Bishops and they never claimed any Jurisdiction As for the Angels in the Revelation I see no Evidence in what is said tho' much is said to prove them to have been Diocesans It will not follow they were single persons because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who would say they are compared to Stars and not to Constellations for the Truth is both these Words are used promiscuously as well for the Constellations as for the single Stars so that no stress is to be laid upon the Word that is used for either side Besides some are of the Opinion That to the making of it clear that these Angels were only single Persons and for that cause compared but to single Stars and not to Constellations sufficient Reason ought to be given why the Holy Ghost who expresly limits the Number of the Churches doth not in like manner limit the Number of the Angels belonging to them For say they when the Holy Ghost said The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches had he intended to signifie that the Angels were but seven as the Churches were he would in like manner have said the seven Stars are the seven Angels of those seven Churches But as I am not satisfied that any great Stress should be laid in things of Moment upon such Critical Nicities so should I yield without granting that these Angels were Stars or single Persons yet I should also think it but equal to demand What Reason there is to perswade that these Stars were other than the seven President Presbyters who were Chair-men in the several Presbyteries of those seven Churches Which Churches I take to be single Congregations For I see as yet no Reason but that as a Letter intended for the Honourable House of Commons may be directed to the Speaker so these Epistles intended for the seven Churches for that they were Rev. 2. 7 11 17 c. might be superscribed for the Chief Pastor or President Presbyter who probably at that Time was stiled the Bishop by way of Appropriation In fine what if by the Name of Angel an Angel properly so called should be understood And that the Epistles intended for the Churches Pastors and People were sent to them under the Name of their Guardian Angels Should this â—e so then farewel to any Ground for Diocesan Bishops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels And that it should be so is very agreeable to the Prophetical Spirit in the Revelation For the Revelation goes much upon the Hypothesis and Language of Daniel and in Daniel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nations and in such a manner that what refers to the Nations or to their Governours is said of the Angels themselves Dan. 10. 13 20 21. Which is further confirmed in that it seems to have been an Hypothesis obtaining in the first Age of Christianity that the several Churches or Assemblies of Christians had their Guardian Angels for it is very probable that in Relation and Aspect unto this Hypothesis the Apostle Paul does tell Women 1 Cor. 11. 10. That they ought to have power over their heads Because of the ANGELS the Expression seems to imply That there were Angels Guardians of the Assemblies who observed the Demeanour of All and therefore they ought to be Circumspect Modest and Decent in their Behaviour and in their Fashions and Garbs out of Respect to those Guardians And indeed the former Account of the Title of Angels is a more agreeable and easie one than that which some others give who by Angel understanding a Bishop in the Modern Sense of that Word believe the Denomination given with reference to a Practice among the Jews who they say as from Diodorus attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel But should it be yielded that the Jews had any such Practice to attribute the Title of Angel to their High-Priest what could this amount unto in our Case since every Bishop is not an High Priest in the Sense of the Jews For in their Sense there could be but one and then that one among Christians must be a Pope or a Sovereign Bishop over all the Bishops as among the Jews the High Priest was over all the Priests But in reality the Jews had no such Practice nor does the alledged Diodorus say they had to call their High Priest Angel they called him High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his name but indeed he adds That they had a Belief of him That he was often made a Messenger or Angel of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as really he was when he had the Urim on him and this is all that Diodorus affirms Your other Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy which you ground upon the Traditional Succession of Bishops in several Sees down from the Times of the Apostles and in the Seats of the Apostles has no more of cogency in it than the former I know Tertullian l. de praescript adv Hae etieos says Precurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsâ— adhus Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c. And I acknowledg the Apostles may well enough be said to have sate in Chairs and others to succeed in them if the Chairs be understood of Chairs of Doctrin in the same Sense in which the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses's for in this Sense All those Churches were Apostolical and had Apostolical Succession which being founded upon the Doctrin of the Apostles had such persoâ—s only in any Authority over them as did continue therein But else I cannot believe my self obliged to assent that the Apostles had Chairs