HE that desireth to espie light at a narrow hole, must lay his eye near, if he mean to discover at large: So must he be curious in considering the Scri­ptures, that meaneth to discern those things that are not declared there at large, but are collected by circum­stance or consequence: especially in matters which we view at this di­stance of time, which representeth to us things done then through a mist of succeeding custome. Those that seek for mines, have their virgula divina, a [Page 2] rod which they hold even-balanced over the place where they hope for a vein, which if it hit right, the rod of it self bendeth towards the earth: Our Lord in the Gospel command­eth us to search the Scriptures as men would seek for mines or treasure; let us keep an even balance of judgement, not bowing, but as the vein of truth swayeth it: for if we put the grains of affection and prejudice into the gold-scales which we weigh nice truths with, no marvel if the lighter go down. Now because the question concerneth the Apostles time, and the next to it, and the purpose is to represent the form pointed at in Scri­pture, by comparing it with such pas­sages of historicall truth and primi­tive practice as shall seem best to ex­presse it, let us in the first place consi­der the nature of their charge, that it may appear how farre the Church reteineth a succession of it. For true [Page 3] it is, divers personall qualities are re­quisite in an Apostle, because they were to preach the Gospel to all Na­tions. They must be men to witnesse those things they had seen our Lord do, those words they had heard him speak, upon their own knowledge; and therefore men that had conversed with him from the beginning of his doctrine. It is that S. Peter required at the choice of Matthias, Acts i. 21. Of these men that have companied with us all the while that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, must one be ordain­ed for a witnesse of his resurrection with us. It is that the same Apostle chal­lengeth, 1. Pet. v. 1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ. He condescendeth to the rank of Presbyters, when he saith, who am also an Elder; but he voucheth the pri­viledge of an Apostle, when he ad­deth, and a witnesse of the sufferings of [Page 4] Christ. And his fellow-Apostle of the Gentiles to the same purpose, 1. Corinth. ix. 1. Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? as if to be an Apo­stle required one that had seen the Lord, which was supplyed to him by his raptures and visions, as the hear­ing his doctrine was supplyed unto him by that revelation by which he avoucheth to have received his Go­spel, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians. This is that God had provided for satisfaction of com­mon sense; men that could witnesse upon the credit of their eyes and eares what they published. But it required greater matters to convince the world of those things which rea­son could not evidence: The gifts of the holy Ghost, for knowledge, for language, for miracles, for all the like were requisite in a marvellous nature for those that undertook to preach [Page 5] the Gospel to all nations. This was the Apostles charge; and the power this charge importeth, the indow­ments it requireth, are personall, wherein no man pretendeth to suc­ceed the Apostles: But the executi­on of this charge reason telleth us must needs proceed, and experience of that which is written telleth us it did proceed, according to the exi­gence of their severall opportunities, concerted by consent among them­selves: For so we find the chief A­postles Gal. ii. 9. dividing their care between the Jews and the Gentiles. If it appear then that the Apostles, for their time, took upon them the oversight of Churches of their own planting, if it appear that an Apostle fixed his abode and care both upon some Church in severall, though all the world were their Diocese in com­mon, well may we proceed upon these terms, to make the Apostles [Page 6] Bishops of such and such Churches, and Bishops successours of the Apo­stles; though neither for the extent of their charge, nor for their abilities to perform it, yet because they are trusted with that oversight of one Church, which the Apostles for their time afforded to all within their quar­ters.

THis is that we must stand upon in the first place, to averre the first pattern of the form, after which it shall appear that Churches were go­verned from the beginning by Bi­shops and their Presbyters. It is to be seen in the first Church, the [Page 7] Church of Jerusalem, Mother of all Churches, which we shall find under the charge of James of Jerusalem one of the Apostles, and his Presbyters, no doubt by consent and appoint­ment of the Apostles, providing for the Church there before their depar­ture from it. Wherein we shall not need to set up our rest upon the cre­dit of Ignatius or Clemens Alexan­drinus (though either of them of age sufficient to witnesse as great a matter as this) having so many pregnant pas­sages of Scripture to averre it. The Apostle, relating his going up to Je­rusalem to see Peter, Gal. i. 18. prose­cuteth it thus in the next words, But other of the Apostles saw I none, but James the brother of the Lord. How cometh he to meet James at Jerusa­lem when he went to see Peter there, more then the rest of the Apostles, but because he abode there at his charge? And again, Galat. ii. 9. And [Page 8] when James, Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars, saw the grace of God that was given to me, &c. we shall not need to think James is put in the first place for nothing, when we have so fit a reason to give for it, because they were then all at the place of his charge: for so you shall find it again in that most considerable action, of the Councel at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 7, 13. The decree of the Councel as it is resolved upon S. Peters reasons, so is it framed and drawn up in S. James his terms, vers. 7, 13. the one as first of the Apostles, the other as having the charge of the Church there: which still further appeareth by that which is read Gal. ii. 12. that before some came from S. James, S. Peter ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fear­ing those of the circumcision. We see S. Peter taketh advise of S. James; as likewise afterwards S. Paul at his last [Page 9] coming to Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 19. went in to James where all the El­ders were present, to advise with him that had the care of that Church, about the great businesse in hand, how to behave himself towards those of the circumcision that believed. Now of the Colledge of Presbyters at Jerusalem, and of their concurrence and assistance with this James in the government of the Church there, we have three unreprovable arguments in the Acts of the Apostles. The first, in disposing the maintenance of the poore, whereof we reade Acts xi. 30. that the benevolence of the Church of Antiochia, was sent to the Elders at Jerusalem by the hands of Saul and Barnabas to be disposed of by them, but ministred and laid out by the Deacons, as shall be shewed af­terwards. The second is found in the passage of the Councel at Jerusalem, wherein their concurrence appeareth [Page 10] in that which is resolved, Acts xv. 2. that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders, about that question. And verse 4. Be­ing come to Jerusalem, they are received of the Apostles and Elders. Again, verse 6. The Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter. And verse 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to An­tioch with Paul and Barnabas. And the letter in the next verse runneth in the name of the Apostles and Elders. All to argue the concurrence and assi­stance of the Presbyters with the Apostles, which were then present there, besides James which had the particular charge. The third is, that which hath been remembred, at S. Pauls last going to Jerusalem, where we find the Elders, assembled with James, as his assistants in advising with S. Paul about the matter on foot: for [Page 11] it is plain, that the advice whereupon he proceedeth in a matter of that weight is given him by James, and the Presbyters both, as we reade there, verse 20. And they said unto him, that is, James and the Elders. This James of Jerusalem I make no scruple to reckon among the Apo­stles, because S. Paul hath done it afore me: For it is plain that he speaketh of no other but the Twelve so called by our Lord from the be­ginning, Luke vi. 13. Because of them the question might have been made, whether he had received his doctrine from them or not, which he there denieth: And therefore it is plain this James can be no other then James sonne of Alpheus reckoned in the Gospels among the Twelve, James the sonne of Zebedee, brother of John being put to death by Herod before, Acts xii. 2. On the other side, when S. Paul calleth him bro­ther [Page 12] of our Lord, without doubt he meaneth no other but him that is called in the Gospels, James the lesse, brother of Joses and sonne of Mary, Matth. xxvii. 56. Mark xv. 43. the same Mary no doubt that is called, John xix. 25. Mary of Cleophas, sister to the blessed Virgin. First, because these Gospels speak of the same wo­men that stood by our Saviours crosse; and again, because the bre­thren of our Lord are reckoned, Mark vi. 13. James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon. So that all the difference that hath been about the severall Jameses and Maries remembred in the Gospel, is extinguished by making Alpheus and Cleophas both one in the language then in use, though di­vers wayes written in the Greek. A thing nothing strained: For though Cleophas be otherwise written in the Syriack, because it is translated out of the Greek, yet the Syriack [Page 13] name CHALPAI may be expressed either by Alpheus or Cleophas, which is also written Clopas in some copies, John xix. 25. and in Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius, Eccles. hist. iii. 23. This I perceive since the writing hereof, to be the opinion of Lud. Ca­pellus, who hath alledged S. Hie­rome against Helvidius to strengthen it, where he maketh Mary of Cleo­phas, sister of the blessed Virgin, the wife of Alpheus and mother of James the lesse: Wherewith agreeth Cle­mens Alexandrinus in Eusebius, Ec­cles. hist. ii. 1. where he acknow­ledgeth but two Jameses, the son of Zebedee, and this James of Jerusalem mentioned by the Apostle. And herewith agreeth S. Chrysostome, upon that text of the Apostle, where he observeth that for S. James his honour S. Paul calleth him brother of our Lord, whereas he might as well have called him sonne of Cleophas, as [Page 14] the Evangelist had done. Here it is plain that James the brother of our Lord and sonne of Cleophas, is the Apostle sonne of Alpheus, according to S. Chrysostome. As for that which followeth, that neverthelesse he was not of kin to our Lord accord­ing to the flesh, but according to the opinion of the world, it seemeth to de­pend upon Hegesippus in Eusebius, iii. 11, 26. where he maketh Cleophas brother to Joseph, supposed father of our Lord. Which is possible to be true, that Joseph and Cleophas bro­thers, should take to wife the two Maries, sisters or cousins: But other­wise there is so much appearance in the Gospel, that Mary mother of James and Joses, is Mary of Cleophas sister to the blessed Virgin, that it must needs be an inconvenience to deny this James to be kin to our Lord by her side. As for other rela­tions and conjectures of Church-writers, [Page 15] the varietie whereof is end­lesse and unreconcilable, it is not rea­son to draw them into consequence to the prejudice of a conjecture which maketh so clear an agreement of this whole difference. It was my desire to shew the true meaning of the Apostles words; but it is not my purpose to build upon uncertainties. Whosoever this James of Jerusalem was, we find the Church of Jerusalem under his charge, almost assoon as there was a Church there, at least if we believe Ignatius, Epist. ad Trall. where he saith, S. Stephen was Dea­con to this James of Jerusalem, which must be betimes after our Lords death. And therefore thus we see whom the Bishops of Jerusalem suc­ceed.

LEt us now go abroad with the A­postles, and see how they follow­ed this pattern in the Churches which they converted to the faith. Tertulli­an l. De praescript. c. 20. speaketh thus of them, ac providè Ecclesias apud unā ­quamque civitatem condiderunt. This slight circumstance which he but pointeth at, that the Apostles found­ed Churches in Cities, is very consi­derable in our businesse. For it is plain they could not bestow their pains on [Page 17] all places: reason required they should labour most to plant the faith in the most populous. And common sense and the least knowledge of times will serve to shew, that from thence it was propagated through the Countreys that lay to those Cities, which therefore in time became and were called the Territories, Parishes, or Dioceses of such or such Church­es. Now the form of government estated by S. Paul over these Church­es is pointed out to us Acts xiv. 23. where we reade in the end of their first journey that Paul and Barnabas, having ordained them Presbyters in eve­ry Church, returned to Antiochia. But unto Titus the Apostle writeth thus, Tit. i. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that are wanting, and constitute Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. Elders in every Church in the one place, and Elders in every city in the [Page 18] other; both to the same effect: not meaning one in a place, but Presby­teries, that is Colledges, bodies, com­panies of Presbyters, with com­mon advice to order the Churches planted in these Cities. Such a Col­ledge of Presbyters it was that we spoke of in the last chapter, instituted by the Apostles in the Church of Je­rusalem, the pattern whereof S. Paul followeth in the Churches which he converted out of the Gentiles. And thus in the Church of Ephesus, you shall see S. Paul, Acts xx. 17. sending for the bench of Elders there to Mile­tus. Thus in the Church of Philippi, you shall find that the Apostle direct­eth his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons there, which must be to the Colledge of Presbyters, next above the order of Deacons. Thus when the Apostle writeth to the Thessalonians, 1. Thess. v. 12. And we beseech you, bre­thren, to know them which labour among [Page 19] you, and are over you in the Lord, the multitude whereof he speaketh, is to be understood of the like company of Presbyters. Thus in Ignatius his epi­stles, you shall find him up and down reckoning next after the Bishops the Presbyteries of all the Churches to which he writeth. The like in S. Cy­prians epistles, for the Presbyteries of Rome and Carthage. To spare more words, in all Church-writers you shall find continuall remembrance of these Presbyteries, whensoever there is speech of Mother-churches in Mo­ther-cities: And therefore those we are to understand, when we reade that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presby­ters in every Church, and Titus in eve­ry City: And such Bodies or Colled­ges of Presbyters they were to whom the Apostle committed the Churches which he had planted. But this be­ing granted, the question will be in the next place, Where are the Bi­shops, [Page 20] the chief and heads of these Presbyteries? For had the Apostle from the beginning of his planting these Churches placed that rank over these Presbyters, it is like we should have found some remembrance of it. Now these Presbyters are styled by the name of Bishops, as hath been ob­served ever since S. Hierome; and which is more, to averre the observa­tion for this purpose, neither in the relation of his planting and ordering the Churches, nor in the style of his Epistles, nor in his instructions con­cerning ministers of these Churches, is there any remembrance or respect to be found but of Presbyters and Deacons, which in so much emi­nence of place, so much difference of Bishops office, if any then had been, could scarce have come to passe: and maketh me conclude, that the Apo­stle ordained none such from the be­ginning over the Presbyteries. No [Page 21] Bishop the Apostle had yet settled at Ephesus, when he used these words to the Presbyters there, Acts xx. 17. Take heed to your selves and to the whole flock over whom the holy Ghost hath made you EPISCOPOS, Bishops or O­verseers. For as he giveth the name to the Presbyters, so he addresseth his instructions to none besides. None at Philippi, when he directed his E­pistle to the Bishops and Deacons there, neither the custome of the Church bearing more then one Bishop in one Church at once, nor being a thing reasonable to think if any such had been, that the Apostle would not have found a room for him in the style of his Epistle. None in the Churches within the charge of Timothy and Titus (set aside their own persons, whereof we shall give account after­wards) in whose instructions the A­postle is large in qualifying Bishops and Deacons, (such Bishops as we [Page 22] reade of Tit. i. 7. where, having said that he left him in Crete to make Pres­byters in every city, the Apostle ad­deth, For a Bishop must be blamelesse) but of any other rank not a syllable. None in the Church of Corinth. The Commentaries under S. Ambrose his name yield this reason of the disor­ders the Apostle taxeth there, 1 Cor. xi. 21. Because there was no Bishop there. The words are not of ordinary mark: Hos notat qui sic in Ecclesiam conveniebant, ut munera sua offerentes, advenientibus Presbyteris, quia adhuc Rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis fue­rant constituti, totum sibi qui obtulerat vindicaret schismatis causâ. So where­as that whereof the Eucharist was consecrated should be spent by the assembly in the common feast of Love, some made good chear, others that had not offered went away with­out their share. Therefore saith the Apostle, ver. 22. Have ye not houses to [Page 23] eat and drink in? but despise ye the Church of God? coming thither for dissensions sake and belly-chear, not for the Sacrament and for peace? and shame them that have not, sending them away without enterteinment? therefore verse 33. he exhorteth to stay for one another at their meetings. Thus farre out of those Commenta­ries. Which reason, as it giveth a clear meaning to the whole passage of the Apostle; so it groweth still more probable, because we shall find after­wards that it continueth still in force at the time of writing Clemens his E­pistle published not long since. And men of learning have argued, that this reason might better be yielded for their dissensions, saying, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, which the Apostle reproveth in the beginning of the Epistle, to wit, Be­cause there was then no Bishop there, and in the Apostles absence. And in­deed, [Page 24] if we reckonnot amisse, what reason have we to think, that this A­postle should ordain in the Churches of his planting a higher rank of Bi­shops to govern the Churches, above and with the Presbyters? Do we not see that he chargeth himself with the oversight of these Churches wherein he had planted the Colledges of Presbyters aforesaid, 2. Corinth. xi. 28. Besides those things which are with­out, that which cometh upon me dayly, the care of all the Churches? To what purpose else is the journey he taketh, Acts xv. 36. to visit the Churches wherein he had ordained Presbyters afore? Let us return, saith he to Bar­nabas, and visit our brethren in all ci­ties where we preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. We see he taketh care to exercise discipline up­on the incestuous person at Corinth, which it seemeth the Rulers of the Church there had neglected to do, [Page 25] 1. Cor. v. 4. pronouncing sentence of excommunication, and requiring the Church to see it ratified & executed. And for a thing remarkable, observe in what terms he proceedeth, 1. Cor. v. 4. When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, saith he, his Spirit, which ruled there in chief for the time. So that it is not for nothing that Tertul­lian lib. De praescript. cap. 36. reckon­eth Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and the rest of the same rank, all Apostolicall Churches, from this one Apostle, because he planted and ruled them all for his time: Apud quas, saith he, ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolo­rum suis locis praesident, which is in good English neither more nor lesse then here is affirmed; The Apostles chair rested in them all till Tertulli­ans time, therefore the Apostle for his time sate in it. And to my appre­hension, all his Epistles are nothing else but so many acts of this govern­ment [Page 26] spirituall in chief, which the Apostle reserved himself in the Churches of his own planting. The like to be said of S. Peters Epi­stles, and hath been observed in part by Eusebius, Eccles. hist. lib. iii. cap. 5. That the title of his for­mer Epistle addressed to the stran­gers dispersed through Pontus, Asia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, that is, to the Jews sojourning in those provinces, argueth it to be a work of his care, in preaching the Gospel to the charge he had un­dertaken, according to the divisi­on alledged before, Galat. ii. 9. And therefore, as hath been hither­to argued of the other Apostle, so when we see S. Peter, 1. Pet. v. 1. direct his exhortation to feed the flock to none but Presbyters, we have cause to conceive that those Churches to whom he writeth, and whom we shall heare Epiphanius [Page 27] say anon that he went sometimes from Rome to visit, had as yet no Bishops over their Presbyters. The same that S. Hierome hath argued long since out of Hebr. xiii. 17. where the Apostle writeth in the plurall number, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves.

