THESE words are Part of the Charge given by St. Paul to Ti­mothy, whom he had intrusted with the Care of the Churches of the Proconsular Asia, when he departed from thence into Macedonia. For, although St. Paul saith, he besought Timothy to abide still at E­phesus; 1 Tim 1. 3. yet we are not to suppose, that his Care extended no farther, than to the Church in that City; seeing, by means of St. Paul's Preaching there, St. Luke affirms, That all Act. 19. 10. they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks: Which can neither be understood of the greater, or lesser Asia; but of that Asia, which lay about Ephe­sus, and whereof it was the [...]. Chrysost. in Ep. ad Ephes. Certum est celeberrimam illam civitatem pri­mas semper tenuisse inter [...]nes hujus Dioeceseos Metropoles. Berter. Diatrib. 1. c. 2. [...], in Nummis Galieni, Saloninae, Gordiani apud Holsten. not. in Steph. Byzant. p. 123. [...] seu Primae vulgò Graecis dictae quae Romanis Metropoles, seu Gentis Capita. Ezek. Spanhem. de Numism. dissert. 9. p. 885. chief Me­tropolitan City, the [Page 2] Prima Civitas sed que Proconsuli [...]. Holsten. Ephesum verò, alterum lumen Asiae remotio­res conveniunt. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 4. c. 29. Roman Proconsul keeping his ordinary Residence there, and holding those Solemn Courts, to which the Inhabitants of that Province were obliged to resort. But withall, this was the Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 13. Principal City in the Common Assembly of Asia, Strab. l. 14. Aristid. Orat. de Con­cord. ad Civit. Asiat. a Place of great Trading, the Seat of the most Magnificent Temple of Diana, H. Va­les. not. in Eu­feb. l. 4. c. 13. where the Citizens of Asia met to Worship; on all which Ac­counts, there was a great Concourse of Peo­ple thither from the parts thereabouts. It is no wonder therefore St. Paul should fix his abode so long in this City Act. 20. 31. for about the space of three years in all. And yet a long time for him, considering the quickness of his Pro­gress in other places, Bar. An. Dom. 46. n. 12. some allowing no longer time to his first Peregrination, ( Usser. Annal. A. D. 45, 46. Jac. Cappell. Centur. prima Eccles. Chri­stian. A. D. 43. 45. o­thers not so much) wherein he and Barnabas planted Churches in Act. ch. 13 & 14. Seleucia, Cyprus, Pi­sidia, Pamphylia and Lycaonia, Act. 14. 23. and ordai­ned Elders in every Church with Fasting and Prayer: from whence it is very reasonable to infer,

(1.) That this Church at Ephesus was cer­tainly beyond the compass of a particular Congregation; or else St. Paul had very little success in all the Pains he took there; which [Page 3] he so Act. 20. 20. 25. particularly mentions in the solemn leave he took of the Elders of the Church whom he sent for to Miletus. And St. Luke speaking of the Jews and Greeks dwelling in E­phesus, saith, Act. 19. 17. 20. That fear fell on them all, and the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. So mightily grew the Word of God, and prevai­led. And St. Paul himself takes notice, 1 Cor. 16. 8, 9. that at Ephesus a great and effectual Door was open'd unto him. What, for one single Congregational Church to be formed, in so great a City, with all the success St. Paul had in his Preaching there; when, in far less time, he planted so many Churches in other Pla­ces!

(2.) That the Extent of St. Paul's Care did reach beyond the Bounds of the City: it being very improbable, that those of Asia should so long hear St. Paul Preach at Ephe­sus, and yet no Churches be founded, by his means, in any of the neighbour Cities.

But withall, it seems probable to me, that the Elders of those Churches were not as yet removed from Ephesus, where St. Paul ordai­ned them, with a design to fix them in their several Stations; For it is observable, that Act. 10. 17. 20. St. Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church to come to Miletus; whereas, if they had been dispersed, he would have sent to [Page 4] their several Places of abode; and yet when they came to Miletus from Ephesus (which were not far dif­stant, If by Miletus that Place be meant, which is now called Figena, or Scala No­va, as some imagine, that lies but 10 Miles from Ephesus to the South west; but that rather seems to be the Phygela of the Ancients. The Modern Geogra­phers, who make it to be Melasso, are certainly mistaken, not onely because of the too great distance from Ephesus, but be­cause its Situation doth not agree with that of Miletus; for it appears by Livy and Solinus Solin. c. 40., that the Meander ran into the Sea, between Miletus and Priene; and but 10 Stadia from Miletus, saith Pliny Plin. l. 5 c. 29.; but Melasso is a great distance from it. Our latest Travellers think it Palatsha; but Dr. Spon confesses that to be some Miles from the Sea; and therefore it seems yet to lie undiscover­ed in its Ruins, as is well observed by Sir G. Wheler. Ferrarius placeth Ephe­sus at 30 Miles distance, between Smyr­na and Miletus. Spon saith, It is a day and a halfs journey from Ephesus to Pa­latschia. Arrian describes Miletus as not far from Ephesus, and very near the Sea. Voyage du Le­vant. To. 1. p. 359. Wheler's Voy­age into the Lesser Asia, p. 272. Arr. de Expe­dit. Alex. l. 1. he dis­courses to them of his Affairs from the time of his com­ing unto Asia; v. 18. af­ter what manner he had been with them at all Seasons, and had kept back nothing profitable for them v. 20. ; but had shewed them, and taught them pub­lickly, and from house to house. Which being spo­ken to the Elders of the Church, do imply a par­ticular care he had there of fitting Persons for the Pastoral Charge, besides, his Testi­fying both to the Jews and to the Greeks Repen­tance v. 21. towards God, and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And, to these Elders, he not onely commits the Church of Ephesus, but all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had v. 28. made them overseers, i. e. all that had been converted in Asia, through his means, du­ring [Page 5] his adode there. Iren. l. 3. c. 14. Irenaeus understands St. Paul, as though he summon'd them from the Neighbour Cities as well as Ephesus; but St. Paul v. 16. was in so great haste, that he would not so much as go to Ephesus, nor send any whi­ther 17. but to that City; and yet those to whom he committed the whole Flock then in Asia, came from Ephesus to Miletus; which makes it probable, that there St. Paul had raised a Nursery for the Churches thereabout, as Clem. Epist. p. 54. Clemens observes the Apostles were wont to doe in Fruitfull Soils; with a prospect of such Churches as were to be formed. [...]. Now where these were not yet setled, such Persons remained under the. Apostles immediate Care and Instruction, who by their Doctrine and Example, were still pre­paring them for so great a Work. And Clemens takes notice that the Apostles were wont to pitch upon their First-Fruits, or most early Converts; and of these at Ephesus we meet with Twelve Persons, upon whom Saint Paul, at his first coming, laid his hands, and Act. 19. 6. 7. the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with Tongues, and Prophesied. And so were qualified, in an extraordinary manner, to be Teachers of others; and might be in the number of these Elders, whom St. Paul charges to take heed to themselves, and to all [Page 6] the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.

