Apostles as somewhere he does Christ is called a Bishop and that by a greater Man than Cyprian and yet I believe you will not infer from thence that the Bishops are Christs or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also That the Apostleship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the communication of the Names than for the same Reason That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so The Apostleship was an Episcopacy but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for any more than because it was called a Deaconry it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification for not to mention prophane Authors as Homer Plutarch Cicero c. in which we read the word It is certain Basil applies it often unto God Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles and therefore being a word of so general signification nothing is deducible from it as to the special nature of any Office except by way of Analogy To be plain with you the Writers of the First Century Cyprian was in the Third had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship as you imagine even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops though he compares them sometimes to God and other times to Christ which I believe you insist not upon because you thought it a little too much yet he never that I can find compares them to the Apostles Their College if you will believe Ignatius was imitated not to say succeeded by the Presbytery I add That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us as Hierom also does That St. Mark ordained that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number though possibly not so early as to be an Institution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine not one word in Clemens Romanus a Writer of the First Age of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Office of the Apostleship He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution to wit the Bishops and Deacons of which more hereafter Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being by Office the first Preachers and Witnesses of Christ by whom they were immediately sent for that purpose then certainly that Work and Office as well as their Mission to it was extraordinary and but Temporary And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching and had framed them under perpetual standing Orders they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority either by way of Direction upon new Emergences or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages That was extraordinary too and by vertue of a Jurisdiction naturally arising and remaining in them as also in the Evangelists as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary is devolved upon any other Persons as Successors of the Apostles lyes on you to evince and I think it is an hard Province For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates while themselves were living or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living but only ordained That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church as their Successors but not before If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living I demand how that could be Can any come into the places of others even while these others possess them And again I demand whether there were or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction which I suppose you will not deny over the Prelates they instituted if they instituted any Then they transâ—erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates that is the Prelatâ—s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them for none does give that which he keeps I believe therefore you will say the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living but ordained that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches as their Successors But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded In what Scripture In what Fathers of the First Age or how came you to know of such an Order if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fathers transmits it All of any Aspect this way in any Father of the First Age is in Clemens Romanus and he is against you for having premised what is very remarkable and much to our purpose That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds that for that Cause to wit to end such strife they ordained Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed the forementioned Officers and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons of whom he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they namely the Apostles appointed the first fruits of those Cities and Countries where they had preached approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe This is a plain Testimony so plain that I see not how it can be evaded that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church of which one indeed was that of the Bishops But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others as in the sacred Scriptures it must be understood of the Presbyterian and not of the Prelatical Orders And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders which the Apostles had instituted to continue in the Church from time to time I did it with good Authority for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it He adds And moreover they gave it in direction That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had appointed should decease others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous
