it follows And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulders so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open that is in short I will make him the Governour of the Family and give him power to admit or exclude what Servants he pleases and accordingly by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Government of the Church for so Keys denote Authority to Govern vid. Rev. 3.7 and by binding and loosing the power of shutting out of or readmitting into it and therefore in Iohn 20.23 this binding and loosing is thus expressed whose sins ye remit or loose shall be remitted or loosed whose sins ye retain or keep bound shall be retained or kept bound for though the words are different from those in S. Matthew yet they are of the same import and signification and consequently our Saviours meaning must be the same here as there viz. whose sins you loose from the penalty of exclusion from the Church I also will loose from the penalty of exclusion out of Heaven and whose sins
you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church to bind or loose suspend or restore excommunicate or absolve and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel which is the Christian Church even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel Mat. 19.28 and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles ver 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones to denote their power and dignity in the Church ver 19 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits that is twelve times twelve to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church ver 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church and administring the Censures of it being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicated their Order for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed 1 Cor. 5.3 and what he orders them to do ver 4 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence and 2 Cor. 13.2 he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established which are the very words of our Saviour Matt. 18.16 when he instituted the power of Censuring and then ver 10. he tells them that he wrote these things being absent lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification and not to destruction by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating and 1 Cor. 4.21 he threatens to come to them with a Rod that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church and with this Rod as he himself tells he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete for so he orders Timothy against an Elder Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves when they were accused and to punish them if he found them guilty for so it follows Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 1 Tim. 5.19 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Tit. 3.10 which plainly implies that he had an Authority inherent in him as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete to Cite Examine Admonish and Censure persons of erronious Principles and the same Authority it is evident was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not and to convict them for Liars Rev. 2.2 and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church ver 14 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel ver 20. which plainly implies that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries was inherent in them else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular Churches and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus Augendus and others of his Presbyters Ep. 38 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon he tells him that pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate i. e. by his own Episcopal authority without appealing to the Synod he might have chastised him And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops to examine whether any person Lay or Clergy had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegatâ— power to their Presbyters both to excommunicate and absolve as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth but in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of
spiritual Government in his Church and it is as true that all Government whether Spiritual or Temporal includes a Legislative Power in it or a power of commanding its Subjects but this is no limitation of the commanding power of Sovereign Princes who must still be obeyed in all things where Christ hath not countermanded though the Church should command the contrary for Christ never authorized the Governours of his Church to controul the commanding Power of Princes but hath left all matters of indifference as absolutely to their disposal and determination as ever they were before his spiritual Government was erected and matters of indifference are the sole matter both of purely Civil and purely Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore after the Church by its Legislative power hath restrained any matter of Indifference the Civil Sovereign in whose disposal all matters of indifference are may if he see good occasion release and free it again and impose the contrary matter of indifference and if he doth so all Christian People are obliged by the express Commands of Scripture to obey him for the Scripture-commands of obedience to the Temporal Sovereignty have no such exception as this annexed to them except the Church command the contrary and in matters of duty what have we to do to make exceptions where God hath made none And indeed where there are two Legislative Powers the one must necessarily be subject to the other or it will be impossible for the Subject in many cases without sinning to obey either For when ever the Commands of the Civil State do happen to clash with the Commands of the Church either the Church must be obliged to submit to the State or the State to the Church or the Subject cannot possibly obey the one without sinning against the other If it be said that the Church must submit to the State in things appertaining to the State and the State to the Church and so both are supreme in their own Province I would fain know what is to be done when these two Powers differ about the things which appertain to the one and to the other the State saith this appertains to me and so commands it the Church saith this appertains to me and so forbids it now in this case it is certain that one or the other must be obliged to give way or the Subject can neither obey nor disobey either without sinning and which soever of the two it be that is obliged to give way by vertue of that Obligation it must be subjected to the other So that now the Question is only this which of the two Legislative Powers is Supreme and it would be impertinent to say that they are both Supreme in their proper Province the one in Civil and the other in Spiritual causes because it is in suspence whether the cause in which they countermand each other