The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2, Section 9 (2 of 3)

The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2 · Section 9 (2 of 3)

p. 361And thus having shewn at large that the good and bad Angels are the Ministers of Christ, and wherein their Ministry to him consists, I proceed to the

III. Third sort of the Ministers of Christs Kingdom, viz. The Kings and Governours of the World; for though there are many Infidel Kings in the World that know not Christ, and that never submitted themselves to his Empire, but instead of that do openly defie and persecute his holy Religion, yet these of right are subject to him, though in fact they are inslaved to the Devil, and he hath the disposal of their Crowns, and the command of their power, and doth actually imploy and use it, even as he doth the power of the Devils, in the prosecution of the righteous ends of his Government. And though too many of those Kings who by their visible profession of Christianity, have actually submitted themselves to the Scepter of Christ, have yet together with Christianity espoused the Interest of sundry Antichristian Principles, in pursuance of which they have been as inveterate Enemies and Persecutors of the truth as it is in Iesus as any of the Heathen Kings or Emperors; yet these also, notwithstanding their male-administration are the Subjects and Ministers of our Saviour, and it is by his Authority and Commission that they Reign, and by his Omnipotent Providence that all their wicked designs and actions are over-ruled to gracious ends and purposes: so that all the Sovereign Powers of the Earth are subjected by God to the Dominion of p. 362our Saviour, and in their respective Kingdoms and Empires are only his Substitutes and Vicegerents; for so we are told not only that all judgment is committed to him, and that all power is committed to him in heaven and earth; and that he is Heir of all things, and hath power over all flesh, but also that he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the only Potentate, the head of all Principality and Power, and the Prince of all the Kings of the Earth, vid. P. 810. and so the Fathers of the Council of Ariminum tell Constantius the Arrian Emperor, that it was by Christs Donation that he held his Empire, foreign, by him, i. e. Christ thou art appointed to Reign over all the World, upon which account Liberius advises him, foreign, do not fight against Christ who hath bestowed this Empire upon thee; do not render him Impiety instead of Gratitude: and to the same purpose Athanasius tells us, foreign. (i. e.) that Christ having received the Throne, hath translated it from Heathen to holy Christian Kings to return them back to the House of Iacob. So that both from Scripture and the current Doctrine of the Primitive Church, it is evident that all the Sovereign Powers upon Earth are subjected to our Saviour, and are only the Ministers and Viceroys of his universal Kingdom.

But for the farther prosecution of this Argument I shall shew in the first place, that by this their subjection to Christ they are not deprived of p. 363any natural Right of their Sovereignty, and secondly, that they are obliged by it to certain Ministries in the Kingdom of Christ.

First, That by their subjection they are not deprived of any natural Right of their Sovereignty, for when our Saviour pronounced the Sentence Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, he thereby renewed the Patent of Sovereign Powers, and reinvested them in all the natural Rights of their Sovereignty which doubtless are included in the things that are Cesars, for upon the Pharisees asking him that captious question, Is it lawful to pay Tribute to Cesar? He doth not answer yes it is lawful, which yet had been a sufficient reply to their Question, but calls for a Tribute Peny, and having asked them whose Image and Superscription that was upon it, and being answered Cesars, he returns them an Answer much larger than their Question, Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, (i. e.) it is certain that you are obliged not only to pay Tribute to Cesar, but also to render him whatever else is due to him by vertue of his Sovereign Power, for Sovereign Power being immediatly founded on the Dominion of God hath from thence these two unalienable Rights derived to it, to which all the essential Rights of Sovereignty are Reducible: First to Command in all things as it judges most convenient for the publick good, where God hath not Countermanded, for the Power of Sovereigns descending from God can only be limited by God or themselves; for if they are limitable by any other Power, they are Subjects to that Power, and so can no longer be Sovereigns, and if they are limitable p. 364only by God or themselves, then where they are not limited either by God or themselves, they must necessarily have a right to command. Secondly, The other unalienable Right that is derived to them from God is to be accountable only to God; for by deriving to them Sovereign Power God hath exalted them above all Powers, but his own, and therefore since no Power can be accountable but to a superiour Power, and since Sovereigns have no Superiour Power but God, it is to God only, from whom they received their Power, that they are accountable for the administration of it. These therefore are the natural Rights of Sovereign Powers, and these Rights remain intire and inviolate in them notwithstanding their subjection to the Mediatorial Scepter of our Saviour, as I shall endeavour to shew in the particulars.

