The nature of church-government freely discussed and set out in three letters.

THE FIRST LETTER.

SIR,

IT must be acknowledged that you took a very right Method in the Business of Church Government, to search, (as you say you did) into its very Ori∣ginal; and had not some of the Prejudices of your Education, or of your Circumstances; stuck too fast to you, I suppose that way you would at least have discovered the Institution of the twelve Apostles at first, before our Lord's Passion, and of the seventy Disciples to have been only Temporary; as well as in Accommodation to the Mosaical Policy, in which were twelve Philarchs or Heads of Tribes, and seventy Elders.

After our Lords Passion, when he was risen again from the Dead, and about to Ascend into Heaven, concerning himself no further with the seventy (of whom under that Denomination, we read nothing afterwards in the Christian Church) he gives a new and large Commission to the twelve Apostles, and assigns them two Works. The First, the making of Disciples or Christians all the World over, by declaring and publishing every where, what, upon their own Knowledge, they were certain of, in reference to Christ, that so, by being Witnesses unto him, they might both aver the Truth of Christianity, and (being many) even compel Belief of it. And after they had made Christians, to put them under Orders, ac∣cording to the Rules which Christ had given them, Acts 1. 3. In two Words the Apostles were first to make Christians, and then to frame them into Churches.

In this properly the nature of an Apostle consisted, that he was a Person autho∣rized to preach the Gospel of Christ upon his own Knowledge, as being himself a Witness of him; and in this his Office differed from that of an Evangelist; for though an Evangelist, as such, did preach the Gospel where it was not heard of before, and consequently made Christians and planted Churches, in which his Office agrees with that of an Apostle; yet herein it differs, That to be an Evan∣gelist▪ it was not necessary (as it was to be an Apostle) that he should be a Wit∣ness

to Christ; it was enough to qualifie an Evangelist, for Evangelizing that he had certain Tradition; but to be qualified for an Apostle, he must, by the Eviden∣ces of his own Senses have had certain Knowledge of Christ. This Notion of the Apostleship is not only couched by our Saviour in what he tells the Apostles, Iohn 14. 26. and at his Ascension, Acts. 1. 8. but is intimated also in the History of the Election of Matthias unto the Apostleship, Acts 1. from 15 to the 26. and most plainly set out in all of them taken together in conjunction, for so they make it demonstrable. Iudas was once numbred with the Apostles, as being one of the twelve, but he fell from that Degree and Honour by his Transgressions, and therefore that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which had said another should succeed him, Peter at an Assembly of the Believers proposes the Ordination of one in his Room. And the better to regulate the Election, he first instructs them in the Nature of the Office, and Work of the Apostleship, to which that Ordination was to be made, and this he says, is, with the rest of the Apostles, to be a Witness unto Christ, and particularly to his Resurrection; and then informs them, how a person must be qualified to become capable of being ordained to this Office, to wit, that he must be one of those that had accompanied with them, all the while the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, even from beginning to end, from first to last, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from them; He must, it seems, be such an one as had always been with the Lord, or else he could not be qualified to be one of the twelve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Peter, therefore must one of these Men that have accompanied with us, &c. And why must one of these? but that it was the proper Business and Work of such an Apostle, as was one of the twelve, to be a Witness of Christ to all that he had said, and done, and suffered; and none could be such a Witness but one that had been always with him, from first to last.

And if the former is the true Idea of an Apostle (as you may plainly see it is) then no Diocesan Bishop or any Body else indeed can be one now, for whoever is an Apostle must be a Witness to Christ, and must have seen him, and that too after his Resurrection: And to be one of the twelve, must also have been always with him from first to last, even to S. Paul himself, who having not con∣versed with Christ upon the Earth, and therefore could not properly be one of the twelve, our Lord appeared in an extraordinary manner to qualifie him for the Apostleship; so that as all the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers, it might be said of Paul, that he was an extraordinary superadded Apostle.

