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

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

p. 404III. That the true Government of the Church is Episcopal, is evident also from the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church thereunto. It is objected by the Adversaries of the Episcopal Government, that though our Saviour indeed Instituted a superior Order of Church Officers, viz. his Twelve Apostles to precide over the rest, and Govern his Church, yet this was an extraordinary Commission which he never intended they should derive down to the Church as a perpetual Model of Government, but was limited to the persons of the Apostles, and was to expire with 'em. Now that it was not limited to the persons of the Apostles is evident, since as it hath been shewn before, the Astles derived it to others; which they could not have done without violating their trust, and exceeding the bounds of their Commission, had it been appropriated to their persons, so that it must be allowed either that they proceeded irregularly in transferring their superiority to others; or that their Commission did impower them to transfer it; and therefore if it appear not only that they might transfer it to some for the Government p. 405of some Churches, by vertue of their Commission (of which the above cited instances are a full demonstration) but also that they Universally transferred it to others for the Government of all other Churches, then it is certain that either they mistook the intent of our Saviours Commission, or the intent of it was to impower 'em to transfer it unversally as a standing and perpetual Form of Ecclesiastical Government; in short, if they understood the intendment of their own Commission (as to be sure they did being guided by the Spirit into all Truth) to be sure they would never have communicated their Apostolick Superiority to any, had it not been our Saviours intention when he Commissioned 'em to Authorize 'em so to do; and for the same reason we may be sure that so far forth as they did communicate it, it was our Saviours intention that they should, now, as was shewn before, to some they did communicate it for the Government of some Churches, as to Timothy and Titus for instance, for the Government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete; from whence it is evident that it was our Saviours intention that they should communicate it to some; and for the same reason if it be made appear, that they did communicate it universally for the Government of all other Churches, it will necessarily follow, that it was our Saviours intention they should communicate it as an universal form of Church-Government. Now whether they did communicate it universally or no, is a question about matter of Fact, and as such, is decidable only by the Testimony of the most competent witnesses, and the most competent witness, in this case, is the Christian p. 406Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles, which Church attests with one universal consent the universal derivation of a Superiour Order of Ecclesiastick Officers from the Apostles to preside over the Churches of Christ. And some Christian Writers we have who were living in the very days of the Apostles, and were their immediate Scholars and Disciples; others again, who lived in their days and were their Disciples, who lived in the Apostles; and others who immediately succeeded these: from all which we have ample Testimonies of the continued Succession of this superiour Order, even from the Apostles to whom our Saviour first derived it. Out of all which I shall only produce some few instances out of an infinite number that might be given. Of the first sort are S. Clement Bishop of Rome, and S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. S. Clement, who as Frenaeus tells us, saw the Apostles, and conversed familiarly with 'em, makes mention in his Epistle to the Corinthians of three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers in his time, whom he calls the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites, which words can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop, Presbyter and the Deacons: S. Ignatius who was the Disciple of S. Peter, and in his life-time Bishop of Antioch is so full and express in all those six Epistles he wrote on the way to his Martyrdom, for the derivation of this superiour Order from the Apostles, that the adversaries of this Order have no other way to evade him but by condemning those Epistles for Counterfeits; from which injurious sentence they have of late been so triumphantly vindicated by a Learned Pen of p. 407our own, that I dare say no man of Learning for the future will so far expose the Reputation of his Understanding and Modesty as to call 'em in question again. Now in all these Epistles the holy Martyr not only distinguishes the Clergy into Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, but strictly injoyns the two latter as well as the Laicks to be Dutiful and Obedient to the former; and particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians, what is the Bishop, saith he, but he that hath all Authority and Power, what is the Presbytery but a sacred Constitution of Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop, what are the Deacons but imitators of Christ, and Ministers to the Bishop as he was to the Father, and as he every where enjoyns obedience to the Bishops as to the supreme Order in the Church of Christ, so in the beginning of his Epistle to the Philadelphians he tells them, that so many as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop, and that so many as depart from him and his Communion, and associate themselves with the accursed shall be cut off with them. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians he tells them, that it highly became them to obey their Bishop, and not to contradict him in any thing, for it is a terrible thing to contradict him, because in so doing you do not so much despise him who is visible as the invisible God who will not be despised, for his promotion is not from men but from God. And several of his Cotemporary Bishops he mentions by name, viz. Onesimus Bishop of the Ephesians, Policarp of the Smyrnians, Polybius of the Trallians, and Damas of the Magnesians, and still as he mentions them he highly commends the Presbyters and Deacons for their obedience to them. So in the beginning of p. 408his Epistle to the Magnesians, Having been so happy as to see you by your worthy Bishop Damas, and your worthy Presbyters, viz. Bassus, and Apollinus, and Zotion your Deacon, whom I cannot but commend for his obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytery — you ought not to contemn the youth of your Bishop, but to pay him all veneration (as I know your holy Presbyters do) according to the appointment of God the Father. And in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Let us be careful, saith he, that we do not oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God; and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop, let him reverence him so much the more, for every one that the Master of the Family appoints to be his Steward, we ought to receive him as the Master himself, and therefore it is evident we ought to respect the Bishop as our Lord himself: from whence I infer first, that at the writing of these Epistles, which was not above eight or nine years after the decease of S. Iohn, there were Bishops every where constituted over the Churches of Christ; for he not only mentions several Churches that had Bishops actually presiding over them, but declares Bishops to be of Divine Ordination, and that they were to be obeyed, foreign according to the appointment of God the Father, and that foreign, that they had their promotion not from men, but from God; and not only so, but in his Epistle to the Trallians, he bids them obey their Bishop as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them, in which he necessarily supposes Bishops to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles, and then he goes on; He who is within the Altar, that is, within p. 409the Communion of the Church, is clean, foreign, i. e. He is without the Altar who doth any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons, and if any Christian acting without the Bishop, &c. was without the Communion of the Church, then to be sure no Community of Christians that did so could be esteemed a part or Member of the Church; and therefore since according to the Doctrine of this Primitive Age, Bishops were a Divine Ordinance, and were looked upon as necessary to the very Constitution of Churches; we may from hence justly conclude that there were then no Churches without them. And secondly, we may from hence also infer, that since there were Bishops in this early Age presiding over the Churches of Christ, several of them at least received their Episcopal Orders immediately from the hands of the Apostles: For at the time when these Epistles were written, Ignatius himself had been above forty years Bishop of Antioch, at which time sundry of the Apostles were living; and therefore considering the singular Eminence of the Church of Antioch, whereof he was Bishop, as being immediately planted by S. Peter and S. Paul, and that wherein the Disciples of Iesus first received the name of Christians; and considering also that it was the constant practice of the Apostle to Ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted, it is highly probable that he received his Ordination immediately from their hands; and so S. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Edit. Savil. p. 499. expresly tells us, that he did not so much admire Ignatius for that he p. 410was accounted worthy of so great a Dignity, foreign, i. e. but because he obtained his dignity from those holy men, and the sacred hands of the blessed Apostles had been laid upon his head. And the same may be said of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, of whom Ignatius makes honourable mention; and indeed it is not to be imagined that the Christian Churches would ever have so universally admitted of Bishops as it is apparent they did in Ignatius's time, when the Apostles were living, had not some of them at least derived their Authority from the Apostles immediately; and considering how much S. Iohn, who survived the Apostles, was reverenced to the last through all the Christian Churches, what likelihood is there that those very Churches should so far contemn both him and them, even whilst they were living among them, as to admit of a new order of men without their Authority, to Oversee and Govern them? but that de facto the Apostles did with their own hands Ordain several Bishops to preside over several Churches, is most certain, if any credit may be given to Ecclesiastical History, which assures us, that they ordained Dionysius the Areopagite Bishop of Athens, Caius of Thessalonica, Archyppus of Colosse, Onesimus of Ephesus, Antipas of Pergamus, Euphroditus of Philippi, Crescens of the Gauls, Erastus of Macedonia, Trophimus of Arles, Iason of Tarsus, Titus of Corinth, Onisiphorus of Colophon, Quartus of Berytus, Paul the Proconsul of Narbona. Vid. Bishop Tailor of Episcopacy, Sect. 18. But then thirdly and lastly, from hence I also infer, That p. 311the Bishops of this Age were look'd upon as a Superiour Order to all other Ecclesiastical Officers; for Ignatius not only enjoyns the Presbyters and Deacons to obey their Bishops, but also presses them thereunto by the Command of Christ and if by Christs Command they were to obey their Bishops, then by Christs Institution their Bishops were their Superiours. Thus much therefore we are assured of by the Testimony of Ignatius, that in the Apostolick Age Bishops were universally admitted in the Churches of Christ, that they derived their Authority from the hands of the Apostles, and that by vertue of that Authority they were Superiour to all other Ecclesiastical Officers; and this is all we contend for.