When St. Paul sent for these Elders to Miletus; Timothy was with him: For, we find him amongst those who waited for his return at Act. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Troas, upon his coming back from Macedonia through Greece; and therefore his leaving Timothy at Ephesus, was, when he first went into Macedonia, being forced Act. 20. 1. away by the Uproar that was raised against him there. And in his return through Greece, where he abode three Months, he sends this Epistle to Timothy, then at Ephesus, and ta­king Care of the Churches thereabout: As he afterwards left Titus in Crete, to set in order Tit. 1. 5. the things that were wanting, and to ordain Elders in every City, as he had appointed him. To this purpose he directs this Canonical E­pistle to Timothy; wherein he gives him very particular Directions about the due Exercise of that Apostolical Office, which he was en­trusted with the management of; And espe­cially about these things,

(1) The great regard he ought to have to the Doctrine that was taught by those, who were to instruct others; that thou migh­test charge some, that they teach no other Do­ctrine. 1 Tim. 1. 3.

[Page 7] (2.) The due Performance of the Pub­lick Offices of Divine Worship; that Suppli­cations, Prayers, Intercessions and giving of thanks 1 Tim. 2. 1. 3. be made for all Men; for Kings and for all that are in Authority, &c. And this order Timothy was to see observed in the Churches under his Care.

(3.) The proper Qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons of the Church, as the pro­per Ch. 3. Officers of it under Timothy; who was to take care of fit Men, to succeed those who were then in being, or to provide more.

(4.) The manner of proceeding in Church Censures against Elders and Widows, and open Ch. 5. 1. to the 21th. Offenders: Against an Elder receive not an Ac­cusation, but before two or three Witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Which plainly shews, that there was a Right of Judging and Censuring Offenders in Ti­mothy, by virtue of his Office.

(5.) The Caution to be used, in admit­ting Persons to these holy Functions, the Qualifications whereof he had laid down be­fore: And for this he gives a general charge, to doe nothing in these matters by Partia­lity; v. 21. and then mentions the Consideration and Circumspection necessary in the laying on of Hands; Lay hands suddenly on no man.

[Page 8] Some have thought these words relate to the Reconciliation of Penitents, and not to the Ordi­nation of the Bishops and Deacons before mentioned; because it immediately follows, neither be partaker of other mens sins; but I see no Cause to recede from the Sense gene­rally received, for these Reasons,

(1.) Because St. Paul had not mentioned laying on of hands in relation to Penitents; but he had done it in this Epistle, with re­spect to Ordination; and that in Timothy's own Case; wherein St. Paul as the principal Person did in an Authoritative manner, lay on his hands, as himself expresses it, in the se­cond Epistle; and the Presbyters assisted in 2 Tim. 1. 6. laying on their hands, to manifest their con­currence and Approbation: but the laying on of hands is no where in these Epistles, appli­ed 1 Tim. 4. 14. to the other Sense; nor in any other place of Scripture.

(2.) If these words do not relate to Ordi­nation, St. Paul would have given Timothy no particular direction, about that which was one main part of his Office. As it is ex­pressed concerning Titus, That he was ap­pointed to ordain Elders in every City: And no doubt Timothy had the same Commission, which is no where intimated but in these wo [...]

[Page 9] (3.) Supposing, laying on of hands then equally used in both Cases, yet the Apostle gives no Rules concerning the Qualifications of Penitents, as he doth concerning Bishops and Deacons; and therefore we have more cause to apply it according to the chief in­tention and design of this Epistle; but he saith nothing before, what Penitents were to be reconciled; and after what time, and under what Conditions they were to have hands laid on them in token of Reconciliation. And there is no concurrent Evidence of such a Practice, so early in the Christian Church.

(4.) The following words are capable of a very good meaning, acccording to this Sense. For then being partaker of other mens Sins, doth imply, that as it is a Fault in those who rudely, and inconsiderately, without due preparation of Mind, do rush upon so Sacred an Office; so those cannot acquit themselves of a great share in their Guilt, who do not use their best endeavours, by due Exa­mination and Trial of the Persons, to keep them from entring upon it, till they are pre­pared and qualified for it.