It is true the Apostles were called Bishops by S. Cyprian, but it had been more (though even then not much) to your purpose if he had called Bishops Apostles (as somewhere he does:) Christ is called a Bishop, and that by a greater Man than Cyprian, and yet I believe you will not infer from thence, that the Bishops are Christs, or are the Successors of Christ. I acknowledg also, That the Apostle∣ship is stiled an Episcopacy or a Bishoprick, Acts 1. But then it is called in the same Chapter a Deaconry too, verse 25. and therefore I hope you will no more infer, That an Apostleship and a Bishoprick are the same thing from the com∣munication of the Names, than for the same Reason, That the Apostleship and a Deaconry are so.

The Apostleship was an Episcopacy, but not such an Episcopacy as that is which you contend for, any more than because it was called a Deaconry, it was such a Deaconry as that which was not instituted till some time after, Acts 6. Episcopacy is a word of ample Signification; for, not to mention prophane Authors, as Homer, Plutarch, Cicero, &c. in which we read the word: It is certain Basil ap∣plies it often unto God; Peter in his first Epistle applies it unto the Elders, and here in the Acts 1. it is applied unto the Apostles; and therefore being a word of so general signification, nothing is deducible from it, as to the special nature of any Office, except by way of Analogy.

To be plain with you, the Writers of the First Century (Cyprian was in the Third) had no thoughts that appear of any such Succession of Bishops in the Office of the Apostleship, as you imagine; even that Ignatius you so much admire and who pleads so much for the Prelacy of Bishops, though he compares them sometimes to God, and other times to Christ (which I believe you insist not up∣on, because you thought it a little too much), yet he never that I can find com∣pares them to the Apostles: Their College, if you will believe Ignatius, was imitated, not to say succeeded by the Presbytery. I add, That Eutichius in his Annals of Alexander tells us, as Hierom also does, That St. Mark ordained, that the Presbytery of the Church of Alexandria should consist of 12. and no doubt in Imitation of the College of the Apostles, the Presbytery of that Church did very early consist of that number, though possibly not so early as to be an In∣stitution of the Evangelist Mark. In fine, not one word in Clemens Romanus; a Writer of the First Age, of any such Succession of Bishops distinct from Presby∣ters, in the Office of the Apostleship; He knew but Two Orders of Apostolical Institution, to wit, the Bishops and Deacons; of which more hereafter.

Now if the proper Work and Office of the Apostles consisted in their being, by Office, the first Preachers, and Witnesses of Christ, by whom they were imme∣diately sent for that purpose, then certainly that Work and Office, as well as their Mission to it, was extraordinary, and but Temporary. And if after they had made Christians by their Preaching, and had framed them under perpetual stand∣ing Orders, they did on some occasions interpose their own Authority, either by way of Direction upon new Emergences, or else for Reformation of Abuses and Miscarriages; That was extraordinary too, and by vertue of a Jurisdiction natu∣rally arising, and remaining in them, (as also in the Evangelists) as they were the Fathers and Founders of Churches.

But that this Authority which was paramount and extraordinary, is devolved upon any other Persons, as Successors of the Apostles, lyes on you to evince; and I think it is an hard Province: For either the Apostles instituted such Successors which you call Bishops, (and I for distinction-sake will call Prelates) while them∣selves were living; or else they did not Institute and Induct them while themselves were living, but only ordained, That after their Decease there should be such Prelates in the Church, as their Successors, but not before. If you say the Apostles instituted and inducted Prelates as their Successors while themselves were living, I demand how that could be? Can any come into the places of others,

even while these others possess them? And again I demand, whether there were, or could be any Officers instituted by the Apostles over whom themselves retained not Jurisdiction? for if the Apostles retained their Jurisdiction (which I suppose you will not deny) over the Prelates they instituted (if they instituted any;) Then they trans••erred not their Jurisdiction to these Prelates, that is, the Pre∣lat••s were not such Successors of the Apostles as you conceit them; for none does give that which he keeps. I believe therefore you will say, the Apostles did not Institute and Induct the Prelates while themselves were living, but ordained, that after their Decease there should be such in the Churches, as their Successors. But where I pray you is the ordinance recorded? In what Scripture, In what Fathers of the First Age? or how came you to know of such an Order? if no Tradition either of the Holy Scripture, or of the most Ancient and Primitive Fa∣thers transmits it?