in Particular Churches tho' Tertullian's Words at first Sight may seem to sound that way than to believe the Story of the Cells of the 70 Translators a Story that S. Hierom not only confutes but Ridicules tho' it has this to be said for it That Iustin Martyr affirms he saw the Ruins of those very Cells and that they were in the Pharos of Alexandri Tertullian flourished but in the beginning of the third Century by which Time many Fob Traditions past Current of which Truth too many Instances are obvious in the Writings of that Father as well as of other Fathers Indeed Eusebius has given us Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops in several Churches but these Catalogues are only Conjectural and Traditionary Himself in the Proem of his Ecclesiastical History tells us of a great Chasm that was in that kind of History for the three first Centuries and that being alone and solitary in this kind of Performance he had nothing but Fragments here and there to help him from any of those who preceeded him Ay in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the Persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were quorum nomina non est facile explicare per
the Twelve he was the Minister of the Gentiles and as these were a kind of Proselytes to the Jewish Church so he was a kind of Proselyte or super added Apostle Himself expresses it That he was one born out of due season 1 Cor. 15. 18. And for the Offices of Apostleship and Episcopacy I have shewed in my former Letter how much they differ 'T is true you say that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles and that too by the Fathers but you may remember I acquainted you they were not stiled so by any Fathers of the first Century or till towards the latter end if then of the Second Else that Bishops are sometimes called Apostles I know and Dr. Cave hath many Citations to that purpose to which you have added some and might have added more but the Sense in which they were called Apostles is that only which is of any concern to us And certainly notwithstanding all that you have said to the contrary it doth not as yet appear that those Bishops that were called by the Antient Fathers Apostles were Diocesan Bishops for they might be and really for all that glorious Denomination they were but Congregational Prelates who because in a sense they were Successors of the Apostles and the same in some Proportion unto particular Churches that the Apostles themselves were to the general even for that reason they were called Apostles and all as well as any Diocesans That the Bishops compared to the Apostles by S. Cyprian who is one of the first that compares them so were only Presbyterical and Congregational Bishops is evident in that even there where he so compares them he doth plainly Contradistinguish them to the Deacons for even there he mentioneth but Two Orders as S. Paul to Timothy doth and therefore must be understood to mean as he doth the one of the Bishops and Praepositi which he compares to Apostles and the other of the Deacons who he saith were appointed by the Apostles as indeed they were Acts 6. to be their and the Churches Servants Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos id est Episcopos praeposiâ—os Dominus eligit Diâ—conos autem post assensum domini in Coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus sui Ecclesiae ministres And 't is plain in that Citation which I made before from S. Cyprian that his Bishop or Praepositus for both in him are Expressions of one and the same Office was a Preaching Minister ordained unto a certain People ed eam plebem cui Praeposiâ—us ordinatur c. Again that the preaching Ministers or Pastors of Congregations were considered as in a Sense Successors of the Apostles and compared to them on that Account is farther evidenced from the Testimony of Nilus who in his Book of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome hath these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then may one say is not the Pope entirely the Successor of Peter Yes he is but 't is as he is a Bishop and is no more than what every Bishop that was ordained by Peter may easily challenge But there were may that by his namely Peters Hand received this Grace of Episcopacy Ay every Priest this way is a Successor of that Apostle from whom by Tradition he received Priesthood and thus there are many Successors as well of Peter as of other Apostles but in other Respects they have no Successors Thus he speaketh plainly That Bishops and Pastours succeeded the Apostles but not in the Apostleship of this there is no Succession and Dr. Reinolds is fully of the same Opinion and speaks home Indeed it is a Point saith he well worth the noting that as you do notoriously abuse the Church of Christ speaking to Hart for you perswade the Simple and chiefly young Scholars who trust your Common-Place Books that Chrysostom spake of Peter and Peter's Successors in the same meaning That the Pope doth when he saith That Peter and Peter's Suceessor is the Head of the Church and bindeth by solemn Oath to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter whereas S. Chrysostom meant by Peter's Successors them whom Christ doth put in Trust to seed his Sheep as the Master of the Sentences and Thomas of Aquin do give the Name of Peters Successors to all Priests and Prelates as they term them that is to all Pastors and Doctors of the Church as S. Augustin teacheth That it is said to