be Civil or Spiritual so that in this case I must either be obliged to obey neither which is notoriously false or whatsoever the cause be in it self to yield obedience to the one and to disobey the other and if I must obey the Civil Power whether the cause be Civil or Spiritual then the Civil Power must be supreme in both as on the contrary if I must obey the Church Power whether the cause be Spiritual or Civil it will as necessarily follow that the Church Power is supreme in both Which later we are as sure is false as the Scripture is true for in 〈◊〉 matters it is agreed on all hands that the Scripture concludes all men as well Clergy as Laity under the obligation of Obedience to the Civil Sovereign and that none are exempt no not the Apostles themselves or the Bishops succeeding them in the spiritual Government whether we consider them separately or conjunctly and if in all Civil Causes I am obliged to obey the command of the Civil Power then it is most certain that if the Cause in contest between that and the spiritual Power be really Civil I am obliged to disobey the countermand of the spiritual Power but if on the contrary I must disobey the Command of the Civil Power supposing the cause to be spiritual which way can I turn my self without danger of sinning so that unless one of these two Powers are Supreme in both causes when ever any cause happens to be contested between them as to be sure many must between two Rival Powers I can neither obey nor disobey without sinning against one or both and can we imagine that God who is the God of Order and not of Confusion would ever involve us in such inextricable difficulties by subjecting us to two supreme Powers that are so subject to clash and interfere with one another Wherefore although as I shall shew by and by the Church is invested with a Legislative Power whereby it can restrain things that were free and indifferent for its own security and decency and order yet this Power is subordinate to the Civil Legislation which is in all causes Supreme and cannot enact against it controul or countermand it in any indifferent matter whether Temporal or Spiritual but stands obliged to recede to the Civil Sovereign who hath the supreme disposal of all indifferent things and in all contested cases to veil its Authority to his And accordingly we find that during the first three hundred years when the Civil Powers were Enemies to Christianity and did no otherwise concern themselves with it than to ruin and extirpate it the Church made Laws for it self and by its own Legislative Power enacted whatsoever it judged convenient or necessary for its own security or edification but yet it never presumed in any indifferent matter to contradict the Laws of the Empire nor did ever any Christian because he was a Subject of the Church refuse to obey his Prince in any case whatsoever where God had not countermanded him as is most evident from hence because in all the History of those times we do not find one instance of any Christian that suffered for so doing In those days there were no Martyrs for indifferent things which to be sure there must have been had the Church then taken upon it to determine indifferences contrary to the Edicts of the Emperour but the only thing they then suffered for was their refusal to disobey the express Will of God in compliance with the wicked Wills of men which is an unanswerable Argument that in those days the Church never assumed to it self any supreme Authority over indifferent things either in Spirituals or Temporals but left that in those hands where God had placed it viz. in the hands of the Civil Sovereign with whose Imperial Laws its Canons never interfered with whose Legislative Power it never justled for the Wall but chearfully submitted to it in all things wherein it was not determined to the contrary by the express Will of God. And when afterwards the Civil Sovereign embraced Christianity he did not thereby devest himself
Ministries Common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy is the administration of the Evangelical Sacraments for it was to his Apostles and in them to their Successors that our Saviour gave the Commission of Baptizâ—ing all Nations in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and of doing this i. e. of consecrating and administring the holy Eucharist in remembrance of me but yet it is evident that this Ministry was not so confined to the Apostolick Order as that none but they were allowed to exercise it for even in the Apostles days Philip and Ananias who were no Apostles Baptized and S. Peter commanded the Brethren with him who were no Apostles neither to Baptize those Gentile Converts upon which the Holy Ghost descended Acts 10.48 and there is no doubt but when those three thousand Souls Acts 2. were all Baptized at one time there were a great many other Baptizers besides the Apostles and that passage of S. Paul 1 Cor. 1.13 14 15 16 17. where he tells us that he baptized none in the Church of Corinth though it were of his own planting except Crispus Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanus is a plain Argument that when the Apostles had converted men to the Christian Faith they generally ordered them to be baptized by the inferiour Ministers of the Church that attended them and then as for the Consecration of the holy Eucharist though when any of the Apostles were present it was doubtless ordinarily performed by them yet considering how fast Christianity encreased and how frequently Christians did then partake of this Sacrament it is not to be supposed that the Apostles could be present in all places where it was administred nor consequently that they could consecrate it in every particular Congregation For though it was a very early Custom for the Bishop to consecrate the Elements in one Congregation and then send them abroad to be administred in several others yet this was only upon special occasions but ordinarily they were consecrated in the same places where they were administred in all which places it was impossible either for the Apostles at first or after them for their Successors the Bishops to be present at the same time and therefore there can be no doubt but the Consecration as well as the Administration was ordinarily performed by the inferiour Presbyters in the absence of the Apostles and Bishops But it is most certain that none were ever allowed in the Primitive Church to consecrate the Eucharist but either a Bishop or a Presbyter And as for Baptism because it is in some degree more necessary than the Eucharist as being the sign of admission into the New Covenant by which we are first intitled to it not only Bishops and Presbyters but in their absence or by their allowance Deacons also were Authorized to administer it for so even in the Apostles days Philip the Deacon baptized at Samaria Acts 8.12 and afterwards not only Deacons but Lay-men too were allowed to administer it in case of necessity when