BUt as the Apostles began to wear out, or otherwise as their occasi­ons gave them not leave to attend in person upon the Churches of their [Page 29] care, reason required, if but in corre­spondence to the state of govern­ment that had hitherto rested in some Apostle and the Presbyteries of par­ticular Churches, there should be in­stituted some heads of these compa­nies of Presbyters, to whom the name of Bishops hath been appro­priated ever since: and certain it is, that during the time of the Apo­stles instituted they were. This a­greeth extreme well with the charge and instructions of the Apo­stle to his Disciples Timothy and Ti­tus, over the Churches of Asia and Crete: whom as all Ecclesiasticall writers, after Eusebius, acknow­ledge to be made Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, so must we not fail to ob­serve here, that this was not done till it was revealed to the Apostle that from thenceforth the Lord would imploy him in the Western parts of the world. The businesse is most an [Page 30] end agreed upon on all hands: yet because the observation is so effectu­all to this purpose, let me take leave to inlarge it by clearing the whole passage of the Apostles last voyage, from Ephesus, through Greece, and back again. Acts xix. 21. we reade at that time Paul resolved by the Spirit, having passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, When I have been there I must also see Rome. In 2. Cor. i. 15. he writeth to them, that he had formerly purpo­sed to go first to Corinth, thence in­to Macedonia, from Macedonia to Corinth again, and of the Corinthi­ans to be brought on the way for Ju­dea: When I then purposed this, saith he, did I use lightnesse? or what I pur­pose do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? signifying, that not taking up his resolutions upon humane con­siderations, it was no lightnesse in [Page 31] him to balk his intended purpose, to follow the direction of the holy Ghost, in going first through Ma­cedonia, God having so ordered it, it seemeth, for the reason that follow­eth. The first Epistle to the Corinthi­ans was sent from Ephesus about this time: From Ephesus it is plain it was sent, though subscribed from Philip­pi, (for those subscriptions, it is well known are of no credit) by the salu­tations he sendeth, 1. Cor. xvi. 19. from the Churches of Asia, from A­quila and Priscilla, which dwelt there, Acts xviii. 19. And after his first re­solution was changed, because he saith 1. Cor. 16. 5. that he meant to passe through Macedonia. In the 2. Cor. ii. 12. the Apostle relating one pas­sage of that voyage, not mentioned in the Acts, When I came to Troas, saith he, to preach the Gospel of Christ, a doore being opened me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not [Page 32] Titus my brother: but taking leave of them I departed thence into Macedonia. Titus he desired to meet with, because he desired to hear from Corinth by him that was coming from thence, 2. Cor. vii. 6. for as he protesteth 2. Cor. i. 23. it was to spare them that he came not yet to Corinth: not yet, as being directed by the Spirit to go first through Macedonia, and to spare them, that is, not to be ingaged to proceed rigorously against them, in case they gave not due respect to his former Epistle. From Macedonia he dispatcheth Titus to Corinth again, about the businesse specified 2. Cor. viii. 6, 16. and it is most like, upon these circumstances, that both those Epistles were sent by Titus, whatsoe­ver the subscriptions bear. To go on with the Apostle in this voyage, Acts xx. 2. we reade, that having gone over the parts of Macedonia, and given them much exhortation, he [Page 33] came into Greece, and there abode three months. In this journey, let me be bold to affirm, it was that the A­postle put in at Crete, to preach the Gospel there: the relation agreeth so well from point to point, that I will use no other words to perswade it is true, but the coherence of it. From Ephesus then the Apostle part­eth at Pentecost, 1. Cor. xvi. 8. By the way at Troas he stayed not, but came straight into Macedonia, 2. Cor. ii. 12, 13. From thence having dis­patched Titus for Corinth, 2. Cor. viii. 6, 16. going by sea for Greece, he putteth in at Crete, to preach the Gospel there; and meeting with Ti­tus (returned from Corinth) in this journey, leaveth him in Crete to constitute Presbyters in every Citie, and to finish those things which he for the strait of time was fain to leave undone: and thus his three months being spent in Greece, he found win­ter [Page 34] at Corinth. There he had once thought to have wintered, 1. Cor. xvi. 6. and that the Corinthians should bring him on his journey, which there he expressed not, but 2. Cor. i. 16. it is for Judea. But un­derstanding the Jews laid wait for him as he returned into Syria by sea, Acts xx. 3. he taketh a resolution to winter at Nicopolis, whereof he cer­tifieth Titus, appointing him to meet him there at spring, Tit. iii. 12. This was a convenient rendez-vow for the Apostle, in the mean while, to preach the Gospel in the parts of Epirus, as farre as Illyricum: which he purposed to do, when he writ to the Corinthians, 2. Cor. x. 16. that when his spirit was in quiet in regard of them, he had hope to preach the Gospel in the parts beyond them; and which he affirmeth to have done, Rom. xv. 19. where he writeth that from Jerusalem to Illyricum he had [Page 35] fully preached the Gospel of Christ. And therefore, with leave I suppose, the Epistle to the Romanes is rather to be dated from hence then from Corinth, as the subscription goeth: for before this it could not be sent; after this we find not that he returned to Corinth: From whence being new come, he might send commen­dations from Gaius his host at Co­rinth, Rom. xvi. 23. 1. Cor. i. 14. and by Phebe he might write, seeing him in passing by the coast of Epirus, from Corinth to Rome. When win­ter was spent, from Dyrrachium, the confines of Epirus, (where he had wintered at Nicopolis) and Illyricum (whither his doctrine was got) the journey by land was short and good to Thessalonica in Macedonia, by the great road in Strabo called via Egna­tia; so that in good time, after the dayes of unleavened bread, he might sail from Philippi, as we reade he did, [Page 36] Acts xx. 5. This for Titus. As for Timothy's case, thus we reade, 1. Tim. i. 3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Ma­cedonia. The sound of these words maketh Baronius believe that Timo­thy was left with his charge at Ephe­sus upon the beginning of this voyage of the Apostle through Greece. And he had Theodoret to go before him in the conceit: For in his Preface to S. Pauls Epistles he concludeth that the first Epistle to Timothy was sent from Macedonia, when the Apostle passed through it. But it is easie to perceive that this cannot stand with the Scriptures. He that sent Timo­theus and Erastus before him into Macedonia Acts xx. 19. how could he leave him Bishop at Ephesus? Be­sides, in the first Epistle to the Co­rinthians, iv. 17. xvi. 10. it is plain, that he was then sending Timothy to Corinth, though he overtook him [Page 37] before he got thither, in Macedo­nia: for afterwards Timothy was with him in Macedonia at the sending of his second Epistle to the Corin­thians, as appeareth by the beginning of it; and with him he was at his re­turn into Asia through Macedonia, Acts xx. 4. It remaineth then that the Apostle coming through Mace­donia to go into Asia, began then to move Timothy to stay at Ephesus, 1. Tim. i. 3. and to take upon him the charge of the Churches of Asia. Which being accordingly agreed and done, he sendeth him before with the rest of his company into Asia, as we reade Acts xx. 4, 5. not knowing then how soon himself should follow them: For thus he writeth, 1. Tim. iii. 14, 15. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I stay, that thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the house of God. Therefore it is plain, that he sendeth [Page 38] him this Epistle of instructions after their parting from Macedonia, but before his coming to Ephesus, it seemeth, while he stayed for him at Troas, as we reade Acts xx. 15. And thus we may well understand the words of Athanasius in Synopsi, (though Baronius alledge him for his purpose) because he saith no more but this, that the First to Timothy was sent from Macedonia. But the Apostle having resolved, if it were possible, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost, Acts xx. 16. maketh hast, and overtaketh his company at Troas, Acts xx. 6. And thus we see the reason why there is no respect of Timothy in his instructions to the El­ders of Ephesus, Acts xx. 18. because that then he began to enter upon his charge there, and because of the in­structions he had received from the Apostle by his first Epistle, besides word of mouth. So the upshot of all [Page 39] this discourse is thus much, That within compasse of the time of this voyage, at the beginning whereof the Apostle said in the Spirit, that when he had been at Jerusalem he must also see Rome, Acts xix. 21. at the midst whereof he writeth to the Ro­manes, chap. xv. 23. that he had no more place in those parts, and at the end whereof he saith to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts xx. 25. And now be­hold, I know that all you among whom I have gone preaching the kingdome of God, shall see my face no more: know­ing by revelation that he was to serve God no more in those parts, appoint­eth his two Disciples Timothy and Titus to be in his stead over the Churches of Asia and Crete. Now that the charge of Timothy and Ti­tus giveth them a power as great as that of Bishops was from the begin­ning, no question is made: if they prove not more then so, the businesse [Page 40] is clear. For true it is, something not ordinary in Bishops we must ac­knowledge in Timothie's person, when he is called an Evangelist, 2. Tim. iv. 5. Do the work of an Evange­list. To which we must referre that grace whereof the Apostle speaketh, 1. Tim. iv. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, that was given thee by prophecy, with the laying-on of the hands of the Presbytery. Whereof again 2 Tim. i. 16. I put thee in mind that thou stirre up the gift that is in thee, by the putting­on of my hands: And 1. Tim. i. 18. This charge I commit unto thee, sonne Timothy, according to the prophecies that went afore of thee. In this the Disciples case is somewhat like the Apostles, as you shall see it anon, Acts xiii. 2. where the Prophets in the Church of Antiochia, having foretold through the holy Ghost what God would do in the planting of his Gospel by his hands and Barna­bas, [Page 41] and declared his will for setting them apart for that purpose, here­upon they receive imposition of hands: So likewise we must conceive that these prophecies went afore of Timothy, to inform the Church of the will of God concerning him, and the work he had appointed him to perform. As for the grace he re­ceiveth by imposition of hands, what other can any man imagine it to be then that which is designed in the name of an Evangelist, which the Apostle meant when he said, Ephes. iv. 11. that our Lord hath given to his Church, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists? Or how can we further distinguish it otherwise from the gifts of Apostles and Prophets, then placing it in the extraordinary temporary indowments of the holy Ghost, inabling such persons, accord­ing to the exigence of that time, to publish the Gospel and to perswade [Page 42] it? which neverthelesse cometh short of the personall qualitie of witnesses of our Lord and his doctrine, and of the measure and kind of those graces of miracles, languages, and the like, that make an Apostle. But he that would draw this into consequence, and argue that Timothy was no Bi­shop, because an Evangelist, may with more reason conclude that Philip was no Deacon because he was an Evan­gelist, and contradict the Scripture that saith Acts xxi. 8. We entred into the house of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven. For if an Apo­stle, in that eminence of graces and priviledges, neverthelesse abiding up­on a certain charge, and taking care of it, is to be counted Bishop of a parti­cular place, as was argued afore, much more may an Evangelist for his extra­ordinary gift be a Bishop for his se­verall charge: which is to say thus much in English, That the gift of an [Page 43] Evangelist may fall upon any rank of ordinary Ministers: as we see Philip, for his place in the Church one of the seven Deacons at Jerusalem, Acts vi. 5. is neverthelesse an Evangelist for the graces God had bestowed upon him, by his means to convert Samaria to the faith, Acts viii. 15. Nay further, if the gift of an Evange­list be competible with a Deacons place, it must be granted that Timo­thy as an Evangelist is no Governour of Churches. And whereas it is ar­gued, that it was but a Commission for the time which Timothy and Ti­tus are trusted with from the Apostle, because it appeareth they were other­whiles imployed otherwhere by the Apostle 2. Tim. iv. 9, 10. (as any Bi­shop in case of publick necessities of the Church must be without the A­postle) let me be bold to affirm, that the rules of continued settled govern­ment, directed to them by the Apo­stle [Page 44] to be executed by them in their persons, are sufficient evidence that they were appointed by him for per­petuall Governours, and not for tem­porary Commissaries. Indeed as there is something more then ordi­nary in Timothie's person, so is there something more then ordina­ry in Titus his charge, in that he was left in Crete, to ordain Presbyters in every citie, Tit. i. 5. by which, as appeareth in the sequele of the Epi­stle, the Churches of those cities were to be governed under Titus, as was observed afore. The like to be said of Timothy, whose instructions, qualifying Presbyters and Deacons alone, leave him alone superiour to all the Presbyteries he should insti­tute according to his instructions. Now if we observed the custome of the Apostles, hitherto set forth, of instituting Presbyteries in populous cities, and observe the custome of the Church after their time, wherein [Page 45] a Bishop was alwayes head of one of these Presbyteries, (Quid est enim E­piscopus nisi primus Presbyterorum? saith S. Augustine) it will not be hard to espy a difference between the place of a Bishop and the extent of their charge. For it will not serve the turn to say, as some do, that Titus was Archbishop of Crete, and so intrust­ed with divers Churches: For an Archbishop is a chief among Bi­shops, not a person to govern divers Churches, seats of Bishopricks. Be­sides that, these degrees among Bi­shops came in afterwards, when the Church became incorporate into the State of the Romane Empire, as ha­ving the charge of Churches in head-Cities of Provinces, or according to the precedence of places, wherein the Emperours or chief temporall Pow­ers made their residence. But in the mean time let me use Epiphanius his words, The Apostles could not settle all things uniformly at once. Is it a reaso­nable [Page 46] thing to argue, that because S. Paul taketh no order for the heads of these Presbyteries which were not yet made, therefore he did not intend there should be any such in the Church? Rather let me argue, that because S. Paul left two of his prin­cipall Disciples in two principall pla­ces, with charge to plant Presbyte­ries as there was means to propagate Churches, therefore he gave a pat­tern of that which these Disciples and all the Church was to do after­wards, in settling the government of those Churches, in the Presbyteries of them, and in their heads, which themselves were for the time. And this we shall find was done in good time, in the Churches of Timothies charge, if we take but a short consi­deration of the beloved Disciple John the Apostle and Evangelist, what we find concerning him in Scriptures, or otherwise received and [Page 47] credible in this nature. He lived long­est of all the Disciples, as is said: and he will easily shew us Bishops over the Churches of Timothies charge: for such without doubt were the seven Churches of Asia, unto whom the Apostle sending from our Lord seven Epistles, ii. and iii. chapt. of his Revelation, directeth them to the Angels of those Churches; a style not competible to a person of common rank, and the act of direct­ing Epistles to one in the name and behalf of the whole Church, ar­guing the eminence of the head, fit to answer for the body he represent­eth. Herewith agree the words of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius, iii. 23. concerning this Apostle, that being returned from Patmus to Ephe­sus, he used upon request to go a­mong the neighbour-nations, [...] [Page 48] [...]. That is, in some places to constitute Bishops (to wit, where there were Presbyteries afore that yet had none) in some to found whole Churches, in others to or­dain a Clergie out of such as were signi­fied by the Spirit, as we reade of S. Paul and Timotheus. For will you have these to be Bishops, according to the use of the word in S. Paul, where it is all one with Presbyters? Sure we must needs think of such as his own writings make Angels of Churches. Ignatius, that was his Disciple according to some, in all his Epistles specifieth, and sometimes by name, the Bishops of some the same Churches, and some of others, to­gether with their Presbyteries; and in particular, Onesimus, Timothie's successour at Ephesus. Tertullian and Ireneus, the most ancient we can al­ledge, have named Polycarpus in particular, made Bishop of Smyrna [Page 49] by this Apostle. It is not possible to say more in this case. So often as we find mention of government in particular Churches in Scripture, so often we meet with Presbyteries, or the heads of Presbyteries, Apostles themselves, or deriving their charge from the Apostles. Nay, it is very much, not pretending that Bishops came on otherwise then to be in stead of the Apostles over particu­lar Churches, that there is so much to be said for their office out of Scriptures, all written during their time.