First, Therefore by this their subjection to Christ they are not deprived of their natural Right of Commanding in all cases as they shall judge most convenient for the publick Good, where God hath not countermanded them, For the Christian Religion is so far from any way retrenching the power of Princes, that it abundantly confirms and enforces it, by requiring us to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, to be subject to the higher Powers, and that not only for wrath, but for conscience sake, to submit to Principalities and Powers, and to obey Magistrates, to render Tribute to whom Tribute is due, Custom to whom Custom, Fear to whom Fear, Honour to whom Honour, (i. e.) to submit to all the lawful impositions of our Princes, whether it be of Taxes, or of any other matter whatsoever, and in all the New Testament p. 365there is only one limitation made of our obedience, which is a natural and eternal one, and that is that we ought to obey God rather than Man, that is, when Mans Command and Gods do apparently clash and interfere with each other; for in this case the Magistrate hath no Right to be obeyed, because his Will is countermanded by a Superiour Authority, by which Exception this general Rule is confirmed, that in all cases whatsoever, whether Temporal or Spiritual, Civil or Ecclesiastical, Sovereign Powers have an unalienable right to be obeyed. For if their Right to be obeyed in the Kingdom of Christ extended only to Civil and Temporal causes, their Authority would be very much lessened and Retrenched by their subjection to our Saviour; since before their subjection to him it undoubtedly extended to all causes whatsoever; because being Sovereign under God, it could have no other bounds or limits but what God had set to it; and therefore since before their subjection to Christ, God had bounded their Authority by no other Law but that of Nature, it must either be made appear that the Law of Nature did then limit their Authority only to Civil causes, (which I am sure is impossible) or it will necessarily follow that it extended also to Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, and if it did so then, it must do so still, unless it be made appear that Christianity hath retrenched and lessened it. It is true, Christ hath erected a standing form of spiritual Government in his Church, and it is as true that all Government, whether Spiritual or Temporal, includes a Legislative Power in it, or a power of commanding its Subjects; but this is no limitation of the commanding power of p. 366Sovereign Princes, who must still be obeyed in all things where Christ hath not countermanded, though the Church should command the contrary, for Christ never authorized the Governours of his Church to controul the commanding Power of Princes, but hath left all matters of indifference as absolutely to their disposal and determination as ever they were before his spiritual Government was erected, and matters of indifference are the sole matter both of purely Civil and purely Ecclesiastical Laws, and therefore after the Church by its Legislative power hath restrained any matter of Indifference, the Civil Sovereign, in whose disposal all matters of indifference are, may, if he see good occasion, release and free it again, and impose the contrary matter of indifference, and if he doth so, all Christian People are obliged by the express Commands of Scripture to obey him; for the Scripture-commands of obedience to the Temporal Sovereignty have no such exception as this annexed to them, except the Church command the contrary; and in matters of duty what have we to do to make exceptions where God hath made none? And indeed where there are two Legislative Powers, the one must necessarily be subject to the other, or it will be impossible for the Subject in many cases without sinning to obey either. For when ever the Commands of the Civil State do happen to clash with the Commands of the Church, either the Church must be obliged to submit to the State, or the State to the Church, or the Subject cannot possibly obey the one without sinning against the other. If it be said, that the Church must submit to the State, in things p. 367appertaining to the State; and the State to the Church, and so both are supreme in their own Province, I would fain know what is to be done when these two Powers differ about the things which appertain to the one and to the other; the State saith this appertains to me, and so commands it, the Church saith this appertains to me, and so forbids it; now in this case it is certain that one or the other must be obliged to give way, or the Subject can neither obey nor disobey either without sinning▪ and which soever of the two it be that is obliged to give way, by vertue of that Obligation it must be subjected to the other. So that now the Question is only this, which of the two Legislative Powers is Supreme, and it would be impertinent to say that they are both Supreme in their proper Province, the one in Civil, and the other in Spiritual causes, because it is in suspence whether the cause in which they countermand each other be Civil or Spiritual, so that in this case I must either be obliged to obey neither, which is notoriously false, or whatsoever the cause be in it self, to yield obedience to the one, and to disobey the other, and if I must obey the Civil Power, whether the cause be Civil or Spiritual, then the Civil Power must be supreme in both; as on the contrary, if I must obey the Church Power whether the cause be Spiritual or Civil, it will as necessarily follow that the Church Power is supreme in both. Which later we are as sure is false, as the Scripture is true; for in … matters it is agreed on all hands, that the Scripture concludes all men, as well Clergy as Laity, under the obligation of Obedience to the Civil Sovereign, and that none are p. 368exempt, no not the Apostles themselves, or the Bishops succeeding them in the spiritual Government, whether we consider them separately or conjunctly; and if in all Civil Causes I am obliged to obey the command of the Civil Power, then it is most certain that if the Cause in contest between that and the spiritual Power be really Civil, I am obliged to disobey the countermand of the spiritual Power; but if on the contrary I must disobey the Command of the Civil Power, supposing the cause to be spiritual, which way can I turn my self without danger of sinning, so that unless one of these two Powers are Supreme in both causes, when ever any cause happens to be contested between them, (as to be sure many must between two Rival Powers) I can neither obey nor disobey without sinning against one or both; and can we imagine that God, who is the God of Order and not of Confusion, would ever involve us in such inextricable difficulties by subjecting us to two supreme Powers, that are so subject to clash and interfere with one another? Wherefore although, as I shall shew by and by, the Church is invested with a Legislative Power, whereby it can restrain things that were free and indifferent for its own security, and decency, and order; yet this Power is subordinate to the Civil Legislation (which is in all causes Supreme) and cannot enact against it, controul or countermand it in any indifferent matter, whether Temporal or Spiritual, but stands obliged to recede to the Civil Sovereign who hath the supreme disposal of all indifferent things, and in all contested cases to veil its Authority to his.