all when it is said to Peter Dost thou love me feed my sheep As S. Ambrose writeth That he and all Bishops have received the Charge of the Sheep with Peter as the Roman Clergy apply it to the rest of the Disciples of Christ and the Clergy of Carthage too Thus Dr. Reinolds But I stay too long on a matter that in no degree deserves it for to inferr that all Bishops are properly Apostles because they have the Name of Apostles is to imply That Identity of Names will inferr an Identy of Offices at which Rate Ioseph the Mittendary in Epiphanius whom he calleth an Apostle would have the Honour of being a Bishop and indeed on that Account his Title is all as good as Bishop Epaphroditus's 'T is true you tell me you believe as S. Hierome likewise did That Epaphroditus was really the Bishop because he is called the Apostle of the Philippians Phi. 2. 25. But as it is true that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Apostle so it may well be acknowledged That our English Translators do render that Expression very well your messenger since nothing is more evident than this That the Coherence and Connexion of the Text will carry it to that Sense I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and companion in labour and fellow soldier but your messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and minster of my necessities Which indeed he was as appears by Chap. 4. 15 18. Now the Philippians know that no Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you but my God shall supply all your need c. to wit as you by him have supplied mine That the Apostles exercised a Jurisdiction over particular formed Churches and over those particularly which themselves had founded is as little to your purpose if Bishops are not which they are not either of the Order of the Apostles or else Founders of Churches as these were as in it self it is a Truth and not to be questioned The Jurisdiction of the Apostles over particular Churches undergoes a Double Consideration in neither of which it symbolizeth with the Diocesan or Episcopal for it may be considered either as it was an Appurtenance and Incident to the Office of the Apostleship to wit as the Apostles were Founders of the Church Essential and thus all the Apostles as they had one Commission so they had equal Authority equal Jurisdiction over all the
seems evident by comparing that Text with the 24. Chapter of the same Evangelist Ver 2 14 and 24. The meaning of Mat. 1. 29. is That Ioseph did not know his Wife till she had brought forth her First-born and that it will not follow that he knew her afterward And in this sense of until I make it parallel with Mat. 28. 20. So that when Christ says He would be with his Apostles until the end of the Jewish World he is plain he would be with them so long but doth not imply by that until that he would be with them no longer Without the favour that we commonly allow to popular Expressions what is said Mat. 28. 20. will not hold in the usual sense that is given it as to the Apostles Successors and with that favour I see no strength in any Arguments against mine which carries it in the Letter unto the Apostles If the Apostles must not be understood to stand Personally and only for themselves in that Commission Mat. 28. they must be understood to stand in it Representatively for the whole Church or Body of Christian People in that same manner as they stood for them in the Istitution of the Lord's Supper when it was said to them Do this in remembrance of me these words being said to them not as they were Ministers but as Communicants Take ye eat ye take drink do this in remembrance of me For else there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity Now I pray tell me which of these Notions did the Apostles stand in when they received that Commission Mat. 28. was it given to them as they stood Personally for so many single Men or as they represented the whole Community and Body of Christians in One of these Two they must necessarily stand For the Apostles Collectively and all together as a Body are never taken but in one or the other sense they no where representing only the Ministers or Pastors so that by the Letter of the Commission which is directed to the Body of the Apostles either all Christians are impowered to Baptize and Preach which I suppose you will not say or else only the Apostles I acknowledge that Cyprian though he calls the Presbyters his Compresbyters yet never calls them his Colleagues He does not call them fellow Bishops tho he calls them fellow Presbyters because tho every Bishop was a Presbyter yet every Presbyter was not a Bishop in the appropriate sense of that word However tho he does not say of Presbyters in so many words that they are the Colleagues of a Bishop yet he comes very near it when he tells them they are Compresidents with him which he does L. 1. Ep. 3. when writing to Cornelius that was a Bishop he has this Expression Florentissimâ— CLEROTECVM PRAESIDENTI To the most flourishing Clergy that presides together with thee And in truth one must have read but little in S Cyprian to be ignorant that in his time the Presbyters or Clergy were joyned with the Bishop in Acts of Jurisdiction and that not only the Clergy but even the People too had a great share therein as well as the Bishops And this as in other matters so even in those that related unto Bishops themselves No 〈◊〉 than all this is implyed in that Expostulation of Cyprianâ— An ad hoc frater