THe Church of Antiochia is re­membred next to that of Jerusa­lem, in the Acts of the Apostles, but of the government thereof we have nothing so distinct or expresse in Scripture. Yet this we reade Acts xiii. 2. Now there were in the Church at Antiochia certain prophets and tea­chers. And as they ministred unto the Lord and fasted, the holy Ghost said, Se­perate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. [Page 51] And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. That these Prophets and Teachers were all of them Presby­ters of that Church, is more then can be affirmed, because it is nowhere set down: But when we reade that they ministred unto the Lord (which must be understood of the service of God in their assemblies, especially in celebrating the Eucharist) and gave imposition of hands, we find among the number of them the works of ordi­nary Ministers, when there was no higher rank then that of Presbyters able to do the like. For as concerning the Heads of this Church, we must have recourse to Ignatius his Epistle ad Magn. where he useth these words; For at Antiochia the Disciples were first called Christians, Paul and Peter found­ing the Church. And in the Epistle ad Antioch. (if it be his, as the other unquestionably is) [...] [Page 52] [...]. That is, Ye are Pauls and Pe­ters Disciples. Remember Euodius, that first had the rule of you put into his hands by the Apostles. Be he what he will be that writ this, let me be bold to say, it agreeth marvellous well with what hath been said, and with the Scripture: In which it is plain there were at the beginning two con­gregations of Christians at Antio­chia, one of the Circumcision, the other converted from the Gentiles: because S. Peter, Gal. ii. 12. fearing those of the Circumcision, withdrew himself, and ate no more with the Gentiles. In regard of the care of which two congregations, per­formed by S. Peter and S. Paul, ac­cording to the division agreed upon Gal. ii. 9. the words of Ignatius are to be verified, where he maketh both Apostles founders of the Church at [Page 53] Antiochia. Who finding themselves imployed in other parts of the world, took the same course with this Church which S. Paul did with those he commended to Timothy and Titus, and put both congregations (by that time united and concorporate in one) under the charge of Euodius, prede­cessour to Ignatius. These two Apo­stles are usually counted founders of the Church at Rome, as well as of that of Antiochia. Ireneus, iii. 3. Fun­dantes itaque & instituentes beati Apo­stoli Ecclesiam, Lino Episcopatum Ec­clesiae administrandae tradiderunt. Hu­jus Lini Paulus in iis quae sunt ad Ti­motheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus: Post eum tertio lo­co ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens. Where you see he referreth the foundation of that Church to both the Apostles, as doth Dionysius also of Corinth some hundred and twentie years after their death, in [Page 54] Eusebius, Eccles. hist. iii. 26. and o­thers of later stamp sans number. Whereupon Epiphanius, Haer. 27. reckoning the succession of the Bi­shops of Rome, putteth Peter and Paul in the first place. But yet ob­serve further the difference between the words of Ireneus (which put Linus after the Apostles) and the Latine Church, which according to S. Hie­rome, Catal. Script. in CLEM. recko­neth Clemens in that place: which Tertullian, the most ancient of that language, lib. De Praescript. averreth. To which difference we may ascribe the confusion that Baronius hath ob­served in the Pontificall book under the name of Pope Damasus, an anci­ent piece, but pieced indeed out of se­verall writings, and crosse to one another divers times: As for the purpose; when it maketh Linus to succeed the Apostles, and suffer mar­tyrdome the same year (who never­thelesse [Page 55] sitteth twelve years accord­ing to Eusebius) whereas Cletus, next in order unto him, beginneth seven years after in time, but Clemens, third in rank, one yeare after Linus, suffer­ing in the third year of Trajane, long after both their deaths. Epiphanius in the place afore-named, stumbling, as it seemeth, at the credit of those that put Clemens first, propoundeth this conjecture, [...] These words of Clemens, quo­ted by Epiphanins, are yet extant in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, published not long since: wherein he telleth him that was the occasion of the schisme he writeth against there, that a generous man, and so forth, would say in that case, I depart; I [Page 56] withdraw: let the people of God be in quiet. Epiphanius, it seemeth, meeting them at the second hand, alledged for Clemens his advice to some man mentioned in the Epistle, (as they are indeed) conceived neverthelesse they might have reference to his own case, advising to withdraw, and give way to Linus and Cletus, for the quiet of the Church: which now, by reading the Epistle, proveth other­wise. Besides he sticketh not to di­gest the inconvenience of admitting more then one Bishop in the same Church at once. For because accord­ing to his conjecture, Linus and Cle­tus as well as Clemens (that gave way to them) must be made Bishops by the Apostles, he addeth, that Bi­shops might be made there during the time of the Apostles, because they tra­velled sometimes from Rome, (S. Paul into Spain, as indeed he purposeth, Rom. xv. 24. S. Peter into Pontus [Page 57] and Bithynia, whither he directeth his first Epistle) and must not leave the Church unprovided there. But if it be worth the while to vent a con­jecture that shall avoid this inconve­nience, and make all good that is re­ported by these ancient Fathers, that matters of circumstance wherein they are at difference destroy not their cre­dit in the main wherein they are at a­greement; let this be mine; That there were at Rome from the beginning, as at Antiochia two congregations of Christians, one of the Circumcision, the other of the Gentiles; That S. Peter was head of the one, S. Paul of the other, according to the division aforesaid; That after their death, Li­nus, who was Deacon to S. Paul, if we believe Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians, succeeded him over the one; Clemens, who was Deacon to S. Peter, according to the same Authour there, succeeded him over [Page 58] the other, till both Congregations being concorporate and united in one, because governed by Clemens, that survived. And if any man be so disfavourable as upon these differen­ces of the By to discredit the main, let him know, that though he allow not the pillars of the Church in their time the credit of discreet men, to have reason for what they report, yet must he allow Ireneus and Tertullian to be men of common sense, when they alledge the succession of Bishops in the Churches of that time, wherein that of Rome is alwayes one, for an evidence of the faith which had been preserved in them ever since the Apo­stles: the force of the reason lying in that, which Calvine hath exceeding well observed, That it was a thing known and received at that time, that de facto the faith which the Churches professed came by succession from the Apostles, from which succession [Page 59] the Hereticks were fain to separate, and make Congregations apart, wherein to professe the belief which themselves had devised. Be all the world judges now, whether a man in his right senses would appeal to the succession of Bishops, if it had been a thing questionable whether any such were or not. The like is to be said of Optatus and S. Augustine, when they appeal to the succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome to prove the Donatists schismaticks, not communicating with the lawfull suc­cessours both of the faith of the Apo­stles, which both sides granted, and of their places, from which they ar­gue.

THus we are out of the Scripture: But because we are not yet out of the time of the Apostles, I will name further Dionysius the Areopagite, S. Pauls convert, Acts xvii. 34. because there is so ancient a witnesse to depose for him, Dionysius of Corinth, some hundred and twenty years after that, averring in Eusebius that he was the first Bishop of Athens. And so the last I will name shall be the Church of Alexandria, and that for S. Hieromes sake, and in his words, because he it is that is perswaded, and perswadeth men to think, that the or­der of Bishops came in by mere cu­stome [Page 61] of the Church, to avoid schismes that arise for want of heads. In his Epistle to Euagrius thus we reade, Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Di­onysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. How that can be said to come in by custome for avoyding of schisme, which was practiced at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, let S. Hi­erome devise: it shall serve our turn, that so it was there from the Apostles time. Otherwise it is reasonable e­nough to believe that upon such oc­casions Bishops came in over some Churches, in particular the Church of Corinth, in which we find a schisme, but can find no Bishop at the time of writing Clemens his Epistle, some few years after the death of the Apostles: Because the reason produ­ced afore to argue that there was no [Page 62] Bishop at Corinth when S. Paul writ his Epistles, continueth still in force at the time of writing Clemens his Epistle. For p. 52. he is very earnest with them to keep due order and de­corum in bringing their Oblations and celebrating the Eucharist: For when he nameth there [...], by the one we must under­stand the species of fruits of the earth, and meats, which the people offered, out of which the Eucharist being ce­lebrated, the rest was spent in the Agapa, or feast of Love; to which the words of the Apostle are to be refer­red: By the other, the Eucharist, for celebration whereof he is so earnest with them to keep due order in their assemblies; alledging that these things which the Lord had commanded to be done, these he had not command­ed to be done disorderly and at ran­dome, but at set times and seasons, when and by whom they should be [Page 63] done. Where God hath appointed an order, when and where and by whom Christians should celebrate their assemblies, is not to be found in Scripture further then the Apostles rule, 1. Cor. xiv. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. It seemeth he argueth from the pattern of the Leviticall Priesthood: for so it followeth, p. 53. [...], &c. To the high Priest, saith he, are assigned his proper services. Which further appeareth, when he urgeth the example of their sacrifices that were offered before the Temple, being first visited [...], p. 54. But the Presbyters of that Christi­an Church he exhorteth with these words, [...], Brethren, saith he, let every one of you give thanks to God (that is, [Page 64] Celebrate the Eucharist, in his lan­guage) in his own order, being in a good conscience, not stepping out of the set rule of his Ministery. Perhaps his meaning is, that they should celebrate by turns. Howsoever here is my reason that there was then no Bishop there, be­cause then there could not have been so much debate about the order in celebrating the assemblies of Christi­ans, which, as shall be shewed after­wards, were not to be held but upon appointment of the Bishop, with ad­vice of the Presbyters, being a mark of schisme to assemble otherwise. And if this be not enough, there is another to second it. Whatsoever may be argued from the dissensions at Corinth, one saying, I am of Paul, another, I am of Cephas, to shew that there was no Bishop there when the Apostle writ this, and in his absence, still continueth in force at the time of writing Clemens his Epistle: The [Page 65] whole subject whereof is, to quell such another dissension as this, but onely that it was not under such co­lourable names, of Paul and Cephas and Apollos, as he complaineth, but (which is remarkable to prove my in­tent) was (as he saith p. 62.) a mere faction, for the love of one or two persons, against the Presbyters; no Bishop bearing any part either at one end or other of it. Neither is it mar­vel that this Church should be still without a Bishop for some ten or twentie years perhaps after the death of the Apostle, so many com­panions of the Apostles being then alive, Clemens at Rome, Titus in Crete, Timothy at Ephesus, Diony­sius at Athens, others elsewhere, to furnish whatsoever assistance they had received from the Apostle during his time, no otherwise then did Timo­thy and Titus to those Churches wherein they had planted Presbyte­ries, [Page 66] before they had Bishops. And this must be the answer, if any man ask the question how Bishops came to be propagated through all Churches; the answer must be, They were made in due time by the heads of neigh­bouring Churches: which we shall discern anon, when we come to speak of the course held from the be­ginning in the choice and constitution of Bishops. And by the practice of the Church it should seem the aim was afarre off to propagate Bishops according to the first practice of the Apostles. For as they planted Presby­teries to govern Mother-Churches in Mother-Cities, so when it became questionable, which Churches should have Bishops and which not, the mat­ter was regulated according to the greatnesse of Cities, or the multitude of Presbyters which the service of the Churches in them required, whereof the Bishops were to be heads. And [Page 67] therefore in the Councel of Sardica Can. vi. it is provided, that there should be no Bishop in towns or small cities where one Presbyter might serve; but in those places where Bishops were of old time, or if a place became so populous that it might de­serve to have a Bishop; that is, either in Cities that had been so populous of old time as to have Bishops, or which should afterwards become so populous. But the xvii. Can on of the Chalcedon Councel providing a­gainst innovation in Dioceses, taketh order neverthelesse, that when a place is promoted by the Emperour to be a Citie, the form of the Church shall go along with the form of the Com­mon-wealth, that is, it shall have a Bishop, and his Diocese the territo­ry of that Citie. There is here a difference in the particular, and yet the same generall ground of both Canons, the practice of the Apostles, [Page 68] ordaining Presbyteries to govern the Churches which they had planted in Cities, the heads whereof were Bishops after their departure. And this seemeth to be the reason why the seats of Cathedrall Churches are wont to be Cities. And by this means Italy is so full of Bishopricks, because it is so full of Cities.

HAving hitherto justified the ground whereupon we go, and shewed that Bishops came after the Apostles to be heads of Presbyteries, in consequence hereunto it must now be averred, that the government of [Page 69] Churches passed in common by Bi­shops and Presbyters, as from the be­ginning the Presbyters governed with the Apostles themselves. If in that great action of the Councel at Jerusalem the Elders of that Church bore their part with the Apostles, what cause have we to think they did lesse when they were dispersed, S. James alone remaining there? If they concurred with S. James in his advise to S. Paul about a matter of greatest weight, how to deal with those of the Circumcision that believed, shall we imagine they did not do the like with his successours? If S. Peter call the Presbyters of the Churches to which he writeth his fellow-Elders, it is to the purpose to put them in mind of their share in that office which he chargeth himself with. If the Apostle of the Gentiles charge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 18. with their part of that [Page 70] care of Christs flock after his depar­ture, which he for his time had per­formed over them, shall we think them eased of it because Timothy came to be Bishop there? Rather let me conceive this to be the cause why Timothie's instructions are addressed in the singular number to him alone, without mention of his Presbyters, because they were to receive their charge by themselves about the same time: So farre is it from me to think that his Presbyters were not to con­curre in assisting that course of go­vernment wherein he alone is dire­cted by the Apostle to proceed. And if we can go no further in proving this point out of Scripture, the reason must be, because (as appeareth by that which hath been said) the Scri­ptures for the most part speak of that time when Bishops yet were not, but the Apostles themselves. To which purpose neverthelesse there will be [Page 71] still something to be said out of the Scriptures, in the particulars which we shall survey. In the mean time let us take notice of a few passages, a­mong many more, out of Ecclesiasti­call writers, to argue the generall whereof we speak. Ignatius, Epist. ad Trall. [...], saith he, [...]; We can­not understand righter what the Presby­tery meaneth, then out of these words, a Colledge or bench of Assessours to the Bi­shop in sacred matters. The Commenta­ries under S. Ambrose his name upon 1. Tim. v. 1. speak home to this pur­pose; Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus: unde & Synago­ga, & postea Ecclesia, Seniores habuit, sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. This is as much as can be demanded, when we heare that no­thing was done in the Church, to wit by the Bishop, without the advice of his Presbyters. The same is affirmed [Page 72] by S. Hierome upon Titus i. 5. An­tequam Diaboli instinctu studia in re­ligione fierent, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephae, communi consilio Ecclesiae gubernaban­tur. In that S. Hierome thinketh there were no Bishops till Churches were forced to that course to avoid schismes, it hath been shewed he is not in the right: But in that he af­firmeth that at first Churches were governed by common advise, we may well heare him speak in so good company of witnesses. Last of all, S. Cyprian having said once for all, Epist. 6. Quando à primordio Episco­patûs mei nihil statuerim sine consilio vestro [Presbyterorum & Diaconorum] & sine consensu plebis meae, privatá sententiâ gerere, how well he observed it, is yet to be seen in the passage of divers businesses related in his Epi­stles. Out of which the like is to be conceived of the Presbyters of [Page 73] Rome, by those things that are touched there. And this is the true reason why many times (especially among the most ancient Church-writers) Bishop and Presbyters both are comprised in the same styles and names, not because there were then no Bishops (as some men imagine) but because both States concurred in the same office. Clemens in the Epistle aforesaid, pag. 54. speaking of the Ministeries instituted by the Apo­stles, saith thus, [...], That is, They made▪ the first-fruits of believers Overseers and Ministers (that is, Bishops and Deacons) of those that should believe. It seemeth indeed that Clemens calleth the Presbyters Bishops, because as yet there was no other Bishop there, as was proved afore: for so the word is used in S. Pauls Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, for the same reasons, as hath [Page 74] been said. But in Ignatius his Epistle to Hero his Deacon at Antiochia you have these words, [...], Do nothing without the Bi­shops; that is, without the Presbyters: who were indeed Bishops in Ignatius his absence, when this is pretended to be written. And be he who he will be that writ it, I believe it will not of­ten be found that Presbyters are cal­led Bishops in any monument of Church-writers after this time, un­lesse it be in these words of Tertulli­an De praescript. c. 3. Quid ergò si E­piscopus, si Diaconus, si vidua, &c? where putting the Deacon next to the Bishop, he seemeth to comprise the Presbyter with him in the same style: For afterwards the name of Bishops became appropriate to the heads of Presbyteries: as we heard S. Hierome say of the Presbyters at A­lexandria, that the head whom they [Page 75] chose themselves out of their own number, they named BISHOP of A­lexandria. Otherwise, as it is well known that the name of SACERDOS is common to both estates, in regard of the offices of Divine service which were performed by both, so in re­gard of the government of the Church, common to both, are they many times comprised together in the common style of PRESBYTERS, the name of their age, or ANTISTI­TES, [...], PRAEPOSITI, and the like, the names of their charge. For as the Apostle maketh himself an Elder, when he writeth to them in this style, 1. Pet. i. 5. The Elders I exhort, who am also an Elder; so is the like to be observed in that well-known passage of Clemens A­lexandrinus related by Eusebius, Ec­cles. hist. iii. 23. concerning the youth which S. John the Apostle commend­ed to the Bishop of a certain place, [Page 76] Clemens proceeding in the relation addeth, [...], But the Elder, saith he, taking the youth home to his house, &c. calling him a Presbyter whom he had named a Bishop but just afore. So Tertullian, Apologet. c. 39. describing what was wont to be done in the Assemblies of Christians, ad­deth, Praesident probati quique Senio­res, honorem non pretio sed testimonio adepti; not meaning to tell us that there was no Bishop to be seen at these meetings, (for in his book De praescript. where he nameth Polycar­pus, whom we alledged afore, cap. 32. Bishop of Smyrna, he speaketh as much of Bishops that succeded the Apostles in the rest of the Churches of their planting) but comprising both ranks and estates in one name of ELDERS: And that upon the reason specified in the Commentaries under S. Ambrose his name, upon 1. Tim. iii. 8. where he giveth the reason why [Page 77] the Apostle passeth straight from Bi­shops to Deacons; Because, saith he, every Bishop is a Presbyter, though every Presbyter is not a Bishop, who is the chief of Presbyters. And the true S. Ambrose Offic. i. 20. Viduarum & virginum domos, nisi visitandi gratiâ juniores adire non est opus: & hoc cum Senioribus, hoc est, cum Episcopo, vel si opus est, cum Presbyteris, With the Elders, saith he, that is, with the Bi­shop or Presbyters. Justine Martyr in his second Apology relating the orders of Christians in their Assem­blies, having spoken of reading the Scriptures, Then, saith he, the Reader having done, [...], the Ruler, maketh a speech of instruction to the people, ex­horting them to imitate what was read. And again of the Eucharist, Then, saith he, bread and wine is offered to the Ruler, [...]. Was it the Bishop alone, or the Presbyters alone, that preached, and celebrated the Eucha­rist? [Page 78] Sure both did it, and the name of [...] was chosen on purpose by Justine to comprise both. The same is to be observed in the words of S. Augustine Hom. ult. ex quinquaginta, cap. 11. Veniat peccator ad Antistites, per quos illi in Ecclesia claves ministran­tur, & à Praepositis sacrorum accipiat satisfactionis suae modum. ANTISTI­TES in Ecclesia is not the Bishop a­lone, but the Bishop and the Presby­ters. Hegesippus in Eusebius, Eccles. hist. iii. 20. relateth how some of our Lords kindred were brought a­fore Domitian upon suspicion of dan­ger to the State in regard of their title to the Kingdome, but dismissed by him upon notice of their profession of life, in tilling their grounds with their own hands, tried by the hardnesse of them which it had wrought. These, saith Hegesippus, were hereupon chosen [...], to be leaders of Churches, as both Cousins of our Lord, [Page 79] and his witnesses, comprehending both Bishop and Presbyters in one title. As in Ignatius, ad Trall. [...] is put in one word to expresse Bishops and Presbyters both, as the circumstance of the place will evi­dence. To this we must adde the words of Ireneus, iv. 43. Wherefore, saith he, it behoveth us to obey the El­ders that are in the Church, which have received according to the Fathers plea­sure, the certain grace of truth, with the succession of their Bishoprick. And a­gain, iii. 3. he speaketh of the traditi­on coming from the Apostles, which had been preserved in the Churches through the succession of Presbyters. Ireneus, that is wont to appeal to the succession of Bishops, to evidence that which the Church then believed to have come from the A­postles, here referreth himself to the Presbyters for the same purpose, af­firming that they succeeded the Apo­stles [Page 80] without doubt, calling the Bi­shops by the name of PRESBYTERS in regard of the office common to both. Thus are both ranks compri­sed in one name of [...] in the first Canon of the Councel at Antiochia, where we reade, [...]: Where we are not to conceive that Deacons are reckoned among the [...], as hath been mistook; but the sense is to be direct­ed by distinguishing the words thus, [...], reckoning the [...] as well Presbyters as Bi­shops, neither more nor lesse then ANTISTITES in Latine, which we had in S. Augustine before: And thus you have both ranks comprised in the same style of PRAEPOSITI in S. Cyprian, and of PRAESIDEN­TES in Tertullian: The first, Epist. 62. Et cùm omnes omnino disciplinam tene­re [Page 81] oporteat, multò magis Praepositos & Diaconos curare hoc fas est. The other, De Cor. mil. c. 3. Eucharistiae Sa­cramentum nec de aliorum manu quàm Praesidentium sumimus.