And now let us proceed to the Testimony of the Writers of the next Age, who conversed with those that were Conversant with the Apostles, of which number are Iustin Martyr, Hegesippus, Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, Irenaeus, and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of which was converted to Christianity about the year of our Lord 133. which is not above twenty five years after the death of S. Iohn. This Writer in his Apology for Christianity to the Emperour Antoninus, giving an account of the manner of their Publick Worship, makes mention of a foreign, i. e. a President, or presiding Ecclesiastick in the Mother Church, who did there Consecrate the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, and give it to the Deacons to distribute it to such as were present, and carry it to such as were absent, and who did receive the Charities of the People, and dispose and manage the Stock of the Church. Now that foreign p. 412was the Bishops Title is evident, for so Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, who was Iustin Martyrs Cotemporary, uses the word foreign and foreign, promiscuously stiling Publius Bishop of Athens foreign or President, and Quadratus his Successor foreign or Bishop, vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. Next after him we have the Testimony of Hegesippus, who as S. Ierom de script. Eccles. tells us, lived very near to the Apostolick Age, he wrote five Books of Commentaries, some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius his History, in which he not only makes mention of several Bishops with whom he conversed in his Journey from Iudea to Rome, and of Primas Bishop of Corinth by name, and afterwards of Anicetus, Soter, and Elutherius Bishops of Rome successively, but also tells us, that after Iames the Iust, who was the first Bishop of Ierusalem, had suffered Martyrdom, Simeon Cleophae was made Bishop of that Church, because he was of the Kindred of our Lord, vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Not long after him Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, makes mention in several Epistles of several Bishops by name, and particularly of Publius, and Quadratus, successive Bishops of Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite the first Bishop of that Church, of Philip Bishop of Gortyna in Crete, of Palma Bishop of Amastris in Pontus, of Pinytus Bishop of the Gnossians, and of Soter Bishop of Rome, vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. About the same time lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, who, as himself tells us in his Epistle to Florinus, had often seen Polycarp the Disciple of S. Iohn, and did very well remember his person, and behaviour when he discoursed to p. 413the Multitude the intimate conversation he had with S. John, and the rest of the Apostles who had seen our Lord. And from him we have this express Testimony concerning the matter in debate, We can reckon up those who were Ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, who they were that succeeded them even down to our times — for the Apostles would have them to be in all things perfect and unreprovable whom they left to be their Successors, and to whom they delivered their Apostolick Authority. And then he goes on, and gives us a Catalogue of Eleven Bishops of Rome by name, beginning from Linus, to whom he tells us S. Peter and S. Paul Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt, i. e. delivered the Episcopal power of Governing that Church, and ending with Elutherius who was the twelfth▪ and did then actually preside in the Episcopal Chair, and that by Bishops in this Age was meant such as presided over Presbyters as well as Laicks is evident by the demonstration Clemens Alexandrinus makes, who was Irenaeus his Cotemporary, between the foreign, Strom. 6. i. e. the Processes of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons: and a little before, speaking of the dignity of the Presbytery, he tells us, foreign, — i. e. that it was not honoured with the first Seat, or placed in the first Class of the Ecclesiastick Orders; which plainly shews that then there was an Order above the Presbytery, viz. the Bishops, whom presently after he mentions as the first Order of Ecclesiasticks. And that passage which Eusebius quotes from him out of his Book, foreign, lately published, p. 414is a plain Argument that in his time Bishops were look'd on as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy; for he tells us, that when S. Iohn returned from Patmos to Ephesus, he visited the neighbouring Provinces, foreign, i. e. partly that he might ordain Bishops, and partly that he might set apart such for the Clergy as were pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit; by which it is evident that, in Clement's time at least, and, if he be not mistaken, in S. Iohn's too, the Bishops were a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy, viz. the Presbyters and Deacons. Thus both in the Apostolick Age, and that succeeding it, we have abundant Testimony of the derivation of the superiority of the Apostolick Order from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Churches of Christ.