neither a Deacon nor Presbyter nor Bishop could be procured that so none might be debarred of admission into the New Covenant that were disposed and qualified to receive it but the Churches allowing this to Lay-men only in cases of necessity is a plain Argument that none had a standing Authority to administer it but only persons in holy Orders For that authority which a present necessity creates is only present and ceases with the necessity that created it III. And lastly Another of the Ministries common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy is to offer up the Publick Prayers and intercessions of Christian Assemblies For to be sure none can be authorized to perform the publick Offices of the Church but only such as are set apart and ordained to be the publick Officers of it Now Prayer is one of the most solemn Offices of Christian Assemblies and therefore as in the Jewish Church none but the High Priest and Priests and Levites who were the only publick Ministers of Religion were authorized to offer up the publick Prayers of the Congregation vid. 2 Chron. 39.27 so in the Christian none but Bishops Priests and Deacons who alone are the publick Ministers of Christianity are authorized to offer up the publick addresses of Christian Assemblies it is their peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to perform the publick Offices to the Lord Acts 13.2 for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Publick Service and is used to denote those publick services of which one was offering up the Common Prayers of the People which the Priests in their turns performed in the Temple Vid. Luk. 1.23 and hence it is that the Ministers of Christian Religion are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.16 because it is their proper business to officiate the publick services of the Christian Church and accordingly in Rev. 5.10 the four and twenty Elders that is the holy Bishops of the Church as appears by their having Crowns of Gold or Mitres on their heads in allusion to the High Priests Mitre Chap. 4. ver 4. are said to have every one of them Harps and golden Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of Saints referring to the Incense which the Priests were wont to offer in the Sanctuary which Oblation was a mystical offering up the Prayers of the People vid. Luk. 1.10 which plainly intimates that as it was one part of the Office of those Iewish Priests to offer the Incense and therewithall the Prayers of the People so is it also of the Publick Ministers of Christianity to offer up the Prayers of Christian Assemblies And as in the Jewish Church not only the Priests but the Levites also Communicated with the High Priest in this Ministry of offering up the Prayers of the Congregation so in the Christian Church not only the Presbyters but the Deacons also always Communicated in it with their Bishop Having thus given an account of those Religious Ministries which are common to the Bishops with the inferiour Officers of the Church I proceed in the next place to shew what those Ministries are which are peculiar to the Bishops or Governours of the Church all which are reducible to four particulars 1. To make Laws for the peace and good order of the Church 2. To Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices 3. To execute that spiritual Jurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church 4. To confirm such as have been instructed in Christianity I. One peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to make Laws and Canons for the security and preservation of the Churches peace and good order and this is implied in the very Essence of Government which necessarily supposes a Legislative power within it self to command and oblige the Subject to do or forbear such things as it shall judge conducive to the preservation or disturbance of their Common-weal without which power no Government can be enabled to obtain its end
which is the good of the Publick Since therefore the Church by Christs own institution is a governed Society of men we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles who as all agree had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour for so in Acts 15.6 we are told that upon occasion of that famous Controversie about Circumcision the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter where by the Elders by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things ver 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were it seems laid upon them as a burthen i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities they wrote to viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches to which they were more peculiarly related Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper tells them that other things he would set in order when he came among them 1 Cor. 11.34 but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices so also 1 Cor. 16.1 the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon which he gave to the Churches of Galatia which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in charge to his Church ver 7. so also Tit. 1.5 he tells Titus that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage unless it were by deputation from his Bishop and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority and Suffrage and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters or by the Bishops in Council among themselves was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true this Legislative Power of the Church as was shewn before extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign who is next to and immediately under God in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity than he was by the Laws of natural Religion and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth such as preaching the Gospel administring the Evangelical Sacraments c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World to perform those Ministries in his absence but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations for this is necessarily implied in the Commission he gave them Iohn 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you that is I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him but I also send you with the same authority to send others that I now exercise in sending you for unless this be implied in their Mission he did not send them as his Father sent him unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father which he then exercised in sending them Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36 Mar. 16.14 Mat. 28.16 in all which places we are expresly told that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission and consequently it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order no others could have right to transfer it to others but only such as were admitted of that Order none could give it to others but only those to whom Christ gave it and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles none but Apostles could derive it and accordingly we