All of any Aspect this way, in any Father of the First Age, is in Clemens Romanus, and he is against you; for having premised what is very remarkable, and much to our purpose, That the Apostles knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ the strife that would one day be about the business or name of Episcopacy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he adds, that for that Cause (to wit, to end such strife) they ordained Bishops and Deacons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They appointed the forementioned Officers, and the Officers forementioned were only Bishops and Deacons, of whom he had said before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they, (namely the Apostles) appointed the first fruits (of those Cities and Countries where they had preached) approving of them by the Spirit for the Bishops and Deacons of those that should afterward believe.

This is a plain Testimony (so plain, that I see not how it can be evaded) that the Holy Apostles instituted only Two Orders of Officers in the Church, of which one indeed was that of the Bishops: But this Order of Bishops being the Order that is Contradistinguisht unto that of the Deacons as well in this Father and in others, as in the sacred Scriptures, it must be understood of the Presbyte∣rian, and not of the Prelatical Orders.

And when Intimated that the two Orders of Bishops and Deacons were the fixed standing Orders, which the Apostles had instituted, to continue in the Church from time to time, I did it with good Authority; for Clement having asserted that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons, to put an end to all Contentions about the Office of Episcopacy (which would have been endless had not the Apostles thus provided against it:) He adds, And moreover they gave it in dire∣ction, That as often as it should happen that those Persons whom they had ap∣pointed should decease, others that were approved and worthy should receive their Charges.

By this time you may see how little that transaction about the Incestuous Co∣rinthian on which you insist so much, does serve your purpose: For S. Paul his Interposition in that business was purely Apostolical and Extraordinary, from beginning to end, the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary, by his Apostolical

Spirit or Revelation, as Hierome interprets it (absent in Body, but present in Spirit;) The Censure Extraordinary, which was to give the Incestuous up unto Satan, as to a Tormentor: So Hierome carries this also; and the manner of the Execution extraordinary too, to wit, by delegation of his Apostolical Spirit, to the Church of Corinth, (when you come together and my Spirit.) So that the whole Proceeding was extraordinary; and though you are pleased to call it an Act of Episcopal or Prelatical Authority, and to make an Argument of it for Diocesan Jurisdiction; yet, unless you can find Diocesans now that have the Spirit, that can have a Cognisance of things at Distance by Revelation, that can give up Persons to Satan as to a Tormentor, and that can delegate their Spirit to a Congregation, the Exception lying against it will still continue in Force.

Wherefore as yet I see no other Prelacy instituted by the Apostles, but that of the Presbyters over the People; nor are there any Officers now of any Denomina∣tion, which ought to have (though you seem to intimate that some ought) a Mission like to that of the Apostles; for as they were Ambassadours, that were sent immediately by Christ, as he was by God, and brought their Credentials with them, sealed by the Holy Ghost; so I will not scruple to call them Extraordi∣nary upon this Account too, any more than to call the Presbyters and Deacons ordinary, even though the Papists and the Socinians do so: The first Missions were extraordinary, whiles the Church was to be constituted; but in a consti∣tuted setled Church, in which the Officers are ordinary, their Calling is so likewise.

But to let you know what Standard there is of Extraordinaries, (for this you demand) I believe I have no more to do but to remind you of what you already know, that the use of speaking or common Language is that Standard; for cer∣tain, you that have read so often in Cicero (not to mention Livy, Suetonius and others) of Honores Extraordinarii, Praesidium Extraordinarium, Potestas Extraor∣dinaria, cannot be ignorant that that is Extraordinary, which being not the set∣led standing perpetual order and use, is only for some certain time, and on some particular special Occasion or Accident. And it is in this sense of the word that the Roman Magistrates, in respect of time, are distributed by Lipsius into Extra∣ordinary and Ordinary, when he says, Aut enim (Magistratus) à tempo••ibus di∣viduntur, ut Ordina ii Extraordina••ii. Illi dicti qui statis Temporibus, & semper in Republicâ essent, u•• Consul••s, Praetores, Ediles, Tribuni, Quaestores; isti qui nec eo∣dem tempore, nec semper, ut Dictatores, Censores, Inter-Reges, &c.