And then for the next Age we have the concurrent Testimonies of Tertullian, Origen, and S. Cyprian, not only of the continuance of this Apostolick superiority in the Church, but also of the derivation of it from the Apostles themselves; but we need not cite their words, it being granted by the most learned Advocates of the Presbyterian Government that for several years before these Fathers, viz. about the year of our Lord 140. the Episcopacy was every where received in the Church; for they tell us, that though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Ecclesiastical Orders, yet they left none behind to succeed them in that power; but the Church was every where governed by a Common Council of Presbyters; but this Form of Government being found p. 415inconvenient, as giving too much occasion for Schisms and Divisions, it was at last universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to preside over all the rest; and this, say they, was the beginning of the Episcopacy; for which they cite that famous passage of S. Ierom, Antequam Diaboli instinctu, &c. i. e. Before such time as through the instinct of the Devil divisions in Religion began, and it was said among the People, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Churches were Governed by Common Councils of Presbyters, but afterwards every Presbyter reckoning such as he baptized to be his and not Christs, it was decreed over all the World, that one from among the Presbyters should be chosen and set over all the rest, to whom should belong all the care of the Churches, that so the seeds of Schisms might be destroyed; which universal Decree, as they guess, was made about the year 140. Now not to dispute with them the sense of this passage, but allowing it to bear their sense I shall only desire the Reader to consider,

First, That it is the Testimony of one who lived long after the afore-cited Witnesses, and so far less capable of attesting so early a matter of fact; for some of the Witnesses above-cited were such as lived in the days of the Apostles, others, such as lived in their days who lived in the days of the Apostles, and certainly these were much more competent Witnesses of what was done in the Apostles days than S. Ierom, who was not born till about the year 330. almost one hundred years after Origen the latest, and three hundred years after Clemens the earliest of the above-cited Witnesses; p. 416and certainly to prefer the Authority of one single Witness, who lived so long after the matter of fact, to the unanimous attestations of so many earlier Witnesses, is both immodest and irrational.

II. It is also to be considered, that S. Ierom was a witness in his own cause, in which case men of his warmth and passion are too too apt to exceed the limits of truth; for the design of that passage was to curb the insolence of some Pragmatical Deacons, who would needs advance themselves above the Presbyters, which Saint Ierom, being a Presbyter himself, takes in high disdain, and, as the best of men are too prone to do, when their own concerns are at stake, bends the stick too much t'other way, and depresses the Deacons too low, and advances the Presbyters too high. For,

III. In other places, where he is not Biassed by partiality to his own Order, he talks at a quite different rate; so in Dial. advers. Luciferian: dost thou ask why one that is not Baptized by the Bishop doth not receive the Holy Ghost? why it proceeds from hence that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles. Where it is plain he places the Bishops in the same rank with the Apostles, so also in Ep. 1. ad Heliodor. speaking of the Bishops of his time, they stand, saith he, in the place of S. Paul, and hold the place of S. Peter, and in Psal. 45.16. Now because the Apostles are gone from the World thou hast instead of those their Sons the Bishops, and these are thy Fathers because thou art Governed by 'em: and Ep. ad Nepot. What Aaron and his Sons were, that we know the Bishops and the Presbyters p. 417are. And therefore as Aaron by Divine Right was superiour to his Sons the Priests, so is the Bishop above his Presbyters; all which are as plain contradictions to that famous passage of his (understanding it as the Presbyterians do) as one proposition can be to another: and whether is a man more to be credited when he speaks without Bias or Partiality, or when he speaks in his own cause and under the influence of his own Interest?

VI. It is further to be considered, that the Decree of which S. Ierom here speaks, by which the Government of the Church was translated from a Common Council of Presbyters to a single Bishop, must according to his own words be Apostolick, and consequently much earlier than the Presbyterians will allow it; for it was made at that time when it was said among the People, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas; and this as S. Paul tells us, was said in his time, and therefore this Decree must be made in his time, and that S. Ierome did mean so, we are elsewhere assured from his own words, for so in his Book de Eccles. Script. he tells us, that immediately after the ascension of our Lord S. James was Ordained by the Apostles to be Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy by S. Paul Bishop of Ephesus, Titus Bishop of Crete, and Polycarp by S. John Bishop of Smyrna. So that either he must here expresly contradict himself, or else the Decree of which he speaks must have been made immediately after the Ascension of our Lord, and consequently be a Decree Apostolick.

V. It is yet farther to be considered that if any such Decree, of changing the Church Government p. 418from Presbyterial to Episcopal, had been made by the Apostles; it is strange we should not find the least mention of it in Scripture, and if it had been made after the Apostles, about the year, 140. it is as strange we should have no mention of it in Ecclesiastick Antiquity; for an universal Change of the Government of the Church from one kind to another, is a matter of such vast moment, that had the Apostles made a Decree concerning it, they would doubtless have been very solicitous to publish it through all the Churches, and to have transmitted down to Posterity some standing record of it; which yet they were so far from doing, that they have not given us the least intimation of it in all their Writings: And had it been made afterwards about the year 140. to be sure all Primitive Antiquity would have rung of such a publick and important alteration; but on the contrary you see both Clemens and Ignatius, who lived before that period, testifie that the Church was not Governed in their time by a Common Council of Presbyters, but by Bishops; Hegesyppus, Irenaeus, and Dionysius of Corinth, who lived in that period are so far from taking notice of any such Decree of alteration, that they testifie the Government of the Church by an uninterrupted Succession of Bishops, even from the Apostles themselves; and as for Irenaeus who gives us an account of the Succession of the Roman Bishops from S. Peter down to the time when he himself was at Rome, it was as easie for him to know who they were that succeeded from S. Peter, as it is for us to know who succeeded from Arch-Bishop Whitgift in the Chair of Canterbury, p. 419he being no farther distant from the one than we are from the other; and though through the Ambiguity or defect of the Records of some Churches, this succession be not equally clear in all, yet in the most eminent Churches, such as Ierusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, the successions are as clear as any thing in Ecclesiastical History; and is it not much more reasonable to conclude what was the Government of those Churches that are not known, from what we find was the Government of those that are, than to question those Ecclesiastical Records that are preserved, because of the uncertainty of those that are not? for though we do not find in all Churches an exact Catalogue of all their Bishops; yet we cannot produce any one instance in any one ancient Church of any other form of Government than the Episcopal, and therefore we may as well question whether ever there was any such thing as an ancient Monarchy in the World, because many of the Histories of the Monarchs are defective as to their Names and the Order of their Succession, as whether there was ever any such thing as a Primitive Episcopacy in the Church, because the Records of several Churches are defective as to the Names and Successions of their Bishops: Since therefore this Story of S. Ieroms universal Decree is not only altogether unattested, but also directly contradictory to the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity, how can we reasonably look upon it otherwise than as a mere figment of his own fancy? especially considering