p. 369And accordingly we find that during the first three hundred years when the Civil Powers were Enemies to Christianity, and did no otherwise concern themselves with it than to ruin and extirpate it, the Church made Laws for it self, and by its own Legislative Power enacted whatsoever it judged convenient or necessary for its own security or edification; but yet it never presumed in any indifferent matter to contradict the Laws of the Empire, nor did ever any Christian, because he was a Subject of the Church, refuse to obey his Prince in any case whatsoever, where God had not countermanded him; as is most evident from hence, because in all the History of those times we do not find one instance of any Christian that suffered for so doing. In those days, there were no Martyrs for indifferent things, which to be sure there must have been, had the Church then taken upon it to determine indifferences contrary to the Edicts of the Emperour; but the only thing they then suffered for, was their refusal to disobey the express Will of God, in compliance with the wicked Wills of men; which is an unanswerable Argument, that in those days the Church never assumed to it self any supreme Authority over indifferent things, either in Spirituals or Temporals, but left that in those hands where God had placed it, viz. in the hands of the Civil Sovereign, with whose Imperial Laws its Canons never interfered, with whose Legislative Power it never justled for the Wall, but chearfully submitted to it in all things, wherein it was not determined to the contrary by the express Will of God. And when afterwards the Civil Sovereign embraced Christianity, p. 370he did not thereby devest himself of his Supremacy over all indifferent things in all causes whatsoever, but by his own Authority he not only convened General Councils, and for the most part presided in them (as particularly in that of Ephesus, Chalcedon, the sixth General one in Constantinople, called Trullo, and several others) and inforced their Canons with his own Imperial Edicts, but many times made Laws, even in Church matters without them; to which the Ecclesiastical Governours yielded the same Obedience as they did to the Decrees of the most oecumenical Councils: for so, not only Constantine, who was the first Christian Emperour, made Laws concerning the Festivals of the Church, Ordaining what might, and what might not be done upon the Lords Day, and not only several of those Ecclesiastical Laws in Gratian's Collection are now confessed on all hands to be the Laws of Princes, but the first Titles of the Code are all of them concerning E… clesiastical matters, and so also in the Laws of the Goths and Vandals, the Authenticks and Capitulars of the French Kings, there are numerous instances of the Legislative Power of Kings in Ecclesiastical matters, and this power was openly asserted by the French Embassadours in the Council of Trent, viz. that the Kings of France following the examples of other Christian Emperors had frequently made Laws for the Church, which were so far from being countermanded by the Bishops of Rome, that they received many of them into their own Canons, and that the Gallican Church had been always governed by the Ecclesiastical Laws which were made by their Kings, and Cardinal p. 371Cusanus tells us, lib. 2. Cath. Concord. c. 40. that he himself had collected Eighty six Chapters of Ecclesiastical Laws, made by the ancient Emperors; besides many others of Charles the Great and his Successors, in which there are many things concerning the Popes and all other Patriarchs, declaring that he never read that ever any Pope was asked to confirm those Laws, or that ever they were accounted the less obligatory because they wanted the Papal confirmation. And indeed before Pope Hildebrand, who was the first Bishop that challenged the Supreme Legislation in Ecclesiastical affairs, it is notoriously known that the greatest Prelates of the Church frequently addressed themselves to the Emperor for such good Laws, as the present necessities of the Church called for. Thus Pope Damasus intreated the Emperor Honorius to make a Law for the more Regular Election of the Popes. Thus also Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, supplicated the Emperor Heraclius to forbid by a Pragmatick Sanction the admission of any man into the Clergy, unless it were into a dead Place; and it was, (as it is thought,) upon S. Ambrose's intreaty that Theodosius made a Law for the disanulling of Marriages within the Prohibited degrees: so when the Emperor Iustinian turned the ancient Canons of the Church into Imperial Laws, he was so far from being accused of being an Usurper of the Ecclesiastical Power, that Pope Adrian IV. highly extolls him for so doing, though in his 133 Novel that Emperor affirms, that foreign, nothing is impervious to the inspection and cognisance of the King, in which S. Austin p. 372accords with him, when he affirms the Kings do nothing but their duty, Cum in suo regno bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem, i. e. when they make good Laws, not only concerning humane Society, but also concerning divine Religion; by all which it is evident that the Civil Powers for several ages after they became Christians did claim and exercise a supreme Legislative Power in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil, and this without any contradiction from the Bishops and Governours of the Church; for as for that saying, Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia? What hath the Emperor to do with the Church? It was not the Language of the Church, but of that fireband Donatus, who was the Ring-leader of one of the most factious and turbulent Heresies that ever infested the Christian World; and if in those instances wherein they exerted their Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, the Church had no power to Controul or Countermand them, then neither hath it in any other instance of the same nature; and if so, then notwithstanding their subjection to our Saviour, they still retain their Supreme Commanding Power over all matters of indifference, whether it be in Civil or Ecclesiastical causes. But then