BEfore we leave this point, it will not be amisse to take notice what pattern the Apostles might have for this form of government in the Syn­agogue. For when our Lord in the Gospel, Matth. xviii. 17. giveth his Disciples in the case of private offen­ses the rule, Dic Ecclesiae, it is to be supposed he reflecteth upon some Bench to which that people were wont to resort with their causes [Page 82] (otherwise what could the hearers un­derstand by these words?) intimating that his will was, the Church which he was now founding, to be provided of the like. Neverthelesse, in regard this Church was intended a mere spirituall State, to be cherished and nourished in the bosome and entrails as it were of all Common-wealths, there must no comparison be made in that which concerneth the temporall state of that people. Let us see then Moses his charge: Deut. xvii. 8, 9. thus we reade, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between bloud and bloud, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being mat­ters of controversie within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come unto the Priests and Levites, and to the Judges that shall be in those dayes, and enquire, and they shall shew thee the sentence of [Page 83] judgement. He that readeth here on the one side two sorts of persons, the Priests and Levites for one, and the Judge that shall be in those dayes; on the other side, two sorts of causes, one concerning Ceremonies of the Religion in force, the other the civil Laws of that people; hath cause to think that the meaning of this law is, that they should resort to severall persons, according to the differences of their causes: Especially, being in­different in the words, to translate it thus, Thou shalt come to the Priests, the Levites, or to the Judge that shall be in those dayes, as after verse 12. it is read. Had it been thus, the corre­spondence had been clear between the high Priest and his inferiours in the Synagogues, and the Bishop and his Presbyters in the Church. But the practice of the Nation beareth it otherwise: In which we must believe their Doctours, when they tell us that [Page 84] the whole passage, as well that of the Priests and Levites as that of the Judge that shall be in those dayes, is referred to the Sanedrin, whereof R. Isaack Abartincell giveth his reason in his Commentaries upon that place, Be­cause that Court for a great part con­sisted of Priests and Levites, and therefore had the hearing of all sorts of causes. And though they were brought hither from lower Courts, (whereof there was one of three and twenty persons in every place which conteined one hundred and twenty families, one of three in lesse places) by the Judges themselves, as the E­brew Doctours will have it, arguing from the words, THOU SHALT ARISE, Thou that findest a matter too hard for thee in judgement, shalt arise; yet can we compare the Consistory of the Church with no Court but this. First, because all mother-Churches in mo­ther-Cities are absolute in their rule, [Page 85] so farre as the Scripture hath appoint­ed it; otherwise then as the law of love tieth Christians to assist one an­others necessities: our Lord and his Apostles having instituted no other judicatories in spirituall matters, but one of these Presbyteries in each Church, and many of them in seve­rall Churches, when the matter re­quired common advise. And again, because Jerusalem was the onely seat of the whole State of Religion and Justice both, in that people, sacrifices being done no where else. Well then, as Ignatius in one of his Epistles di­stinguisheth two parts of the Bishops office, [...], to rule the Church, and to perform Divine ser­vice, so must we inquire the corre­spondency of the Church with the Synagogue in both respects: reflecting from the Bishop and Presbyters, in regard of Divine service to be per­formed by their hands, upon Aaron [Page 86] and his sonnes, or the high Priest and the rest, as S. Hierome hath done be­fore us, writing in these terms, Epist. ad Euagr. Quod Aaron & filii ejus at (que) Levitae in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Epi­scopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi vendi­cent in Ecclesia. But in respect of Go­vernment and Discipline, whereof our Lord speaketh in the Gospel a­foresaid, we must reflect upon the Sanedrin, as the same S. Hierome hath done in another place, upon the first to Titus, saying of Bishops in re­spect of their Presbyters, Imitantes Moysen, qui cùm haberet in potestate so­lus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret. So then, Moses his Spirit is taken and divided upon seventie Elders, to help him to bear the charge of the people, Num. xi. 25. The same thing is done when the Apostles ordain Presbyte­ries by imposition of hands. There­fore we see the Spirit of Prophecy [Page 87] rest upon the Presbytery by which Timothy was ordained, as well as upon that of Antiochia, no otherwise then it did upon Moses his Sanedrin, Num. xi. 26. To continue and pro­cure the continuance whereof upon their successours, it was, that this Court sate in the Temple, as the old Ebrew Doctours observe it is said, Thou shalt go up to the place which I shall choose; signifying that the Tem­ple in which the holy Ghost dwelt, occasioned the influence of it upon the Court that sate there. But when Moses was dead, a President was chosen over and beside the seventy, whom they called the Nasi, to be in his stead from age to age, as R. Moses writeth: such is the Bishop, chief of the Presbyters, after an Apostle. All the difference is this, The Sanedrin is but one, as the nation to which God was known was but one; whereas the Apostle and his successours remain­eth [Page 88] head of so many Presbyteries as his office of preaching the Gospel to all Nations adviseth him to institute, as hath been said.

IT is well enough known, how this comparison and the text that oc­casioneth it is drawn into conse­quence, to prove that Presbyteries were intended to consist part of El­ders of the people, part of Ministers [Page 89] of the Church, as the Sanedrin of some Priests and Levites, some of the people: And it is as well to be known, what a forced presumption it is, to require correspondence be­tween the Church and the Syna­gogue in that point which the diffe­rence of a mere Spirituall and Tem­porall Common-wealth bringeth to passe. The Sanedrin consisted of the chief of that people as well as of Priests and Levites, because the chief causes of that Common-wealth as well as of Religion passed through their hands: The Church is subject to all Common-wealths where it is mainteined, in temporall matters: In those which concern the soul, whom shall we think our Lord leaveth her in charge with, but those whom he trusteth with the keyes of his house? Who those are we shall see anon: In the mean time let this serve their turn that will needs presume that these [Page 90] Presbyteries must consist part of lay-persons, as the Sanedrin; while we prove that de facto they did consist of none but Ministers of the Church: For upon this occasion, it will not be amisse here to adde the utmost of the rest whereupon that platform is grounded in Scripture: w ^ch is in effect no more then that text of the Apostle 1. Tim. v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and doctrine, carrying at the first sound an appearance of two sorts of Elders, some Preachers, others nothing but Rulers. It is seconded indeed by those passages of the Apostles where­in they reckon the graces, for the edi­fication of the Church, distributed upon the members of it upon the A­scension of Christ, Ephes. iv. 4. some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evange­lists, some Pastours and Doctours; or else both for edification and for other [Page 91] necessities, Rom. xii. 6. Prophecying, Ministring, Teaching, Exhorting, Communicating, Ruling; and 1. Cor. xii. 28. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Miracles, Gifts of Healing, Helps in Government, Tongues: and afore vers. 8. those gifts which are called the ma­nifestation of the Spirit, given to every man to profit withall, because of their use to the edification of the Church of that time, are reckoned as follow­eth, the word of Wisdome, the word of Knowledge, Faith, gifts of Healing, Miracles, Prophecy, Discerning of Spi­rits, Tongues, Interpretation of Tongues; and 1. Pet. iv. 11. Speaking, and Mi­nistring. But that which is gathered hence, is but in consequence to the two sorts of Elders, supposed out of the Text aforesaid. For out of these passages are culled the gifts of Ruling or Helps in Government, and Mini­string, the offices of Pastours, of Do­ctours or Teachers; upon presumption [Page 92] of the difference aforesaid, to argue, That the Ministeries appointed to continue in the Church till our Lords coming to judgement, are, that of Pastours, to preach in the Church; that of Rulers or Helps in the govern­ment, Elders of the people, to assist in Ruling; and last of all Doctours or Teachers, to reade lessons in point of Religion, not medling with Govern­ment; besides Deacons, to whom the gift of Ministring belongeth. Here it is plain, there is work cut out: And sure it is a fit place to take into consi­deration the first part of that Office we pretend to prove common to Bi­shop and Presbyters, consisting in labour in the word and doctrine, as it was in the Primitive time, and is un­derstood by the Apostle: Which withall will make appear upon what sort of persons the Rule of the Church was estated. Without doubt, when we have named the Preserva­tion [Page 93] of the true faith by preventing the creeping in of heresies and er­rours, the Instruction of those that are converted in the mysteries of the faith, Diligence in propagating it by converting more and more, we have named a very great work of labour in the word and doctrine, and yet speci­fied nothing but that which is con­teined in the Presbyters office from the beginning. For when the Apostle Acts xx. 29. foretelleth to the Pres­byters of Ephesus the coming in of grievous wolves, that should not spare the flock, and the rising up of perverse Teachers, it is to the purpose to put them in mind, (verse 31) to be watchfull of these things, as of their own charge; vouching withall his own example vers. 20. in preaching, and teaching them both in publick, and house by house, admonishing them with teares, every man in particular, as it followeth vers. 31. for them in their place and [Page 94] rank to follow. And the rule of the Apostle, Gal. vi. 6. Let him that is catechized, communicate to him that ca­techizeth in all good things, without doubt aimeth at this private way of instruction whereof we speak. Be the same said of the other Apostles in­structions to his Elders, 1. Pet. v. 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre (because it is said, the Elders that rule well are counted worthy of dou­ble honour, that is, reward) but of a ready mind, neither as being Lords of Gods heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And again, the office of Watch­ing over the flock, by which the lea­ders of the Church are charactered Heb. xiii. 17. the parts of a Bishop in the instructions of Timothy and Ti­tus, that concern Teaching and In­structing in the faith, as by the mean­ing of the words they may consist, so [Page 95] for my part they are undoubtedly ta­ken to consist most an end, for the time of the Apostles, in that private diligence, those abilities, that watch­fulnesse, that Presbyters were to use in guiding and instructing particular persons of Christians, which in con­sequence must be understood of that labour in the word and doctrine specifi­ed in the leading Text, 1. Tim. v. 17. And the reason shall be, because then, to the best of my judgement, (which if it prove otherwise, then shall the spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets) the work of preaching in the assemblies of Christians at that time, so farre as we understand by the Apostle, went more by mens gifts then by their places in the Church. Reade the fourteenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians throughout, and consider what great use there was of the gifts of prophecying and speak­ing strange languages in their assem­blies, [Page 96] which the Apostle there regula­teth, sure you will never imagine (for there is not a syllable to intimate it) that these were all Presbyters, ordi­nary Ministers in the Church. The like must be said of the gifts recko­ned, vers. 8. The word of Wisdome, the word of Knowledge, Discerning spi­rits, and the like; of the gifts of Teaching and Exhorting, Rom. xii. 7, 8. of Pastours and Doctours, menti­oned by the Apostle, Ephes. iv. 14. The Office of the Presbyters at Thes­salonica, the Apostle recommendeth to the brethren there in these terms, 1. Thess. 5. 12. We beseech you, bre­thren, to know them which labour a­mong you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you: And to esteem them very highly in love, for their works sake. But we are not bound to think them all the same persons whose gra­ces he recommendeth, when he ad­deth, vers. 19. 20. Quench not the [Page 97] Spirit: Despise not prophesying. Acts xiii. 1. There were in the Church of Antiochia Prophets and Teachers: and of them they were that gave Paul and Barnabas imposi­tion of hands. And 1. Tim. iv. 14. these are those that prophesied of him, and Presbyters they were, I suppose, that gave him imposition of hands with the Apostle. And so it was argued from hence afore, that the Spirit of Prophesie rested upon those Presby­teries. But that all such Prophets were Presbyters, or all Presbyters such Prophets, neither is it written in Gods book, nor of it self credible, in such varietie of graces specified, which all being given for edification, and used in the assemblies to that pur­pose, must either rest in the rank of ordinary Ministers, or be counted personall graces, whether miraculous or otherwise, used for the edification of the Church, in supplement of their [Page 98] indeavours which have served the turn in after ages. He that writ the Commentaries upon S. Pauls Epi­stles, under S. Ambrose his name, upon Ephes. iv. 10. having laboured to accommodate the gifts there spe­cified to the Ministeries then in use in the Church, is at length driven to this point, Tamen postquam omnibus loci [...] Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordi­nata, aliter composita res est quàm coe­perat. Primùm enim omnes docebant▪ & omnes baptizabant, quibuscunq [...] diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasu [...] And after a while, Ʋt ergò crescere plebs & multiplicaretur, omnibus int [...] initia concessum est & evangelizare & baptizare & Scripturas in Ecclesia explanare. That which he saith of a [...] persons publishing the Gospel, is justified by that which we reade Act▪ viii. 4. Therefore they that were scatered abroad, went everywhere preaching the word. And again, Acts xi. 19▪ [Page 99] Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as farre as Phoenice and Cyprus and Antiochia, preaching the Word to none but unto the Jews onely. That which he saith of ex­pounding the Scriptures, that is, speak­ing in the Church, will be justified no lesse, if it be referred to that variety of gifts specified out of the Apostle, most an end miraculous and concern­ing that time, the use whereof was for edification in the assemblies. And the reason that is to be given for this must needs appear very considerable; Because that among men chosen out of those that were newly converted to the faith in their elder years, for which they are called PRESEYTERS, and that in respect of other kind of abilities tending to other parts of their office, there should be found men fit to speak in publick assemblies upon humane parts and indeavours, so as [Page 100] to preserve the decorum and reverence of so great a work, is beyond the compasse of common discretion to imagine; these qualities being not often found but in those that are ha­bituated to them from their youth. Do but look on those of our Lords kindred that confessed him before Domitian, and therefore were made leaders of Churches, as was related before from Hegesippus, and think whether men whose hands were hardned with the plough, already struck in years, were fit to make Preachers when they were made Ru­lers of Churches: So farre is it from us to think that in the cradle of the Church no Presbyter was made, but for his abilities in preaching. Let us now look back a little upon the plat­form pretended, and ask what com­mission men have to turn temporary indowments into perpetuall places? or according to personall gifts and [Page 101] graces to distinguish oecumenicall of­fices? (And yet it will not appear that ever Pastours were distinguished from Doctours by the Apostle: For he never said that Christ hath given some Pastours, some Doctours; but his words are, Ephes. iv. 11. that he gave some Pastours and Doctours, having said afore that he gave some Apostles, some Evangelists, some Prophets, di­stinguishing those, but comprising these.) If Teaching and Preaching must make two offices, as then they were two graces, why shall not Ex­horting come in for a share, and de­mand that there may be an office in­stituted for the purpose of it, as well as for Teaching, which it standeth in equipage with, Rom, xii. 7, 8? why should not the word of Wisdome and the word of Knowledge do the like? for these mentioned 1. Cor. xii. 8. are of perpetuall use, although Prophe­sies and strange languages were but [Page 102] for the time. There is one good rea­son to be given and no more: Because perpetuall Ministeries are one thing, temporary Gifts are another thing: Those we know, by the institution of them in Scripture, by the office of them specified in the Acts and in the Epistles, by the practice of them in all ages of the Church; those we know were in time of the Apostle, but not instituted for Ministeries, because not continued. The Office of Pres­byters we know was both for Go­vernment and Teaching: Both are found in S. Peters exhortation to the Presbyters of his charge, 1. Pet. v. 2. feeding the flock, and overseeing it: both in S. Pauls charge to the Pre­sbyters of Ephesus, Acts xx. 28. and afterwards: both in the qualities of Bishops, (that is, as is acknowledged, of Presbyters) wherein Timothy is instructed by the Apostle, 1. Tim. iii. 2, 5. both conteined in that very pas­sage [Page 103] that is alledged to bring in a dif­ference of Presbyters, 1. Tim. v. 17. For those Elders that rule well are such as labour in the word and doctrine: Why might not the Apostle then difference Presbyters by the execu­tion of their functions as well as by the functions themselves? Why might not some Presbyters shew more diligence in the most eminent point of the office, taking speciall pains in the Word and Doctrine, which speciall pains the word [...] signifieth, and yet others be count­ed worthy of double honour, and good Rulers, as well in respect of their diligence in the prime point as of their performance in the rest? The personall gifts of the Holy Ghost were then distributed on severall per­sons, as the Apostle sheweth, that all might be usefull, and such indow­ments, in the time of spirituall graces, might be imployed to the edification [Page 104] of assemblies as well as the gifts of ruling, to assist the Presbyters in their office of Government: But he that would take order now, that who could pretend a gift in ruling should be helpers in government, or in the word of Wisdome and Knowledge, should stand up to edifie assemblies, might soon find more help in govern­ment, more words of Wisdome and Knowledge, and in time more pro­phesying, then himself would desire. Well may we turn the world into confusion, if we think to do what then was done; but shall never find any Ministeries of place and succession in the Church but Presbyters and Dea­cons (for of the coming-in of Bishops hath been said) to the parts of whose office, consisting in Ruling, Teaching, and Ministering, all those other gifts of the holy Ghost are to be referred as assistant at that time; and from whose office, and the ordinary bles­sing [Page 105] of God upon it, the effect of them all is to be expected at this time. For let me ask, What is become of those Doctours, distinguished from Pastours, in all succeeding ages? Where have those ruling Elders hid themselves, that they were never seen since the time of the Apostles? Is it possible that the whole Church should conspire to suppresse such an institution of our Lord and his Apo­stles almost as soon as it was made? Or is it imaginable, had it not been suppressed, that all Ecclesiasticall wri­ters, whereof there is such store, should conspire so farre to suppresse the re­membrance of it, that among them all there is not one witnesse produced to depose for them, unlesse it be by those that bring the meaning with them which they desire to find in their writings? Were we alive in Tertullians time, we might go into the assemblies of Christians, and see [Page 106] with our eyes what now will not be believed, though it be told us in terms plain enough to them that will under­stand, when he saith as afore, Praesi­dent probati quique seniores, honorem non pretio sed testimonio adepti. We might see them sitting in the head­room of the Congregation by them­selves apart from the people: where­upon they are called by him other­whiles Ordo and Consessus. And were there occasion to see any of them cen­sured to the losse of his office, we might see him for his punishment sit and communicate in the rank of the people. It hath not been my lot yet to meet with any thing in Ecclesiasti­call Writers, or out of them, to bear an appearance of this difference, but onely those words of the commenta­ries under S. Ambrose his name upon 1. Tim. v. 1. Ʋnde & Synagoga, & post­ea Ecclesia, Seniores habuit, sine quo­rum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. [Page 107] He speaketh in the time past, of that which had been in the Church and was not; and without doubt giveth men of excellent abilities, men of in­comparable merit in the Church, occasion to mistake his meaning, as if he had spoke of a sort of Presby­ters which had been in the Church and now were not: whereas they should have taken the whole clause with them, when he saith, Ʋnde & postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit, sine quo­rum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia; and then his meaning had been plain, as in truth it is, That the Church once had Presbyters that joyned advise with the Bishop in all Church-mat­ters; which my desire is to prove was so from the beginning, and which he complaineth was now otherwise. For so S. Hierome, about the same time, manifestly declareth that he thought an alteration in this point was come to passe, when he saith that at the first [Page 108] Churches were governed by com­mon advise, but afterwards all was referred to one, hereupon exhorting Bishops to communicate the govern­ment of their Churches with their Presbyters, as Moses did his with the Sanedrin of Israel. And this further appeareth by that which followeth in the said Commentaries, Quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit, nescio, nisi fortè Doctorum quorundam desidiâ, vel po­tiùs superbiâ dum soli volunt aliquid videri, imputing the change to the negligence of Teachers, or to their pride: and therefore they are Teachers that were called Elders afore; and through their negligence, or the Bi­shops taking all on themselves, all came into their hands: which per­haps may be referred to that which by and by shall be said, that the Bi­shops afterwards in some parts took the office of preaching in the Mo­ther-Church, where they lived, in a [Page 109] sort to their peculiar, not suffering the Presbyters to preach in their pre­sence. Which office of preaching ne­verthelesse, as the matter is now, being become the necessary charge of Bishop and Presbyters (tempo­rary graces being ceased, and Di­oceses divided, Churches built, and means assigned) as it is without doubt and alwayes was accounted, in regard of personall performance, the most excellent work they are able to contribute to the service of God, so is it for the use of edificati­on, as much to be preferred before other their imployment, as Pro­phesying is by the Apostle prefer­red before speaking with strange languages: Alwayes provided (since we must not now presume upon im­mediate inspirations, but expect Gods ordinary blessing upon hu­mane indeavours) that men and a­bilities may be stored for the work [Page 110] before the work be cut out for them, so as the honour and reverence there­of may be preserved without offense. For as the Apostle saith, that if un­believers should come into the assem­blies of Christians, and heare them nothing but speak languages which most understood not, they would say they were mad: So if the ene­mies of our Profession should heare in our Churches a great deal of tongue, but the meaning of the Scripture not in it, needs must this bring an evil opinion upon it.