VI. And lastly, How odiously this conceit of his reflects upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and p. 420his Apostles: for the Apostles, devolving the Government of the Church upon Common Councils of Presbyters was, as he himself tells us, the occasion of sundry Schisms and Divisions; for the removal of which, the Church afterwards found it necessary to dissolve those Presbyteries and introduce Episcopacy in their Room; and this S. Ierom approves as a very wise and prudent action, for saith he, the safety of the Church depends upon the Authority of the High-Priest or Bishop, to whom if there were not given by all supreme Authority, there would be as many Schisms in the Churches as there are Priests. So that according to him, had the Church continued under that Government which the Apostles left in it, it must unavoidably have been torn in pieces with endless Schisms and Divisions; and if so, either the Apostles were very imprudent in not foreseeing this, or very neglective in not preventing it; so that had not the after-age taken care to supply the defect of their Conduct, by erecting a wiser-form of Government than they left, the Church had infallibly run to ruin. This is the unavoidable consequence of S. Ieroms Hypothesis; which therefore I can look upon no otherwise than as a mere device of his own brain snatched up in hast to defend his Order against the Insolence of those Factious Deacons, that flew in the face of the Presbytery.

This therefore being removed, which is the main, and indeed the only considerable Objection against the universal conformity of the Primitive Church to the Episcopal Government, it remains, that if any credit may be given either to those Writers that lived in the Apostolick age, or to those p. 421who immediately succeeded 'em, it is evident from their unanimous Testimonies, that the Episcopacy is nothing else but only the Apostolick superiority derived from the hands of the Apostles in a continued succession from one Generation to another; and to reject their Testimony is not only very unreasonable (there being at least as much reason why we should reject all ancient History) but also of very dangerous consequence, since 'tis from thence that we derive the very Canon of Scripture, and so we may as well reject it in this instance as in the other.

IV. And lastly, That the rightful Government of the Church of Christ is Episcopal, is evident also from our Saviours declared allowance and approbation of the Primitive practice in this matter, viz. in those seven Epistles which he sent by S. Iohn to the seven Churches of Asia, all which he directs particularly to the seven Angels of those Churches, whom he not only stiles the seven Stars in his own right hand or the seven lights of those seven Churches, Vid. Rev. 1.20. and Rev. 2.1. but in every Epistle particularly owns 'em for his Angels or Messengers: if therefore we can prove that these seven Angels were at that time the seven Bishops that presided over both the Clergy and Laity of those seven Churches, they will be an unanswerable instance of our Saviours allowance and approbation of the Episcopal Order. In order therefore to the clearing this matter I shall shew,

First, That they were single persons.

Secondly, That they were persons of great Authority in those Churches.

p. 422Thirdly, That they were the Presidents or Bish…ps of those Churches.

First, That they were single Persons, is evident because they are all along mentioned as such; the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in the singular number, the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, and so of all the rest; and so every where in the Body of the Epistles they are all along addrest to in the singular number; I know thy works and thy labour, nevertheless I have a few things against thee, remember whence thou art fallen, repent, and do thy first works, and the like; in all which our Saviour plainly writes to 'em as to single persons: It is true what he writes to them, he writes not only to them personally, but also to the People under their Government and inspection; and therefore sometimes he mentions the People Plurally; so Chap. 2. ver. 10. The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison, and so ver. 13. and ver. 23. but this is so far from arguing that these Angels were not single persons, that it argues the quite contrary; since if they had not, what reason can there be assigned why our Saviour should not mention them plurally, as well as the People? I know it is objected that the Angel of the Church of Thyatira is mentioned Plurally. Chap. 2. ver. 24. but unto you I say, and unto the rest of Thyatira, where by you, it is supposed must be meant the Angel, and by the rest of Thyatira, the People. To which I answer, that in the ancient Greek Manuscripts, and particularly in that at S. Iames's foreign, or and is left out, and so the words run thus, but unto you the rest of Thyatira, or to the rest of you at Thyatira, which is set in opposition to those of Thyatira that had been p. 423seduced into the Sect of Iezebel, and therefore cannot be understood of the Angel who is all along mentioned in the singular number, wherefore had he not been a single person, no account can be given why he should be mentioned singly, and the rest of Thyatira Plurally. But then

Secondly, That these single persons were of great Authority in those Churches is evident not only by that honourable title of Angel, that is given them, which plainly shews them to be persons of Office and Eminence, and that not only by our Saviours directing his Epistles to them, to be communicated by them to their several Churches, but also from that authority which the Angel of Ephesus exercised there, and which the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira ought to have exercised, but did not: For as for the Angel of Ephesus, he is commended for trying them which said they were Apostles, and were not, and discovering them to be liars, which words plainly denote a Iuridical Trial and Conviction of some person or persons, who pretended to Apostolical Authority, but upon examination were found to be Cheats and Impostors: and then as for the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, he is blamed for having in his Church those that held the Doctrine of Balaam, or of the Nicolaitans; which plainly shews that he had power to remedy it by casting them out of the Church; for if he had not, how could he have been justly blamed for suffering them? And the same may be said of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, who is also blamed for suffering the woman Jezebel, which was not in his power to prevent, unless we suppose him to have Authority p. 424to eject her and her Followers. But then