Ignatius which as I shall shew hereafter was Congregational but by the Express Testimony of Clement who blames the Church of Corinth for raising a Sedition and Stir against their Presbyters and therefore there were many in that Church only upon the Account of one or two Persons so that it is plain there was a College of Presbyters in the Ancient Apostolical Church of Corinth Again in the Presbytery or College which was ordained in every Church though all the Presbyters were equal the Institution making no Difference for Paul and Barnabas are said to Constitute Elders but not to Constitute Elders and a Bishop as a Superiour over them yet it being requisite for Order-sake that some one in every Assembly should have the Direction and that Honour naturally falling on the Eldest Presbyter unless some other Course be resolved it is most probable that at first the Eldest Presbyter as he had the first Place so he had the first Direction of Matters But afterwards it being found by Experience that the Eldest was not always the Worthiest and Fittest for that purpose it came to pass that the place devolved not any longer by Seniority but was conferred by Election And in this S. Ambrose if it be he and not rather Hillary in his Comment on the fourth to the Ephesians is plain Vid. Sixt. Senens Bibl. Sanct. l. 6. annot 324. And admitting that all the Presbyters were called Bishops as undoubtedly at first they were it is easie to conceive how the first Presbyter came to be called the Bishop and at last for Distinction-sake to have the Name of Bishop so appropriated to him that the rest retained only the Denomination of Presbyters But all this while the Bishop was but the first Presbyter and had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters than is allowed to S. Peter in the College of the Apostles by all Protestants Even Epiphanius himself if we may believe Danaeus was at last compelled to confess That in the Time and Age of the Apostles no such Distinction as that is which you contend for was to be found between the Bishops and Presbyters Again though all the Presbyters in every Church had like Authority to Preach and Rule both Functions being comprehended in the Episcopacy assigned to them 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. yet some of them being better qualifyed for the one and some for the other it is probable that they exercised their different Talents accordingly some of them more in the one and some more in the other This as strange as you may make it seems plainly intimated in that Injunction of the Apostles 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrin For here is a plain Distinction of Elders of which some being better at Ruling and some at preaching they exercised themselves according to the Talent they had those that were better at Ruling in Ruling and those that were better at Preaching in labouring in the Word and Doctrin And since Labouring in the Word and Doctrin had the special Honour no Question but the first Presbyter as most honourable was always of the number of those that laboured that way so that the Bishop was the Pastour also or Preaching Elder that is the Preaching Spiritual Work became appropriated to him at first Eminently but afterwards entirely and then nothing lay in Common between him and the Presbyters but only Rule And this is what I can gather from Scripture of the Apostolical Settlement Upon the whole it is evident That a Diocesan Bishop was unknown in the first Age of the Church and the only Bishop to be found then was the Presbyter which is further confirmâ—d in that the Scotâ— who received the Knowledg of Christianity very early even in that Age had not any Knowledge for many Ages after that appears oâ— any but Presbyterian Jurisdiction Even Bishop Spotiswood in his History of the Church of Scotland tells us out of Boethius and Boethius from Ancient Annals of the Culdees or Ancient Scottish Priests and Monks who he believes were called Culdees not because Culteres Dei as most think but because they lived in Cells their Names as he says being Kele-Dei and not Culdei in old Bulls and Rescripts He says of these Culdees That they were wont for their better Government to elect one of their Number by common Suffrage to be the Chief and Principâ—l among them without whose Knowledge and Consent nothing was done in any Matter of Importance and the Person so Elected was called Scotorum Episcopus a Scots Bishop and this was all the Bishop that he could find in the first Times But Bâ—chaâ—an is plainer who tells us That no Bishop to wit an Order superiour to that of the Presbyters ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Paliadius his Time the Church says he unto that Time was Governed by Monks without Bishops with less Pride and outward Pomp but greater Simplicity and Holiness Thus I have Eâ—idenced what the Sâ—aâ—e of Things was in the first Times of the Christian Churches to wit that those were governed by Presbyteries in which all the Presbyters were equal and all Bishops only for Order-sake there was a first Presbyter who having more Care and more Work had yet no more Authority and Power than any other but as the best Men are but Flesh and Blood and the best Institutions lyable to Rust and Canker so these were not exempted there was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own Times and those that followed him improved upon the Example The first Presbyter soon became advanced into another Order and from being First commenced Prince of the Presbyters