Secondly, By this their subjection to our Saviour, they are not deprived of their natural Right of being unaccountable to any but to God alone through Jesus Christ; for all the difference between the state of Sovereign Powers in this matter, before and after their subjection to Christs Mediatorial Scepter, is only this, that before they p. 373were accountable to God only immediatly, whereas now they are accountable to God only through Iesus Christ; for Christ being Authorized by God to Mediate for him, or, which is the same thing, to be his Vicegerent in the World, all things are now subjected to him, and God now rules and judges, rewards and punishes all men by him whether they are Subjects or Sovereigns, Vassals or Emperors; for so in the great transaction of the last day we are told that the Kings of the Earth shall be arraigned before his Judgment Seat, Rev. 6.15, 16, 17. but though they are now accountable immediately to Christ, who during this Evangelical Oeconomy is to rule and judge for God; yet in respect of any Earthly Tribunal, they remain altogether as Sovereign and unaccountable as ever: for to be Sovereign and unaccountable are convertible terms, and it is nonsense to say, either that any Power is unaccountable which hath any Superiour, or that any Power is accountable which is Sovereign and Supreme, so that by necessity of nature those Powers which are Sovereign upon Earth must be unaccountable to any Power upon Earth, because to call to account is an Act of Superiority, and that which is Supreme can have no Superiour to account to; so that unless it be made appear that Christ hath erected some earthly Tribunal that is Superiour to the Tribunals of the Supreme Civil Powers, he must of necessity have left them as unaccountable as he found them. Now it is plain, that our Saviour erected no other Tribunal in this World, but only that of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Government, which he was so far from advancing above the Tribunal of the p. 374Civil Sovereign, that while he was upon Earth he acknowledged himself to be subject and accountable thereunto, though he was then the Supreme Bishop and Head of that spiritual Regiment, and this he did not only by Recognizing Cesar's Right of receiving Tribute from him, of which I have spoken before, (for by bidding them render to Cesar the things that are Cesars he leaves Sovereign Princes in the quiet possession of all those Rights which he found them possessed of, and requires their Subjects to pay them whatsoever is essentially due to their Sovereignty, and whatsoever the Laws and Customs of Nations had before determined to be their Right) but also by acknowledging before Pilate the Right of the Civil Tribunal to call him to account, Ioh. 19.1. where he confesses that the Power by which Pilate arraigned him was given him from above, and by reprehending S. Peter for endeavouring by force to rescue him out of the hands of the Civil Powers, Put up thy Sword, saith he, into his place, for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword, Matth. 26.52. in which words it was far from his intention to prohibite the use of the Sword either to Governours, who, as S. Paul tells us, bear not the Sword in vain, or to private persons in their own lawful defence; for he commands his own Disciples to buy them swords to defend themselves against Robbers and lawless Cut-throats, who, as Iosephus tells, did very much abound in those days, Luke 22.36. but all that he intended was to forbid drawing the Sword against lawful Authority in any case whatsoever, though it were for the defence and security of his own person; for this was S. Peter's case, p. 375who in the defence of his Saviour resisted the High Priests Officers who came armed with a lawful Authority to seize and apprehend him; in which our Saviour plainly owns himself accountable to the Civil Authority of his Country: for if he had not been so, it could be no fault in S. Peter to endeavour to rescue him from its Ministers, and if Christ himself, while he was upon Earth, were subject to the Civil Authority, what an high piece of arrogance is it for those who are at most but his Vicars and Ministers, to claim or pretend an exemption? And if it were so great a fault in S. Peter, to draw his Sword against lawful Authority, though it were in the defence of his Saviours Person, then doubtless it is no less a fault in his Successors to pretend a Right from S. Peter to draw their Swords against Sovereign Princes, though it be in the defence of their Saviours Religion. And as our Saviour owned himself subject and accountable to the Civil Tribunal, so S. Paul's injunction is universal, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers; and surely every Soul must include the whole body of the Clergy as well as of the Laity, unless we can produce some clear and express exception to the contrary, and as the Command extends universally to all, so doth the reason of it also, for the Powers that are, are ordained of God; and if we must be subject to them, because they rule by God's Authority, then it is certain there are none that are subject to God, but are under the force and obligation of this Reason. And then he goes on, Whosoever resisteth the Power (of whatsoever Degree or Order of men he be) resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that p. 376resist shall receive to themselves damnation; and if, according to the Law of our Saviour, it be a damnable sin for any person or persons whatsoever to resist the Civil Authority, then it is a plain case, that our Saviour hath not at all depressed the Sovereignty of the Secular Powers by subjecting it to any Superiour Tribunal; but hath left it as absolute and unaccountable as ever it was before it was subjected to his Empire. And thus having proved that Sovereign Princes are not devested of any natural Right of their Sovereignty by their subjection to the Mediatorial Scepter of our Saviour, I proceed in the

Second place, To shew what those Ministries are, which they are obliged to render to our Saviour by vertue of this their subjection to him. In general it is foretold, that upon their Subjection to Christ they should become nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to his Church, Isa. 49.23. that is, that they should tenderly cherish, protect, and defend it, and liberally minister to it whatsoever is necessary for its support and preservation; and to be sure Christ expects of them that they should accomplish this Prediction by doing all those good Offices to his Church which the relation of a foster Father or Mother imports: For when God Predicts any good thing of men, it is plain that he would have them be what he foretels they shall be; so that in this case the Prophesie carries Precept in it, and doth not only signifie what shall be, but also what ought to be. When therefore God Prophesies of Kings that they shall be nursing Fathers to his Church, he doth as well declare what they should be as what they shall be; and so he foretels p. 377of them, and commands them in the same breath. If therefore we would know what those Ministries are, which Christ now requires Sovereign Powers to render to his Church, our best way will be to inquire what those Duties are which are implied in the relation of a foster Father to his foster Child. Now the Duties of this Relation may be all of them comprehended under these four particulars:

First, To protect and defend it against harms and injuries.

Secondly, To Cultivate its manners with good Precepts and Counsels.

Thirdly, To correct and chasten its faults and irregularities.

Fourthly, To supply it with decent Raiment and convenient Sustenance, answerable to which Sovereign Powers being constituted by our Saviour the foster Fathers of his Church are by vertue of this Relation obliged.

I. To protect and defend it in the Profession and exercise of the true Religion.

II. To fence and Cultivate its peace and good Order, either by wholesom Laws of their own, or by permitting and requiring it to make good Laws for it self, and if need be, inforcing them with Civil Coercions.

III. To chasten and correct the irregular and disorderly members of it.

IV. To make provision for the Decency of its Worship, and for the convenient Maintenance of its Officers and Ministers, which answers to the decent Raiment and convenient Sustenance with which the Foster-Father is oblig'd to supply his Foster-Child.

p. 378These Particulars I shall but very briefly insist on, it being none of my Province to instruct Princes and Governors.

I. One of those Ministries which Princes by virtue of their Subjection to Christ, are obliged to render to his Church, is to Protect and Defend her in the Profession and Exercise of the true Religion, that is, not only to permit her openly to Profess the true Religion and to perform the publick Offices of it without disturbance or interruption, but also to fence her with legal securities, and guard her with the Temporal Sword against the power and malice of such as would disturb and persecute her; and therefore Sovereign Powers are concerned above all things impartially to inquire and studiously to examine what the true Religion is, lest being imposed upon by false pretences, they misemploy that Power in the Patronage of Error, which was given 'em for the Protection of the Truth.