(5.) The great use of the laying on of hands in the New Testament, is for the setting Persons apart for the discharge of a Sacred Office. So, when the Office of Deacons was [Page 10] first instituted, it is said, They were set before Act. 6. 6. the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And which is more considerable; when Barnabas and Paul, by the particular appointment of the Holy Ghost, were to be separated unto the Work whereto God Act. 13. 2, 3. had called them; it is said, And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Here it was not for mi­raculous Cures, as the Apostles sometimes used Mark 16. 18 Act. 28. 8. Act. 8. 15. 15. 19. 6. it to Sick Persons; nor for conferring mira­culous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, as at other times they used it; (and probably this was the Gift of God which Timothy had, by laying on of the 2 Tim. 1. 6. Apostles hands;) neither was it a mere Rite of Benediction, as Jacob laid his hands on the sons of Joseph; and our Saviour on the Chil­dren Gen. 48. 14. Mark 10. 26. when he blessed them; but it was a solemn Rite of Dedication of particular Persons to God, when they are set apart for the Exer­cise of a Function which immediately related to his Service. I confess, that among the Jews, it was not used in the Consecration of Exod. 29. 9, 10. 15. 19. Priests; For, Aaron and his sons were to lay their hands on the Sacrifices that were offered on that occasion, and particularly on the Ram of Consecration; but the Ceremony was performed by putting some part of the Ra [...], Lev. 8. 14. 18. 22. and the Cakes, and the Wafer upon Aaron's [Page 11] hands, and his sons hands. For the Priest­hood 26. 27. 28. of the Law being a Work of the hands, the Ceremony was very fitly applied to them; but that of the Gospel being more intellec­tual and spiritual, the laying on of hands on the Heads of the Persons devot [...]d thereto, was more agreeable to the design of it. And this was an ancient Custome among the Jews in employments of the highest nature. So Moses laid his hands on Joshua; and then it is said, that he was full of the Spirit of Wisedom, Numb. 27. 18. 23. Deut. 34. 9. for Moses had laid his hands on him: and from hence it came to be an usual Ceremony a­mong the Jews, in the Solemn Designation of Persons for Sacred Employments, either to be Rulers or Teachers in their Synagogues. And from thence it was not onely brought into the Christian Church, but made use of to express that Right and Authority which Persons do re­ceive together with it, for the Exercise and Discharge of their Ministerial Function.

So that from these Words, there are Three things considerable to be spoken to,

(I.) The Nature of the Office to which they are ordained, by laying on of hands.

[Page 12] (II.) The Authority here supposed in Ti­mothy, to admit Persons to this Office, by laying on of hands.

(III.) The great Care and Circumspection necessary for the right performing it; Lay hands suddenly on no man.

(I.) The Nature of the Office; which may relate both to Bishops and Deacons before men­tion'd; But the principal parts of that Office, which is here chiefly meant, are by St. Paul said to be these two; Ruling well, and Labour­ing in the Word and Doctrine. v. 17.

(1.) Ruling well; Not, in opposition to Timothy, who was to Rule them well; nor so as to imply, that the entire Power of Govern­ment was lodged in a College of Presbyters Hier. Com­ment. in Epist. ad Tit. then, as St. Jerome imagins; for what had Ti­mothy then to doe in the governing them? I cannot find any Argument of Force in the New Testament, to prove, that ever the Chri­stian Churches were under the sole Govern­ment of Presbyters. For what St. Jerome al­ledgeth, doth by no means prove it: I grant he proves, That the Name of Bishop and Pres­byter were at that time common to the same Per­sons; But what then? Suppose the Bishop and [Page 13] Elder here in Timothy's Epistle were the same: Doth this prove, that these Govern'd the Church without Timothy? The true Question is not, about the Sense of Words, but about the Authority of these Bishops or Presbyters, i. e. Whether the whole Care of their Churches were committed to them, without any Supe­riour Jurisdiction? What if it be yielded to St. Jerome, That the Bishops and Deacons at Phil. 1. 1. Philippi were no other than the Presbyters and Deacons; as long as the Apostle, either in Per­son, or by some other appointed by himself, did rule over them? What, if the Bishops summon'd to Miletus, were no other than the Pas [...]ours and Teachers? Did not St. Paul him­self, Act. 20. 28. at that very time, call them together, and give a Charge and Direction to them, as one who had Authority over them? So that it doth no where appear in Scripture, that the Presbyters were invested in the Supreme Power over the Church.

But yet they were not excluded from all kind of share in the Government, for then they could never be said to Rule well, who had no­thing at all to doe in Government: And those who are under a Supreme may be called. Go­vernours, and are to be obey'd according to 1 Pet. 2. 14. the Nature of their Authority; which doth relate to Men in another capacity, and for [Page 14] very different ends from what Civil Govern­ment doth.

For the Church is a Society in its Na­ture, Design, Duties, Offices, Censures, really distinct from any mere Humane In­stitution. And no Christian, who believes that the Kingdom of the Messias was to be an external, visible Kingdom, can be of another Opinion. And although Christ be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there­fore Revel. 17. 14. 19. 16. as Kings they are subject to him; yet that Authority which Christian Kings do exercise over their Subjects, doth not over­throw the Rules and Orders which himself hath establish'd in his Church. For no Power derived from him can void or destroy his own Laws and Institutions. Since then the Church doth subsist by virtue of Christ's own Appointment, and that Church is to have peculiar Officers to instruct and go­vern it, it must follow, that even in a Christi­an Kingdom, the Church is a Society distinct from the Common-wealth.

(2.) Labouring in the Word and Doctrine. Not to distinguish them from another sort of Elders, whom St. Paul never thought of: For he knew of none but such as were set apart by laying on of hands, and therefore de­dicated to the Work of the Ministery; and [Page 15] if St. Paul's Bishop and Elder were the same, they must have the same qualifications; and one of the chief of them is, that he be apt to teach; so that they may as well plead for a Lay Bishop, as for a Lay Elder; or else the El­der must be one apt to teach, if the same with 1 Tim. 3. 2. the Bishop.

But some may say, ‘There was then indeed great need of labouring in the Word and Doctrine, when the Christian Doc­trine was not well known, or understood in the World; But what necessity is there of it now, when all People own the Professi­on of Christianity among us? And this continual Preaching doth but fill the Peo­ples heads with too much Knowledge, and makes them more opinionative, and less capable of being governed.’

To which I Answer, If Christ appointed Preachers onely for the Conversion of Infidels, this Argument would have great force: But the Apostle tells us, That Christ hath appointed in his Church, not onely Apostles and Evangelists, but Pa­stours Ephes. 4. 11, 12. and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, and for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 13. [Page 16] Man, unto the measure of the stature of the full­ness of Christ. Therefore as long as the Church is in its imperfect State, as long as it may want Unity or Knowledge, or Improvement, this Office of Teachers is to continue. And those Elders will still deserve double honour, who do not perfunctorily and rarely dis­charge this Duty, but who do labour in the Word and Doctrine.