We are told by Dâ—naeus who citeth Epiphanius and he might have cited others that this Departure from the Primitive Institution began in Alexandâ—ia and it is very probable That the Appointment of twelve Presbyters besides a President for so Eutichius assures us it was there did give occasion to the President who easily took the Hint to challenge to himself the Place and Authority of Christ when the very Number of Presbyters over whom he presided made it manifest that they were an Imitation of the Apostles But whether other Churches took their Pattern from that of Alexandria or no 't is easie to conceive in what manner and by what means the Mistake might gain upon them For after the first Presbyter became elected and consequently was separate by Prayer and Imposition of Hands no wonder he was â—oon taken for an Officer of another Order much Superiour unto that of the Presbyters who was distinguished from them by that Token of a new Ordination and was in place above them Ay it is highly probable That the first Recess from the Primitive Institution even in Alexandria began this way if that be true that Grotius hath observed That the Election of the President Presbyter came not in use there but after the Death
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word that commonly signifies Strength not Authority Besides if this putting away v. 2. must be understood as certainly it must of the same putting away with that v. 13. nothing can be plainer than that it was a Censure the People could and ought to have made of themselves without expecting any new Commission as being in a matter that by the Apostles own Concession they had a proper Cognisance of and over a Person too whose competent Judges they were as the same Apostle tells them Do not you judge them that are within therefore put away c. putting away is grounded on the Peoples Judgment but delivery unto Satan upon the Apostles And yet however putting away may well be called an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rebuke and be a kind of Punishment for to be excluded from the Common Society and Conversation of the Faithful cannot deserve a milder Expression You still insist That there is and ought to be a Disparity of Ministers because there was a Disparity between the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples and with Blondel think that the 70 continued in the same Office after the Ascension of our Lord that they had before for you say You cannot believe they withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men. But tho' you do not believe as I know no need you should that the 70 withdrew their Hands from the Plow or that our Saviour deposed them from their Office or depressed them into the Rank of private Men yet if their Office was only occasional that is if they were sent by our Saviour to the House of Israel as Messengers upon some particular Occasions and about a particular Business then their Office ceased of Course at their Return like that of a Prince's Envoy whose Office ends with his Business that is as soon as his Message is done and he returned with the Account of it I know of no Jurisdiction the 12 Apostles had over the 70 but am sure the Office and Work of the 70 whatever it was related but to the Jews as being a Business only for that Time a Time that was the Crepusculum or Twi-light between the Law and Gospel Judaism and Christianity while as yet the Kingdom of Heaven was only at hand but not come Luke 10. 9. I add That the Office of the 70 is not reckoned in the number of the Ascension Gifts Eph. 4. 11. And which is more that the Apostles themselves had they not received another a new Commission after the Reâ—urrection of Christ they by their former old one which confirmed them unto Iudaea as that of the 70 also did them and which was only for a preliminary Work Matth. 10. 7. as that of the 70 also was could not have had an Authority to preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles and so to lay the Foundation of the Catholick Church And therefore the first Commission as it was limited so it was Temporary and expired at furthest when a second was given them Matth. 28 18 19. Acts 1. 8. Not but that the 70 as well as the 12 had Business in the Kingdom of Heaven or the Evangelical State but they had it not under the Denomination of the 70 or in vertue of their first Commission or Mission but only as they came to be Officers in this Kingdom by being constituted Evangelists or Prophets or Pastors and Teachers or Deacons c. You offer again in Confirmation of your Notion of the Apostleship of Bishops that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation were Bishops constituted by the Apostles with the same Authority themselves had and that the Twelve Apostles and Paul were not all the Apostles that the Scripture speaks of for Barnabas and others were Apostles too as well as they I acknowledge Barnabas to be an Apostle but I cannot acknowledge that he was an Apostle of the same Rank with the Twelve and Paul for as Paul himself distinguishes Gal. 1. 1. All Apostles were not of the same Rank but some were in the first some in the second Order that is some were Apostles sent immediately by Christ himself and so were Legates à latere and some were sent not immediately by Christ himself but by Men. Now Paul insists That himself was an Apostle of the first Order and in the same Rank with the Twelve Gal. 1. 