VVEll then, this particular of labour in the Word and Do­ctrine is out of doubt common to Bi­shop and Presbyters both. It is that which S. Peter most aimeth at, when he exhorteth those whom he calleth his fellow-Elders to the office of feed­ing the flock: It is that which S. Paul for the most part expresseth, when he exhorteth the Presbyters of Ephesus to take heed to the flock which they were to feed, Acts xx. 28. according to his example, that ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears, verse 31. [Page 112] teaching them both in publick, and from house to house, as it is afore, v. 28. And we shall find this office of teaching and instructing the Church to rest after­wards upon the Bishop in chief, and upon the Presbyters in consequence, whether in private upon particular occasions, whereof we find much ar­gument of practice in S. Cyprians Epistles, or in publick in the assem­blies of Christians. For thus the mat­ter went afterwards, the principall parts and offices of Divine service, that is, the Sermon and the celebra­tion of the Eucharist, were wont to be reserved to the Bishop, in honour of his place and the eminence of it, unlesse he were absent or it were dis­posed of otherwise. Which I take to be the reason why Justine Martyr, in the place alledged afore, related that the Sermon was wont to be made and the Eucharist celebrated by the [...], which name compriseth Bi­shop [Page 113] and Presbyters both as hath been said; because the office belong­ed to the Bishop in the first place, to the Presbyters in case of his absence, or the like. And you shall heare even now Ignatius his argument to per­swade the Ephesians not to assemble for the Eucharist, but with the Bi­shop; For, saith he, if the prayers of one or two have that force, that Christ is in the midst of them, much more the prayers of the Bishop and Church; Therefore it was the Bishop whose prayers the Eucharist was celebrated with. And in the Life of S. Augustine is related, that it was not the custome for Presbyters to preach in the Churches of Africk, (that is, not if the Bishop were present) whereupon the Bishop Valerius being a Greek, and not so fit to speak to the people in Latine, brought that into use there which he had seen practiced in the East, and assumed S. Augustine to as­sist [Page 114] him by preaching in his presence. The Commentarie under S. Ambrose his name so often alledged, having said, upon Ephes. iv. 11. as we had it afore, that at the first all sorts preached in the Church, but after­wards it was otherwise settled, prose­cuteth it with these words, Ʋnde nunc neque Diaconi in populo praedicant. And of Baptizing, Tertullian l. De Baptist. c. 17. Dandi quidem jus habet summus sacerdos, id est, Episcopus, dehinc Presby­teri & Diaconi, sed non sine autoritate Episcopi propter Ecclesiae honorem, quo salvo salvapax est. To shew us, That all services of the Church, even to baptize, belonged in chief to the Bi­shop, in respect to his place; that for the same reason the Presbyters were silent in their presence; and the Dea­cons not suffered at all to preach at that time. Now as the office com­mon to Bishop and Presbyters was and is seen in the services of the [Page 115] Church, so was it also seen in ap­pointing the assemblies of the Church for that purpose. This we have here to observe out of Ignatius his Epistles, in consequence to that which was produced afore out of S. Paul and Clemens concerning the disorders of the assemblies at Corinth; that to correct them, and to prevent the like, the order of the peoples Oblations, of the Presbyters celebrating the Eu­charist, of the Assemblies of the Church for that purpose, was regu­lated by the appointment of the Bi­shop and Presbyters. His words are these. Epist. ad Smyrn. [...], That without the Bishop, neither the people might bring their offerings, nor Presbyters consecrate the Eucharist, nor both celebrate the feasts of Love used at these assemblies. And for the purpose of this particular it is that he [Page 116] is so earnest and frequent throughout his Epistles in exhorting to be subject to the Bishop and Presbyters. Epist. ad Trall. [...], He that is within the Altar, saith he, is pure: wherefore he obeyeth the Bishop and Presbyters: But he that is without, is he that doth any thing without the Bi­shop and Presbyters. He that is without the Altar, in Ignatius his terms, that doth things without the Bishop and Pre­sbyters, is meant of those of the peo­ple that assembled, or those of the Presbyters that celebrated the Eu­charist, without the Bishop and Pre­sbyters or their appointment: which was called erecting Altar against Altar in the Primitive time: For so Igna­tius again in the Epistle to the Ephe­sians, Let no man mistake, saith he; if a man be not within the Altar, he [Page 117] cometh short of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two be of such force, that Christ standeth in the middest of them, how much more shall the prayer wherein the Bishop and Church agreeth (that is, at the Eucharist, which he spoke of when he mentioned the bread of God afore) prevail? And therefore in the end of that Epistle, [...], Obeying the Bishop and Presbyters without distraction of mind, breaking one bread, which is the medicine of im­mortalitie. A plain case: The intent of his exhortations is, to perswade them to assemble without schisme, because that to assemble and celebrate the Eucharist besides the Bishops ap­pointment was then the due marke of aschismatick. And that the Presby­ters concurred with him in ordering these matters, appeareth by the obe­dience he requireth to both: And so [Page 118] still in Ignatius the Presbyters are as­sistant to the Bishop in all things. And this is the meaning of that vi ^th Canon of the Councel at Gangra, whereof the tenour is, If any man as­semble in private beside the Church, and will perform Ecclesiasticall Offices in contempt of the Church, no Presbyter be­ing there with assent of the Bishop, let him be anathema: Providing herein against schisme, as the occasion of that Councel evidenceth. Wherewith agreeth the xxxii. Canon of the A­postles. And in the vii ^th and viii ^th Canon next following of the same Councel there is provision against bringing or receiving oblations o­therwise then to the Church, beside the Bishops mind, or his that is trusted for these things, for the be­nefit of the poore, under pain of ana­thema: The heavinesse of the sen­tence proceeding upon the mark of schisme which the action forbidden [Page 119] importeth, though there is in it a re­spect to the maintenance of the Church and poore arising for that time out of the oblations of Christian people, the dispersing whereof was then another particular of the office common to Bishop and Presbyters. For as we reade acts xi. 29. that the benevolence of the brethren of An­tiochia was directed to the Elders at Jerusalem by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, though the seven Deacons were made afore to attend upon the poore; so are we not to think that their office went so high as to dispose of their maintenance, but to execute the disposition of Bishop and Presby­ters. For when the Church of Anti­ochia mainteined foure thousand poore, as is read in a passage of S. Chrysostome, the Church of Rome two thousand and five hundred in Cornelius his time, as is to be seen in his words related by Eusebius, [Page 120] Eccles. hist. vi. 43. it is not reason to imagine that all this means was put in the power of the Deacons: Whose office S. Hierome well expresseth when he calleth them mensarum ac vi­duarum ministros, as those that mini­stred not disposed of their maintenance. (Though perhaps the advantage of fingring money was it that made them take so much upon them in his time, whereof he complaineth) Nay, it is plain this must rest in the power of Bishop and Presbyters by the porti­ons and divisions thereof, wherein each of them had interesse, as his maintenance; whereof we find re­membrance in S. Cyprians Epistles. In the last Canon of the Councel of Antiochia is provided, that the Bi­shop shall not alienate the Church-goods (which though immovable, were given for the same purpose) without consent of his Presbyters. And in those which are called the [Page 121] Canons of the Apostles (which the world knoweth are not theirs, but yet do expresse very ancient cu­stomes of the Church) Can. iii. & iv. having ordered what sorts of first-fruits should be sent to the Church, what home to the Bishop and Pre­sbyters, it followeth, Now it is ma­nifest that they are to be divided by them among the Deacons and Clergy: to the Deacons, for the maintenance of the poore; to the Clergy, for their own: Where you see the interesse of the Presbyters in disposing of such oblations.

THere remaineth now two parti­culars of the office common to Bishop and Presbyters, wherein the people also claim their interesse: the one is the discipline of Penance; the other the making of Ministers: The due course whereof assigned by our Lord and his Apostles will best be [Page 123] discovered, laying together first what we find of them in Scripture, and then comparing of it with the proceeding of the Primitive time, which we shall perceive the right to go along with. The Keyes of the Kingdome of hea­ven are given by our Lord to the first of his Disciples, in those words, Matth. xvi. 19. And I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Hea­ven: and whatsoever thou bindest on earth, shall be bound in Heaven; what­soever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. If mens minds were not possessed with prejudice, it would soon appear to be the same power that is given to all the Apo­stles, John xx. 24. Whosesoever sinnes ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sinnes ye retein, they are reteined. But Matt. xviii. 17, 18. to the same purpose, though more at large, And if he shall neglect to heare them, tell it unto the Church: But if he [Page 124] neglect to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and as a pub­lican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoe­ver ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea­ven. To this must be added the pro­ceeding of the Apostle, in delivering to Satan the incestuous person at Co­rinth. 1. Cor. v. 3, 4, 5. which he also did to Hymeneus and Alexan­der. 1. Tim. i. 20. Now, in the pra­ctice of the Primitive Church, those that exercised this power, were in part Judges (Censours you may call them, if you please) and in part Physicians. Both parts comprised in S. Cyprians words, Ep. 51. Ʋbi lapsis nec censura deest quae increpet, nec medicina quae sanet. Judges they are in shutting Gods house upon of­fenders, and binding their sins upon their consciences. And the effect of this censure such, (supposing the [Page 125] proceeding of it to be due) that as the disease of sin is not to be cured with­out the medicine of repentance, no more can this knot wherewith sinnes, notorious of themselves, or otherwise known, are tyed to mens consciences, be undone without known repen­tance. For since the worst of the souls sicknesse consisteth in not acknow­ledging her disease, it pleased God to give his Church power and charge to constrain offenders to take their Physick, which the grief of bodily diseases is able to do alone. Physici­ans they are then, in prescribing the medicine of Repentance: and in that respect alone are truly said to re­mit sinnes. God himself saith not to the Soul, I absolve thee from thine offenses, but upon supposi­tion of the means, his own gift of repentance, that worketh the cure: so farre it is from the pow­er of his creature to pronounce [Page 126] forgivenesse without knowledge of the effect which the medicine of re­pentance hath wrought. But if we say true when a Physician is said to cure a mans disease, though all the world know he doth no more but prescribe the medicine, or at the most see it applyed; with as good right is it to be said that mens sinnes are cu­red by them that prescribe the course by which they are cured. Onely, whereas he that is cured of a bodily disease is able to tell himself when he is well; he that is once sensible of the maladies of his soul, is not easily sa­tisfied when the cure is done: It hath therefore pleased the goodnesse of God to provide an office and charge in his Church to assure men of for­givenesse of sinnes upon due know­ledge of repentance, by taking away that knot wherewith they remained tied upon their consciences. Firmi­lianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae [Page 127] in his Epistle to S. Cyprian, the lxxv ^th in number of his Epistles, thus writeth, Lapsis quoque fratribus per poenitentiam medela quaeratur. Non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur, sed ut per nos ad intelli­gentiam delictorum suorum convertan­tur, & Domino pleniùs satisfacere co­gantur. To this purpose was the time and order and fashion of Penance, re­gulated in the ancient Church, that the diseases of the soul might receive every one their competent cure: and therefore it is plain that among them it was a favour to be admit­ted to Penance, in opposition to Novatianus, Qui nemini dandam poe­nitentiam putavit, saith Saint Am­brose, De Poenit. 2. 1. exhorting men to repentance indeed, but leaving them for pardon to God who had power to give it, as his Disciple So­crates writeth Eccles. hist. iv. 13. That is, not imploying the power of the [Page 128] keyes, and the benefit of it, to the cure of their offenses. Whereupon S. Ambrose you see calleth it dare poenitentiam, as on the offenders side it was then called petere poenitentiam, demanding and granting of Penance. For this cause it was that this medi­cine of repentance was wont to be joyned with the prayers of the Con­gregation, but in the chief place, of the Bishop and Presbyters; which, if repentance be Physick, is correspon­dent to that which is given to make Physick work: And this is called in Tertullian, Presbyteris advolvi, Caris Dei adgeniculari, Omnibus fratribus le­gationes deprecationis suae injungere; and in S. Augustine, Gemitus columbae, the Mourning of the turtle, procu­ring their release at Gods hands. And to this purpose was the Imposition of hands so often repeated in Pe­nance, because as S. Augustine saith of it, in confirmation (wherein he fol­loweth [Page 129] Tertullian: the one in these words, Quid enim est impositio manuum nisi oratio super hominem? the other afore him in these, Dehinc manus im­ponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans Spiritum Sanctum, That it is but a Ceremony of benediction, im­ploring the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost which it representeth: So was it in Penance nothing else but a form of benediction, interceding for their reconcilement. This may very well be thought to be the intent of the words of our Lord, in the Go­spel alledged, Matth. xviii. 19. For having delivered to the Church the power of binding and loosing in the words recited, it followeth straight, Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Hea­ven: for where two or three are ga­thered together in my Name, there am [Page 130] I in the midst of them. For as in the words next going afore, he sheweth how mens sins are bound and loosed, to wit by the power which he giveth his Church to that purpose, so he may well seem in the next words to point at the course by which this power may become effectuall to the loosing of sinnes, to wit the intercessi­on of the Congregation of Gods people. At least, thus much hath been observed by men of excellent learning, that lamenting is a work specified by the Apostle himself in the businesse of reducing offenders by Penance, 1. Cor. v. 2. Ye have not lamented to put away such a transgressi­on from you. And again, 2. Cor. xii. 20. I fear that when I come unto you, I shall not find you such as I desire, and shall bewail many which have sinned al­ready, and have not repented of the un­cleannesse, and fornication, and lascivi­ousnesse that they have committed: [Page 131] meaning that he should put them to Penance, by consequence. This ma­keth the interesse of the Congrega­tion in the work of Discipline to be considerable, but intituleth it not to the keyes of Gods house. For to con­ceive our Lords meaning aright, let us take notice that there was among the Jews much use of excommunica­ting by particular persons; (as is to be seen in their writings: Maimoni in Talmud Torah, c. 7. Arba Turim, or Shulchan Aruch, in Tore Deah, Hil­coth Niddui Ʋcherem) and that many times upon causes of their particular interesse: For example, a Rabbi or Rabbies Mate was able to excommu­nicate for his credit, when he found himself slighted. True it is, they count it commendable in a Rabbi to passe over all disrespect to himself in private, but he that shall do it in pub­lick, they bind him to remember it, and watch his party like a Serpent, [Page 132] till he seek favour and reconcilement; Maimoni, n. ult. And true it is that in some cases they void excommunica­tion that is grounded upon particular interesse, and not for the honour of God, Jore Deah out of the Hierusalem Talmud and R. Joseph Karo upon it, f. 364. And generally, he that excom­municateth without cause, is to be excommunicated himself; (it is the last of twenty foure causes for which they excommunicate) but what dis­orders might come upon such pra­ctice, is easie to imagine. And there­fore there is great cause to think, that our Lords words whereof we speak are aimed on purpose to abrogate this course among his followers, though covertly to avoyd offense. For two things he prescribeth in opposition to it; first to aim at a brothers reforma­tion and nothing else in all the pro­ceeding, Matt. xviii. 