II. Another of those Ministries which Princes are obliged, by virtue of their Subjection to Christ, to render his Church, is to Fence and Cultivate its Peace and good Order, either by wholsom Laws of their own, or by permitting and requiring it when occasion requires to make good Laws for it self, and if need be, by inforcing 'em with Civil Coercions: for so when the Church was either broken by Schisms or corrupted by Errors and disorderly Customs; it was always the practice of Christian Kings and Emperors, even from the time that they became Christians to restrain and give a check to those Divisions and Disorders, either by their own Royal and Imperial Edicts, or p. 379by convening the Ecclesiastical Governors to Councils, there to consult and agree upon such good Laws and expedients as the present necessities of the Church required; and because these Laws being grounded upon mere Spiritual Authority could as such be inforced by no other Penalties than Spiritual, which by bold and obstinate Offenders were frequently despised and disregarded, therefore those holy Kings and Emperours thought themselves obliged, as they were the Ministers of Jesus, to strengthen and reinforce 'em with temporal Sanctions and Penalties, by which means they became the Laws of the Empire, as well as of the Church: Of all which I have given sufficient Instances, and all this was no more than what they were obliged to by vertue of their Subjection to Christ; for being subjected to him they are his Viceroys in the World, and do Reign and Govern by his Authority; and since their Authority is his, they must be accountable to him, if they do not imploy it for him in Ministring to the necessities of his Church and Kingdom; and therefore if when it is in their power to check a prevailing Schism or Corruption in the Church by wholsom Laws and Edicts, they refuse or neglect to do it, they must doubtless answer to him from whom they received their power, and who being himself the Supreme Head of the Church, hath constituted 'em its Guardians and Nursing-Fathers.

III. Another of those Ministries which Princes are obliged to render his Church is to Chasten and Correct the irregular and disorderly Members of it; for though there are Spiritual Rods and Corrections p. 380which Christ hath solely committed to the Spiritual Government, and which if men understood and considered the dire effects and consequences of 'em, are sufficient to restrain and keep in awe the most obstinate Offenders, yet when men are stupified in sin and do feel nothing but only what pains or pleases their bodies, these Spiritual Corrections are insignificant to 'em, they being such as make no impression on their corporeal Senses, and so when men are hardened in Schism or Heresie, to be sure they will despise the Ecclesiastical Rods, as being confidently perswaded that they cannot be justly applied to 'em, and that where they are applied unjustly they are only so many Spiritual scare-crows that can only threaten, but not hurt 'em; and therefore in these cases the Secular Powers are obliged by vertue of their Subjection to Jesus, to second the Spiritual with the Temporal Rod, and to awe such offenders with corporeal corrections as are fearless and insensible of the Censures of the Church. And conformable hereunto hath been the constant practice of all good Kings and Emperors, even from their first Conversion to Christianity, as might easily be demonstrated by innumerable Instances out of Ecclesiastical History; for they not only made Laws inforc'd with temporal Penalties for the regulation of the Clergy, as well as Laity, not only commanded and obliged their Bishops in case of notorious neglect to execute the Church Censures on the Schismatical, Heretical and disorderly of both sorts; but when they found those Spiritual Executions ineffectual, they very often seconded 'em p. 381with temporal, such as pecuniary mulcts, Imprisonments and Banishments; and though in the case of error and false belief they were always very tender and gentle, yet whenever they found men busily propagating their Errors into Sects and Divisions, to the disturbance of the Churches peace, they thought themselves obliged to restrain their petulancy with temporal Chastisements. And indeed as they are the Vice-roys of our Saviour they are ex officio the conservators of the peace of his Kingdom, and stand obliged to exert that Authority he hath devolved upon 'em in the defence of its Unity and good Order, which in many cases they can no otherwise do, but only by restraining the Schismatical and disorderly with the terror of temporal corrections, so that as well in the Church as in the Civil State they are the Ministers of God to us for our good, and therefore if we do that which is evil, we have just cause to be affraid, for they bear not the Sword in vain, for they are the Ministers of God, Revengers to execute wrath upon them that do evil, Rom. 13.14.

IV. And lastly, Another of those Ministries which Princes are obliged to render to Christ's Church by vertue of their subjection to him, is to make good provision for the Decency of its Worship, and for the convenient maintenance of its Officers and Ministers; to take care that it hath decent and commodious places set apart for the publick Celebration of its Worship, and that those places be supplied with such Ornaments and Accommodations as are sutable to those venerable Solemnities that are to be performed in them; that so its Worship may not be exposed to contempt by p. 382the slovenliness and Barbarity of its outward appendages; and this is the clothing of the Church, which as it ought not on the one hand to be too Pompous and Gaudy, that being naturally apt to distract and Carnalize the minds of its Votaries, and to divert their attention from those spiritual exercises, wherein the life and soul of its Worship consists; so neither ought it on the other hand to be sordid and nasty, that being as naturally apt to prejudice and distaste men against it, and to create in their minds a loathing and contempt of it. Now the furnishing the Church with such decent Places and Ornaments of Worship, as do become the grave Solemnities of a spiritual Religion, being a matter of Cost and Charge must necessarily belong to the Civil Powers who alone can lay Rates upon the Subject, and have the sole Command and disposal of the publick Purse; and therefore by vertue of their subjection to Christ, they are obliged to take care that such Religious Places and Ornaments be provided as the Decency and convenience of his Worship do require. And then as for the Ministers and Officers of his Church they are under the same Obligation to take care, that they whose Office it is to serve at the Altar should live upon the Altar, and that according to the different stations and degrees wherein they are placed, that so they may neither be necessitated for a subsistence to involve themselves in secular affairs, and thereby to neglect their spiritual Calling, which is Burthen enough of all conscience for any one mans shoulders, nor be tempted to base Compliances with the lusts of men and the iniquities of times for a maintenance; and that so Religion p. 383it self may not be exposed to contempt through their wretched Poverty and indigence who are the Ministers of it, and who for want of a fair and honourable subsistence can never obtain Credit and Authority enough to do any considerable good in the World. And this is the food and sustenance of the Church, without which it cannot long flourish either in true Knowledge, or true Piety, but must insensibly wither away, and degenerate into Barbarity and Ignorance. And accordingly, if you consult Ecclesiastical History you will find that it was ever the practice of Pious Princes and Emperors to take care both for the erecting of decent and convenient Churches in all parts of their Dominions for the Celebration of Divine Worship, and to furnish them with all the decent Accommodations and Ornaments that were proper thereunto, and also for the endowing the Bishops and Pastors of the Church with such honourable subsistences as becomes the Port and Dignity of their several Orders and Offices; in which they did no more than what they stood obliged to, as they were the Viceroys of Jesus, and the foster Fathers of his Church, by vertue of which Relation to it they are bound in duty to supply it with decent Raiment and convenient Food. And now having explained the subjection of the Sovereign Powers of the Earth to our Lord and Saviour, and shewn what those Ministries are which they are obliged to render to him in his Kingdom, I proceed to the