17. whereas it is plain that Barnabas and all the others who are called Apostles can pretend to be but of the second they being sent not immediately by Christ himself as those of the first were but only by Man either by the Apostles that were of the first Order as Timothy and Titus by Paul or by some Church as Barnabas Acts 11. 22. for here the Church is said to send forth Barnabas as their Apostle and not barely to dismiss him as the word Imports that is used Acts 13 3. Apostles of the second Order are called also Evangelists and it was their business to be Assistant unto those of the first if not always to their Persons yet at least to their Work which was to plant Churches by making of Conversions and setling Orders And of this sort of Apostles I again acknowledge Timothy and Titus to have been I proved in my former Paper that Timothy and Titus were Evangilists but it seems the Argument I used loses all its force with you because its strength like that of the Arch-work lies in the Combination and Concurrence and you consider it only in pieces not as a whole and all its parts together and United but only separately and part by part As for Timothy methinks we do too often find him with S. Paul in his Perambulations to have any reason to conceive that he was resident Bishop of Ephesus and for Titus his Diocess seems too large for any ordinary Bishop Crete is famed to have had an hundred Cities in old time and Pliny assures us L. 4. c. 12. that in his there were forty which were enough for so many Bishopricks Titus had it in Charge Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City and to ordain Elders in every City was to settle a Church in every City so that if every Church must have a Bishop as some are confident it must then every City in Crete that had a Church had also a Bishop and so possibly there were as many Bishops and Bishopricks in Crete as there were Cities This Consideration if well weighed will much abate of the Authority of the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus in which this Evangelist is stiled the Ordained Bishop in the Church of the Cretians for according to the Language of that time had Titus been indeed the Bishop of that whole Island he ought to have been stiled Bishop of the Churches and not of the Church of the Cretians But it seems it is taken for granted that a Bishop must have but
one Church and therefore that Titus may be a Bishop of the Cretians all the Churches of Crete must be Consolitated into one else among all the Churches in Crete I would fain know which was the Church of the Cretians where Titus resided If Titus was Bishop over all the Churches in Crete he was a Bishop of Bishops and at least a Metropolitan which indeed would be most in favour of the Hierarchy could it be Evidenced But this could not be the settlement that was made in Crete For it would be strange that the Apostle should appoint a Hierarchy in Crete that should differ from the form of Government setled upon the Continent by himself and Barnabas who constituted Elders in every Church without appointing that we read of any Superiour Bishop or Metropolitan that should have a General Care and Inspection over the several Churches For my part I could not see how Titus should understand his Commission which was to ordain Elders in every City to carry any other Intention with reference to Crete than the very same words do when they are used to signifie what Paul himself who gave him this Commission had done upon the Continent where he and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church And therefore as Paul and Barnabas established single Congregations only and Organized them with Elders and then left them to govern themselves by their own Intrinsick powers So in the like manner Titus established Churches in every City and Organized them with Elders which having done it is very probable that he returned again unto S. Paul to give an account of his Commission Thus Titus his business in Crete has the very Idea and Signature of that of an Evangelist or a Secundary Apostle without the least Mark of an ordinary Bishop nor is there any hint in all the Authentick Scriptures of his being ordained Bishop of Crete or indeed of any place else And the like must be said of Timothy with reference to Ephesus who was sent to the Church there as a Visitor only with Apostolical Authority and so as S. Paul's Delegate Nor it Titus his ordaining of Elders a good Argument for sole Ordination for the word Tit. 1. 5. is the same that is used in Acts 6. 3. in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the People And one might well admire that the same word which is Translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordained in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if there were a plain Text for sole Ordination But what if Timothy and Titus had a power of sole Jurisdiction and a power too of making Canons for the Government of the Church which latter yet is an Authority that every Bishop will not pretend unto after their Example The Church then was in a State of Separation from Secular Government and among Heathen just as the Jews are now among Christians so that all it could do at that time was to perswade it could not compel And therefore it will not follow now that the Church is protected and not only protected by but Incorporated into the State that the Officers of it must have the same powers and Exercise them in the same manner as before or as Mr. Selden expresses it That England must be Governed as Ephesus or Crete It is certain that Kings would gain but little by the Bargain not to say they