Thirdly and lastly, That these single persons were the Presidents or Bishops of those Churches, is also evident from the most Primitive Antiquity; for so in the Anonymus Tract of Timothy's Martyrdom recorded in Biblioth. Pat. n. 244. we are told, that when S. Iohn the Apostle returned from his Exile in Patmos, which was two or three years after he wrote his Revelations, foreign, i. e. that being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the government of it. Now that these seven Bishops were the same with those seven Angels he wrote to in his Revelations is evident, because all those seven Churches in which those seven Angels presided, lay within the Circuit of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the Metropolis; and therefore who else can we so fairly suppose these seven Bishops to be, by whom he governed the Province of Ephesus, as the seven Angels of those seven Churches which were all of them within that Province? and S. Austin expresly calls the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, the Proepositus Ecclesiae, i. e. the Governour of the Church, Ep. 162. and speaking of those seven Angels, he stiles them Episcopi sive praepositi Ecclesiarum, the Bishops or Governours of the Churches, Comment. in Revel. so also the Commentaries under the name of S. Ambrose referring to these Angels in 1 Cor. c. 11. expresly tells us, that by those Angels he means the Bishops, and that they were so, is most indubitably evident of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in particular, who could be p. 425no other than S. Polycarp, who was most certainly made Bishop of Smyrna some years before the writing these Epistles, and continued Bishop of it a great many years after; for so Ignatius, who was his Cotemporary, in his Epistle to that Church stiles him Polycarp your Bishop, and earnestly exhorts his Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Laity to be subject to him; and Irenaeus who personally knew him hath this passage concerning him: foreign, &c. Polycarpus was not only instructed by the Apostles, and did not only converse with many of those who had seen our Lord, but by the Apostles who were in Asia, was made Bishop of Smyrna, Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. and in their Encyclical Epistle of his Martyrdom the whole Church of Smyrna stile him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna, ibid. So also Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, who was thirty eight years old when Polycarp suffered, tells us, that he was Bishop and Martyr in Smyrna, Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 24. And the same is attested by Tertullian, Eusebius, and S. Ierom, and indeed by all Ecclesiastick antiquity: so that it is a plain case, that one of these Angels, to whom S. Iohn writes, was Bishop of the Church whereof he stiles him the Angel, and since one was so, to be sure all were so; especially considering that very near, if not at the very time when these Epistles were written, we have certain accounts that there were Bishops actually presiding in these seven Churches. So within twelve years after these Epistles were written, Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, makes mention of Onesimus their Bishop, whom he exhorts them all, as well Presbyters and Deacons p. 426as Laity, to obey. That there was also at the same time a Bishop in Philadelphia is abundantly evident from Ignatius his Epistle to that Church though he doth not name him; and about the same time Carpus was Bishop of Thyatira as the ancient Roman Martyrology testifies, and Segasis of Laodicea, Vid. Euseb. Hist. lib. 4. c. 25. And Melito Bishop of Sardis, ibid. And as for the Church of Pergamus Paraeus in his Commentary on Chap. 2. of the Revelations proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas that faithful Martyr mentioned, Rev. 2.13. was Bishop of it immediately before the Angel of that Church to whom S. Iohn wrote, and that that Angel was one Gaius, who as he proves out of Clemens immediately succeeded Antipas in the Episcopal Chair. Since therefore it is apparent that at the writing these Epistles to these seven Churches there was a Bishop actually presiding in one of them, and that about the same time there were Bishops presiding also in all the rest, there can be no colour of Reason to doubt, but that all those Churches had Bishops in them when S. Iohn wrote to them; and if so, to be sure those Bishops being the Governours of those Churches, and having the charge of them committed to them, were those very Angels whom S. Iohn wrote to, because he all along writes to them as to those who were the Overseers and Governours of their respective Churches; and if those Angels were Bishops, then in them our Saviour expresly allows and approves of the Episcopal Order, since he not only dignifies them with the name of Angels, but calls them stars in his own right hand.

p. 427The sum of all therefore is this, If our Saviours own institution, seconded by the practice of his Apostles upon it, and succeeded by the Conformity of all the Primitive Churches to it, and this Conformity of theirs authorized by the express approbation of our Saviour, be a sufficient argument of the Divine Right of any form of Church-Government, then must the Episcopal form, which hath all these things you see to plead for it self, be of Divine Right and Ordination. Having thus shewn at large what that Ecclesiastick or spiritual Government is which Christ hath established in his Church, I proceed

Thirdly and lastly, To shew what are the proper Ministries of this Government in the Kingdom of Christ; and these are of two sorts: First, such as are common to the Bishops, or Governours of the Church with the inferiour Officers; and secondly, such as are peculiar to the Bishops or Governours. First, Such as are common to the Bishops together with the inferiour Officers of the Church; and these are 1. To teach the Gospel: 2. To administer the Evangelical Sacraments: 3. To offer up the Publick Prayers and Intercessions of Christian Assemblies.