15. If thy bro­ther shall trespasse against thee, go and [Page 133] tell him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall heare thee, thou hast gained thy brother. The second is, that they shall proceed no further then contestation in private; the rest he prescribeth to be referred in pub­lick to the Church: So it followeth, But if he will not heare thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to heare them, tell it unto the Church. Now this word, [...], the Church, as also. [...], is first used in the Greek of the old Testament, to signifie the Congregation of the peo­ple of Israel. The Jews that have li­ved since the Prophets have espoused and appropriated this later word the Synagogue to signifie sometimes the whole body of that Nation, or rather of that Faith (as among the Fathers the Synagogue standeth for the Jews, in opposition to the Church of Chri­stians) [Page 134] sometimes particular Con­gregations of it, and by consequence the place of their assemblies, as in the Gospel, He loveth our nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. And just so in all respects is the word ECCLE­SIA, the Church, used in relation to Christians, our Lord in the Gospel having begun to appropriate it to the Congregation which he now began to institute, Matt. xvi. 18. Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church: and in the text in hand, Matt. xviii. 17. Tell it to the Church. So that it must not be denied, it is not usuall for the Church, which signifieth the whole Congre­gation of people, to signifie the chief part of it. But it is as certain on the other side, that looking backward to the Synagogue upon which our Lord reflecteth, as was said, such censures as these are whereof our Lord speak­eth, proceeding from the public (private ones being excluded as hath [Page 135] been said) issued all from the Courts of Justice mentioned afore, without respect to the Congregation of the people. As thus: There were among them two degrees of Excommunica­tion and no more, the lesse called [...], that is, Separation, the greater [...], or Anathema, and the effect of them, to cut a man off, more or lesse, from the Congregation of the people, (as is to be seen in the late most learn­ed work, De Jure Nat. & Gent. sec. disc. Ebr. iiii. 9.) The ordinary sen­tence of Separation, which is that we spake of afore, was for thirtie dayes, unlesse the Court thought fit to ab­bridge or inlarge the term: for that time no man must come within foure cubits of him that stood excommu­nicate besides those of his house; he must not be reckoned among three which is the number required at Blessing of meat; he must not be reckoned among tenne, which is the [Page 136] number required to make a Syna­gogue: under that they go not to prayers in the Synagogue. And how it is in the power of the Court to ag­gravate this, is to be seen in Shulchan Aruch, as afore Num. x. At thirty dayes end they iterated the sentence, and stayed thirty dayes more: If then he stood out, it was in their power to excommunicate him with curses, which is that which is called Anathema. With these the proceed­ings of the Christian Church keep some correspondence, according to Scripture. For when our Lord saith, If he heare not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen man and as a Publicane, he intimateth withall a course the Church had to take for his correction and amendment that should give car to it. Which as it might perhaps end in a verball admo­nition of the Church and reall amend­ment of the party, yet those that were [Page 137] under the discipline of Penance, we know, were in a sort excommunicate, because they were not admitted to the Communion of the Eucharist, besides that (as those which were se­parated among the Jews) they put upon them the state and fashion and habit of mourners: And I shewed afore what we find in Scripture to ar­gue this course directed by our Lord, and practiced by the Apostle. But here was a difference, that in that state we find not that a man was cut off from the conversation of Christians, those w ^ch were admitted to Penance, being alwaies accounted in the way of salvation, supposing the performance of their injoyned Penance. That was the effect of that grievous censure whereof our Lord speaketh, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen man and as a Publicane. Not because he meaneth to forbid Christians to converse with Heathen men and Publicanes, who [Page 138] being to be converted from among them, must needs be compassed with them on every side: And therefore that case the Apostle hath resolved, 1. Cor. v. 9, 10. where he informeth them that whereas he had written to them not to converse with fornicatours, his meaning was not to forbid them to converse with the fornicatours of this world, that is Gentiles, or with the co­vetous, or extortioners, or with idola­ters: for then must ye go out of the world; and as it followeth vers. 12. For what have I to do to judge those that are without? do not ye judge those that are within? But our Lords meaning is, that Christians should shew that respect to a brother that should be re­fractary to the Church, as the Jews did then to Gentiles and Publicanes, which the Apostle secondeth there, vers. 11. Now I write to you not to con­verse, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicatour, or covetous, or an ido­later, [Page 139] or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not to eat: which is to avoid them, as the Jews did him that stood separate. And the sentence whereupon this is to be practiced is intimated in the next verse, For what have I to do to judge those that are without? Do not ye judge those that are within? And this censure it seemeth the Apostle pre­supposeth when he writeth to Ti­tus iii. 11. A man that is an Heretick, after the first and second admonition, reject. For his meaning is not to in­struct Titus alone what he in his per­son should do, but in the person of Titus to instruct all the Church to reject and avoid refractary Hereticks: and therefore in the consequence of avoyding them, it seemeth he inti­mateth the censure whereupon they are to be avoyded. The same censure against the incestuous person at Co­rinth he intimateth by the same con­sequence, [Page 140] when he saith, 1. Cor. v. 13. Therefore put away from you that wicked person, which he calleth giving over to Satan in the same case vers. 5. afore, and in the case of Hymeneus and Alexander, 1. Tim. i. 20. and which he signifieth 1. Cor. xvi. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema Maranatha: where ana­thema is the term that cometh from the Synagogue, and so doth the other as some men think. So that this cen­sure cutteth men off from the con­versation of Christians, which for­feit the priviledges to which they pretend, and so delivers them to Sa­tan by consequence; as those that lodged without the camp of Israel, were in danger to be lickt up by the Amalekite. Which course neverthe­lesse, as it was preservative in regard of some members, that they might not be tainted, as the Apostle signifi­eth when he saith 1. Cor. v. 6. Know [Page 141] ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? So was it medicinall in respect of the sick, shame and grief being a good way to the cure: which the Apostle seemeth to respect when he directeth, 1. Cor. v. 6. to deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be safe in the day of the Lord Jesus; and 1. Tim. i. 20. whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. This is the correspondence between the proceeding of the Church and Synagogue. And therefore, as look­ing backward to the Synagogue whereupon our Lord reflecteth when he saith, Dic Ecclesiae, we see to whom they had recourse, so shall we see, looking forwards upon the Church, which our Lord pointeth towards in the same words, to whom he direct­eth his followers to have recourse. The Keyes of Gods house are given in the Gospel to S. Peter, with the effect of binding and loosing, and the [Page 142] same power to all the Apostles, in equivalent terms of reteining and re­mitting sinnes: For if there were ad­vantage, it were an inconvenience that in the third place the power of bind­ing and loosing should be given to the Church, which is pretended given to S. Peter for a priviledge beyond the Apostles. Well then might S. Cy­prian argue, Epist. 27. that because our Lord promised to S. Peter the keyes of his Church, therefore the acts of government of it were to passe through the Bishops hands, and with­out him Apostates could not be re­conciled. And it is the same which S. Augustine affirmeth so oft as he teacheth (which many times he doth) that S. Peter in receiving the Keyes represented the Church, as Ep. 79. Si hoc in Ecclesiâ fit (he speaketh of binding and loosing) Petrus quando claves accepit Ecclesiam sanctam signifi­cavit. For what was promised to S. [Page 143] Peter was given the rest of the Apo­stles, but was to rest in the Church, to which it is also given in the same terms; as S. Cyprian is willing to acknowledge, so oft as he calleth the Presbyters his Colleagues, and pro­fesseth to do nothing without their advise. So that it is not possible to give a more impartiall meaning to the words of our Lord in the Gospel then the practice of those times hath ex­pressed, when that power was exer­cised in common by the Bishop and his Presbyters. This it is Tertullian hath shewed us, Apolog. c. 39. alledged afore, where having commended the gravitie and integritie of Ecclesiasti­call censures, to shew by whom they were done, he addeth as afore, Prae­sident probati quique seniores, honorem non pretio sed testimonio adepti. And S. Augustines words are plain, which we had afore, Veniat peccator ad An­tistites per quos ipsi in Ecclesia claves [Page 144] ministrantur, & à praepositis sacrorum accipiat satisfactionis suae modum. And in S. Cyprian there is so much men­tion of reconcilement by imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy, that I will say no more of it, because this point of all the rest hath continu­ed a chief imployment of Presbyters in the corrupt and pernicious opini­ons and customes of the Church of Rome. Let not any man think now that the Apostle communicateth this power with the Congregation of the Church of Corinth, when he writeth to them, 1. Cor. v. 4, 5. being assem­bled with his Spirit, to deliver the ince­stuous person to Satan. For it is plain, that the sentence is given by the A­postle, vers. 3. where he writeth, For I verily, as absent in body but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. And to cause this proceeding to be the better digested, [Page 145] he hath vouched his power in the end of the chapter afore, verse 18. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come unto you: but I will come unto you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. What will you? shall I come unto you with a rod, or with the spirit of meeknesse? Which power otherwhiles he setteth before them, in case of their disobedience. And therefore it must be acknow­ledged, that he writeth to them to see his sentence published, ratified and executed, which the Presbyters there had either neglected to do, as was touched afore, or perhaps were not able to bring the people under the discipline of Christs Kingdome; which must needs oblige the Apostle to interpose. And therefore the Ita­lian glosse of Diodati, which maketh the Apostle in this place speak of as­sembling the Pastours and Guides of [Page 146] the Church, as in Matth. xviii. 17. though in effect true, (because for certain, what is to be acted by the Congregation, therein the Presby­ters are to do their part, by the mean­ing of the Apostle) yet must leave us room to think, that the words are to be understood of the publick assem­blies of the Church there for Divine service, seeing we find in Tertullian the place afore quoted, that these censures were exercised at and in the assemblies of the Christian people: Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigatio­nes, & censur a divina, saith he, speak­ing of their Assemblies. And S. Cy­prian in the great case of those that fell away in persecution, writeth to the Presbyters that he doth not think to do any thing in it, without their counsel, & the consent of the people. And this without doubt is the reason why the Apostle writeth in these terms 1. Cor. v. 12. For what have [Page 147] I to do to judge those that are without? do not ye judge those that are within? speaking to the Church in generall, (though the sentence passed, as hath been said by Bishop and Presbyters) because matters were censured in the Congregation, and executed by the people: And thus the practice of that time giveth a reason without straining why our Lord seemeth to refer these matters to the Congregation, when he saith, Tell it to the Church, because they passed at their assemblies, though under censure of Bishop and Presbyters. And great reason there is why this regard should be had by the Apostle, and by the Church af­terwards, to the people, because the Church, being a mere spirituall Com­monwealth, and not indued with tem­porall strength, so much as to execute those sentences which the power of the keyes given by Christ obligeth it to inflict, alwayes setting aside that [Page 148] power of working miracles, which was in the Apostle, upon which some think he reflecteth in some passages of those Epistles) requisite it was then, the Congregation should be sa­tisfied of the course of those pro­ceedings which must come into exe­cution and effect by their voluntary submission to the will of God and the office of his Ministers: And as the matter is now, that things of this na­ture proceed not upon mens private consciences and judgements in par­ticulars, but upon generall rules of common right, requisite it is that the Cōmon-wealth have satisfaction of those laws according to which the Church now must proceed in their censures, it being acknowledged that they cannot proceed with effect but by virtue of those laws that are put in force by the secular arm: But as it is now no longer time to leave matters to the Conscience of mens [Page 149] places which may be regulated by laws, which experience maketh commendable; so is it no longer time to expect at the peoples hands volun­tary submission to the discipline of the Church, further then it is inabled by laws of the kingdome to exercise it. And therefore it is much to be wished that the laws by which the Ministers of the Church are inabled, directed, constrained to exercise this prime part of their office, may prove so sufficient, and that the power of the keyes given it by our Lord in the Gospel may be so strengthened by the secular arm, and rules put in force by it, that it may be able to reduce all hainous and notorious offenses un­der the discipline of Penance, and to cut them off from the Church that refuse it. Is it to be believed, that our Lords intent was, in settling such a power as this is; that it should take hold of sinnes of incontinence or the [Page 150] like, letting all others, of as deep a stain, and as well known, escape un­censured? Or could any man devise a more puissant means to discounte­nance malefactours in a Christian Common-wealth, then that which our Lord hath appointed, by making them know, that when they have sa­tisfied the laws of the kingdome, with losse of goods or fame, or have escaped with life by the gentlenesse of them, the fact being proved, ne­verthelesse they can not communi­cate with the people of God, till the Church be satisfied of their correcti­on and amendment? Nay, shall we imagine that the institution of our Lord Christ is satisfied and in force in a Christian Common-wealth, so long as the case of particular offenses, upon occasion whereof it is settled by him in the Gospel, is scarce under­stood among us, because it is so farre from common practice by the law▪ [Page 151] of the kingdome? whereas it might easily appear what an excellent and charitable course our Saviour hath chalked out to us, if a good Christian heart, desirous rather of his brothers amendment then of his own satis­faction, and able to make an appear­ance of such an offense, as our Lord intended, by witnesses, the Church, inabled by rules of law, established by the secular arm, should call the person offending to the acknow­ledgement of wrong on his side, cut­ting him off in case he refused amend­ment. Thus much for certain, if the zeal of well-affected Christians to­wards the state of this Church did not mistake the true mark, the disci­pline of Penance, must needs be thought one of the first points to be reformed in it. And then the rest of that satisfaction which the people can demand of the Church, will consist in not releasing the correction in­flicted [Page 152] untill there be reasonable ap­pearance of the effect wrought by it. For if in S. Cyprians discipline, the people rested so unsatisfied of some whom his gentlenesse had reconci­led, that they were hardly perswa­ded to admitte them to communi­cate, as he writeth Epist. 55. just cause have good Christians to be scandalized, when they see them ad­mitted to communicate of whose offenses they are sure, but have no cause to be sure of their amendment.