It is true you tell me, that the Commission, Matth. 28. is not peculiar to the Apostles, and that therefore it does not Evidence, they were Extraordinary Offi∣cers; for (say you)

There is indeed a Charge given them to Baptize and Teach, but it seems a wonderful way of proving them to be Extraordinary Officers, from the Authority they had to do that which any Ordinary Minister may do: and that by vertue of this Commission.

By vertue of this Commission! Excuse me as to that, every Body will not yield it; some think, that this Commission was personal, given only unto the Apostles. Go ye; and inforced with a promise that related only to them direct∣ly,

Lo I am with you to the end of the world; That is, to the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum; for so they understand that Phrase, and apprehend, they have sufficient Reason to do so, upon comparing it with Matth. 24. 3, 14.

But let that be as it will. Indeed! Is the Commission given to the Apostles, Matth. 28. not peculiar to them? Are they Empowered by it to do no more than every ordinary Minister may? I had thought that ordinary Ministers had been limited and local, not unlimited and oecumenical Officers; and that, by their In∣stitution, they were confin'd to Teach and Rule the particular Churches over which they were appointed, and not to Teach and Rule the whole World, or (as the Apostles had) to have care of all the Churches. I pray tell me, is a Parish-Priest of as great Authority, as a Diocesan? and yet a Diocesan compared with an Apostle, is less than a Parish-Priest: The whole World was the Diocess of the Apostles. Go ye, teach all Nations.

I profess I am much surprized to find you deny, without Distinction, that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers; especially after Dr. Cave in his History of the Lives of the Apostles (which I believe you have read) distinguishes their work, and shews what was Extraordinary in it, and what was Ordinary. But possibly you foresaw, that should you have spoken plainly, and have said as he does, that their ordinary work [the standing and perpetual part of it, was to Teach and Instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion; to Ad∣minister the Sacraments; to Institute Guides and Officers, and to Exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church.] I would easily reply, That the Apostles had provided themselves of Successors, as to all this work, but that these Successors were the Presbyters which they Instituted in every Church, to feed and govern it; and that having ordained no others, it looks as if they saw no need of others.

But having this Occasion, I beg your pardon if I use it, to set out more fully the Institution which the Apostles made, for the Government and Edification of the Churches, and how that Institution came to be altered, and by what steps.

First then the Apostles instituted a Senate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a College of Presbyters in every Church, to Feed and Govern it; and this is evident from Acts 14. 23, 25. where Paul and Barnabas are said not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Churches but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, —in every Church to have ordained Elders; a College of Elders, not a single Elder or Bishop. And as they are not said to have ordained a single Bishop or Elder in any Church, so much less are they (said) to have ordained any Prelate or Intendant over many Churches; every Church, as a Body Politick Compleat, had sufficient power within it self, for all its Ends: They or∣dained Elders in every Church.

And to me it is plain that Clement had regard to this practice of the Apostles, when, in the place I cited before upon another occasion, he says of them, That go∣ing through Countries and Cities preaching the Gospel, they appointed the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons, having approved or Confirmed them by the Spirit.

That the Apostles instituted many Presbyters, and not a single Presbyter, in every Church, is further confirmed, not only from the frequent mention of a Pres∣bytery found in Ignatius, which (as I shall shew hereafter) was Congregational, but by the Express Testimony of Clement, who blames the Church of Corinth for raising a Sedition and Stir against their Presbyters, (and therefore there were many in that Church) only upon the Account of one or two Persons; so that it is plain, there was a College of Presbyters in the Ancient Apostolical Church of Corinth