There are indeed many sorts of Preach­ing, which the Church stands in no need of, because they tend so little to Edifica­tion: Such are all fine Harangues in the Pulpit, i. e. Words well put together with­out suitable Matter; All dry, flat, insipid Discourses, about things of no great con­sequence to Mens Salvation; All affectations of Jingling Sentences, Farfetched Allusions, Elaborate Trifles; All impertinent Disputes about needless, vain, intricate Controversies; All Enthusiastick unintelligible Talk, which tends to confound Mens Notions of Religi­on, and to evaporate the true Spirit of it into Fancies and Eastern Modes of speaking: Lastly, All Corrupt and Seditious Doctrine, which Poisons the Minds of People, with dangerous Errours, or Factious Princi­ples.

[Page 17] But setting all these aside, there remains a Grave, Serious, Pious, Affectionate, Con­vincing way of Preaching; which is pro­fitable, in its degree, for the same ends for which the holy Scripture is usefull, viz. for Doc­trine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in 2 Tim. 3. 16. Righteousness, i. e. for the best purposes in the World. And can any think such a Work to be now unnecessary, as long as Men have Consciences to be awaken'd, Errours to be confuted, Vices to be reform'd, and stand so much in need of good direction in the way to Heaven?

Can we be employ'd about a better or more usefull Work than this? While the Souls of those under our Care, are in such perpetual danger, either of being overspread with Errours, or overcome with Temptati­ons, or overset with Difficulties, or over­whelmed with Fears? When should the Pi­lots shew their Skill and Courage, and Dili­gence, but when the Sea is rough, and the Weather Tempestuous, and Banks of Sand appear of one side, and Rocks on the other, and so many Wrecks before them; and the common Mariners are bold and unskilfull, unable to govern, and impatient of being govern'd? Is it time then to say, There is no need of Pilots now, but they may lie in their [Page 18] Cabins and sleep, for the Ship will steer it self well enough, and the Mariners cannot fail of their Duty, as long as the Coasts are known, and the Rocks have been discover'd to them?

It is very true, that the way to Heaven is not now hard to find; but it is no easie mat­ter to bring Men to look in earnest after it, or to keep them in it. And here lies the main of our Work of Preaching; We are not to teach Men new Doctrines, but to Clear, De­fend, and Apply the old, to the Consciences of Men. It is very easie to shoot over the Peoples heads, and to spend an hour to lit­tle or no purpose; but it requires all our skill to Preach plainly without flatness; and to set the Matters of Religion in the best light, and to recommend them to the Minds of People, with the greatest force of Persua­sion. It is no hard matter to trifle away the time, but it is not so to speak Suitably, Warmly and Effectually to the Hearts of our Hearers; to make them find the same effect of our Preaching, which the two Dis­ciples did, when Christ unknown was dis­coursing with them; When they said to one another, Did not our hearts burn within us while Luk. 24. 32. he talked with us, and while he open [...]d to us the Scriptures? That is then the best way of [Page 19] Preaching, which hath Light and Heat to­gether; which clears the Scriptures to the Peoples Capacities, and warms their Aff [...]c­tions to Spiritual things. And it is hardly possible to mistake, as to the best Method of Preaching, if Men do but judge aright con­cerning the End and Design of it. For there must be Strength and Clearness to convince; and a close Application to Mens Conscien­ces, to Excite and Persuade them to the Practice of those things which Men can hard­ly be ignorant of, and yet are very backward to doe. And therefore this must be the chief Work and Business of our Preaching.

Which none ought to undervalue or be asham'd of, who do in earnest believe God and another World; none ought to neg­lect, whose peculiar Office and Dignity it is to take Care of Mens Souls; and none will be careless in it, who have a regard to their own or others Souls. For in doing this, 1 Tim. 4. 16. saith St. Paul to Timothy, speaking of his dili­gence in his Function, Thou shalt both sav [...] thy self and them that hear thee; as though a Man's own Salvation, and that of his Hear­ers, went together. That is indeed the most desirable thing in the World to be the Instru­ments of carrying Souls to Heaven; for they Dan. 12. 3. who convert many to righteousness, shall shine as [Page 20] the stars for ever and ever: but yet, the most carefull Endeavours do not always meet with Success; and even our Blessed Saviour's Preaching, who spake as never man spake, was ineffectual to many; (What then may we expect!) But this is our Duty, and the most likely way of doing good to Souls, as ap­pears by our Saviour's own Practice; and if we do not meet with success to our desires, let us not give over doing our Duty; and say, We have labour'd in vain, and spent our Isa. 49. 4. strength for nought and in vain; for surely our judgment is with the Lord, and our Work with our God, as the Prophet speaks; and if we fail of a Recompence in this World, we shall not in another.

II. And so I come from the Nature of the Office, to the Authority of Conferring it; these words implying it to belong to Timothy, as being spoken particularly to him, Lay hands suddenly on no man. For although he often speaks of the Bishops and Elders before; yet he gives no charge about Ordination, but one­ly to Timothy.

‘True, some say, in this particular Case; but this was by virtue of an Extraordinary Commission given to him, as an Evangelist by St. Paul: But what is this to the stand­ing [Page 21] Rule and Practice of the Church in succeeding Ages? which is not to be go­vern'd by su [...]h Precedents, unless the Suc­cession in the same Office be made appear in the following Bishops of the several Churches.’

(I. Consid.) That from hence appears evi­dently, That the Apostolical Power of Governing Churches, and Ordaining Elders in them, was not limited to the Persons of the Apostles, but was capable of being communicated to o­thers whom the Apostle entrusted with it. And this is a very material Point, to Prove, that this Power was not so peculiar to the Apostles, but it might be transmitted to o­thers, and therefore might be continued in the Church.

But the great Objection against Timothy's being a Pattern for Episcopal Power, is this; ‘That it appears by Scripture, he was sent up and down to several Places, as St. Paul thought fit. For he took him into his at­tendance at Act. 16. 3. Lystra; from whence he accompanied him through [...]. Phrygia, Ga­latia, [Page 22] Macedonia, (and 12. 17. 1. 10. there from Philip­pi to Thessalonica and Ber [...]) And when he went to Ath [...]ns, he v. 15. sent for Timothy to him, and sent him from thence back to Thessalonica; and he returned from 1 Thes. 3. 1. 2. Ma­cedonia to him Act. 18. 5. at Corinth. From thence St. Paul went into 18. Syria, and so to 19. E­phesus; and there again he sent Timothy in­to Act. 19. 22. (20. 1. Macedonia with Erastus; whither St. Paul went afterwards himself. And upon his return to Miletus, he speaks to the El­ders, and not to Timothy, as their Bishop. From hence, they say, St. Paul took him to Jerusalem, and so to Rome, as appears by the Epistles Written from thence.’

