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
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
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