must depart with their Sovereignty to Incorporate the Christian Religion should this be admitted that Church-Authority Church-Power must be still the same after such Incorporation as before For a separate National Jurisdiction Exercised by one or many is a Solecism in State especially if it claim by the Title of Iure divino a Title that renders it Independent upon as well as unboundable and uncontroulable by all that is human Such a Jurisdiction would weaken that of Kings and other States All their Subjects would be but half Subjects and many none at all and it is no more nor less but that very same thing that heretofore was found so inconvenient and burden some under the Papacy and that made the best and wisest and greatest of our Kings so uneasie A Clergy imbodied within it self and independent on the State is in a Condition of being made a powerful Faction upon any Occasion and easie to be practised upon as being united under one or a few Heads who can presently convey the Malignity to all their Subordinates and these to the People So that I lay it down as a Maxim that nothing can be of greater danger to any Government than a National Hierarchy that does not depend upon it or is not in the Measures and Interests of it Fresh Experience has learned us this I know not with what Design it was said by Padre Paulo Sarpio of Venice but his Words are very remarkable as I find them cited from an Epistle of his to a Counsellor of Paris in the Year 1609. I am afraid says he in the behalf of the English of that great power of Bishops though under a King I have it in Suspicion when they shall meet with a King of that goodness as they will think it easie to work upon him or shall have any Archbishop of an high Spirit the Royal Authority shall be wounded and Bishops will aspire to an Absolute Domination Methinks I see a Horse Sadled in England and I guess that the old Rider will get on his Back But all these things depend on the Divine Providence Thus he very prudently as to the main though perhaps with some mistake as to his Conjecture For my part I think it but reason that such Persons as have the Benefit of Human Laws should in so much be guided by them and that the Sword which owns no other Edge but what the Magistrate gives it should not be used but by his Direction As indeed the practice in England has always been For as Mr. Selden observes Whatever Bishops do otherwise than the Law permits Westminster-Hall can controul or send them to absolve c. He also says very well That nothing has lost the Pope so much in his Supremacy as not acknowledging what Princes gave him 't is a scorn says he on the Civil Power and an unthankfulness in the Priest But adds he the Church runs to Iure divino lest if these should acknowledge what they have by positive Laws it might be as well taken from them as given to them Ay This excellent Person goes further so much further as to tell us That a Bishop as a Bishop had never any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England for as soon as he was Electus Confirmatus that is after the Three Proclamations in Bow-Church he might Exercise Jurisdiction before he was Consecrated and yet till then that he was Consecrated he was no Bishop neither could he give Orders Besides says he Suffragans were
THE NATURE OF Church-Government Freely Discussed and set out IN THREE LETTERS LONDON Printed for S. G. in the Year MDCXCI To My Noble Friends SVV Y.B. T.R. EN ME. SIRS I Present you in the following Letters the true Idea as I take it of Church-Government which could it be received by all others with the same degree of Candour I assure my self it shall by you would be of infinite Advantage to end those fatal Controversies that for many Ages have perplexed and in this last almost destroyed the Church I prefer the way of Letters to set out the Notion for two Reasons One because it is the more Insinuative and a way that is much taken at this Time The other because really there were Letters sent by a Non-con to a Conf. in which most of the things were said that are in these only now they come refined from all the Reflections that were Personal and from some Mistakes For my own part I have nothing of Fondness in me for any Opinions nor do I hold my self obliged unto these in the Letters further than as they shall endure the Tests of Truth I am very willing they should undergo them all by strict Examination though I confess I am as loth they should be put to Torture If upon the severest Enquiry any thing can be found in them or duly inferred from them as to the Main that will not stand with good Authority sound Reason good Order of Policy or Christian Piety I shall soon shake Hands with them But till then I cannot believe it any Crime to own what I am fully perswaded of and what I am sure is no Popery That Ecclesiastical Government is a Prudential thing and Alterabl◠and that the only True English of Jure Divino in the present Case is by Law Established I am Iune 8th 1690. SIRS Your most Humble and Obliged Servant THE FIRST LETTER SIR IT must be acknowledged that you took a very right Method in the Business of Church Government to search as you say you did into its very Original and had not some of the Prejudices of your Education or of your Circumstances stuck too fast to you I suppose that way you would at least have discovered the Institution of the twelve Apostles at first before our Lord's Passion and of the seventy Disciples to have been only Temporary as well as in Accommodation to the Mosaical Policy in which were twelve Philarchs or Heads of Tribes and seventy Elders After our Lords Passion when he was risen again from the Dead and about to Ascend into Heaven concerning himself no further with the seventy of whom under that Denomination we read nothing afterwards in the Christian Church he gives a new and large Commission to the twelve Apostles and assigns them two Works The First the making of Disciples or Christians all the World over by declaring and publishing every where what upon their own Knowledge they were certain of in reference to Christ that so by being Witnesses unto him they might both aver the Truth of Christianity and being many even compel Belief of it And after they had made Christians to put them under Orders according to the Rules which Christ had given them Acts 1. 