From this Series of the Story they con­clude Timotby to have been onely an Evange­list, and not a fixt Bishop.

To which I Answer; That the frequent removes of Timothy, before this Epistle to him at Ephesus, are not material to this pur­pose. But it is very material to consider, what Power of Government St. Paul then committed to him. Which is a certain Proof, that such a Power was not [...]o pecu­liar to the Apostles, by vertue of their imme­diate Commission from Christ, but it might [Page 23] be delegated to others in their stead. Whe­ther for a longer or shorter time, whether while the Apostles went up and down, or near their Decease, makes no difference, as to the Point of Delegation. And if it be gran­ted, that such an Apostolical Power of Go­verning Churches might be committed to others, and was actually so by the Apostles; then there is no more to be done, but to en­quire, whether upon their Remove, or De­parture, they did entrust any Persons in such a manner, as it is certain from Scripture Saint Paul did Timothy, as to the Churches of Asia, when he went into Macedonia.

Some think, that St. Paul's leaving Timothy at Ephesus, was upon his return out of Ma­cedonia, when he was going up to Jerusalem, knowing that they should see his face no more; and that while he staid for him at Troas, he sent this Epistle to him. But St. Paul's words are too plain to be avoided, that he left him at Ephesus, [...], which can never be interpreted returning from Ma­cedonia. And there was as much need of one to look after the Churches of Asia, when St. Paul was then absent in Macedonia, as when he went to Jerusalem: and so Theo­dor. Praefat. in Epist. Pau­li. Theo­doret understands it. But if Timothy were then with St. Paul, as appears by his being [Page 24] at Act. 20. 4. 5. Troas, when he went from thence to Miletus, that was sufficient Reason why he did not address himself to him, but to the Elders which came from Ephesus; whom he put in mind of their Duty by his Speech, as he had done Timothy by an Epistle not long before directed to him.

Whose Office was no more superseded by this Charge given to them; than a Pro­consuls was by the Senats Instructions to his Legats, when hmself was present.

If it were evidently proved, that St. Paul then carried away Timothy with him to Jeru­salem, and so to Rome, there would be greater force in the Objection. But how doth that appear? Not from Scripture. For when St. Paul appeared at the Temple, the Jews laid hold on him, because they supposed Act. 21. 29. he had brought Trophimus the Ephesi­an with him into the Temple, whom they had seen so much with him in the City. How came Timothy not to be as much taken notice of, if he were there? For, he being disco­vered by the Jews of Asia, there was far greater Reason for them to have raised a Tumult about Timothy, than about Trophi­mus.

After this, we find Act. 24. 27. St. Paul kept two years in Prison, and not a word of Timothy, [Page 25] whom we may justly suppose exercising his Charge all that time at Ephesus. When Saint Paul was carried to Rome, we find not Timo­thy in his Company; no mention being made of him till he Wrote the Epistles to the Phil. 1. 1. Philippians and Coloss. 1. 1. Colossians, and then Timothy was with him. For St. Paul had sent for him from Ephesus in his Second 2 Tim. 4. 9. E­pistle; where, in all probability, he remained till that time. During his stay at Rome those Epistles were Written, as likewise that to Phi­lemon, and to the Hebrews; in which it is said, Heb. 13. 23. That he had been Imprison'd, and was then at Liberty; and intended shortly to return into the Eastern Parts. From henceforwards we read nothing of Timothy in Scripture. But Hier. in Catal. St. Jerome himself makes him Bishop of the Ephesians, and so doth Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. Eusebius; The­od. in 1 Tim. 3. 1. Theo­doret calls him, The Apostle of those in Asia; and St. Chrys. in 1 Tim. 5. 19. Hom. 15. Chrysostome saith, The whole Peo­ple of Asia were committed to his Charge, i. e. of this Proconsular Asia, which lay about E­phesus.

And now let any reasonable Man consider, whether there be not sufficient Proof, that the Apostolical Power of Governing Churches was communicated to others besides the A­postles themselves; and consequently there [Page 26] might be a Succession in that Power, in as many as the Apostles thought fit.

It is confessed by some Walo. Messal. c. 1. p. 40. 50. 81. That there were Secondary Apostles, such as besides Timothy and Titus, Linus, Clemens and Epaphroditus are said to have been; but these are called Itinerant Preachers, and not fixed Bishops. But the same Persons observe from Theo­doret. in Ar­gum. Epist. 1. ad Timoth. Theodoret, not onely that these were called Bishops af­terwards; but that the Reason why St. Paul Wrote Epistles to some, and not to others, was, because some he took with him, and others he en­trusted with the Government of Churches. [...], which can hardly agree to Itinerant Preachers.

But it is said, These Secondary Apostles were not sent by Christ, but by the Apostles. And what then? Would the Apostles betray their Walo, & c. p. 5 [...]. Trust, and commit part of that charge to o­thers, which was entrusted onely to them­selves? But if this Office were by the Will of Christ appropriated to the Persons of the Apostles, they could not commit it to others without breach of Trust. [...]nd if it were not so, then this Power might be commu­nicated to as many as the Apostles judged convenient; and so (as I said before) we have nothing farther to doe, but to enquire, whether at their removal from particular [Page 27] Churches, they did not put this Power in­to the Hands of others.

(II. Consid.) Whether the Apostles, upon their withdrawing, did pass this Power over to others, as St. Paul did plainly in the Case of Timothy and Titus, is a matter of Fact; and to be proved in such a manner as such a thing is capable of. We find plainly, the Apostles had this Power in themselves, and did convey it to some others; but whether Universally, and with a design to continue this Order, must be proved by the best means, we can doe a matter of Fact of so great Antiquity.

(III. Consid.) There can be no stronger Proof of such a matter of Fact, than the general sense of the Christian Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles.