I. To teach the Gospel, which is the first Ministerial Act mentioned by our Saviour in the Commission which he gave his Apostles, Go teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19. and accordingly the Apostles declare, Acts 6.2.4. that preaching the Word was one of the principal imployments appertaining to their Office; but yet it is evident that it never was restrained to their Office; for not only the Apostles, but the seventy Disciples also p. 428were Commissioned to Preach the Gospel by our Saviour, Luke 10.9, 10, 11. and even in the Apostles days, not only they, but Philip also, and Stephen, and Lucius of Cyrene, who were no Apostles, did yet preach the Gospel to the World; and besides the Apostles there were Prophets, Teachers, and Evangelists, that preached the Gospel as well as they. But yet as for the Office of Preaching, it is plain that none were ever admitted to it, but either by immediate Commission from our Saviour, or by Apostolick Ordination, or by an immediate Miraculous Unction of the Holy Ghost, by which they were inspired with the gift of Preaching, and enabled freely and readily, and without any study of their own to explain, and prove, and apply the Doctrines of the Gospel to their Hearers; and that, either in their own or other Languages, as occasion required; which gift was the same with that which is called in Scripture, the gift of utterance; and it being bestowed upon them for the publick benefit and edification of the Church, the very bestowing it, (without any other Ordination,) was an immediate Mission from the Holy Ghost; only they who pretended to it, were to be tried by such as had the gift of discerning of Spirits, vid. 1 Cor. 12.10. compared with 1 Cor. 14.29. and if upon that trial their pretence was found real, they were owned and received without any more ado as authorized Preachers sent by the Holy Ghost; and it was upon this extraordinary Mission, as it seems very probable, that those extraordinary Offices of Prophets and Evangelists were founded, both which included Authority p. 429to preach the Gospel; and therefore upon the Cessation of this extraordinary Mission those Offices ceased immediately with it, as depending wholly upon it, and from thenceforth none were ever admitted to the Office of Preaching, but by ordinary Mission and Ordination from the Apostolate derived to the Bishops and Governours of the Church. For though there are some very early instances of learned Lay-men that were admitted to preach upon some emergent occasions, and upon special license from the Bishop, yet can there no one instance be produced of any that were admitted to the Office of Preaching, without Episcopal Ordination.

II. Another of the Ministries Common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy, is the administration of the Evangelical Sacraments; for it was to his Apostles, and in them to their Successors, that our Saviour gave the Commission of Baptiz…ing all Nations, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and of doing this (i. e. of consecrating and administring the holy Eucharist) in remembrance of me: but yet it is evident that this Ministry was not so confined to the Apostolick Order, as that none but they were allowed to exercise it; for even in the Apostles days Philip and Ananias, who were no Apostles, Baptized, and S. Peter commanded the Brethren with him, (who were no Apostles neither,) to Baptize those Gentile Converts, upon which the Holy Ghost descended, Acts 10.48. and there is no doubt, but when those three thousand Souls, Acts 2. were all Baptized at one time, there were a great many other Baptizers besides the Apostles; and that passage p. 430of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 1.13, 14, 15, 16, 17. where he tells us, that he baptized none in the Church of Corinth, though it were of his own planting, except Crispus, Gaius, and the Houshold of Stephanus, is a plain Argument that when the Apostles had converted men to the Christian Faith, they generally ordered them to be baptized by the inferiour Ministers of the Church that attended them; and then as for the Consecration of the holy Eucharist, though when any of the Apostles were present, it was doubtless ordinarily performed by them, yet considering how fast Christianity encreased, and how frequently Christians did then partake of this Sacrament, it is not to be supposed that the Apostles could be present in all places where it was administred, nor consequently that they could consecrate it in every particular Congregation: For though it was a very early Custom for the Bishop to consecrate the Elements in one Congregation, and then send them abroad to be administred in several others; yet this was only upon special occasions: but ordinarily they were consecrated in the same places where they were administred; in all which places it was impossible either for the Apostles at first, or after them for their Successors, the Bishops, to be present at the same time; and therefore there can be no doubt but the Consecration as well as the Administration was ordinarily performed by the inferiour Presbyters, in the absence of the Apostles and Bishops. But it is most certain, that none were ever allowed in the Primitive Church to consecrate the Eucharist, but either a Bishop or a Presbyter. And as for Baptism, because it is in p. 431some degree more necessary than the Eucharist, as being the sign of admission into the New Covenant, by which we are first intitled to it, not only Bishops and Presbyters, but in their absence, or by their allowance, Deacons also were Authorized to administer it; for so even in the Apostles days Philip the Deacon baptized at Samaria, Acts 8.12. and afterwards not only Deacons but Lay-men too were allowed to administer it in case of necessity, when neither a Deacon, nor Presbyter, nor Bishop could be procured; that so none might be debarred of admission into the New Covenant that were disposed and qualified to receive it; but the Churches allowing this to Lay-men only in cases of necessity, is a plain Argument that none had a standing Authority to administer it, but only persons in holy Orders. For that authority which a present necessity creates, is only present, and ceases with the necessity that created it.

III. And lastly, Another of the Ministries common to the Bishops with the inferiour Clergy is to offer up the Publick Prayers and intercessions of Christian Assemblies: For to be sure none can be authorized to perform the publick Offices of the Church but only such as are set apart and ordained to be the publick Officers of it. Now Prayer is one of the most solemn Offices of Christian Assemblies, and therefore as in the Jewish Church none but the High Priest and Priests and Levites, who were the only publick Ministers of Religion, were authorized to offer up the publick Prayers of the Congregation, vid. 2 Chron. 39.27. so in the Christian none but Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who alone are the publick Ministers p. 432of Christianity are authorized to offer up the publick addresses of Christian Assemblies; it is their peculiar foreign, i. e. to perform the publick Offices to the Lord, Acts 13.2. for so the word foreign signifies Publick Service, and is used to denote those publick services (of which one was offering up the Common Prayers of the People) which the Priests in their turns performed in the Temple, Vid. Luk. 1.23. and hence it is, that the Ministers of Christian Religion are called foreign, Rom. 15.16. because it is their proper business to officiate the publick services of the Christian Church, and accordingly in Rev. 5.10. the four and twenty Elders, (that is the holy Bishops of the Church as appears by their having Crowns of Gold or Mitres on their heads in allusion to the High Priests Mitre, Chap. 4. ver. 4. are said to have every one of them Harps and golden Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of Saints, referring to the Incense which the Priests were wont to offer in the Sanctuary, which Oblation was a mystical offering up the Prayers of the People, vid. Luk. 1.10. which plainly intimates, that as it was one part of the Office of those Iewish Priests to offer the Incense, and therewithall the Prayers of the People, so is it also of the Publick Ministers of Christianity, to offer up the Prayers of Christian Assemblies. And as in the Jewish Church not only the Priests, but the Levites also Communicated with the High Priest in this Ministry of offering up the Prayers of the Congregation, so in the Christian Church not only the Presbyters, but the Deacons also, always Communicated in it with their Bishop. Having p. 433thus given an account of those Religious Ministries which are common to the Bishops with the inferiour Officers of the Church, I proceed in the next place to shew what those Ministries are which are peculiar to the Bishops or Governours of the Church, all which are reducible to four particulars: 1. To make Laws for the peace and good order of the Church. 2. To Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices. 3. To execute that spiritual Jurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church. 4. To confirm such as have been instructed in Christianity.