Fourth and last sort of his Ministers, by which he governs his Kingdom, viz. the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Governours, in treating of which I shall endeavor these three things:

p. 384First, To shew that Christ hath erected a spiritual Government to minister to him in his Church.

Secondly, To shew in what hands this spiritual Government is placed.

Thirdly, To shew what are the proper Ministries of this Government.

I. That Christ hath erected a spiritual Government in his Church. And indeed, supposing the Church to be a regular and formed Society, subsisting of it self, distinct from all other Societies, it must necessarily have a distinct Government in it, because Government is essentially included in the very notion of all regular Society, which without Rule and Subjection is not a formed Society, but a confused multitude; for what else do we mean by a Humane Society, but only such a company of men united together by such and such Laws and Regulations? But how can any company of men be united by Laws, without having in it some Governing Power to rule by those Laws, and exact obedience to them? So that we may as well suppose a compleat Body without a Head, as a Regular Society without a Government. Now that the Church is a Regular Society, utterly distinct from all Civil Society, is as evident as the truth of Christianity, which all along declares and Recognizes the Law or Covenant upon which it is founded, and by which it is united, to be Divine, and consequently to be superior to, and independent upon all Civil Laws; and if that which constitutes the Church be Divine Law and not Civil, then the Constitution of the Church must be Divine and not Civil: for that which p. 385makes us Christians, at the same time makes us parts of the Christian Church; and that which makes all the parts of the Church makes the Church it self; which is nothing but the whole, or Collection of all the parts together; and therefore as we are not made Christians, so neither are we made a Christian Church by the Laws of the Commonwealth, but by the Laws and Constitutions of our Saviour, which were promulgated to the World long before there were any Laws of the Commonwealth to found a Christian Church on; for there was a Christian Church for three hundred years together before ever it had the least favour or protection from the Laws of Nations. In all which time it subsisted apart from all other Societies, and was as much a Church or Christian Society as it is now; and as it is now it is only a continued Succession of that Primitive Church, and therefore, as to the Constitution of it, must necessarily be as distinct now from all other Societies, as it was then, when it subsisted not only apart from, but against the Laws and Edicts of all other Societies in the World; in short therefore, since the Church of Christ is founded on a Charter, and incorporated by a Law that is utterly distinct from the Charters and Laws of all Civil Societies, it hence necessarily follows, that it self is a distinct Society from them all; because that which individuates any Society, or makes it a distinct body from all other Societies, is the Charter or Law upon which it is founded; and accordingly our Saviour tells Pilate when he asked him whether he was a King, that he was a King indeed, but that his Kingdom was not of this world, p. 386Joh. 18.36. i. e. though my Kingdom be in this World, yet is it not of the World; for neither are the Laws of it Humane but Divine, nor the powers of it external but invisible, nor the Rewards and Punishments of it temporal but Spiritual and eternal.

From the whole therefore these two things are evident;

First, That Government is Essential to formed and regular Societies.

Secondly, That the Church of Christ is in the Nature and Constitution of it a formed and regular Society, distinct from all other Societies: from both which it necessarily followeth, that it must have a distinct Government included in the very essence and being of it. And accordingly in the New Testament besides the Civil Magistrates, we frequently read of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Governors, so Heb. 13.17. there is mention made of the Rulers that watch for our souls, and a strict injunction to obey and submit our selves to 'em; and so again in the 7th. and 24th. Verses, and in 1 Tim. 5.17. The Apostle speaks of the Elders that Rule well who are to be accounted worthy of double Honour. And indeed the Greek Word foreign, which signifies a Bishop or Overseer, doth in Scripture always import, a Ruler or Governour: Vid. Hammond, Acts 1. Note 1. and therefore being applied, as it is frequently in the New Testament, to a certain Order of Men in the Christian Church, it must necessarily denote 'em to be the Rulers and Governors of it; and this power to foreign i. e. Oversee, and Rule and Govern the Church was derived to 'em from Christ the Supreme p. 387Bishop of our Souls, even by that Commission he gave 'em, John 20.21. As the Father hath sent me so send I you, i. e. so I Commission you with the same Authority in kind to Teach and Govern in my Kingdom, as I my self have received from the Father; and accordingly as Christ is called the Pastor or Shepherd, which name imports Authority to Govern his Flock (for so to feed and to rule are of the same significancy in Psalm …8.72. and Philo tells us, foreign, i. e. that the name of Shepherds implyed Ruling and Governing Power) so they who were sent and Commission'd by our Saviour are stil'd foreign the Bishops and Overseers or Shepherds in the Flock, to feed the Church of God, Acts 20.28. and they are elsewhere commanded to feed; the Flock of God, and to take the oversight thereof, 1 Pet. 5.2. And as they are called the Shepherds of Christs Flock, so they are also the Stewards of his Family, and as such they are constituted by him the Rulers of his Houshold, to give them their portion of meat in due Season, Luke 12.42. and, elsewhere they are called Governments or Governors, (the Abstract, as it is very usual in Scripture being put for the Concrete;) 1 Cor. 12.28. and their Authority is said to be given from the Lord, 2 Cor. 10.8. and they a…e said to be our Rulers in the Lord, i. e. by the Lords Commission and Authority, 1 Thes. 5.12. and as such they are commanded to Rule with diligence, Rom. 12.8. from all which it is abundantly evident that the Church of Christ is a formed Society subsisting of it self, distinct from all other Societies, under a distinct Rule and Government. But this I p. 388shall make yet more fully appear▪ when I come to treat of the several Ministries which the Governors of the Church of Christ are obliged to render him.