3. In two Words the Apostles were first to make Christians and then to frame them into Churches In this properly the nature of an Apostle consisted that he was a Person authorized to preach the Gospel of Christ upon his own Knowledge as being himself a Witness of him and in this his Office differed from that of an Evangelist for though an Evangelist as such did preach the Gospel where it was not heard of before and consequently made Christians and planted Churches in which his Office agrees with that of an Apostle yet herein it differs That to be an Evangelist it was not necessary as it was to be an Apostle that he should be a Witness to Christ it was enough to qualifie an Evangelist for Evangelizing that he had certain Tradition but to be qualified for an Apostle he must by the Evidences of his own Senses have had certain Knowledge of Christ. This Notion of the Apostleship is not only couched by our Saviour in what he tells the Apostles Iohn 14. 26. and at his Ascension Acts. 1. 8. but is intimated also in the History of the Election of Matthias unto the Apostleship Acts 1. from 15 to the 26. and most plainly set out in all of them taken together in conjunction for so they make it demonstrable Iudas was once numbred with the Apostles as being one of the twelve but he fell from that Degree and Honour by his Transgressions and therefore that the Scripture might be fulfilled which had said another should succeed him Peter at an Assembly of the Believers proposes the Ordination of one in his Room And the better to regulate the Election he first instructs them in the Nature of the Office and Work of the Apostleship to which that Ordination was to be made and this he says is with the rest of the Apostles to be a Witness unto Christ and particularly to his Resurrection and then informs them how a person must be qualified to become capable of being ordained to this Office to wit that he must be one of those that had accompanied with them all the while the Lord Jesus went in and out among them even from beginning to end from first to last Beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from them He must it seems be such an one as had always been with the Lord or else he could not be qualified to be one of the twelve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Peter therefore must one of these Men that have accompanied with us c. And why must one of these but that it was the proper Business and Work of such an Apostle as was one of the twelve to be a Witness of Christ to all that he had said and done and suffered and none could be such a Witness but one that had been always with him from first to last And if the former is the true Idea of an Apostle as you may plainly see it is then no Diocesan Bishop or any Body else indeed can be one now for whoever is an Apostle must be a Witness to Christ and must have seen him and that too after his Resurrection And to be one of the twelve must also have been always with him from first to last even to S. Paul himself who having not conversed with Christ upon the Earth and therefore could not properly be one of the twelve our Lord appeared in an extraordinary manner to qualifie him for the Apostleship so that as all the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers it might be said of Paul that he was an extraordinary superadded Apostle It is true the Apostles were called Bishops by S. Cyprian but it had been more though even then not much to your purpose if he had called Bishops
the Bishops only to their ordinary and lawful Jurisdiction Invest them in any new or any that is unlawful at the Common Law or that is contrary to the Prerogative of our Kings All that I have said on this Occasion might receive a further Confirmation were there need of more by the famed Character of King Kenulphus made to the Abbot of Abington in which was a grant of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction as there also was in that of King Off a made to the Monastry of S. Albans by the Title of King Edgar who stiled himself Vicar of God in Ecclesiasticals by the Offering that Wolstan made of his Staff and Ring the Ensigns of his Episcopacy at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor by the Petition of the Archbishop and Clergy at the Coronation of our Kings by the form of the King 's Writ for Summoning a Convocation and of the Royal Licence that is commonly granted before the Clergy and Convocation can go upon any particular Debates In fine by the Statutes relating to Excommunication that do both direct and limit the Execution of that Censure and the proceedings upon it as to Capias's c. And thus much for Church-Government in the Third State of the Church as it is become incorporated by Civil Powers