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
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
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