Carissime deponenda Ecclesiae Catholicae Dignitas plebs intâ—s positae fidelis atque in corrupta MAIESTAS Sacerdotalis queque AVTHORITAS ac potestas Iudicare vellâ— se dicant de Ecclesiae praeposito exâ—â—â— Ecclesiam constituti What most dear Brother is the dignity of a or the Catholick Church the faithful and uncorrupt Majesty of the People that is in it and also Auhority and Power of the Priesthood to be brought to this that such must talk of Judging concerning a Bishop of the Church who themselves are out of the Church To conclude That Alterations have been often made in the Church both as to Government and Discipline is so great and plain a truth that none that knows the History can doubt of it some of these came in early by several steps and others afterwards upon occasions that could not be foreseen Some things in the Church are Fundamental and of an Immutable nature But there are 〈◊〉 that relate to Government Discipline and Administration which depending upon the variable Circumstances of Times Places and Occasions are and must be left to Christian Prudence The Grounds I go upon in my Scheme in which I have set out the principal Alterations that have been made are owned by the Church of England as to one Instance and the Reason of that one will hold in more when in its Canons and Constitutions agreed An. Dom. 1640. Can. 1. It says The power to call and dissolve Councils both National and Provincial is the true right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Teritories And when in the first times of Christ's Church Prelates used this power 't was therefore only because in those days they had no Christian Kings But it is time to end your trouble and therefore I will add no more but to own my self June 8th 1690. SIR Your Humble Servant Basil in Rom. in Plat. 32. alibi Ignat. in Epist. ad Smyrn alibi Clem. Epist. ad Corinth Clem. Ep. ad Corinth Cipryan Ep. l. 3. Ep. 9. Clem â—bi supra Hierom. Com. in Ep. 1. ad Cor. Lips tract de Magist. Vet. Pop. Rom. c. 2. Clem. epist. ad Corinth Dan. Com. in August de haeres c. 53. Spotiswood Hist. b. 1. f. 4. Dan. comâ—men ad August de aeres Grâ—â— Epist. 154. ad Gall. Cyp. Ep. l. 1. ep 4. vid. ep l. 1. ep ep 3. 9. l. 4. ep 2. Cypr. Epist. l. 3. Ep. 10. Cypr. Ep. l. 1. Ep. 4. Bact Lex c. Rab. advoc 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 22. Acts 13. 15. Nil l. de Papa primatu Riensid's Conf. with Harâ— f. 230 231. Vid. Buâ—t Lexis Rab. ad voc Nidui Selden de jur uat gent. l. 4. â— 9. Theod. Motech 〈◊〉 R m. p. 61. Lud. Molin in Paraen c. 13. Vid. Cypria ep l. 3. ep 11. Loz com reip Rom. l. 1. f. 141 c. Ios. Scal. ep l. 4. ep 345. Barlaem de Papae princip c. 5. See Dr. Burnel's Abridgment of the Hist. of the Reformation B. l. f. 107. And his Hist. of the Rights of Princes Spain Glâ—ssat ad v. c. bomag Vid. Albert. Craâ—zia metrop l. 1. c. 25 30. l. 2. c. 2 19. 21. 1. 3. c. 1 5 c. 〈◊〉 schel bist 〈◊〉 l. 1. â— 20. Vid. Buat Lexie Rab. ad voc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Chron. 19. 8 c. Socrat. in Proem l. 5. Hist. Ecel Nath. Bacon Histor. Disccurs Part. 1. â— 1. See Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire in the Preface Vb. Emâ— in descr reip Athen. Plut. in vit Pâ—oc
assist and help the Apostles in the Work of founding and settling the Churches for this cause left I there in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or left undone to wit by Paul and ordain Elders in every City T it 1. 5. In the Acts of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain Elders in every Church and here Titus is said to be left in Crete to do it Indeed both Timothy and Titus in what they did the one at Ephesus the other at Crete were only Deputies that acted as by Delegation of S. Paul according to the Instructions which he gave them for this Apostle saith to Titus I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders AS I HAD APPOINTED and sets out the Qualifications that Titus must observe in the Elders he ordained Tit. 1. verse 6 7 8 c. In like manner he instructs Timothy how he was to behave himself in the House of God in settling Elders and Deacons 1 Tim. from 1 to 15. so that if Bishops be not Evangelists as well as Apostles I do not see of what Advantage Timothy and Titus their Business at Ephesus and at Crete can be to your Cause 〈…〉 of our Lord was Bishop of Ierusalem 〈…〉 and that he is stiled Bishop by S. Luke who yet had a fair Occasion 〈◊〉 it in his Acts of the Apostles had Iames been indeed such a Bishop nor is he so styled by any other of the Sacred Writers and if we except the Râ—â— Clement in an Epistle said to be his the first that stiled him so was Hegesippus who lived at least a whole Century after Another Clement he of Alexandria is also cited by Theodorus Mitochita and by others to prove it but really the Story as Clement tells it if they represent him right carries its own Confutation for they make him say That Iames by Divine Appointment was ordained to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem to prevent any Emulation and Dispute that Peter Iohn and the other Iames might otherwise have had for that honour But however that was I do acknowledge for my own part that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem but I acknowledge it only in the sense in which he was Bishop of all the other Churches and he was no more in the Opinion of the first Clement if we credit Bishop Iewell for this Bishop in the Defence of his Apology Part 2. Page 