Again, in the Presbytery or College, which was ordained in every Church, though all the Presbyters were equal, the Institution making no Difference; for Paul and Barnabas are said to Constitute Elders, but not to Constitute Elders and a Bishop, as a Superiour over them; yet it being requisite for Order-sake, that some one in every Assembly should have the Direction, and that Honour naturally falling on the Eldest Presbyter unless some other Course be resolved; it is most probable, that at first, the Eldest Presbyter as he had the first Place, so he had the first Direction of Matters: But afterwards, it being found by Experience, that the Eldest was not always the Worthiest and Fittest for that purpose, it came to pass, that the place devolved not any longer by Seniority, but was conferred by Election: And in this S. Ambrose (if it be he, and not rather Hillary) in his Comment on the fourth to the Ephesians is plain. Vid. Sixt. Senens. Bibl. Sanct. l. 6. annot. 324.

And admitting that all the Presbyters were called Bishops, as undoubtedly at first they were, it is easie to conceive how the first Presbyter came to be called the Bishop, and at last, for Distinction-sake, to have the Name of Bishop so appro∣priated to him, that the rest retained only the Denomination of Presbyters. But all this while the Bishop was but the first Presbyter, and had no more Authority in the College of Presbyters, than is allowed to S. Peter in the College of the Apostles, by all Protestants. Even Epiphanius himself (if we may believe Danaeus) was at last compelled to confess, That in the Time and Age of the Apostles, no such Distinction [as that is which you contend for,] was to be found between the Bishops and Presbyters.

Again, though all the Presbyters in every Church had like Authority to Preach and Rule, (both Functions being comprehended in the Episcopacy assigned to them, 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3.) yet some of them being better qualifyed for the one, and some for the other, it is probable, that they exercised their different Talents accordingly; some of them more in the one, and some more in the other. This (as strange as you may make it) seems plainly intimated in that Injunction of the Apostles, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrin: For here is a plain Distinction of Elders, of which some being better at Ruling, and some at preaching, they exercised themselves according to the Talent they had; those that were better at Ruling, in Ruling, and those that were better at Preaching, in labouring in the Word and Doctrin.

And since Labouring in the Word and Doctrin had the special Honour, no Question but the first Presbyter, as most honourable, was always of the number of those that laboured that way; so that the Bishop was the Pastour also, or Preaching Elder, that is, the Preaching Spiritual Work became appropriated to him, at first Eminently, but afterwards entirely; and then nothing lay in Com∣mon between him and the Presbyters but only Rule. And this is what I can ga∣ther from Scripture of the Apostolical Settlement.

Upon the whole it is evident, That a Diocesan Bishop was unknown in the first Age of the Church, and the only Bishop to be found then, was the Presbyter; which is further confirm••d, in that the Scot••, who received the Knowledg of Christianity very early, even in that Age, had not any Knowledge for many Ages after, that appears, o•• any but Presbyterian Jurisdiction. Even Bishop Spotiswood, in his History of the Church of Scotland, tells us out of Boethius, and Boethius from Ancient Annals, of the Culdees, or Ancient Scottish Priests and Monks (who, he believes, were called Culdees, not because Culteres Dei, as most think, but be∣cause they lived in Cells, their Names, as he says, being Kele-Dei and not Culdei, in old Bulls and Rescripts.) He says of these Culdees, That they were wont for their better Government to elect one of their Number by common Suffrage to be the Chief and Princip••l among them, without whose Knowledge and Consent no∣thing was done in any Matter of Importance, and the Person so Elected was called Scotorum Episcopus, a Scots Bishop; and this was all the Bishop that he could find in the first Times: But B••cha••an is plainer, who tells us, That no Bishop (to wit an Order superiour to that of the Presbyters) ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Paliadius his Time; the Church (says he) unto that Time was Governed by Monks, without Bishops, with less Pride, and outward Pomp but greater Simplicity and Holiness

Thus I have E••idenced what the S••a••e of Things was in the first Times of the Christian Churches, to wit, that those were governed by Presbyteries, in which all the Presbyters were equal, and all Bishops, only, for Order-sake, there was a first Presbyter, who having more Care and more Work, had yet no more Authority and Power than any other; but as the best Men are but Flesh and Blood, and the best Institutions lyable to Rust and Canker, so these were not exempted; there was a Diotrephes in the Apostles own Times, and those that followed him improved upon the Example: The first Presbyter soon became advanced into ano∣ther Order, and from being First, commenced Prince of the Presbyters.