(1.) It is not necessary to prove from Scripture, that the Apostles did observe the same method in all Churches; which we find, as to the Churches of Ephesus and Crete. For we have no such particular account, as to the other Churches; but we are certain [Page 28] St. Paul would doe no irregular thing, nor communicate an Office to others, which was to expire with themselves.

(2.) It is not at all necessary, to prove, that all the Bishops mention'd in Scripture had this Apostolical Power; for the contrary appears in the Bishops under Timothy and Ti­tus: and therefore the Succession is not to be drawn from the Bishops mentioned in the Epistles to them, but from themselves; the want of considering this one Point, hath caused more perplexity in the Controversie about Episcopacy, than any one thing be­sides.

(3.) It is not necessary that the Succes­sion in this Apostolical Power be made equal­ly clear in all Churches; since the Records of the Church may be more doubtfull and de­fective in some Churches which are not in others. But yet there are these ways to make out the general Sense of the Christian Church, as to this point.

(1.) That the Evidence of the Succession is clear in the most conspicuous Churches, by undoubted Testimonies.

(2.) That those who seemed most doubt­full about the first Succession, do yield the ge­neral [Page 29] Consent of the Church in the Practice of it.

(1.) As to the undoubted Testimonies of this Succession in the most conspicuous Churches; I shall first appeal to Irenaeus and Tertullian, as least liable to Exception. The former not onely mentions a Succession of Persons to the Apostles; but he saith, Qui ab Apostolis ipsis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis—quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias com­mittebant—quos & Successores relinquebant, su­um ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. The Apostles commit­ted the Care of the Chur­ches to them; and left them to succeed in their Places: Which implies, that as the Apostles themselves had the Care of the Church, so they committed it to the Bishops, whom they chose to succeed them. Tertullian not onely mentions those in gene­ral who succeeded the Apostles, but particular­ly instanceth in Polycarp, placed by St. John at Smyrna; and Clemens, by St. Peter at Rome; and then adds, Proinde utique & caeter [...] exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoli­ci seminis traduces habeant. Tert [...]ll. de prae­script. c. 32. That the other Churches had Bishops placed in them like to these. So that what Authority Polycarp had at Smyr­na, or Clemens at Rome, that Tertullian af­firms the Bishops had in other Churches. Now Irenaeus saith, That Clemens had Episcopatum [Page 30] administrandae Ecclesiae, i. e. the Episcopal Pow­er of governing the Church which the Apostles delivered to them. And St. Chrysostome saith of Chry [...]. To. 5. p. 499. Ignatius, That he Received the Government of that Church from the Apostles own hands. And the Commentatour on the Apocalypse, under St. Ambrose's Name, calls the Angels of the Seven Churches, The Governours of those Chur­ches. From all which, we may justly infer, That this Succession was not in mere Presiden­cy of Order, but that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the Government over those Churches. But as Theodoret well observes, The Name of Apostles was not continued, out of Re­verence Theod. ad 1 Tim. c. 3. to the Apostles; but the Name of Bishops was then appropriated to the Successours of the Apostles. Which alteration of the Name, hath proved another great Occasion of the Confusion in this Controversie. But that the Bishops did succeed the the Apostles, we have the general Consent of the Ancient Cyprian. Epist. 3. 66. ed. Ox. Hier. in Psal. 44. ad Evagr. Ep. 85. ad Marcellam. Aug. in Psal. 44. Ambro [...]. in Eph. 4. 11. & in [...] Cor. 12. 28. Fathers, who were the most competent Witnesses in this Case; which is an Argument, they believed the Apostolical Power, with respect to the Go­vernment of Churches, did not expire with the Apostles, but was to continue, as long as Christ had promised to be with them, i. e. to the end of the World. Matt. 28. 20.

[Page 31] (2.) That those who seem'd most doubt­full about the Original of Episcopacy, doe yield the general consent of the Church in the Practice of it. Some few of the Ancients must be allowed to have had singular Fancies and Opinions of their own, about this Matter. And the not yielding this, hath been another great Advantage to the Enemies of Episco­pacy.

But, as to those few among the Fathers, who have advanced singular Opinions about the first Government of Churches, I desire these things may be observed.

(1.) That it is no wonder there should be different Opinions about the Beginnings of things, which are generally very obscure; and therefore thinking Men are apt to frame different Hypotheses about them. As about the Original of Civil Government; some founding it in Dominion and Property; o­thers on Consent of the People; others in a Natural Right of Sovereignty, which one preserves, and the rest part with; others in Primogeniture; and lastly, others most rea­sonably in Divine Providence and Instituti­on. Whilst these things lie onely in Specu­lation, a difference of Opinions is hard to be prevented, and of no such ill consequence to the World: but if Men, from those Spe­culations, [Page 32] draw such Inferences as tend to disturb the Peace of the World, and to with­draw Men from Obedience to Government; then such Opinions are to be looked on as Dangerous and Seditious, and care must be taken to prevent their spreading. So here, about the Rise of Episcopal Government, if the Question were onely a matter of Curiosity, Whether the Apostles did first try the Experiment of Presbyters governing in common, and upon the inconveniencies of that Government set up Bi­shops, as St. Jerome seems to think; or, Whe­ther there were at first a Succession in Course, as another of the Ancients imagin'd, till the inconveniencies of that made a Choice necessa­ry: Sub Nomi­ne Ambros. in c. 4. ad E­phes. If it went no farther than bare Specula­tions, though these Opinions may be both false, yet they are not dangerous: But when any from hence infer, the Episcopal Govern­ment to be an Usurpation, and that Men are bound to restore the Right of Presbyters in opposition to them, notwithstanding the U­niversal Consent of the Church, from the Apostles times; then such Opinions change their Nature, and become mischievous in their Consequences.

(2.) It is a great Argument against these singular Opinions, that they contradict each other; and therefore the General Sense of the [Page 33] Church is to be prefer'd before them. For St. Jerome affirms, That from St. Mark 's time, Hieron. in E­pist. ad E­vagr. 85. in the Church of Alexandria, the Presbyters al­ways chose one of their Body, whom they made their Bishop: So that no such thing could ever be practised there, as a Succession in Course, which the other affirms. And as it is the great Advantage of Monarchy, that it had the General Consent of Mankind in the Eldest times; and that those who would set up Po­pular Government, differ so much in the First Principles and Fundamentals of it; So it is, as to the Government of the Church by Bi­shops, that even these who differ about the First Form, yet agree in the early Change, and the Universal Consent in it.