98. brings in Clement speaking thus I send greeting unto Iames the Brother of our Lord and the Bishop of Bishops Governour of the Holy Church of the Jews at Ierusalem and also of all the Churches that by Gods Providence are every where founded here faith Bishop Iewell Iames is the Head of all Churches whatsoever By this Testimony it plainly appears that Iames the reputed Bishop of Ierusalem as he was Iames the Apostle so he was no otherwise Bishop of that City than as Peter was of Rome and how that was Dr. Reinolds has told us in his Conference with Hart where he saith But whether Eusebius or Hierom or Damasus or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop either they use the name of Bishop generally and so it proves not your purpose or if they meant it as commonly we do they missed the Truth for generally a Bishop is an Overseer in which Signification it reaches to all who are put in Trust with Oversight and Charge of any thing as Eliazer is called Bishop of the Tabernacle and Christ the Bishop of our Souls But in our common use of speech it notes him to whom the oversight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus Philippi and they whom Christ calls the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this latter sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to Preach to all the World wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to have meant it In fine it may not be amiss on this occasion to take notice of an Observation made by a learned Man and he too a Bishop in reference to the Testimony of Fathers to wit That they wrote things they saw not and so framâ— matters according to their own Conceits and many of them were taintâ— with Partial Humours which another more softly expresseth thus Tâ—â— they namely the Fathers finding the name of Bishop continued in the 〈◊〉 cession of one Paster after another judged 〈…〉 according to them that lived in their times An Observa◠〈…〉 use with respect to the Fathers that lived at a greater distance than 〈◊〉 be of Clement did from the Apostolical time Thus I have briefly touched the Arguments offered by you in affirmance of Diocesan Episcopacy only to that which is taken from the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation I have said nothing because I do not think it worthy of a particular Consideration for since these Angels for ought we know might be only so many several Presidents of the Presbyteries in Congregational Churches the instancing of them makes but little for your purpose who do affirm Diocesan Prelacy But as you have argued for Diocesan Authority which you would have of Apostolical Institution so others do for the Synodical which as they apprehend is grounded upon the Synod so they call the Assembly at Ierusalem that was convened upon the appeal made by the Believers at Antioch For say they this Controversie was absolutely and finally decided by that0 Synod and a Decree or Canon made and this sent not only to the Church at Anticch but to all the Churches besides of Syria and Cilicia I deny not that the former Practice was the Occasion of Synods or Assemblies of Bishops but I affirm that that Assembly though it had something in it of more resemblance to a Synod properly so called than is in meer Convocations of the Clergy the Brethren as well as the Apostles and Elders being in that Assembly who generally are Excluded from Convocations yet it was not properly a Synod A Synod properly whether Diocesan Provincial or National being but an Ecclesiastical Parliament of the one sort or of the other in which all that are obliged by the Determinations and Resolutions of it must be understood to be in Person or by Representation as either being there themselves or else electing those that do Compose it to represent and stand for them The Controversie at Antioch was about a Doctrinal Subject of great Concernment whether Circumcision and Obedience to all the Mosaical Laws was necessary to Salvation for This some of Iudea taught the Brethren and were opposed for it by S. Paul and Barnabas but the Contention running high and neither side yielding all agreed to send to Ierusâ—lem to the Apostles and Elders â— to the Original Deliverers of the Christian Doctrin which being a Doctrin â—f Faith and not of Discourse and Ratiocination they rightly judged that it â—ust be
singulos And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul Ex Apostoli tamen Pauli sermonibus colligere possumus c. so that the Catalogues of Bishops deduced from the Apostles for ought I see deserve but little more of Credit as being but little better ascertained than the Catalogue of the British Kings deduced from Brute In truth the Task is a little uneasie to make it clear That the Apostles were properly Bishops in the Modern Sense of the Word and that they had fixed Seats which yet is the Basis upon which such Catalogues must stand sure I am Athanasius in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ad c. 2. v. 1. affirms their Office to have been to go up and down and preach circumvagari as his Translator renders him Evangelium praedicare so that in the Judgment of this so celebrated a Father the Apostles as such were but Itinerant Preachers a sort of Officers that were unfixed As for Epaphroditus I cannot be peswaded by the bare Authority of S. Hierom whom yet I take for a very Learned as well as Pious Father much less by that of Walo Messalinus to believe against the Analogy of the Text That he was