We are told by D••naeus, who citeth Epiphanius (and he might have cited others) that this Departure from the Primitive Institution began in Alexand••ia; and it is very probable, That the Appointment of twelve Presbyters, besides a President (for so Eutichius assures us it was there) did give occasion to the President, who easily took the Hint, to challenge to himself the Place and Authority of Christ, when the very Number of Presbyters, over whom he presided, made it manifest that they were an Imitation of the Apostles. But whether other Churches took their Pattern from that of Alexandria or no, 'tis easie to conceive in what manner, and by what means the Mistake might gain upon them: For after the first Presbyter

became elected, and consequently was separate by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, no wonder he was ••oon taken for an Officer of another Order, much Su∣periour unto that of the Presbyters, who was distinguished from them by that To∣ken of a new Ordination, and was in place above them. Ay, it is highly pro∣bable, That the first Recess from the Primitive Institution, even in Alexandria, began this way, if that be true that Grotius hath observed, That the Election of the President Presbyter came not in use there but after the Death of Mark: So that it was not (as Eu••ichius reports it,) an Institution of this Evangelist.

But what way soever this Alteration had its beginning, one may be tempted (if the Epistles going under the name of Ignatius be indeed his) to think that it had it very early; for this Father doth every where speak of the Bishop in respect of the Presbyters, as of God in respect of Christ, and of Good or Christ in respect of the College of the Apostles; and these are such Magnificent Expressions of Su∣periority, that though they proceeded not from any Elation of mind in him that used them at first, and used them perhaps but as Rhetorick, yet they could not but occasion other Sentiments in others, viz. as of the Bishops being of a Superiour Order, so, of something of Domination and Lordship in his Office.

And yet how great soever the Degeneracy was in the Time of Ignatius, or very near it, it was not so great then as in the following Ages; Ignatius his Bishop for all the Gawdiness in which he dresses him, was only a Congregational, not a Dio∣cesan Bishop; those first Times knew nothing of the Diocesan Princely Prelate, even the President, that Iustin Martyr mentions, was but a Congregational Pastour.

That Ignatius his Bishop was only Pastour of a single Congregation is evident in many Passages, but I will cite but two or three to evince it. The first is in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he speaks of the Prayer of the Bishop, and the whole Church, ascending in Consort unto God; so that the Bishop was the Mouth of the Congregation. And afterward, in the same Epistle, in an Exhorta∣tion to these Ephesians, when he presses them to obey their Bishop, he speaks of them, as of a single Congregation, that could meet together for Acts of Worship. Again, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, whom he also presses to obey their Bishop (for this indeed is the Burthen of all his Epistles,) he plainly speaks of them as of a single Congregation; Do you all assemble and meet (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to∣gether, for so that Expression is rendred 1 Cor. 14 23.

I have shewed what the Primitive Institution was, as to Church-Orders, and have shewed also how and how early, the Alteration that was made in Congrega∣tions came on; It was first a Presbytery, and the Senior Presbyter the President; then a Presbytery, and the President elected, but still a Presbyter; afterward a President and no Presbyter, not an Ab Beth din, but a Nasi; not a Senior Pres∣byter, but a Prince, or chief over the Presbytery. And certainly one need to have but a little Experience, in the Course of things, to make a clear and distinct Conception of what hath been said upon this Subject. That which remains to com∣pleat the Discourse, is to shew the same way, from Common Principles, how the Ecclesiastical Prelate, (or that Bishop over several Congregations) of the better

fort, such as Cyprian, Augustin, &c. (if indeed they were such) did first spring up.