In discoursing of which I have made it plain That as no National Draught is of our Lord Christ's or his Apostles designing so that National Churches are all of Human Institution and their Government Ambulatory that is Alterable according as Times and Occasions and as the Forms of Civil Governments in States that do incorporate the Church oblige it to be to make it fit and suitable I am SIR Your Humble Servant THE THIRD LETTER SIR I Have always acknowledged some Episcopacy to be of Primitive Antiquity but you will please to remember I have likewise shewed that that Episco pacy was Presbyterial not Prelatical Congregational not Diocesan And that the Primitive Bishop was only a first Presbyter that is a Chairman in the College of Presbyters and not as in the Diocesan Hierarchy a Prelate of a superior Order that presided over several Congregational Churches and was invested with the Power of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction much less was he an Officer that kept Courts that had under him Chancellours Commissaries Officials Registers Apparitors c. and that judged per se aut per alium in certain reserved Cases To make this out I presented to you a Scheme of the Government of the Church both as it was established and settled by the Apostles and as it was afterwards I shewed That the Apostles in all their Institutions did carefully avoid any Imitation of the Temple-Orders to which Orders the Prelatical Hierarchy doth plainly conform I shewed also That the Government settled by the Apostles was only Congregational the Apostles in planting of Churches proceeding only after the Model and Way of the Synagogues Ay! all the Churches that we read of in Scripture that were constituted by the Apostles were only Congregational not National or Provincial that is they were as so many little Republicks each consisting of a Senate or Eldership with the Authority and of a People with the Power but all independant one of another and all possessed of all that Jurisdiction and Authority over their Members that was to be standing and ordinary For this Reason tho' every Congregation was but a part and a small one yet it had the Denomination of the whole every particular Congregation was stiled a Church This will appear more evident if we consider That the Interest of the People had at first and long after for above 150 Years in the Ordination of Officers was very great It is true the Word Ordination or that which answers to it in the Greek is never used throughout the whole New Testament for the making of Evangelical Officers nor did it in this Sense come into use among Christians till after the Christian Church began to accommodate to the Language as well as to the Orders of the Jewish But then as the People was called Laity and Plebs so the Clergy was called Ordo and this in the same Sense of the Word as when we read of the Order of Aaron and of that of Melchisedeck and then too the calling of any Person to the Ministry as it was a calling of him to be of the Clergy or Order so it was stiled an Ordination Ordination being nothing but the placing of a Person in the Order of the Clergy But tho' the Word Ordination was not as yet in use in the first Times the Thing was which is the Creation of Officers in the Church and in this the People possess'd so great a share which is a very good Argument of the Church's being framed at first after the Model and Way of Republicks that even the Action it self is called Chirotonia by S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and ever since by the Greek Fathâ—rs Ay the Creation of Officers is not usually called Chirothesia for this with the Greek Fathers was the Word that was mostly if not always used for Confirmation not for Ordination tho' Imposition of Hands the Ceremony signified by that Word was the Rite which was used by the Jews in creating of Rabbies and Doctors the Act of Ordination is usually if not always denominated Chirotonia or Extension of Hands which in the Greek Republicks was the Name or Word for the Popular Suffrage Indeed Paul and Barnabas are said to Chirotonize or as our Translators render the Word Acts 14. 23. To ordain them Elders in every Church But says Mr. Harrington they are said to do so but in the same Sense that the Proedri who were Magistrates to whom it belonged to put the Question in the Representative of the People of Athens are in Demosthenes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the Suffrage and the Thesmothetae who were Presidents in the Creation of Magistrates are in Pollux said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chirotonize the Strategi who yet ever since the Institution of Cliethenes that distributed the People into ten Tribes were always used to be elected and made by the Popular Suffrage Nor was this manner of Speaking peculiar unto the Greeks but as Calvin in his Institutions l. 4. c. 4. f. 15. observes it was a common Form used also by the Roman Historians who say That the Consul created Officers when he only presided at the Election and gathered the Votes of the People Et c'est uniforme commune de parler comme les Historiens disent quun Consul creoit des Officiers quand il recevoit le voix du peuple presedoit sur l' election So plain it is that S. Luke in saying that Paul and Barnabas did chirotonize the Elders intended to signifie no more but that the Elders were made by the Suffrage of the People Paul and Barnabas presiding at the Election and declaring or making the Crisis and so the New Latin Translation in