Bishop of the Philippians only because he is called by S. Paul their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. The Observation Walo has made of the Word Apostle that it is never used by the Evangelists by S. Paul in any other Place or by the other Apostles but only De Sancto Ministerio will hold no Water for I take it that Iohn 13 16. in which Place the Word is used in a Common Promiscuous Sense and rendred so by our Translators stands impregnable as a plain direct and unavoidable Instance against him Irenaeus is also cited to prove that such a superiority as the Apostles themselves had in the Church was transmitted by them unto Bishops for say you this Father who distinguishes between the Bishops and Presbyters affirms That the Apostles delivered to the Bishops suum ipsorum locum Magisterii their own Place of Magisteriality or Government Irenaeus flourished towards the End of the 2d Century and yet so near as he was to the Apostles own Times if he affirmed as he is ageed by the most tho' not by all to have done That our Lord Christ did undergo his Passion in the fiftieth Year of his Age we shall have little Reason to be fond of his Authority in Matters which he takes upon Trust and by meer Report But admitting Irenaeus's Authority which I am unwilling to lessen to be as unblemished and as tight as one could wish it yet on this occasion it will do you but small Service for the Force of the Testimony which you cite from him depends on the Word Magisterium and Magisterium signifies not as you understand it a Masterly Authority but teaching and Doctrin for in this latter Sense the Word is often used by other Fathers and particularly by S. Cyprian as you may see l. 1. ep 3. and in other Places but this is a Sense that maketh nothing for you for then Irenaeus means no other than what Tertullian also affirms and none will deny that the Apostles delivered over to the Bishops their own Chairs of Doctrin so that succeeding Bishops or Pastors were obliged to deliver no other Doctrin unto their Flocks but that same which themselves had first received from those that were the Founders of Christianity In fine as to what you mention but somewhat invidiously concerning the Judgment of the Assembly of Divines the Gangrene of Mr. Edwards and the overflow that was of Sects and Heresies in the Late Times of the Interreign which you would insinuate to be occasioned by the Intermission of Episcopacy I answer that there were Sects and Heresies even in the Times of the Apostles and that Irenaeus S. Ausrin Philastrius and Epiphanius have furnished the Christian World with large Catalogues of them and of some in their own times and yet I doubt not you will acknowledge there were Bishops in the Church even in those times So that Episcopacy if it be not Coercive is no such Remedy against Sects and Heresies as you would have us believe and if it be Coercive it is not purely Christian and Spiritual but in so much has something in it of Secular and Worldly Thus I have reinforced my main Argument and removed such Exceptions as you take against it and now I shall not make your trouble much longer but to elucidate some Incident and By Passages which I will do with all the Brevity I can and without formality of Method only as they come to my Mind Peter is first named where ever the whole Colledge of the Apostles is called over but I do not inâ—er nor does it enforce that any Primacy was due unto him other than that of Precedence which All Protestants generally speaking allow him It doth not appear that Iames at the Council of Hierusalem spake with more Authority than the other Apostles as Bishop of the Place and President of the Synod Iesephus indeed takes notice of him under an eminent Character for Piety but not a word in that Author of his eminent Dignity as a Prelate As for Paul he calls him but plain Iames not Bishop Iames And though he put him before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 9. that preference might be only in respect of his being the Lord's Brother Gal. 1. 19. and consequently is no great Argument of his Prelacy in the modern sense of that word So Zomen's Censure of the practice of having more Bishops than one in one City does prove that practice though he did not approve it Epiphanius also is cited by many to evidence that practice I yield not that 1 Cor. 14. 34. which may be translated in the Assemblies will demonstrate that there were at that time several separate Meetings for Christian Offices in one City or Town where was but one Church And yet I grant it might happen to be so upon Occasion for our Experience Evinces it has been so of late in a time of Persecution among the Dissenting Churches and what has been in our time might on like Occasions have been before it However this Accident would not prove nor indeed do I find any other proof that there were in the first times of Christianity Pastors who had the Care of several Churches or that any Church at that time did take in several Cities or Towns which were remote a Church properly being a Coagregation and consequently the People of a Vicinage or Neighbourhood under Orders Cenchrea though one of the Ports of Corinth had a Church of its own distant from that at Corinth and none I think will say That that Church was Diocesan The Council of Chalcedon prohibited absolute Ordinations That the end of the World Matth. 28. 20. is literally to be understood of the end of the Jewish Policy or the Mosaical seculum