I conceive (with submission to better Judgments) that this Bishop (of whom we read nothing that I know of in the first Age, or till towards the end [if then] of the second,) arose from the large Progression, and spreading of Chri∣stianity; for then in great Cities, and their Appendages, the number of Professors grew so great, that all could no longer meet together in one place, to Celebrate Divine Offices, so that necessity compelled them to divide into several Congrega∣tions; which, if settled, must have several Officers, as Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons; yet still the Bishop of the Mother Congregation as he had the main hand (which is to be presumed) in forming and settling the Daughter Churches, so he still pretended to keep an Authority and Jurisdiction over them.

And this indeed had something of a Resemblance unto the Apostles; who as they planted many Churches, so they had always a Care of them; but how far the Analo∣gy will hold, or where it strikes out, I shall not trouble you now to say; It is enough for the present to have shewed, that Ecclesiastical Prelates had not Aposto∣lical Institution, and that, at best, they arose but by Occasions, and Prudentially only, upon the Increase of Believers.

What confirms this Notion is, That we never read in the first Age, and but rarely (if ever) in the second, of Bishops that pretended it of themselves, or that were affirmed by others, to be the Successors of the Apostles. In those first times, no such Pretentions had place; but afterwards, when necessity arose in the Churches of sending out their Colonies, then the Bishops of those Churches, that sent them out, soon found, in the Jurisdiction of the Apostles, something, that by way of Analogy, and with a little stretching might serve to countenance theirs, over those that they had settled.

These are the Sentiments I have as to the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy; in which I have made evident what Episcopacy it is I do believe is ••ure Divino, and what not: But I intend not to Discourse now of the Ius Ecclesiasticum, by which only a Diocesan Bishop, or of the Ius Civile, by which the Lord Bishop is Consti∣tuted. My Province now, is only to shew, what I have shewed, that the Presby∣ter is the only Bishop Iure Divino & Apostolico; and that Prudential Considera∣tions only made the Prelate, first the Congregational, and afterward the Diocesan Prelate, of the better sort. And in these Assertions I have my Vouchers, and those Fathers, and Fathers as learned, and as Pious as any Churches ever owned, and cited too by Bishop Iewell.

Verily (saith he) Chrysostom saith,

Inter Episcopum & Presbyterum interest fermè nihil, Between a Bishop and a Priest▪ in a manner, there is no difference.

S. Hierom saith somewhat in a rougher sort:

Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos, Presbyteris, id est, Episcopis anteferret, cum Apostolus perspicue doceat, ••os∣dem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos. I hear say there is one become so peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops: whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us, that Priests and Bishops are all one.

S. Augustin saith,

Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Prepbyter, hoc est, summus Sacer∣dos? What is a Bishop but the first Priest, that is to say, the High Priest?

So saith S. Ambrose,

Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est: Vterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus est. There is but one Consecration of Prie••••, and Bi∣shop, for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is the first.

And to what these Fat••ers say, we may add the Testimony of Learned Grotius, who, for the Reputation he hath justly gained in the World, o•• great Know∣ledge, and exact Criticism, may possibly signifie somewhat with you. He in his Epistle to Bigno••ius commending that of Cl••ment, which I have often cited; a∣mong other Considerations that induced him to approve thereof, as Genuine, notes this as a main one, Quid ••us••qu••m me••••nit exortis iliius Episcoporum auctori∣tais quae Ecclesiae Consuetudine post Marci mortem Alex n••••iae, atque ••o Exemplo ali∣bi introduci coepit, sed-pla••è ut Paulus Apostolus, ostendit Ecclesias Communi Prisbyte∣ro••um, qui iidem omnes & Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur Consi••io ••uisse Gubenatas.

That Clement no where makes any mention in his Epistle, of that Eminent Au∣thority of Bishops, that by the Custom of the Church, began when Mark was dead, to be introduced at Alexa••d••ia, and after that Example in other places; but he plainly shews, as the Apostle Paul also does, that the Churches were [then] governed by the Common Council of the Elders, all of which are stiled Bishops by him, as well as by S Paul.