(3.) If St. Jerome be understood of the setting up Episcopacy in the Apostolical Chur­ches, after the Apostles times, and a trial then made of Governing by Presbyters, he can­not be excused from contradicting himself as well as the rest of the Fathers. For what Experiment was there of that kind in the Church of Alexandria, if from St. Mark 's time, the Presbyters set up one above themselves, as an Army making choice of a General; which are his own Expressions? Will any Man say, An Army is Governed by a Council of Inferi­our Officers, when they have a General over [Page 34] them, though of their own choosing? So in the Church of Jerusalem, he saith. St. James Hieron. ad Gal. 2. & in Script. Ec­cles. was the first Bishop; How was that Church then Governed by a College of Presbyters? At Ephesus, he confesses Timothy was Bishop there; and Titus in Creet In Catalog. . At Rome he makes Linus and Clemens to succeed in the Bishoprick there. At Antioch, he saith, Ignatius was Bishop, and he owns his Epistles, and surely there is nothing like the sole Government by Pres­byters in them. At Smyrna, he saith, Poly­carp was appointed Bishop, and had care of the Churches of Asia. Where then, according to St. Jerome, is this Government by Presbyters to be found after the Apostles times?

(4.) No Man lays down greater Reasons for the Change of this Government, than St. Jerome doth. For he saith, That Episcopacy was found ne­cessary Quod autem poste [...] u [...] electus est qui c [...] ­teris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium fac­tum est, nè unusq [...]isque ad se tra [...]ens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Ad Evagr. to prevent Schisms and disorders, and tear­ing the Church in pieces. What could be said Ut unus de Presbyter is elect us superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclisie cu [...]a pertineret, & Schismatum sensina tollerentur. In Comment. ad Tit. more to the Advantage of any Government than that it was brought in upon the best Reason for Government in the World, viz. the preserving of Peace and Order in the Church? We need not carry the matter so far, as to [Page 35] make St. Jerome charge the Apostles with In­discretion before, in not preventing the first Occasion of Schisms. For he might think, the Presbyters would have thought themselves hardly dealt with, to be excluded from Go­vernment till the Experiment were tried, and the Confusions following convinced them­selves of the Necessity of a Superiour, and so made them more willing to submit. Saint Jerome seems to have had the same kind of Notion of Church Government, which others have of the beginnings of Civil Government, viz. That at first there was a State of War a­mong Mankind, and the inconveniencies of that made men willing to part with their own Rights for the sake of Peace; so these Presbyters, finding so much Disorder and Confusion, by being left to themselves, were far better contented to yield to such Govern­ment as would best keep the Church in Peace.

(5.) St. Jerome yields, that this Alteration of Government did Universally obtain. For no­thing less than that can be meant by his In to­to orbe decretum est: He doth not speak clear­ly, whether he means a Decree of the Apo­stles to bind the Church, or a General Con­sent; but whichsoever be meant, he suppo­ses no difference, or opposition about it. If [Page 36] he had said it was done by the Apostles in plain terms, he had taken away the force of his own Argument, which goes upon the Apostles Times; but yet it is hard to conceive how such an alteration should happen with­out the Apostles Act. For, if they had left the Presbyters in full Power of Government, it is not to be imagin'd, they would so universal­ly part with it, without being obliged there­to, by those who had Authority over them; but this St. Jerome leaves to be gather'd by the Event.

(6.) St. Jerome never supposes this Altera­tion to have been made against any Institu­tion of Christ. All that he saith, is, That there was a time when the Presbyters were left to themselves, and so did Govern the Church by common Consent. And at that time the Apostles Writing to them suppose a Bishop and Presbyter the same: but he never saith that Christ had appointed, that none should be set over them. For then there could be no Alteration with­out Violation of a Law of Christ, which he could never suppose would so universally obtain without opposition. And he never dreamt the setting up of this Government to be any part of the Mystery of Iniquity then working; unless he could imagine the preser­ving the Peace of the Church to be it. On [Page 37] the contrary, St. Jerome makes this Govern­ment in the very same Places to bear an A­nalogy to Aaron and his Sons, and the Levites in the Temple, to Moses and the LXX. Elders under the Law: and in other Places out of the heat of Dispute, when the Roman Deacons were not in his head, he makes the Bishops the Fuerunt O Ecclesia, Apostoli Patres tui—Nunc quia illi recesserunt à mundo, habes pro his Episcopos filios, quia te creati sunt; sunt e­nim & hi Patres tui, quia ab ipsis regeris. Comment. ad Psal. 44 Caeterum omnes Apostolo­rum Successores sunt. Ad Evagr. Apud nos A­postolorum locum Episcopi tenent. Ad Marcel­lam. Successours of the Apo­stles. But if they had come in by Usurpation, he would have called them the Successours of Simon Magus, of Diotrephes, of Caiaphas, and ac­cording to his warm manner of Expression, of Lucifer himself.

(7.) St. Jerome concludes this Alteration to have been made on such good grounds, that all Persons are bound to submit to it, and to be subject to the Bishops as their Spiritual Gover­nours: Nay, he makes the Peace and Welfare of E [...]to subditus Pontifici [...]s & quasi Animae Pa­rentem suscipe. Ad Nepotian. Nec hoc dico quod iftiusmodi Gradibus in Eccle­siâ non debeatis esse subjecti. Quicunque enim ma­ledixerit Patri aut Matri morte morietur. E [...] Apostolus docet P [...]aepositis in Ecclesiâ obediendum. In Mich. c. 7. Ecclesia Salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet, qui si non exores quaedam & ab omnibus eminens-detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientu [...] Schismata, qu [...]t Sacerdotes. Advers. Luci [...]eria­not. the Church to depend upon it. And nothing more can be said in that respect for any Govern­ment, than even St. Je­rome speaks for Episco­pacy.