I proceed therefore at present to the Second thing proposed, which was to inquire into the nature of this Government in what hands Christ hath placed it; now the two main Rival forms of Church Government pretending to divine Institution are the Presbyterial and Episcopal; the Presbyterial is that which is seated in an equality or parity of Church Officers, the Episcopal is that which is placed in a superior order of Church Officers, called Bishops; to whom the other Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject and subordinate: the latter of which I shall endeavour to prove, is the true form of Government instituted by our Saviour, and that

First, from the Institution of our Saviour.

Secondly, From the practice of the Holy Apostles.

Thirdly, From the punctual conformity of the Primitive Church to both.

Fourthly, From our Saviours declared allowance and approbation of the Primitive practice in this matter.

I. That the Government of the Church of Christ is Episcopal, is evident from the Institution of our Saviour, who in his life-time instituted two distinct Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers, the one superiour to the other, viz. that of the twelve Apostles, and that of the seventy or seventy two Disciples; for that these two were of distinct Orders, is evident from their being always distinguished from one another and mentioned p. 389apart by different names and in different Ranks and Classes; for to what purpose should the Scripture mention the twelve and the seventy so distinctly as it every where doth, if there were not some distinction in their Office and Employment, for in Luke 6.13. we are told that Christ called unto him his Disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also be named Apostles, and Mark 3.13, 14. it is said that he called unto him whom he would, that is, of his Disciples, and ordained twelve that they should be with him and that he might send 'em forth to Preach, and what less can this imply than that the twelve were separated by this Call and Ordination of Christ to some distinct Office and Employment from the rest of the Disciples. And that the Office of the twelve was superiour to that of the seventy, is evident not only from their being still placed first in the Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Officers, see Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. in the latter of which we are told that God constituted in the Church, first Apostles wherein the Primary is attributed to the Apostolical Office; and not only from the particular care which Christ took of these twelve above the rest of his Disciples both in praying for and instructing them, of which there are a great many notorious instances in the Gospels, but also from hence that their immediate Successors were for the most part Chosen out of the seventy; for so Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem, Philip S. Paul at Caesarea, Clement S. Peter at Rome, and divers others of the seventy according to Dorotheus, Eusebius and others of the Fathers succeeded the Apostles after their death in the Government p. 390of their several Churches, and Matthias, who as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Ierom affirm, was one of the seventy that was Chosen and Ordained by the other Apostles to succeed Iudas in the Apostolate, Acts 1.26. from whence it is evident that the Apostles were superiour to the seventy, otherwise it would have been no advancement to the seventy to succeed 'em; for all that Superiority which they acquired by their Succession, must necessarily be inherent in the Apostles before they succeeded 'em; else how can they be said to succeed 'em in it? and if we suppose 'em to be equal with the Apostles in Office before they succeeded 'em, it is nonsense to say they succeeded 'em; for how can a man be said to succeed another in any Office who is actually vested with the same Office before he succeeds him. If therefore the seventy received no more power after the Apostles, than they had under 'em, they were as much Apostles before they succeeded 'em, as after; but if they did receive more power, then the Apostles to whom they succeeded had more power than they before they received it, and consequently were their Super…ours, because a man can receive no more power by succeeding another in any Office, than he to whom he succeeds had before, by vertue of the same Office. By all which it is most evident, that by the Institution of our Saviour the Apostles were superiour to the seventy, and yet it is as evident that the seventy were Ecclesiastical Ministers, as well as they; for in Luke 10.1. we are told that after these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent 'em two and two before his face, that is, to Preach his Gospel, and that p. 391by this Mission of his they were authorized to be the Ministers of Religion, is evident from what he tells 'em, Verse 16. he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me; from whence it is plain that they were his Authorized Ministers, even as he was Gods, because as the despising of him was a despising of God, by whom he was sent; so the despising of them was a despising of Christ, by whom they were sent; and accordingly by vertue of this Mission we find 'em acting as Authorized Ministers of the Gospel; for so Ananias, who was one of 'em, Baptized Saul, Acts 9.18. and Philip who was another Preached and Baptized at Samaria. Acts 8.5.