AS for the constituting and ordain­ing of Ministers, which is behind of my promise, these are the particu­lars remembred concerning it in Scripture, for the most part touched upon occasion heretofore, Acts xiii. 3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent [Page 154] them away, Acts xiv. 23. Paul and Barnabas, when they had ordained them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. and 1. Tim. iv. 14. Neglect not the gift that was given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of hands of the pre­sbytery; which is 2. Tim. i. 6. by im­position of my hands. And the charge of the Apostle unto him, 1. Tim. v. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens sins. And the whole instructions of the Apostle to Timothy and Titus, by whom he had appointed them to be ordained. To which must be added the choice of Matthias, and the seven Deacons, where is said, that they, the Congre­gation, put up two, Acts i. 23. and the twelve said unto them, Acts vi. 3. look ye out among you seven men of honest re­port, and verse 5. And they chose Ste­ven and the rest, and verse 6. They set [Page 155] them before the Apostles, and when they had prayed they layed hands on them. Which are alledged by S. Cyprian for the interesse of the people in this businesse. Wherein, we shall discern the course of proceeding in the Pri­mitive Church, by that which is read in an Heathen, (who being an enemy to all, can not be thought partiall to any rank of Christians) it is in the life of Alexander Severus, where you have related, how that excellent young Prince, being to promote to the government of Provinces, or the like charges, was wont to set up the persons names, inviting the people to come in against any of them upon a­ny crime, whereof they could make evidence, upon pain of life if any failed in it. And then it follows, Dice­bát (que) grave esse, cùm id Christiani & Judaei facerent, in praedicandis Sacerdo­tibus, qui sunt ordinandi, non fieri in Provinciarum rectoribus, quibus & [Page 156] fortunae hominum committerentur & capita. These words, in praedicandis Sa­cerdotibus qui sunt ordinandi, the learned Casaubon understandeth to be meant of that publication of mens merits and qualities, which must needs fall out in discussing the competence of persons put up to the approbation of the people to be ordained in any rank of Ministers in the Assemblies of Christians according to the custome then in practice: which custome S. Cyprian commendeth upon the pat­tern of Eleazar, made and invested high Priest by Moses, in sight of the people, whose interesse he specifieth when he saith, Ordinationes Sacerdota­les sub populi assistentis conscientia fieri, ut plebe praesente, vel detegantur malo­rum crimina, vel merit abonorum praedi­centur, ut sit ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium suffragio & judicio fuerit comprobata. But before mens deserts and qualities could be scanned, it be­hoved [Page 157] that their persons should be nominated in the first place, the pub­lication whereof is called in the sixth canon of the Chalced on Councel, [...]. where it is provided, [...]. That no man be ordained Presbyter or Deacon, or in any rank of the Church at large, unlesse he be published to be ordained in some par­ticular Church of a City or village. That which is called here [...], Praedicatio in Latine, meaning the Pub­lication of persons names that were put up to be ordained, seems to come nearer that which the Historian mean­eth when he saith in praedicandis Sa­cerdotibus, because hereupon follow­ed the examination of their compe­tence which S. Cyprian declareth to be the interesse of the people. For if [Page 158] we conceive that all men indifferent­ly had the right to nominate, we must think a great deal of unsufferable confusion must needs follow at such assemblies. And the same S. Cyprian when he writeth to his Clergy, Ep. 24. concerning the ordination of Sa­turus and Optatus in these words, Quos jampridem communi consilio Clero proximos feceramus, excusing him­self to them that he had ordained them alone, upon this, that they had before promoted them to be next the Clergy by common advise, suffici­ently sheweth that the course was to advise with the Presbyters and rest of the Clergy about the persons to be propounded to the people. We need then no more to shew us the course of that time. There was first nomination of the person to the peo­ple, upon their knowledge and appro­bation of the persons, and agree­ment; there followed imposition of [Page 159] hands, wherein consisted the accom­plishment of the work, from whence the whole was called in Greek, [...], as ordinatio in Latine, compriseth the whole work whereby they are promoted. In the Ordination of Bi­shops there must needs be something particular. By the praecedent which S. Hierome hath recorded us, in the Church of Alexandria, where he said afore, that the Presbyters were wont to chuse a Bishop out of their own rank, it is plain, their stroak was the greatest in nominating the person, to be approved by the people, and or­dained by the Bishops. And the Com­mentaries under Saint Ambrose his name upon Ephes. iv. 11. tell us, that at the first, the next of the Presby­ters in rank was wont to be assumed, (and so might it well be practiced in some places) untill it was tried that divers times they fell out to be unfit for the place. Then, saith he, immutata [Page 160] est ratio prospiciente consilio, ut non or do sed meritum crearet Episcopum multo­rum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, nè indignus temer è usurparet, & esset mul­tis scandalum, The course was changed upon advise which provided, that a Bi­shop should not be made by rank, but by merit, to be esteemed by the judgement multorum Sacerdotum, signifying by this term as well the Presbyters of the own Church, by whom he was desired, as the Bishops of other Churches, by whom he was ordained. For because, according to that which we conceived afore, from the be­ginning Bishops were propagated through all Churches, by no other means but by the assistance of neigh­bour Churches, that had Bishops a­fore, hereupon it proceeded to be a custome in the Church, that a Bishop was not made without approbation and consent of the neighbour Bishops, from whom he was to recieve impo­sition [Page 161] of hands, and with whom he was to preserve the unity of the Church, which at that time was actu­ated by no means, but by the corre­spondence of Bishops in the name of their Churches. This is the ground of the custome, that under three Bi­shops, it was not usuall to ordain one. Novatianus was ordained by no lesse at Rome, in the way of Schisme, a­gainst Cornelius who was ordained by sixteen, as we reade in S. Cypri­an. But when the proceeding of this businesse came to be regulated by the Canons of Nice and Antiochia, the Church by that time being incorpo­rate in the state of the Romane Em­pire, then was it thought fit that a Bishop should be made by all the Bi­shops of the Province, the Metropo­litane, that is, the Bishop of the head City, in chief, without whom no­thing to be done, so that if some few agreed not, the businesse neverthelesse [Page 162] to proceed, and be executed by three at the least. The intent was indeed, so farre as opportunity should serve, that these Acts should be done at the Pro­vinciall Synods of Bishops, to be held twice a year by the fifth Canon of Nice, as may be observed among o­thers, in that which Saint Augustine mentioneth contra Cresc. iii. 26. de vestris majoribus exstat secundi Tigisi­tani concilium, cum paucissimis quidem factum, apud Cirtam, post persecutionem codicum tradendorum, ut ibi in locum defuncti ordinaretur Episcopus. If no such fell out it was provided, that three might do it, the rest consenting under their hands, Can. 19. Conc. An­tioch. Thus, without consent of the Bishops all proceedings of Clergy and people were quite disabled and becalmed, if any faction, any sinister practice appeared in them, and all this upon the charge of the Apostle to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no [Page 163] man, neither be partaker of other mens sinnes. And by virtue of their Ordi­nation, a Bishop was established and invested, so that a Bishop with Juris­diction before Ordination, was an e­state not yet come into the world, so long as the primitive custome and rule of the Church was in force, which it seemeth succeeding custome hath brought to passe since. Now of all parts of the office common to Bishop and Presbyters, this of Ordi­nation is that, which the Bishop first began to exercise alone, so that with S. Chrysostome, and S. Hierome, it is taken in a manner for granted, that it was to be done by him alone. The one Hom. 11. in 1. ad Tim. [...], Onely in Or­dination the Bishops go beyond the Pres­byters, that is it alone which they seem to have more than these. The other Ep. ad Euagr. Quid enim facit Episcopus [Page 164] except â ordinatione, quod Presbyter non facit? excepting Ordination, which a Bishop doth, a Presbyter as he grant­eth doth not. In which neverthelesse (setting aside the stroke the Presby­ters had in making their Bishops) if we take not our marks amisse, we shall find argument enough, at least at the beginning, for the concurrence of Presbyters with him in making of Presbyters, and other inferiour Or­ders. In the first place, those gene­rall passages of the Fathers, wherein is witnessed that the Presbytery was a Bench, assistant to the Bishop, with­out advice whereof nothing of mo­ment was done, must needs be drawn into consequence to argue that it had effect in a particular of this weight. Then the Ordination of Timothy by imposition of hands of the Presbyte­ry will prove no lesse within com­passe of the Scripture. Indeed it is well known that the word [...], [Page 165] in Ecclesiasticall writers signifieth di­vers times the office and rank of Presbyters, which signification di­vers here embrace, expounding im­position of hands of the Presbytery to mean that by which the rank of Presbyter was conferred. But the A­postles words running as they do, [...], ob­lige a man to ask when he is come as farre as the imposition of the hands, of whom or whose hands they were he speaketh of, which the next words sa­tisfie; had it been [...], the sense might better have been diverted, but running as it doth with the article, [...], with imposition of THE hands, it remaineth, that it be specified in the next words, whose hands were imposed, as in the other place, 2. Tim. i. 6. [...], with im­position of my hands. Thus this word [...] in the Gospel, Luke xxii. 66. [Page 166] And in Ignatius his Epistles, signifieth the Colledge of Presbyters, which hath the nature and respect of a per­son in Law, and therefore is read in the singular for the whole Bench, and being assembled and set, is called [...] in both places, and in Cornelius of Rome his Epistle to S. Cyprian, where he saith, placuit contrahere Pres­byterium. But to put the signification of the word out of doubt by the cir­cumstance of the sense, call to mind the Prophesies that went before con­cerning Timothy, and compare his case with the Apostles, and the pro­phesies that went before of him in like case, and the imposition of hands which thereupon both recieved, and sure it will prove an unreproveable ground, to conclude that what is ex­pressed in the Apostle, is to be under­stood of the Disciple, that these pro­phesies coming from the Ministers of the Church concerning the purpose [Page 167] to which God hath ordained them in his service, occasioned that which they did about both in giving them imposition of hands, and that as S. Paul received imposition of hands from the Presbyters of Antiochia, so did Timothy from S. Paul and the Presbyters of that Church which he speaks of but names not. Neither are the arguments of this interesse quite worn out of the practice of the Church, either in the point of nomi­nating the persons, or that of impo­sing hands. For when S. Cyprian expresseth himself so oft in this parti­cular, that it was not his purpose to do any thing without advice of his Presbyters and consent of his people, it is not his meaning that the Clergy should bear no other part in this work then did the multitude, but as they were distinct bodies, so accord­ing to his own words to expect ad­vice from them, as concerning the [Page 168] persons to be promoted, but consent from the people if there were no fault to be found of moment with the persons designed. And in these terms the matter stands in the 22. Canon of of that which is called the fourth councel of Carthage, where is provi­ded, Ʋt Episcopus sine consilio Clerico­rum suorum Clericos non ordinet, it à ut civium assensum, & testimonium, & conniventiam quaerat. And as for im­position of hands, we have in the E­pistle aforesaid of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia (if not ra­ther of the whole act of Ordination) Omnis potestas & gratia in Ecclesia con­stituta est, in qua praesident majores natu qui & baptizandi & manum imponendi & ordinandi habent potestatem. And in Ignatius his Epistle to Hero (whoso­ever writ it, it is ancient enough to speak to our purpose) speaking to his Deacon of his Presbyters, [...] [Page 169] [...], They bap­tize, they celebrate the Eucharist, they impose hands in Penance, they ordain, thou ministrest unto them as holy Ste­phen at Jerusalem to James and the Presbyters. And where it is provided Conc. Carthag. 4. c. 3. that the Pres­byters when the Bishop giveth impo­sition of hands shall likewise impose their hands by his, it behoveth us in their case also to call to mind that this is and was and ought to be, in signe of their consent to what is done, the Apostle having said to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens sinnes. But the interesse of the people is inhansed be­yond all measure or rule of primitive practice. It will not serve the turn that the people had then satisfaction of the persons and their competence to the Ministeries to which they were ordained, unlesse we will believe that [Page 170] when it is said, Acts iv. 23. [...], the mea­ning is, that they were made by most voices of the people, signified by holding up their hands (as we find in Demosthenes and others that cu­stome to have been in Greekish Com­munalties) Saul and Barnabas doing nothing but moderating the choice, that is in effect telling the voices. And to this purpose is alledged that of the Apostle, 2. Cor. viii. 19. And not that onely, but who was also chosen of the Churches to travel with us with this grace that is administred by us: where in the Greek, is [...], sig­nifying Election, as they would have it, and not Ordination, seeing the office of carrying almes requireth no imposition of hands. To which let me adde, if they refuse not that help, the words of Ignatius much in the same kind, for in his Epistles ad Smyrn. & ad Polyc. out of his care [Page 171] and affection to his Church at Anti­ochia, having received news of their good estate, and finding himself in the like, he desires the Church of Smyrna and Polycarpus to chuse one to go with their letters to Antiochia, whom he will have called [...], (so it should be read not [...]) or [...], a messenger in matters belonging to God, to certifie them of his good estate, and to congratulate with them of their own: this office it seemeth, requireth no imposition of hands, and therefore that [...] by which Ignatius desireth them to ap­point it, signifieth, as it should seem, not Ordination but Election, by the same reason, as that of the Apostle. The rest that is brought to avouch this new conceit, is the words of Zo­naras, upon the first of the Canons of the Apostles, where in down right terms he delivereth the use of this word [...], to come from the fa­shion [Page 172] of giving voices by holding up hands, used in the Church at first, to discern on w ^ch side most voices were, from whence it came afterwards to be used for imposition of hands. But let them bethink themselves, that if these Presbyters were made by Saul and Barnabas by holding up hands of the people, then were they not made by imposition of their own hands, for if we take that sense of the word [...], the other must needs be excluded. And then let me ask, if it be a thing reasonable, to measure the sense of the Apostles language, by what was done at Athens, rathen then by that, which among the Jews, from whence the faith of Christ was trans­planted, was known and in use. Or to imagine, that the Apostle, to fol­low the fashion of Greekish commu­nalties, never heard of in after ages of the Church, should balk the Cere­mony, which the people of God had [Page 173] received from Moses, which was from old time frequented in creating their Sanedrin Judges, which the A­postles in their own persons practi­ced, which the Church hath alwayes observed in promoting of Ministers, signifying the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, and praying to obtein it. To the words of the Apo­stle and Ignatius, seeing they have in them no appearance of resolute sense, let me answer two wayes. First, though they were not ordained by imposition of hands, yet it is no in­convenience, they should be called [...], using the word in a ge­nerall sense, for those that are ordain­ed, or constituted, in any form, be­cause this form was so frequented in divers occasions. As, for the purpose, among the Jews, all their Rabbies are called [...], which in the let­ter signifieth [...], or ordained by imposition of hands, because at [Page 174] the first so they were made, though they be not promoted after that form, but made, as since they are or­dinarily made, by writing or word of mouth, as Rab. Moses, in Sanedrin, chap. 4. writeth. But in the second place observe the words which Ig­natius writing to Polycarpus about this matter, useth, [...]. Where for the consti­tuting of a person fit for this purpose, he adviseth him to convent one of these Assemblies wherein they used to advise about Ordinations, as hath been said. And therefore it seemeth no inconvenience to think that he de­sireth him to be ordained to that pur­pose. Whereupon it will not be amisse to inquire a little further to what Ministery in the Church such a person may be thought to be ordain­ed, wherein if we fail not, perhaps it [Page 175] will make us able to give a fair con­jecture at that of the Apostle by the correspondence of the cases. Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, writeth to them, for the same pur­pose as here he doth to those of Smyrna, though the sense is hitherto disguised in the printed copies, in which the words runne thus, [...]. Which words it is plain make no sense. But I have seen the written copy of an old translation of these Epistles in barbarous Latine, in Caius Colledge Library here with us, in w ^ch these words are rendred thus, Quod annunciatum est mihi pacem ha­bere Ecclesiam quae est in Antiochia Sy­riae: Decens est vos ut Ecclesiam Dei Ordinare Diaconum ad intercedendum [Page 176] illic Dei intercessionem in congaudere ip­sis in idipsum factis & glorific are no­men. He that made this translation read here [...] in stead of [...], & [...] or [...], w ^ch now is read [...] and maketh it no sense, and this is without questi­on the true reading, for it followeth, [...]. And where he saith afterwards, [...], it is agreeable to the charitablenesse of those times to think, that neighbour Churches sent some their Bishops, some their Pre­sbyters or Deacons to comfort, to ad­vise, to congratulate with his Church of Antiochia in their Bishops absence; and reasonable it is that he should de­sire those of Smyrna and Philadelphia should ordain a Deacon for that pur­pose; but that they should make a Bi­shop for it, as now we reade it, is without the compasse of common [Page 177] sense to imagine. Be it then resolved, that it is no other then a Deacon which Ignatius desires these of Smyr­na as well as those of Philadelphia to Ordain, to carry this message. And let me have leave to conjecture, that those whom the Apostle in the place alledged 2. Cor. viii. 23. calleth [...], messengers of the Churches, were by their rank in the Church no other then Deacons: Which is by like reason to be said of Epaphroditus whom S. Paul. Phil. ii. 25. calleth the Apostle of the Philip­pians, and Minister of his necessities, and perhaps of Andronicus & Junias, reading it for the name of a man and not of a woman, Rom. xvi. 7. where they are called [...] noted among the Apostles. For the name Apostle is relative to him by whom he is sent; the Apostles of Christ, are Christs messengers, the Apostles of Churches, are the mes­sengers [Page 178] which they send on common businesse. Now ye shall often find in the practice of the ancient Church, that Deacons were sent to forrein Churches about the businesse of their own. And this practice beareth cor­respondence with the Synagogue, for those that are called among them [...], of whom Epiphanius speaketh in these terms describing their office, [...], that they are by interpretation Deacons or Mini­sters, are by another name called [...] which is verbatim [...] or [...], messen­gers of the Synagogue, because it is like theywere wont to be imployed about businesse of the Synagogue. And therefore if the person of whom S. Paul speaketh be no other then S. Luke the Evangelist as many think, and the subscription of that Epistle beareth, when he sets him forth thus, [Page 179] 2. Cor. viii. 8, 18, 19. Now we have sent with him our brother whose praise is in the Gospel (or in preaching the Gospel) through all the Churches, and not that alone, but was ordained by the Churches to travel with us, with this grace which is ministred by us, I shall not stick to think of him as of Philip the Deacon and Evangelist, that for his rank he was ordained a Deacon by consent of many Churches, in some of them, to dispense the almes they sent with S. Paul to Hierusalem, though for his personall grace he was an Evangelist. Nay if the question be asked, to what rank Timothy was ordained by that imposition of hands of the Presbyte­ry, mentioned by the Apostle, my answer must be, seeing Presbyters are for the oversight of their Churches, and Bishop he was none till he undertook his charge at Ephe­sus, that he was ordained Deacon by that Church to give attendance on S. [Page 180] Paul in his travels, for which pur­pose his personall grace of Evangelist was very opportune, for thus much Ignatius hath said writing to the Deacons at Trallis, That the Deacons were such as ministred a pure and blame­lesse ministery, as holy Stephen to blessed James, and Timothy and Linus to Paul, and Anacletus & Clemens to Peter. Now as for Zonaras, that had a mind to shew his reading in Demosthenes, or the like Greek Authours, and improve it by expounding the Canons accord­ing to it, it is but sending him to Bal­samon for his answer, who writing upon the same Canon, hath met with this impertinence of his, with an un­avoydable reason to convince his mi­stake, which is, that [...] in the Canons, cannot mean Election by most voyces, because the choyce of a Bishop is done by all the Bishops of the