By what I have said you may see how little Satisfaction I received in the Proofs you gave me of the early distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, for none of them do reach home unto the First Age, and to the D••ocesan Prelatical Bishop; and if they did, would move me but little. For as for Tertullian, he more than seems to be on my side, when speaking of the Christian Congregations, both as to their Discipline and Government, and to their Worship, he says, Praesident probati quique seniores, Hon remistum non pretio, sed Testimonio adepti; That the Presbyters have the Rule and Government in them.

As for Clemens Alexandrinus his Imitations of the Angelical Glory [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in which you do imagine you have found the orders of the Celestial Hierarchy, imitated in the Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon; this is but a Flourish of Rhetorick in that Father; who though in his Pedagogue he speaks of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, as also of Widows; yet in his Stromata (Lib. 6. & 7.) where he treats of the Ecclesiastical Orders more at large, he mentions but Two, the Presbyters, and Deacons, and plainly intimates, that the Bishop was only a Presbyter honoured with the first Seat.

But I am much surprized at your Citation of the Emperor Adrian his Epistle to Servianus recorded by Phlegon, and related by Vopiscus; for certainly it appears by that Epistle that Adrian had but little Acquaintance with the Egyptian Chri∣stians, and then, his Authority is of as little moment; or else, these Christians were of the worst of Men; for he represents them, as well as the other Inhabi∣tants of Egypt, to be a most seditious, vain, and most Injurious sort of Men, and particularly says, That those which Worship Serapis were Christians, and that the Bishops of Christ were devoted unto Serapis: He adds, That the very Patri∣arch

(Ipse ille Patriarcha) coming into Egypt, was constrained of some to Wor∣ship Serapis, and others (to Worship) Christ. Was ever any thing more viru∣lently said of Christians? and indeed more mistakingly? for as for the Devotion of their Bishops to Serapis, I cannot imagine any occasion that these Christians should give, which, with any Colour, should render them suspected of that Ido∣latry, but their Signing with the Sign of the Cross; and this might, it being a way of professing Christianity, that at that Time was newly become the Mode, and probably it had the Fate of New Modes, which is, to be approved of by some, and be rejected and nick-named of others.

I am the more inclined to think that this Story of Serapis had some relation to the Christian Bishops, who signed with the Sign of the Cross, because I find in Pignorius, in his Exposition of the Mensa Isaica, that Serapis was used to be de∣noted by a Cross, Vrceo (says he) superne infixa Crux Serapidem notat. And says Rhodiginus, Lect. ant. l. 10. c. 8, 9. figuram ejusmodi; (speaking of the Cross) Serapidis pectori insculp••bant Egyp••ii: Adding, out of Suidas, That in the time of the Emperour Theodosius, when the Temples of the Greeks were destroyed, there were found in the Sacrary of Serapis certain Hieroglyphic Letters which resembled a Cross. But to let this pass, I see no cogency in the Citation you make from the Emperour Adrian to evidence any such Distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter to have been in that time as is in ours, and as you do plead for; for in that Epistle there is only the Name of Bishop and Presbyter, without any specifi∣cation of Office signified by it, either as to its Nature or Limits; a••d possibly some will tell you, That by the Coherence of t••e Epistle, it is not so clear, but that Adrian might intend the same Officers by Bishop and Presbyter. But I have no list to engage in such a Dispute; and therefore hasten to tell you what is above any, that I am,

SIR,

Your Humble Servant.

Notes

• Basil in Rom. in Plat. 32. & alibi.
• Ignat. in Epist. ad Smyrn. & alibi.
• Clem. Epist. ad Corinth.
• Clem. Ep. ad Corinth.
• Cipryan Ep. l. 3. Ep. 9.
• Clem, ••bi supra.
• Hierom. Com. in Ep. 1. ad Cor.
• Lips. tract. de Magist. Vet. Pop. Rom. c. 2.
• Clem. epist. ad. Corinth.
• Dan. Com. in August. de haeres. c. 53.
• Spotiswood Hist. b. 1. f. 4.
• Dan. com••men; ad August. de aeres.
• Gr••••. Epist. 154. ad Gall.