So that here are plainly two sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers, the one superiour to the other, of our Saviours own Institution and appointment; and therefore if his institution be still valid, there must still be a superiority and subordination between the Officers and Ministers of his Church, and consequently the Government thereof must still be Episcopal, i. e. by some superiour Officers presiding and superintending over other inferiour ones. I know it is objected that this superiority of the Apostles over the seventy was only in Office but not in Power or Iurisdiction; but since it is the Office that is the immediate Subject of the Power belonging to it, I would fain know, whether superiority of Office must not necessarily include superiority in Power; for Office without Power is an empty name that signifies nothing, and every degree of superiority of Office must be accompanied with Power to exert it self in Acts of p. 392superiority; otherwise 'twill be utterly in vain and to no purpose. So that either the superiority of the Apostolick Office over other Church-Offices must be void and insignificant, or it must have a proportionable superiority of power over 'em inseparably inherent in it. But it is farther objected, that supposing the Apostolate to be superiour to the other Ecclesiastical Orders in Power and Office, yet it was but temporary, it being instituted by our Saviour in subservience to the present exigence and necessity of things, without any intention of deriving it down to the Church in a continued Succession. To which I answer in short, that this is said without so much as a plausible colour of reason; for they allow both that our Saviour instituted this Office, and that in his institution he never gave the least intimation to the World that he intended it only for a certain season. Now if men will presume to declare Christs Institutions Temporary, without producing the least intimation of his Will, that he so designed 'em, they may with the same warrant repeal all the Institutions of Christianity; and even the two Sacraments will lie as much at their mercy as the Institution of the Apostolick Order, which unless they can prove it repealed by the same authority which established it, will be sufficient to prescribe to all Ages and Nations; for the obligations of divine Commands are dissolvable only by divine countermands; and for men to declare any divine Institution void before God hath so declared it; is to over-rule the Will of God by their own arrogant Presumptions, for though the matter of the Institution be mutable in it self, yet the p. 393form and obligation of it is mutable only by the authority which made it; and therefore though God hath not declared that he instituted it for perpetuity, yet till he declares the contrary, it must bind for perpetuity; especially if the reason of the institution of it be not apparently altered, which cannot be pretended in the case under debate, there being the very same reasons for a superiority and subordination between Ecclesiastick Officers now, as there was when our Saviour first appointed and instituted it. Until therefore they can shew either that the reason of the institution is ceast, or that the institution it self is repeal'd by some other Law; (neither of which was ever yet pretended,) they may as reasonably dispence with most of the precepts of the Gospel (which are no more declared perpetual than this) as with this of superiority and subjection among the Ecclesiastical Orders, which is the proper form of the Episcopal Government.

II. That the true Government of the Church is Episcopal, is evident also from the Practice of the holy Apostles, who pursuant to the institution of our Saviour, did not only exercise that superiority in their own persons which their Office gave 'em over their inferiour Clergy, but also derived it down with their Office to their Successors, which is a plain argument that they looked upon our Saviours institution of this superiour Office of the Apostolate, not as a temporary expedient, but as a standing form of Ecclesiastical Government, to be handed down to all succeeding Generations: for though during our Saviours abode upon Earth and sometime after his ascension into Heaven, the p. 394number of the Apostles was confined to twelve, yet when afterwards, thro their Ministry the Church was spread and dilated not only through Iudea, but into the Gentile Nations, they added to their number several other Apostles to whom they communicated the same Office and Degree of superiority over the other Clergy, that our blessed Saviour had communicated to them, for so Eusebius lib. 1. cap. 11. foreign, i. e. besides the twelve there were many other Apostles in that Age after the similitude of the twelve; and of the truth of this I shall give three or four instances.

The first is that of S. Iames of Ierusalem, the Brother of Iesus, who though he was none of the Twelve, (for in that number there were but two Iameses, viz. the Son of Alpheus, and the Son of Zebedee, neither of which was he, whom S. Paul calls the Lords Brother, and S. Paul reckons him apart from the Twelve, 1 Cor. 15.5, 6.7.) is yet stiled an Apostle by S. Paul, Gal. 1.19. but other Apostles saw I none save James the Lords Brother. And S. Ierom in his Comment on Isaiah stiles Iames the thirteenth Apostle, that is, the first that was made an Apostle after the Twelve, and that he was not merely a nominal Apostle, but actually endowed with Apostolical Power and Superiority, is evident both from Scripture and the unanimous consent of Ecclesiastical History: from Scripture it is evident that this Iames was a man of great preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem; for in the first Council that was held there we find him giving a discisive Sentence in the matter of Circumcision, Acts 15. for after there p. 395had been much disputing, ver. 7. and S. Peter, and S. Paul, and S. Barnabas had declared their Judgment in the case, ver. 7.13. S. Iames after a short Preface thus delivers himself, Wherefore my Sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God, and this Sentence of his determines the Controversie, and puts a final end to all farther debate, which plainly argues his great authority and preheminence in that place. Again Acts 21.17, 18. we are told, that when S. Paul and his company were come to Ierusalem, the Brethren received him gladly, and that the next day following Paul went in with them unto James, and all the Elders were present. Now for what other reason should Paul go in to Iames more especially, or upon what other account should all the Elders be present with Iames, but that he was a person of the greatest note and figure in the Church of Ierusalem, and for the same reason in all probability S. Paul mentions Iames before Peter and Iohn, discoursing of a meeting he had with them at Ierusalem, Gal. 2.9. because though Peter and Iohn were two 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; p. 396for 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, p. 397whose 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, foreign, 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; foreign, i. e. he was intrusted p. 398with 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 foreign, 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 p. 399is 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 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 p. 400themselves 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, foreign, 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 p. 401open 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 p. 402he 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. foreign, 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 p. 403are 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 foreign i. e. Clemens the Apostle, vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, foreign Apostle and Bishop by S. Chrysostom; and Thaddaeus, who was sent b… S. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa foreign by Eusebius, and so are also S. Mark and S. Luke by Epiphanius; and Theodoret lays it down for a general rule, foreign, 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 p. 404not their Ordaining Bishops also be as good an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office of a Bishop? If either be perpetual, why not both? if not both, why either? and how can we argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus for instance (as the Presbyterians do, Vide Ius Divin. p. 159.167.) if the Office they were Ordained to were not perpetual, and if it were perpetual, then so is Episcopacy, which is in nothing different from that which they exercised in their Churches.