[Page 38] (IV. Consid.) The Universal Consent of the Church being proved, there is as great Reason to believe, the Apostolical Succession to be of Di­vine Institution, as the Canon of Scripture, or the Observation of the Lord's Day. We do not doubt but it is unlawfull to add to, or to diminish from the Canon of Scripture; and yet there is no plain Text for it, with respect to all the Books contained in it, and some of the Books were a long time disputed in some Churches; but the Churches coming at last to a full Agreement in this matter, upon due search and enquiry, hath been thought suffi­cient to bind all after-Ages to make no Alte­rations in it. And as to the Divine Instituti­on of the Lord's Day, we do not go about to lessen it, but onely to shew, that some Ex­amples in Scripture, being joined with the U­niversal Practice of the Church in its purest A­ges, hath been allowed to be sufficient ground not onely for following Ages to observe it, but to look on it as at least an Apostolical In­stitution. Now it cannot but seem unequal, not to allow the same force, where there is the same Evidence. And therefore our Church hath wisely and truely determined, That since the Apostles times there-have been three Orders, of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; and in a Regu­lar, [Page 39] well constituted Church, are to continue to the World's end.

III. The last thing to be spoken to, is the Care and Circumspection necessary in admitting Persons to the Exercise of this holy Functi­on here mention'd, Lay hands suddenly on no man. And that will appear very reasonable on these accounts, because the Welfare of the Church, the Honour of Religion, and the Sal­vation of Mens Souls depend so much upon those who are admitted to holy Orders; and therefore it is not onely Negligence and Stu­pidity, but Unfaithfulness to the Trust reposed in them, if through their Fault they suffer unfit Men to take upon them to be the Mi­nisters of holy things.

(1.) The Welfare of the Church is so much concerned in it. It is true, some have higher Places, greater Authority, more powerfull In­fluence on the State of the Church than o­thers have; but yet every Wheel must be in its due Order and Motion, or the whole may be easily disturbed. A loose, irregular Clergy have so great Influence on the Minds of some People, with respect to the whole Church, that they will never think well of that Church where such Persons are employ'd. For they will not distinguish the Good and [Page 40] Bad, where it is more suitable to their Interest, and Prejudices not to doe it.

And we find, by too sad Experience, if those who are disaffected to our Church have met with unfit Persons in their Places, though very obscure and remote, what perpetual Clamour they make with it all their Lives after; and what Insinuations are given, that the rest were alike; and this is still pleaded, how unjustly soe­ver, as the most popular Argument for Sepa­ration. So that a Scandalous Clergy-Man doeth unspeakable Mischief, not onely to his own and others Souls, but to the whole Church he owns himself to be of. And very many good Examples do not signifie so much to the Benefit of a Church, as a few bad ones doe to the Mischief of it.

(2.) The Honour of Religion lies at Stake too; which suffers very much, when those who pretend to Teach others the way to Hea­ven, are seen going themselves, and drawing others into the Broad Way to Destruction. Our Preaching to the People their Duties, doth but make them more narrowly watch and observe our Lives, to see whether we live agreeably to the Directions we give them. And if we slight in our Practice what we Preach in the Pulpit, if we act our selves just contra­ry to what we require from them, it will be [Page 41] hardly possible to convince them we are in earnest, and believe any thing of Religion our selves. And how can we imagine they should regard what we say in the Pulpit, if they plain­ly see we regard it not our selves when we are out of it? It was Aristotle's observation long ago; That it is not what Men speak, which moves the People so much, as the Opinion they have of the Person that speaks: and there­fore the Oratours of old put into the Defini­tion Fab. Quin­til. l. 2. c. 16. l. 12. c. 1. of one fit to persuade the People, that he must have the Reputation of a good Man; other­wise all he speaks will be thought onely Art or Design.

I know no way to have the reputation of a Good Man, like being so: and we are infi­nitely more concerned to be so, than those, whose great Business was to put false Colours upon things. We speak the Words of Truth and Soberness; let us not then make the Peo­ple question them, by not finding the due ef­fects of them in our own Conversations. They are very apt to suspect we look on Preaching as our Trade, and mind it no more than the Silver-smiths did the Shrines they made for Act. 19. 24. Diana, which they set off to the best advan­tage, not for the Reverence they had for Dia­na, but for the Gain She brought to the Crafts­men. We have no such effectual Way to [Page 42] convince our Auditours, that we mean what we say, as when they find us to be great Ex­amples our selves of the Duties we press up­on them, viz. of Devotion, Humility, Charity, Sobriety, Mortification, Contentedness, Peace­abless, and Universal Holiness and when the People see our Light shining before them, by the good Works we doe, we shall there by ex­cite them to glorifie God, to think better of Religion, and to follow our Example.

(3.) The Salvation of Mens Souls depends very much upon the Care and Conduct of those who are to be their Guides to Heaven. For, if they lead them astray, whom they think they are bound to follow, their destruction will be unavoidable. When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the Di [...]ch; but yet the blind leader falls first, and falls heaviest and deepest, and the other falls upon him, and sinks him lower. It is a sad thing to have the Guilt of other Mens sins, as well as our own to answer for; when by our Wilfull Ne­glect of our known Duty, or by our Examples, or by our Erroneous Doctrine, we prove the Occasion of damning those Souls, which were committed to our Charge to conduct them to Heaven.

The Care of Souls would be a dreadfull thing indeed, if we were to answer for all the [Page 43] Miscarriages of the People committed to our Charge: But if they are such as happen through the voluntary and plain Omission of the Du­ty laid upon us; or our being Accessory to their Commission of them, they may be just­ly charged on our Account.

With what Care and Caution then ought all Persons to enter upon so weighty, so holy, so tremendous a Charge? What Preparati­on of Mind is necessary to consider it! What Fasting and Prayer to obtain God's Assistence in it! What Wisedom, and Piety, and Reso­lution to discharge it!

But let us not be dishearten'd; we serve a Gracious Master, and in the best Employment; and although we may meet with many Dif­ficulties, within and without, and on all sides, yet let us be stedfast, unmoveable, always abou [...]d­ing in the Work of the Lord, for as much as we know, that our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.