admonish Hereticks and in case of Pertinacy to reject them from the Communion of the Church chap. 3. vers 10. from all which it is evident that this Apostolate of Titus consisted in his Ecclesiastical Superiority which was the very same in the Church of Crete that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches that were planted by them And accordingly he is declared by the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity to be the first Bishop of that Church so Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have received Episcopal Authority over the Churches of Crete So also Theodoret. in Argum. Ep. ad Tit. tells us that he was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Crete and so also S. Chrysostom S. Ierom and S. Ambrose and several others of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers This Episcopal Authority therefore which S. Paul gave Titus over the Church of Crete is another plain instance of the Apostles making Apostles or deriving to others their Apostolick Power and Superiority over particular Churches The fourth and last Instance I shall give is that of Timothy who as it appears by S. Pauls Epistles to him had Episcopal Authority over the Church of Ephesus and this not only over the Laity to command and teach 'em 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive Widows into the Churches Service or reject and refuse 'em 1 Tim. 5.4.9.16 and to oblige the Women to go modestly in their Apparel and keep silence in the Church 1 Tim. 2.11 12. but also over the Clergy to take care that sutable provision should be made for 'em 1 Tim. 5.17 that none should be admitted a Deacon till after competent trial nor Ordained an Elder till after he had well acquitted himself in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over 'em to receive Accusations against 'em and if he found 'em guilty to put 'em to open shame 1 Tim. 5.19 20. and S. Paul charges him to exercise this his Jurisdiction without preferring one before another and without partiality ibid. ver 21. which if he had no Jurisdiction over 'em had been very impertinent and as he had Jurisdiction over the Clergy concredited to him so had he also the Authority of Ordaining 'em for the due exercise of which S. Paul gives him that necessary rule 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man neither be partaker of other mens sins And that this Authority of his in the Ephesian Church over both the Laity and Clergy was given by S. Paul for a standing form of Government there is evident from hence because it was conferred on him after the Presbytery was formed and setled in that Church for in planting and cultivating this large and populous Church which extended it self over all the Proconsular Asia S. Paul had laboured for three years together with incredible diligence which is a much longer time than he spent in any other Church and therefore by this time to be sure he had not only constituted a Presbytery in it as he did in all other Churches Acts 14.23 but also reduced it to much greater perfection than any other that so in the constitution of it it might be a pattern to all other Churches and if so then to be sure the Government which he had now at last established in it was such as he intended should continue viz. by a single Person presiding over both Clergy and Laity And that de facto it was so we have not only the Authority of S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy but also the concurrent Testimony of all Ecclesiastical Antiquity for so Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. tells us he was the first Bishop of the Province or Diocess of Ephesus and the Anonimous Author of his life in Photius that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus and that he was Ordained and Enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great S. Paul and in the Council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that Chair from Timothy who was the first and Saint Chrysostom Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5.19 tells us that it is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a Church or rather with a whole Nation viz. that of Asia upon which account he is stiled by Theodoret in 1 Tim. 3.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy the Apostle of the Asiatiques and to name no more of the great numbers of Authorities that might be cited in the Apostolical Constitutions we are expresly told that he was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. This therefore is another evident instance of the Apostles deriving down their Apostolick Authority Other instances might be given but these are sufficient to shew that the Apostles did not look upon our Saviours institution of a superiour Order of Ecclesiastical Officers as a temporary thing that was to expire with 'em but as a standing Model of Ecclesiastical Government since they derived to others that superiority over the Churches of Christ which he communicated to them For from all these instances it is most evident both that the Apostolical Office did not expire with the Twelve but was transferred by 'em to others and that that which is now called the Episcopacy was nothing else but the Apostolical Office derived from the Apostles to their successors for in the Primitive Language of the Church Bishops are generally stiled Apostles for which no other reason can be assigned but that they succeeded in the Apostolical superiority Thus as hath been shewn before S. Iames Epaphroditus Titus and Timothy are stiled Apostles in Scripture and by the Primitive Writers Clemens Bishop of Rome who was a Disciple of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Clemens the Apostle vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle and Bishop by S. Chrysostom and Thaddaeus who was sent b◠S. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and so are also S. Mark and S. Luke by Epiphanius and Theodoret lays it down for a general rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. those whom we now call Bishops were anciently called Apostles but in process of time the name of Apostle was left to them who were more strictly Apostles viz. the Twelve and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles If therefore the practice of the Apostles proceeding upon the express institution of our Saviour be sufficient to found a Divine Right we have this you see to plead for a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Offices since the Apostles did not only Ordain Presbyters and Deacons in the several Churches they planted but also Apostles or Bishops to preside over 'em and if their Ordaining of Presbyters be an argument of the perpetuity of the Office of a Presbyter as the Presbyterians themselves contend it is why should not their Ordaining Bishops also be as good an Argument of the perpetuity of the