Province, according to the Ca­nons of Nice and Antiochia alledged [Page 181] afore▪ whereas the Ordination, which is [...], is performed by two or three, by the tenour of that Canon of the Apostles. And therefore Ju­stellus, by the way, did not right to alledge Balsamon, for one that se­conds Zonaras in this conceit, where­in it is plain he hath laid him upon his back. To which let me adde this. The v. Canon of Laodicea provideth [...], that is, Elections, saith Zona­ras: for this Canon he alledgeth for his purpose, because at Elections, scandals were ript up, and mens faults examined. And so say all those, that allow the people interesse, of appro­ving, or excepting against those that stood to be ordained, but he that looketh as farre as the xiii. Canon of that Councel, will never allow the people right of Electing by most voy­ces according to that Councel which provideth, [...], [Page 182] [...], That the choice of such as are to be placed in the rank of Presby­ters, must not be yielded to the people. Now it is well enough known, that many times at these assemblies for making of Ministers the votes of the people, desiring such or such persons for Bishops, or Presbyters, or others, prevented the order in practice, no­minating such before hand, as they desired to have made, as it is to be seen, in the eminent examples of S. Augustine among Presbyters, and S. Ambrose among Bishops. Neither was it an inconvenience, that those which ordained should balk the ac­customed course, to give satisfaction to the peoples desire when there was appearāce, that it was bred upon a due opinion of merit in the person recom­mended. And the case is in a manner the same, when the best Christian Emperours, did oftentimes of them­selves [Page 183] nominate to the Bishopricks of the chief seats of the Empire, where the State was most interessed in the condition of the person to be ordained. For in this they proceeded, as those, in whom rested all the right of the people in that Common-wealth. The Bishops proceeding to do their office, upon due knowledge and approbation of the person, with­out examining the course and pro­ceeding, as not so near concerning their charge. And thus it is plain, that the Apostles did not leave the choice of Matthias, or the seven Deacons, at large to the people: but qualifying the persons by their dire­ctions, in whom those qualities were found, (resting indifferent themselves) they referred to the knowledge of the people. For so we reade of Mat­thias, Acts i. 21. Of these men that have companied with us, ever since the Lord Jesus went in and out among [Page 184] us, must one be chosen, to be a wit­nesse of his resurrection with us. And of the seven Deacons, Acts vi. 3. Wherefore, Brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost, and wisdome, whom we may appoint over this businesse: but had the persons been found not qua­lified, no man will be so grosse as to think the Apostles might not, or ought not, to controll the choice. And though it were granted, which with truth cannot be granted, that the Presbyters aforesaid were made by Saul and Barnabas, upon most voyces of the people, yet if we re­serve to them, the Nomination of the persons, the interesse of the people will be lesse, rather then more, then the people of this Church useth at the present though not in themselves, yet in the Patrones of Churches, to whom the Church yieldeth it, in the name of the people, in respect to the [Page 185] merit of those, that built or indowed Churches: at least if the ancient Ca­non were in use. For though it be a little without the terms of my subject, yet let me say this word, for the pro­vision of Pastours in rurall Congre­gations, that by the order thus farre specified, it must needs come from the Mother-church, out of the gremialls of it. In the first ages of the Church, there is little or no mention but of Presbyteries in grosse, for the com­mon service of Mother-churches, whereof hitherto we speak. After­wards, when the faith was planted, and Congregations ordered, in the Territories of those Cities, or Dio­ceses of those Churches, we find in the 25. Canon of Neocesarea a diffe­rence made between the Presbyters of them, whereof some are called there [...], others, [...], these of the Mother-church, those of ru­rall Congregations. And by the [Page 186] Canon of Chalcedon mentioned a­fore, forbidding all Ordinations at large, but for the service of the city Church, or other depending on it, it appeareth, that by virtue of the Or­dination in the Mother Church, wherein the people concurred no otherwise then hath been said, whe­ther Presbyters or other Ministers were invested in their charge of those Churches. Before that time it is to be observed that the Councel of Nice, Can. xv. forbidding Ministers to passe from Citie to Citie, (whe­ther Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons) that is, to leave their own Mother-church, to serve in another Mother-church, proceedeth in these terms, [...], It seemed good to put down the fashion that is come up in some parts besides the Rule. Signifying that the Rule of the Church from the beginning [Page 187] was to ordain Ministers in Mother-churches, for the service of those Mother-churches. But in the xvi. Canon next following, it is further provided, that they shall be constrain­ed to return to their first charges, in these terms, [...]. They must be constrained by all means to return into their own Dioceses. For [...] in the Ca­nons signifieth the countrey lying to the Citie of the Mother-church, which we call the Diocese. This Ca­non speaking of Presbyters and Dea­cons, and not of Bishops, besides the voyding of such attempts, which is done in the xv. Canon afore, pro­viding a course to constrain them to return, extendeth further then the other did, to Presbyters and Dea­cons in countrey Cures, whereas that rested in the Mother-church. So the 3. Canon of Antiochia, so [Page 188] the xv. of the Apostles, providing that Ministers should not leave [...], their Dioceses, as was said, speak plain to let us know how much the Cures of the whole Dio­cese, and the Persons by whom they were exercised, were in the disposing of the Mother Church, when it ap­peareth, that the Ministers of them could not depart, to serve in or under other Churches, till they were dis­missed their first charge, with letters of licence from the Mother-church, which they called [...] or Di­missorias. Wherein, the condition of the Church, is just that of the Greekish Colonies. They were wont to have their Priests sent them from the Mother-cities, and reserved the first fruits which were the Priests due, for an honour to their founders: as Thucydides lib. 1. and his Scho­liast writeth, alledging this for an oc­casion of that warre, because those [Page 189] of Corcyra, neglected their Mother-citie of Corinth, in that accustomed right. So all rurall Congregations, be­ing at first nothing but colonies of the Faith, planted from Mother-churches, founded in Mother-cities, from the time of the Apostles, it was but reason they should receive their Pastors from the head of the Diocese, where the charge of overseeing, as well as plant­ing them belonged. The right of pre­senting then, yielded by the Church (to the people or to the Patrone, it concerns not in her regard) if it were to Orders as well as to Cures, were more then the People should have, in chusing out of those which Saul and Barnabas might nominate. But he that would have the people, both name the persons, and chuse out of those themselves named, neglecting impo­sition of hands, or injoyning it upon the choice, must first put the Epistles to Timothy & Titus out of the Bible, [Page 190] least at the first insight, that appeare to belong to the office of men of their place, the account whereof lyeth up­on their charge. As for the consti­tuting of Bishops, fit it is in the first place, provision be made, for the interesse of the State, as well in orde­ring the choyces, as in approving the persons chosen, that no man be esta­blished, prejudiciall to the Common­wealth. But yet that course, in which the Christian Emperours of ancient times, interposed themselves to no­minate the persons being acknow­ledged to be besides the Rule, did not destroy it in all but balk it for the time. Now if the people from the beginning had a due share of interesse in giving consent to those which were to be ordained their Presbyters, much more must we needs think that it was due and of right, that the votes of the Presbyters, and consent of the people, should go before, in design­ing [Page 191] the Persons, under whom and with whom they were to guide and be guided in Spirituall matters. As for imposition of hands of neighbour Bishops, with whom the unitie of the Church was to be preserved by the Ordained, it was not then the forma­litie of a thing done, but the substance of the Act, resting upon the account of them that did it by virtue of the Apostles charge. And therefore though it is not easie for me to judge, how farre it concerneth the Church to retain the Primitive form, yet it is easie for indifferent persons to dis­cern, how much is required to the retaining of it.

Something would here be said in the last place of that which de­pendeth upon these two last particu­lars, of Penance and Ordination: that is, the censure of offenses, whether in doctrine or manners of persons Ordained; because the Apostle seem­eth to referre this to Timothy, that is, to the Bishop alone, not menti­oning any concurrence of his Presby­ters in it. For so we reade, 1. Tim. v. 19, 20. Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sinne rebuke be­fore all, that others also may have fear. But having hitherto shewed, that our Lord in the Gospel hath appointed [Page 193] matters of particular offense, to come before the Consistory of Bishop and Presbyters: That the Apostles them­selves, in divers matters belonging to the Government of the Church, used their assistance: That in the Primitive times of the Church, even under the Apostles, matters of Censure and Or­dination both were wont to passe by the Presbyters, but in the Assemblies of Christian people: Let me referre this to al indifferent persons to judge, whether the same course of proceed­ing were in likelyhood observed in the censure of Presbyters. The Apo­stles direction, regulating what in­formation to admit, is directed to Ti­mothie alone; for the meaning is not, that two or three should be present when it is put in, but that it should not be admitted, but, (as the Syriack translateth it) upon the mouth, that is, the word, of two or three witnesses: But the censure of reproof is pre­scribed [Page 194] to passe in the congregation, when he saith, them that sinne, that is, them that are found in fault, re­buke before all, that others may have fear, no otherwise then the censure of the Apostle did and was prescribed to do, 1. Cor. v. 4. 2. Cor. ii. 6. and therefore we are to think, that the examination of such causes must passe, as others of like nature, by him with the Presbyters, to whom the Apostle had assigned a charge of go­verning the Church there, Acts xx. 28, 35. So the keyes of the Church given to S. Peter and to the Apo­stles, were neverthelesse intended to be exercised by the Church, as hath been said. So the charge of excom­municating Hereticks is directed to Titus alone, Titus iii. 10. But we have no reason therefore to imagine, that Titus is directed to proceed o­therwise in it, then we know the Church was wont to proceed in [Page 195] Censures of that nature, according to that which hath been said. And so it is in the case that followeth a little after, verse 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens sinnes; where the rule of Ordi­nations is directed to Timothy alone, yet have we no cause to believe that it was practiced by him, otherwise then according to the form aforesaid, joyning with him the Ptesbyters in imposition of hands, as was practiced by the Apostle. The eminence of their place is to be acknowledged, be­cause the Apostles instructions, for managing these matters, are directed to them alone: But their course of proceeding must be measured by that which we know otherwise.

THat which hath been said, being intended to represent the form delivered in Scripture by the agree­ment of Historicall truth and primi­tive practice, concerneth no more as every man sees, then the government of Mother-churches contained in Mother-cities: Because that is all the Scripture hath expressed. But what influence and effect this ought to have in the present state of the Church, now that Dioceses are divided, Churches built, and congregations assigned, is not for a private person to particularize, unlesse he meant to [Page 197] build Churches (as some men do Ca­stles) in the air. Let it be enough to say thus much in generall, which every man must think that believeth what hath been said to be true, that he that aimeth at the Primitive form, and that which cometh nearest the insti­tution of our Lord and his Apostles, must not think of destroying Bishops but of restoring their Presbyteries. Were it but an humane Ordinance of yesterday, established by due course of right, let me be bold to say, that if Aerius withdraw his submission to it, he must come within Epiphanius his list of Hereticks: not understanding an Heretick in S. Augustines sense, (wherein Tertullian in his book de praescript. went afore him) to be none but he that will not believe some point of doctrine necessary, as the means of salvation, to be believed: but according to the latitude of the word, taking all to be Hereticks that [Page 198] make Sects, and assemble themselves apart besides the Church of God law­fully settled. This sense is used in Can. 6. Conc. 1. Constantinop. where they are counted Hereticks that hold the sound faith, [...]. And this latitude it seemeth Epiphanius comprised, because he reckoneth the Quartadecimani in the roll of Here­ticks. These, when the position, where­upon the separation is grounded, is not of weight (setting their separati­on aside) to separate them from the invisible Church, are since according to the Authors named afore by a pro­per term called Schismaticks, though Hereticks in the proper sense separate no lesse then they do. And of this crime my earnest desire is, that those which have separated themselves from this Church of England upon this quarrel of government by Bi­shops, or the like unjust or unsufficient [Page 199] causes, may stand acquitted, though how they will acquit themselves of it, I cannot yet perceive. But if the rank of Bishops over their Presbyters be not onely a just humane Ordi­nance, but estated in possession of six­teen hundred years without deceit or violence at the beginning, let me have leave to think it will be hard to shew a better title of humane right for any estate upon the earth. How much more when the possession is a­vouched to have been delivered from the hands and time of the Apostles, must it needs seem strange that the successours of their place should be destroyed by the sons of their faith? Be it pardonable for our neighbours and Brethren of the reformed Churches abroad to have overseen the succession of the Apostles, be­cause they could not discern it, as they found it blended with such a­bundance of accessories, especially in [Page 200] the persons of men that hated to be reformed: But among us, there hath been time to plead the right to the quick, and though not without eager­nesse of debate, which interesse breed­eth, yet alwayes with advantage to the true tenure: And among the mul­titude of speech that this time hath bred, we have heard little or nothing as yet of new reasons to quell the cause with. So that before advancing new plea, the old right descending from such hands, standeth now in as good terms as ever heretofore. As for the point of peace within our selves, and correspondence with our neighbours, be it considered how large S. Hierom (of all Church writers least favourable to the Order, as he that found himself pinched with the Bi­shop of Jerusalem) hath been never­thelesse in acknowledging, that the peace of particular Churches could not be preserved without it. To which [Page 201] we must adde the remembrance of so many happy dayes as this Church since the Reformation hath seen, with­out such ruptures as have fallen out in other parts, by the benefit of it, among a people alwayes observed to be of all others most daring to innovate opini­ons, in matters of religion especially, as well as in those that concern other knowledge. But he that calleth to re­membrance that correspondence which in ancient times was actuated between Churches of severall nati­ons & people, commercio formatarum, as Optatus speaketh, by traffique of those letters of correspondence, which under set forms were wont to passe between Bishops, in the name of their Churches, (the true form of that unitie which our Lord commended to his Church, after it was become Catholick) must needs lament to see that most beautifull peace of this Go­vernment in ancient time, defaced and [Page 202] lost, by the fault of them that hate to be reformed, in the dissensions of Christendome, alledged to destroy it. The honour and esteem which the learned of the reformed Churches a­broad have professed of the state of our Churches, and our charity in ex­cusing the necessities of theirs, and ac­knowledging the efficacy of the Mi­nistery which they use, will be suffi­cient through Gods goodnesse to actuate the correspondence we desire to preserve with them, without those innovations which they never requi­red at our hands to such purpose. But he that acknowledgeth and is glad to see these heads stand in their right place, looking back upon their begin­ning, which was to succeed the Apo­stles over severall Presbyteries, in the place which they held over all for the time, must needs misse their relatives, the bodies of these Presbyteries, in the government of Churches. And [Page 203] though that alteration cannot be charged upon any man, which is come to passe through time and insensible custome: especially, seeing it cannot be counted an alteration in this Church of England, because we are to think it had prevailed in the Church before this Nation received the Faith: yet must it needs be remembred, by him that believeth all the evil consequen­ces which this government is charged with, whether in opinion or truth, to have come from the discharge of Pre­sbyteries from their part of the office. One particular no man need to be nice in reckoning to be of that nature, though it is not in the power of one man (were he as much in love as I am with the primitive form) or scarce of one age, without a publick act to a­mend it: That is the committing of ju­risdiction at large, (even that which is proper and essentiall to the Church, by the power of the keyes which our [Page 204] Lord hath given it, as hath been said) in effect, to Lay persons, Which jurisdiction though for the present, it passe not upon present advise, but upon Laws of the Church for the purpose, yet so long as Laws are generall and few, Cases particular and numberlesse, will alwayes deserve to be exer­cised, with mature and charitable advise of those to whose charge our Lord first committed it, if we mean to attain the ends of corre­ction and example. Though the profession by which it is ministred deserve to retain the rank it hold­eth, in regard of those other points of jurisdiction in charitable causes, by the favour of Princes, and laws of Common-wealths annexed to the Church, passing as it doth, by the laws whereof they professe knowledge. This inconvenience, if such it be counted, seemeth to pro­ceed [Page 205] from that unsensible change whereof hath been said: for had the Presbyteries continued, as at the beginning, upon the exercise of this Discipline of Penance, it is not to be thought that power could have been so lightly aliena­ted as from one, wherein a num­ber had their interesse. But this, and the like consequences seem to have brought this undue opinion upon the Church Government, that as Cathedrall Churches long since, so now the State of Bishops among indifferent men is counted a matter of indifference, which had they con­tinued in the Primitive charge, must needs have been counted, as count­ed they ought to be, inviolable. And therefore though as the case standeth, it is neither possible nor desired, to call the whole Presby­tery of a Diocese to a share in the publick government, yet let me [Page 206] have leave to say, that the next course to retrive the Primitive form, with the wholesome grounds and consequen­ces of it, is to reestate these Presby­teries in Cathedrall Churches, and perhaps, in other populous places, seats of jurisdictions, where the Dio­cese is great, furnishing them with number of men of abilities, and joyn­ing them with and under the Bishops, for assistance in all parts of the office hitherto proved common to both. It seems the means that hath brought to passe that insensible change where­of we speak, was from the beginning no other then this, because the form of proceeding in particular Churches was never regulated by Canons of the Church, but left to particular cu­stome: And therefore it is past my ap­prehension how more right should be done, then distributing the common charge into particular interesse, by such rules as may best expresse those [Page 207] generall terms, which the purest Pri­mitive times were content with; that as without the Bishop nothing to be done, so the Bishop to do nothing without advice of his Presbyters. The performance of divine service in the Cathedrall, common sense finds too slight a work for such persons; the cures of all Churches within such populous places, if they belonged to their titles, would be a work sutable to such prime abilities. Then the ex­ercise of the power of the keyes in the discipline of Penance, Triall and Ap­provement of persons presented to Cures, or assistance of Cures, accord­ing to laws, (excluding all Ordinati­ons without such title) Censure of of­fenses in doctrine, or life of persons ordained, alwayes under the Bishop, and for his assistance, are works that require mature advise, and passe best in cōmon for satisfaction to the pub­lick, matters of religion being by na­ture [Page 208] more popular then the Com­mon-wealth. If this be not enough, such may be mēs abilities that all these Presbyteries may become schools of the Prophets, and Seminaries of able Preachers through the severall Juris­dictions or Dioceses: A thing wished on all hands, but not to be expected without means to bring it to passe. This hath been alwayes desired at the hands of Cathedrall Churches, and some steps of it remain still in some of ours, & though the staple of this edu­cation being long since drained from other places to the two Universities, the charge hath been sustained by them alone with unspeakable benefit, to the Church, as well as to the Com­mon-wealth, yet the assistance of these places with them, for the service of the Church, is not to be counted their prejudice, leaving intire unto them the place they possesse, of Se­minaries of the Common-wealth.