I. One peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to make Laws and Canons for the security and preservation of the Churches peace and good order; and this is implied in the very Essence of Government, which necessarily supposes a Legislative power within it self, to command and oblige the Subject to do or forbear such things as it shall judge conducive to the preservation or disturbance of their Commonweal, without which power no Government can be enabled to obtain its end, which is the good of the Publick. Since therefore the Church, by Christs own institution, is a governed Society of men, we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective, which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour, or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it. But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles; who, as all agree, had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour; for so in Acts 15.6. we are told, that upon occasion p. 434of that famous Controversie about Circumcision, the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter; where by the Elders, by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea, Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things, ver. 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were, it seems, laid upon them as a burthen, i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty; for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities, they wrote to, viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity: and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general, so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches, to which they were more peculiarly related. Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper, tells them, that other things he would set in order when he came among them, 1 Cor. 11.34. but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices: so also 1 Cor. 16.1. the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon, which he gave to the Churches of Galatia, which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe, and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in p. 435charge to his Church, ver. 7. so also Tit. 1.5. he tells Titus, that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting, i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders, and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for. By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general, and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches. For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did, to be sure they had Authority to do, and whatsoever Authority they had, they derived it down to their Successors. And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops, who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches, but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils, wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage, unless it were by deputation from his Bishop; and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters, and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils, yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws. But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority p. 436and Suffrage; and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters, or by the Bishops in Council among themselves, was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true, this Legislative Power of the Church (as was shewn before,) extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign, who is next to, and immediately under God in all Causes, and over all Persons Supreme, and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity, than he was by the Laws of natural Religion; and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws, so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns: but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed, so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed.

II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices. For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth, such as preaching the Gospel, administring the Evangelical Sacraments, &c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations, he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World, to perform those Ministries in his absence, but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father, deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them; that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations; for this is necessarily implied in p. 437the Commission he gave them, Iohn 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you, that is, I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him; but I also send you with the same authority to send others, that I now exercise in sending you; for unless this be implied in their Mission, he did not send them as his Father sent him, unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others, that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them, how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him? since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father, which he then exercised in sending them. Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36. Mar. 16.14. Mat. 28.16. in all which places we are expresly told, that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission, and consequently, it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it. This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order, no others could have right to transfer it to others, but only such as were admitted of that Order; none could give it to others, but only those to whom Christ gave it; and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles, none but Apostles could derive it: and accordingly we find in Scripture that all Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of some of those first Apostles who received their Commission immediately from our Saviour, or else by some of those secondary Apostles, that were admitted into p. 438Apostolick Orders by them; which secondary Apostles, as was shewn before, were the same with those whom we now call Bishops; for so in Acts 6.3.6. the seven first Deacons we read of were Ordained by the Apostles, the whole number of the Disciples being present, but the Apostles only appointing and laying their hands on them, and in Acts 14.23. we are told, that Paul and Barnabas, two of the Apostles, ordained Elders in every Church, that is, of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch; and though these two were Ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch, Acts 13.1.3. yet there is no doubt but those Prophets and Teachers where such as had received the Apostolick Character, (being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of the Churches of Syria,) for otherwise how could they have derived it? For so Iudas and Silas are called Prophets, Acts 15.32. and yet ver. 22. they are said to be foreign, that is, Rulers among the Brethren, or Bishops of Iudea, and afterwards we find that Ordination was confined to such as had been admitted to the Apostolate; for so the power of laying on of hands in the Church of Ephesus was committed by S. Paul to Timothy, whom he himself by the laying on of hands had ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church, 1 Tim. 5.22. 1 Tim. 1.6. so also the power of Ordaining in the Church of Crete was by S. Paul committed to Titus, whom he had also Ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church, Tit. 1.5. for this cause left I thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every City. Thus all through the whole Scripture History we find the power of Ordination p. 439administred by such, and none but such as were of the Apostolick Order, viz. either by the Prime Apostles, or by the secondary Apostles or Bishops. And if we consult the Primitive Antiquities, which to be sure, in matters of fact at least, are the best Interpreters of Scripture, we shall always find the power of giving Orders confined and limited to Bishops, which is so undeniable that S. Ierom himself, who endeavours his utmost to equalize Presbyters with Bishops, is yet fain to do it with an excepta Ordinatione, Ep. ad Evagr. Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat? What can the Bishop do, except Ordaining, that the Presbyter may not do also?

III. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to execute that spiritual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in it, i. e. to Cite such as are accused of scandalous offences before their Tribunals, to inspect and examine the Accusation, and upon sufficient evidence of the truth of it, to admonish the offender of his fault, and in case he obstinately persist in it, to exclude him from the Communion of the Church, and from all the Benefits of Christianity, till such time as he gives sufficient evidence of his Repentance and amendment, and then to receive him in again. For that Christ hath established such a jurisdiction in his Church is evident from that passage, Mat. 18.16, 17, 18. Moreover, if thy Brother shall trespass against thee, go tell him his fault between him and thee alone, if he shall hear thee, thou hast gain'd thy Brother, but if he will not hear thee, then take with p. 440thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established, i. e. that thou mayst be able, in case he doth not then amend, to produce sufficient testimony of his guilt before the Churches Tribunal, to which thou art next to apply thy self; and if he shall neglect to hear them, i. e. to promise amendment upon their admonition, take them along with thee and tell it to the Church, that so she may examine the matter, and upon thy proving his guilt by sufficient witness may Authoritatively admonish him to amend, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, i. e. give him over for a desperate sinner, as one that is to be ejected from the Communion of the Church, and no longer to enjoy the common benefits of a Christian, for verily I say unto you, that it is to you of the Church, before whom this obstinate Offender is cited and accused, (for now he speaks no longer in the singular number) Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, i. e. whomsoever ye shall for just cause eject from the Communion of the Church into the state of a Heathen man and a Publican, I will certainly exclude out of Heaven, unless he reconcile himself to you by Confession, and promise of amendment, and if thereupon you pardon him, and receive him into the Churches Communion, I will most certainly pardon him too if he perform his promise; for that by binding and loosing upon Earth our Saviour means excluding out of the Church, and receiving in again, is evident from that Parallel passage, Mat. p. 44116.19. I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven; where by the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven, is plainly meant the Authority of a Steward to govern his Church or Family, for so Isa. 22.21, 22. God promises Eliachim that he would cloath him with the Robe of Shebna who was over the Houshold, ver. 15. i. e. Steward of the Kings Family, and that he would commit Shebna's Government into his hand, &c. and then it follows, And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulders, so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open, that is in short, I will make him the Governour of the Family, and give him power to admit or exclude what Servants he pleases, and accordingly by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Government of the Church, for so Keys denote Authority to Govern, vid. Rev. 3.7. and by binding and loosing, the power of shutting out of or readmitting into it, and therefore in Iohn 20.23. this binding and loosing is thus expressed, whose sins ye remit or loose shall be remitted or loosed, whose sins ye retain or keep bound shall be retained or kept bound, for though the words are different from those in S. Matthew, yet they are of the same import and signification; and consequently our Saviours meaning must be the same here as there, viz. whose sins you loose from the penalty of exclusion from the Church I also will loose from the penalty of exclusion out of Heaven, and whose sins you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this.

p. 442This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church, to bind or loose, suspend or restore, excommunicate or absolve; and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order: For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction, they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family, and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel, which is the Christian Church, even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel, Mat. 19.28. and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven, Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations, and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles, ver. 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones, to denote their power and dignity in the Church, ver. 19, 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits, that is twelve times twelve, to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church, ver. 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church, and administring the Censures of it, being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate, none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order, and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves, or by the Bishops of the several Churches p. 443to whom they communicated their Order; for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person; for I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed, 1 Cor. 5.3. and what he orders them to do, ver. 4, 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence, and 2 Cor. 13.2. he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them, and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver. 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established, which are the very words of our Saviour, Matt. 18.16. when he instituted the power of Censuring; and then ver. 10. he tells them, that he wrote these things being absent, lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification, and not to destruction, by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating: and 1 Cor. 4.21. he threatens to come to them with a Rod, that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church, and with this Rod, as he himself tells, he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander, two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1.20. and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person, so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus, whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete, p. 444for so he orders Timothy, against an Elder, Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses, which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves, when they were accused, and to punish them if he found them guilty, for so it follows, Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear, 1 Tim. 5.19, 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction; A man that is an Heretick, after the first and second admonition reject, Tit. 3.10. which plainly implies, that he had an Authority inherent in him, as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete, to Cite, Examine, Admonish, and Censure persons of erronious Principles; and the same Authority, it is evident, was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia. Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not, and to convict them for Liars, Rev. 2.2. and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church, ver. 14, 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel, ver. 20. which plainly implies, that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries, was inherent in them; else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them? From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate, and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such, and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order, viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles, or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular p. 445Churches; and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction, and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery, yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to; for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus, Augendus, and others of his Presbyters, Ep. 38, 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon, he tells him, that pro Episcopatus vigore & Cathedrae authoritate, i. e. by his own Episcopal authority, without appealing to the Synod, he might have chastised him. And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews, that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops: for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops, to examine whether any person, Lay or Clergy, had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop; which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only; though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage, that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy, and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence; but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies. In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegat… power to their Presbyters, both to excommunicate and absolve (as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth) but p. 446in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth, and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with.

IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church, is to Confirm such as have been Baptized and instructed in Christianity; which Ministry was always performed by Prayer and laying on of hands, upon which the Party so Confirmed received the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is true, upon the first institution of this Imposition of hands the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as speaking with Tongues, &c. were many times consequent, but from hence it doth no more follow that it was intended only for an extraordinary Ministry that was to cease with those extraordinary Gifts that accompanied it, than that Preaching was so which at first was also attended with miraculous operations. The great intendment of those extraordinary effects was to attest the efficacy of the Function; and doth it therefore follow that the Function must cease, because those extraordinary effects did so, after they had sufficiently attested its efficacy, and consequently were of no farther use? If so, then all the other Ministries of Christianity must be expired as well as this. And what though those extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit are ceased? Yet since our Saviour hath promised a continual Communication of his Spirit to his Church, is it not highly reasonable to believe, that he still continues to communicate it by the very same Ministry of Prayer and Imposition of hands, whereby he communicated it first; and that he now derives to us p. 447the ordinary operations of it in the same way that he first derived the extraordinary ones? Especially considering that this laying on of hands is placed by the Apostle in the same Class with Baptism, and made one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Heb. 6.1, 2. and therefore must without all doubt be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church, and as such the Church of Christ in all Ages has thought her self obliged to receive and practise it; but as for the administration of it, it was always appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops. So in Acts 19.5, 6. it was S. Paul that laid his hands on the Ephesians after they were Baptized in the name of Jesus, whereupon it is said that the Holy Ghost came upon them; and in Acts 8. we read, that when S. Philip by his Preaching and Miracles had converted the Samaritans, and afterwards Baptized them, S. Peter, and S. Iohn, two of the Apostles, were sent to lay hands on them, upon which it is said, that they received the Holy Ghost, ver. 17. by which it appears that this Ministry of Confirmation appertained to the Apostles; since S. Philip, though a worker of Miracles, a Preacher, a Prime Deacon; and, if we may believe S. Cyprian, one of the seventy two Disciples, would not presume to assume it, but left it to the Apostles as their peculiar Province: And accordingly in the Primitive Church it was always performed by the hands of the Bishops; for though from later Ages some probable instances are produced of some Presbyters that Confirmed in the Bishops absence, or by his delegation, yet in all Primitive Antiquity we have neither any one Canon, nor example of it; from whence we may p. 448fairly conclude that this imposition of hands for Confirmation was peculiar to the Apostles in the Original, and to their Successors the Bishops in the continuation of it.